See, you used the word "perfectly ordinary sense of measurement". This is why I am saying this is purely terminology problem.

To be extreme, if I define pear in biological terms, then both western pear and eastern pear are pear. However, if I define pear as in western pear, then eastern pear is not pear. This is the sort of argument you and I have been making, which I feel is pointless.

If you define "measurement" the way you define then recognition does not involves measurement. However, if you define "measurement" in the way I define, then recognition involves measurement. However, it is not a common practice to define "measurement" the way you do.

I'm using the terms"measure" "measurement" and so on in exactly the way they are used in science and daily life. Scientists measure things all the time, for instance. Certainly there are philosophical issues around what measurement actually is, but they arise on the basis that it is always an intentional activity. You seem to be using "measure" in the sense of "differentially react to", thus stripping it of the intentional aspect, which is not common practice at all - it is a special and technical sense of "measure" that you have helped yourself to and that I am not even sure any scientist uses, you have singularly failed to provide me with a reference to such a definition, but perhaps there is one. My knee reacts differentially to being struck, but my knee doesn't measure anything when it does so.
My skepticism about intelligence being something that comes in amounts and is measurable was under attack because I was supposed to have been forced to accept that I am measuring intelligence when I recognise intelligent behaviour. If by "measure" you mean just "differentially react to" then, because simply in recognising intelligent behaviour I differentially react to intelligent behavior, the idea that I "measure " intelligence in that sense is tautologically empty and says absolutely nothing to the point that intelligence is a thing that comes in amounts and can be measured in the way scientists measure things.

@Tomseltje

You sound alot like someone acknowledging that he/she can move his/her arm, but denies the chemical reactions taking place within your muscle tissue.

Exactly what I have I said that entails skepticism about the science of human physiology? Plenty of what I have said manifests skepticism about what the IQ industry is messed up in, but nothing I have said undermines the work of physiologists.

No you are not, which is the problem. You also do not seem to understand how I defined measurement neither, which also a problem. And to accuse me of something I did not say it makes it even more of a problem. You are also twisting and playing around with words so that it can support your point, which is just plain wrong.

But that is okay. I don't expect to you, because it doesn't matter anymore. I am not going to discuss this matter with your ill-conceived statements.


Oh by the way, I am a scientist and I do measurement every weekdays. I have a PhD in chemistry and I skipped a year in doing so. Thank you very much.

@FLUX23

Oh by the way, I am a scientist and I do measurement every weekdays. I have a PhD in chemistry and I skipped a year in doing so. Thank you very much.

Why are you parading your credentials? Does having a PhD in chemistry - or indeed any subject - provide immunity from conceptual confusion?

Can you be a little more specific about "several" test? Are they test with completely different problems? Or are they test with similar problems? This is particularly important when discussing statistics. — FLUX23

The reference was to the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale vs. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale especially when applied to less median groups. I see many people mention their personal iq score, but seldom I see anyone mentioning wich test they used for it. Nor does it seem to get mentioned in other iq discussions, the reference usually is 'iq-tests are [ fill in any claim]' without specifying about wich test the claim is made. Not too surprising, since I had my iq formally tested at three instances, and on neither of those was I informed wich iq test was being used.

You probably think I don't understand what you mean by "measuring" and you are probably right. I supsect what you mean by "measuring" is not in fact measuring at all. — MetaphysicsNow

No, what I mean when I use the word 'measuring' is measuring, the fact that I might mean something else by it than when you use the word 'measuring' doesn't mean that I did not mean measuring. To imply so is unwarrently accusing me of lieng. The more correct interpretation would have been to conclude that we were using different definitions. Now in order to understand my position, when I started to use the word 'measuring', you will have to accept the definition I used. To substitue your definition for mine while already having estabilished they are different is at best disingenious.

Now in other discussions, your definition might be more usefull, but not in this one. Since you were claiming to try understand what I meant, a genuine attempt at understanding what someone else meant by his/her statement, includes accepting his/her definition provided that apply to the statement.
Only after you proporly understand a statement can you attempt to counter it with arguments, so far your arguments merely point out you didn't understand the original statement to begin with.

As soon as a definition is provided that is different from the one you had in mind when the word was used, it's time to think about what the position could be when appling the new definition, instead of starting to complain about the perceived misuse of the word.
The way you formulate it, you seem to be afraid that when you accept the new definition, you get robbed of the definition that you used to apply. Wich is not the case, on the contrary, if you accept the new definition, you enriched yourself by having learned a new definition on a word that can be more usefull in some circumstances, while still having the oppertunity to use your old definition in circumstances where the old definition is more usefull.

I've just been reading through the posts on this topic again and I think @MetaphysicsNow made a point you seem to be evading. The last definition of "measurement" you gave was

the act or process of ascertaining the extent, dimensions, or quantity of something;

Ascertaining is an intentional activity engaged in knowingly in order to arrive at some specific piece of knowledge about something, so measurement under your definition is an intentional and conscious activity, and there is still a total lack of argument that it is being performed when I or MetaphysicsNow or you or anybody recognises intelligent behaviour. Recognising that X is present does not need to involve intentionally engaging in any activities to determine the extent, dimensions or quantity of X. Let me ask you a question: when I recognise intelligent behaviour, what are the intentional conscious activities I engage in to determine the extent, dimensions or quantity of intelligence? I certainly do not administer any kind of written IQ test.

I wouldn't bother with Tomseltje, or Flux23 for that matter - they just avoid the issue. Flux23 got the hump and stormed off with a parting "do you know who I am?" defence of his position, which is always a good sign that a person is on the ropes argumentatively. Tomseltje never seems to respond to direct questions.

It’s no wonder people hate IQ and intelligence research because it reveals a set of seriously dismal facts about the incredible range of ability among human beings. — Vinson

Yes, unfortunately that's very true. Although IQ is only one of a vast range of traits that vary among individuals and consistently among certain groups, it's probably the most important as a marker for overall success and prosperity, partly because high IQ is related to the the ability to time-bind and delay gratification, and that's very much related to the "middle class" traits that make for success.

There's a vague fantasy on the Left that human beings are equal in potential, so that if you see unequal outcomes that logically has to be the result of some (usually "systemic") injustice somewhere. This silly idea is at the root of the idea of "social justice" and of most of the quasi-religious, cultic lunacy on the modern Left. Any facts that seem to speak against this unquestioned, unexamined background idea have to be rejected with the same sort of hysterical vehemence religious nutcases used to reserve for "heresy."

Although IQ is only one of a vast range of traits that vary among individuals and consistently among certain groups, it's probably the most important as a marker for overall success and prosperity, partly because high IQ is related to the the ability to time-bind and delay gratification, and that's very much related to the "middle class" traits that make for success. — gurugeorge

That sounds backwards. Traits don't emerge from high IQ, lol.

Traits don't emerge from high IQ, lol. — Posty McPostface

Did I say they did?

Ascertaining is an intentional activity engaged in knowingly in order to arrive at some specific piece of knowledge about something — jkg20

yea.. tell me about someone able to recognize wich letter is wich without engaging into the intentional activity of reading the letters. The fact that a person automized the proces to the degree he/she isn't concious about certain parts of the proces he/she engages in, doesn't mean they are not intetntionally actively engaging into the party automized proces.

When I play the guitar, I don't need to think conciously about where and how to move my fingers, because I automized that part, I'm still intentionally actively engaging in playing the guitar.

Tomseltje never seems to respond to direct questions. — MetaphysicsNow

Poisoning the well now Metaphysics? I answered several direct decent questions on this forum, in order to make that statement, you should have checked all questions asked to me, and checked all my answers to those posts in order to determine I didn't answer any of them, You obviously didn't do so, disingenious at best.
Of course I don't answer questions based upon a strawman of my position. I tend to point out the strawman first giving you a chance to reformulate your question to a question that actually might have anything to do with my position.

You seem to be blaming the one you expect to answer the question. You are painfully ignorant about the invalidity of certain questions, but as an example, why don't you answer the following direct question:
Why did you shot the sherif?

Well, if you don't want to answer my questions, answer @jkg20's question then:

Let me ask you a question: when I recognise intelligent behaviour, what are the intentional conscious activities I engage in to determine the extent, dimensions or quantity of intelligence? I certainly do not administer any kind of written IQ test.

tell me about someone able to recognize wich letter is wich without engaging into the intentional activity of reading the letters. — Tomseltje

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't intentionally read letters one by one when I read, I read whole words. I may have started reading by intentionally going letter by letter, but I gave that up a long time ago and I suspect you did too.

Why did you shot the sherif?

I was aiming for the deputy but the sheriff got in the way.

I think, at best, IQ tests can only measure very basic mental abilities. Intelligence is many different things. A stand up comic can have amazing social intelligence and linguistic skills. Art is another kind of intuitive intelligence. The creation of a joke requires many highly developed abilities;

Linguistic sophistication.
Social intelligence.
The ability to understand other minds.
The intelligence to understand that the joke is funny.
The pathos with which the joke is delivered.

I think computers will only be intelligent when they can spontaneously create a joke.


Teacher: Let x equal the number of sheep.

Pupil: But teacher, what if x is not the number of sheep?

I heartily agree. IQ tests provide an excellent means of ascertaining how good people are at taking IQ tests, that we can say for sure. People in the IQ business then go on and try to make statistical correlations between people's results on IQ tests and various other things. In most cases those correlations are both contestable and contested and always remain open to interpretation. Those who draw anything other than very tentative conclusions from the statistical data are usually manifesting some kind of bias.

Why did you shot the sherif?

I was aiming for the deputy but the sheriff got in the way. — MetaphysicsNow

Thanks for confirming you are just here to troll and not to be actually discussing philosophy.

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't intentionally read letters one by one when I read, I read whole words. I may have started reading by intentionally going letter by letter, but I gave that up a long time ago and I suspect you did too. — MetaphysicsNow

The fact that you had enough practice so you can recognize most words by just reading the first and last letter of a word and a decent estimation of the number of letters in between, doesn't mean you are not reading letters any more.

IQ tests provide an excellent means of ascertaining how good people are at taking IQ tests, that we can say for sure. — MetaphysicsNow

Just like how driver tests provide excellent meant of ascertaining how good people are at taking driver tests. That we can say for sure. However, you implying that it doesn't tell us anything else is rather ill informed, otherwise why would passing a drivers test be manditory for everyone before driving a car on the public roads? Same goes for iq tests: the result holds more information than just how good the participant is at taking iq tests.

'social intelligence' is more correlated with personal trait agreeableness than with intelligence.

Computers are not intelligent, they just execute the commands programmed into them, it's the computer programmer who requires intelligence.

Teacher: Let x equal the number of sheep.

Pupil: But teacher, what if x is not the number of sheep? — EnPassant

teachers mistake: openness, better he had said " the number of sheep is defined as x"

Pupils mistake: disagreeableness, not willing to participate into thinking about the consequences of defining the number of sheep as x.

Propor teacher respond : "we are not talking about what if x is not the number of sheep, we are talking about the situation where x is the number of sheep. I appreciate genuine questions about the subject, but I don't wan't to hear any more questions designed to distract from the subject, last warning."

Just like how driver tests provide excellent meant of ascertaining how good people are at taking driver tests. That we can say for sure.

Not a particularly good analogy - driving tests are also a measure of your ability to manipulate a car - if you can do that in the context of a test you are likely to perform well with a car in other contexts (although not necessarily, bad drivers pass their driving tests). This is a key disanalogy with the IQ test: there is no device/tool being used to take an IQ test, except perhaps a pen (but then there are better ways to test penmanship than an IQ test).
Also, as @MetaphysicsNow pointed out, let us not forget that you still have not answered my question:
when I recognise intelligent behaviour, what are the intentional conscious activities I engage in to determine the extent, dimensions or quantity of intelligence?

...when I recognise intelligent behaviour, what are the intentional conscious activities I engage in to determine the extent, dimensions or quantity of intelligence? — jkg20

Well, hopefully you would have some standard of measure in place. Preferably one arising from extensive observation and comparative analysis of what are undoubtedly very intelligent people performing complex mental tasks and precisely what successfully performing those tasks requires. Namely, the sorts of cognitive abilities, mental functioning, abstract and spatial reasoning skills, along with all sorts of different problem solving skills required to successfully perform certain mental tasks...

You see, the blatant ignorance here is had by assuming that there is no way to possibly measure intelligence. And yet who would argue that a slug is as intelligent as a cat, or that there's no way to effectively determine any difference, and more importantly on precisely what basis would one argue such things?

Logical argument alone?

No, of course not, that's ludicrous. We watch cats learn, problem solve, etc. just like we can watch slugs detect and react. We can develop a standardized test for cats which shows their ability to figure all sorts of things out. Not all cats will perform equally.

You see, while it may be true that IQ tests certainly show who's good at taking them, if they are created in such a way that only people who have certain kinds of cognitive abilities are able to score well on them, then by virtue of doing well on an IQ test one shows a rare and 'heightened' intelligence level. The greater the level of cognitive ability, the greater the potential. That's what it's about.

Sure, all people have potential. Not all people have the same level of potential.

Quantification is over-rated, and some people use things in suspect ways fr suspect reasons. However, effectively ascertaining the potential of people does not necessarily have to be for nefarious reasons. Rather, if the right sorts of people had the right kinds of power, the IQ test could be used to help everyone be successful. Unfortunately, I do not find that the right sorts of people have the right sorts of power, but that does not make IQ tests horrible in and of themselves. Nor does it make them based upon some fallacy...

Proverb for the day.

One can have high iq and be a high functioning psychopath.

One can have high iq and be a high functioning psychopath. — raza

I can't think of any reason why not.

when I recognise intelligent behaviour, what are the intentional conscious activities I engage in to determine the extent, dimensions or quantity of intelligence? — jkg20

I pointed out the invalidity of the question, since it assumes that the activities must be conscious, wich wasn't stated in the definition I gave. As I attempted to explain with a practical example, at least part of the proces of recognizing can be unconscious.

Sorry, but you are fudging the issue.

The claim being made (by a number of people, not just you) is that recognizing intelligent behaviour always involves measuring intelligent behaviour. You were asked for a definition of measurement according to which this is true, since recognizing something and measuring something are prima facie distinct activities (otherwise why would we have two words)? You then give us this definition (copy-pasted from your original post) that measurement is
"the act or process of ascertaining the extent, dimensions, or quantity of something;"
So, for you to recognize something always involves an activity of ascertaining the extent, dimensions or quantity of something.
Metaphysicsnow and then I point out that ascertaining something is an intentional and conscious activity, and so we ask you what intentional and conscious activity we engage in whenever we recoqnize an occurence of intelligent behaviour. You then tell me that this question is invalid. Why is it an invalid question? Is it because for you recognition can be unconcious, that seems to be what you are getting at above? But that is irrelevant since it is ascertaining which you are now being asked about, and ascertaining is very definitely an intentional and therefore conscious activity. Nobody unconsciously ascertains anything. Furthermore, if for you to recognize is to measure, and to measure is always to ascertain, then to recognize is itself to engage in an intentional and conscious activity, which undermines your claim that recognition can be unconscious.

What might get you out of the hole you have dug for yourself is if you could present us with some cogent non-question begging examples of somebody unconsciously ascertatining something. I wish you luck with that.