Does a player have his limit?

[Imperial Noob]

.

[deleted_user0]

but an iq test only measures these traits in a certain setting, and only the acquisition of new information in narrowly defined way, using certain methods which may not be suitable for everyone. It for example doesn't measure how people react when under greats amount of stress (beyond ofcourse the stress such a test already brings), it measures spatial intelligence, but only for example converting it from 2d to 3d or other way around (sometimes for kids they use blocks, so its actual 3d all round). IQ tests undoubtedly measure intelligence, but only in a certain form, and there are many forms of intelligence that aren't measured. Now, I'm quite sure that the people who design these tests are aware of that, and ofcourse it's a test designed for a purpose, so it would be unfair to criticize it for not covering things which are beyond it's purpose. However, many other people do not realise this, and parents, schools and students view this sort of tests as some sort of holy grail, while it's truly not in many cases.

Maybe let's not call every ability "intelligence".

Can you be more precise? What exactly in my post are you referring to?

[momuuu]

Ive always thought an iq test was a poor way to test intelligence. In practise the really high iq kids didnt seem any smarter than the normal high or untested kids.

[Gendarme]

Try explaining everyday things to people with low IQ and then people with high IQ and you'll notice the difference. Of course you don't notice it in practise when watching soccer on TV or discussing your favorite brand of beer.

[deleted_user]

What else is there to talk about doe

[Kaiserklein]

Ive always thought an iq test was a poor way to test intelligence. In practise the really high iq kids didnt seem any smarter than the normal high or untested kids.

Tbh you can directly see when someone is clever or not. Especially a kid. But it's true that IQ rates only one kind of cleverness, and there are others. I believe most of the times it's linked though

[momuuu]

Ive always thought an iq test was a poor way to test intelligence. In practise the really high iq kids didnt seem any smarter than the normal high or untested kids.

Tbh you can directly see when someone is clever or not. Especially a kid. But it's true that IQ rates only one kind of cleverness, and there are others. I believe most of the times it's linked though

Yes but iq doesnt let you rank people by intelligence. At least in my experience it does. It kinda gives a rough indication.

[kami_ryu]

Here is how I think of the term "intelligence".

I think that intelligence is basically the ability of an individual to do two things. First off, the ability to learn quickly. Essentially it means being able to pick up information, retain it and understand principles in less time than someone else. You can do the correlation with other bits of information quickly as well. Your ability to understand and retain information is simply there.

However! I believe that the ability to learn is something which can be learned. If you spend your time picking up new information, your ability to learn also improves. I fundamentally believe that since one's ability to learn can be improved in the same sense that one's ability to run physically can be improved (endurance, speed, etc.), then intelligence itself can be improved. What you need is an attitude and a drive/thirst to learn behind it. That is what some people lack. Naturally, I also think that the ability to learn may be instrinsic to a given person. That doesn't mean you can't improve.

Secondly, intelligence is also the ability to do more with less information. One of the great difficulties of programming AI is teaching them to deal with information that is outside the scope of what they can factually verify. "Fog of war" of sorts. Humans have the ability to conjecture. That is probably fundamental to our ability to make progress at all. Dealing with incomplete pictures and being able to draw conclusions from it anyway (subsequently, being able to propose different experiments to verify theories) is a pretty incredible form of intelligence. That is why Einstein, Pericles, Galileo, Archimedes, Tesla and all the other big names are considered to be geniuses. They were able to deal with limited information yet still draw logical conclusions from that.

If you look at a kid today who is able to draw conclusions with information that comes from elsewhere (comparing the patterns on zebras to dazzle camouflage of ships in the world wars), then that kid is a smart cookie.

[Laurence Drake]

intelligence is the difference between the troll and the troll'd

[Imperial Noob]

Can you be more precise? What exactly in my post are you referring to?

In your posts. You imply over and over that the likes of great precision of ball throwing or a fast innate in-tuning to emotions of a baby are what should be called intelligence.
Taunt: 2
Intelligence is the ability to gain mental abilities.

How much does one even need the definition of intelligence to understand the concept is perhaps the greatest indicator of intelligence in question.
People can be misinformed about particular specimens around them, but unless you unteach them what intelligence is by pouring molten... multiple intelligence theory... right into their eyes and ears, they will all feel who is smart and who is not.

And they will feel it statistically accurate.

[deleted_user0]

Can you be more precise? What exactly in my post are you referring to?

In your posts. You imply over and over that the likes of great precision of ball throwing or a fast innate in-tuning to emotions of a baby are what should be called intelligence.
Taunt: 2
Intelligence is the ability to gain mental abilities.

How much does one even need the definition of intelligence to understand the concept is perhaps the greatest indicator of intelligence in question.
People can be misinformed about particular specimens around them, but unless you unteach them what intelligence is by pouring molten... multiple intelligence theory... right into their eyes and ears, they will all feel who is smart and who is not.

And they will feel it statistically accurate.

No, i'm neither saying or suggesting that such actions are intelligence. I'm saying they are intelligent however, meaning they require intelligence, and to excell at it means you are more intelligent in that specific facet.

You say that intelligence is the ability (of what kind?) to gain other mental abilities. Again, this is the duality i am talking about. This statement says to me you believe that there is a different abilities, mental and physical, and that such abilities are acquired differently, and that intelligence is required for the foer but not the latter. It also hints at a bias of value for mental over physical abilities.

I dont hold such a dualistic view, i agree intelligence is tied to with what ease one acquires new abilities (specially these "unnatural" to the species), but i dont restrict it to "mental" ones only.

We don't like to call such things as i have mentioned intelligence, perhaps because they seem more primal. But why is it so normal to say that someone who can easily understand wittgenstein and quantum theory is more intelligent than someone who can't understand that or similar things, while we don't want to say that someone who can predict the movement of moving objects at a high pace to intercept said object at the right spot, all of this while not having vision of it, is more intelligent at this than those who cant, and most likely would never be able to do this. Somehow we only call that intelligence if that person can turn his prediction into a mathemetical formula. I ask you, what justifies this seemingly arbitrary discrimination?

[deleted_user]

intelligence is the difference between the troll and the troll'd

This is brilliantly true.

[Hazza54321]

No wonder tr players have higher iq, theyre just better players

[JakeyBoyTH]

No wonder tr players have higher iq, theyre just better players

well you say that

[Imperial Noob]

@deleted_user
"Bias of value"
They are more important, let's not be ridiculous here. We are two scientists of the mind arguing rationally through the use of a system of complex technology. If they weren't, the only equivalent to this situation would be two hominids punching each other with sticks.

Multiple Intelligences theory is just a form of toying with definitions for the flattery of the crowds.

Muscle memory requires no intelligence. Instincts that overtake reason do not either. They lurk outside of our frame of reference for thoughtful everyday activities and however the resulting dissonance tempts us to conjure some bridge, there is no need for such an attempt. It is obvious that a successful athlete can make a good use of intelligence, but if he doesn't have an automated powerhouse behind it, he will hit a ceiling very quickly.
Non-sapient species can display a measure of cunning too, but even they need to stop fooling around and contemplate, to pull it off.

"Ability of what kind?"
I think the question might be invalid. Could you explain the thought behind it?

[Lunatic_Fringe]

Everyone has limits, but limits are meant to be broken. H20 set the bar high, and the likes of BSOP and Rapha tried to reach that and broke it. A new bar has been set, but that doesn't mean H20 can't reach it. Actually, I think he will set a new target soon. Those top players push each other and we gotta love it :)

[deleted_user]

Realistically all it would take is a sc2 pro a few weeks or months to become the best aoe3 player of all time. The fact that that can happen at all is suggestion that limits exist for players, if we agree that a player is limited to his or her mortal life.

[Goodspeed]

There was this interesting experiment that a father did on his daughters to kind of disprove that innate talent exists. It's quite convincing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1sz ... olg%C3%A1r

[hayasaka]

There was this interesting experiment that a father did on his daughters to kind of disprove that innate talent exists. It's quite convincing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1sz ... olg%C3%A1r

yea, the polgar sisters, it was good, but i think there is a limit for each kind of person like woman and man. In Chess u have a clearly superiority of man in terms of skill.

on the other hand u have woman that does things like sailing, the reason for it idk but it´s all about talent,genetics and also time to practice

[Imperial Noob]

There was this interesting experiment that a father did on his daughters to kind of disprove that innate talent exists. It's quite convincing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1sz ... olg%C3%A1r

yea, the polgar sisters, it was good, but i think there is a limit for each kind of person like woman and man.

The argument that chess is easily measured and linear, as Polgar stated, is actually a bad thing for the theory of "nonexistance of talent". What is needed to support such thesis, are repeatable successes in fields deeply connected to creativity and thus not directly connected to the knowledge input of the teachers. Until then, sorry, but no.

Somewhat hilariously on-topic, my grandfather brought up and trained my uncle exactly so, that he bacame a 2300 ELO national chess master at one point, but it didn't go as well with other children, so I can relate to the experiment

P. S. I am of course not against this idea. I will try to teach my own children (if I happen to have some) to become master writers as a side hobby, but ironically, this would only further support my view, that literature is as linear to learn, as chess.
What skills would you teach kids, @Goodspeed ?

[deleted_user0]

There was this interesting experiment that a father did on his daughters to kind of disprove that innate talent exists. It's quite convincing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1sz ... olg%C3%A1r

I kinda fail to see how it proves anything? Perhaps all 3 daughters were very talented, seeing they come from the same parents, it wouldnt be very strange. There are many other valid alternative theories for this outcome other than talent doesnt exist.

When someone can teach a person with down syndrom to be a FM, that would be a much more convincing outcome, rather than 3 girls.

AFAIK, all that "experiment" really shows is that the prejudice of the time, that women don't have the same reach of talent/capacity as men, was wrong.

[Goodspeed]

The argument that chess is easily measured and linear, as Polgar stated, is actually a bad thing for the theory of "nonexistance of talent". What is needed to support such thesis, are repeatable successes in fields deeply connected to creativity and thus not directly connected to the knowledge input of the teachers. Until then, sorry, but no.

Creativity is applying existing knowledge in new ways. This is done all the time in chess. Besides, how do you figure creativity is not something that can be trained?
There is no field where learning it is not connected to the input of the teachers. That's how learning works. You are given input in order to gain a specific ability.

Somewhat hilariously on-topic, my grandfather brought up and trained my uncle exactly so, that he bacame a 2300 ELO national chess master at one point, but it didn't go as well with other children, so I can relate to the experiment

Was he homeschooled? Was your grandfather a psychologist who studied intelligence? Remember that with an experiment like this one the teacher is all that matters. Clearly, your uncle had a worse teacher. The pupil, after all, will achieve the same result regardless of their predispositions. At least, that's the theory. I'm not saying the experiment is conclusive, but it makes a pretty good case.

P. S. I am of course not against this idea. I will try to teach my own children (if I happen to have some) to become master writers as a side hobby, but ironically, this would only further support my view, that literature is as linear to learn, as chess.
What skills would you teach kids, @Goodspeed ?

Master writers, huh? As a side hobby? I don't think that's how it works. An important part of the experiment was that the kids specialized early, and were very focused in their studies. I'm sure you could nudge them in that direction but to make them adept at a skill as specific as that, I think you would need to make sure they specialize at an early age.

As for me personally, I would, from a very early age, try to inspire my kids to learn the way of numbers and logic. I would do everything in my power to keep them from falling into the "I hate maths!" trap that every kid seems to fall into these days. I would teach them strategy games, preferably Go which trains creativity, intuition as well as simple calculation which, imo, chess favours too much. These are skills that train parts of the brain which will be useful no matter what field they choose in the end. And, with any luck, they'll be raised bilingual.

[Goodspeed]

There was this interesting experiment that a father did on his daughters to kind of disprove that innate talent exists. It's quite convincing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1sz ... olg%C3%A1r

I kinda fail to see how it proves anything? Perhaps all 3 daughters were very talented, seeing they come from the same parents, it wouldnt be very strange. There are many other valid alternative theories for this outcome other than talent doesnt exist.

When someone can teach a person with down syndrom to be a FM, that would be a much more convincing outcome, rather than 3 girls.

AFAIK, all that "experiment" really shows is that the prejudice of the time, that women don't have the same reach of talent/capacity as men, was wrong.

That prejudice still exists. Anyway the theory is that you can raise a healthy child to be a prodigy, obviously you'd have a hard time with a mentally disabled child. Like I said in the previous post, it's not conclusive but it makes a great case. You are aware that children from the same parents are still almost always wildly different, no? Unless, I suppose, you raise them in the exact same way

[Goodspeed]

On topic, yes, I think every player has a limit as to what skill level they can achieve. However that limit isn't decided at birth, it's decided somewhere in (early) childhood.

[deleted_user0]

There was this interesting experiment that a father did on his daughters to kind of disprove that innate talent exists. It's quite convincing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1sz ... olg%C3%A1r

I kinda fail to see how it proves anything? Perhaps all 3 daughters were very talented, seeing they come from the same parents, it wouldnt be very strange. There are many other valid alternative theories for this outcome other than talent doesnt exist.

When someone can teach a person with down syndrom to be a FM, that would be a much more convincing outcome, rather than 3 girls.

AFAIK, all that "experiment" really shows is that the prejudice of the time, that women don't have the same reach of talent/capacity as men, was wrong.

That prejudice still exists. Anyway the theory is that you can raise a healthy child to be a prodigy, obviously you'd have a hard time with a mentally disabled child. Like I said in the previous post, it's not conclusive but it makes a great case. You are aware that children from the same parents are still almost always wildly different, no? Unless, I suppose, you raise them in the exact same way

Obviously it still exists, but the prejudice says little about innate talent. Of course, proving that innate talent doesn't exist would also disprove that prejudice, but not the other way around.

It seems to me, that in order to prove nothing resembling talent exists, you should be able to teach any child with it's cognitive abilities thus far intact to take in new information, should be able to be taught to be a chess prodigy. IF there is a genetic difference between mentally healthy and mentally unhealthy children which impairs learning, then it leaves open the possibility that there is also a genetic difference between smarter and dumber children.

I understand you say it makes a great case, but you don't explain why, and I fail to see why it does.

I agree with you that whatever one is exposed to in early childhood is undoubtedly the most important in deciding someone's future. But it's not just learning, it's also emotional bonding. But Im not convinced yet that genetics have nothing to do with it, although I also am not convinced it's the all determining factor as some people make it out to be. But it seems undeniable to me, that if you're born with an unfortunate mix of genes, to be born with some disabling syndrome or what not, it will probably matter little how you are educated at an early age.