Doom3world

As promised. It is actually a pretty tricky one, though fun to finally get.

The puzzle is this:

You have 12 pearls. All are indistinguishable to your five senses, but one of the pearls is a different weight than the others (it could be heavier or lighter, you don't know). You also have a balance (one of the old style scales with two equal sides - kindof like a teeter-totter). With only three uses of the scale, tell which of the pearls is a different weight and if it is heavier or lighter.

Luck.

i've done this one before....

hmm...that´s a tough one...*think*think*think*
ok, here we go:
i put 6 pearls on each side of the scale,
no wait...i don´t even know if its lighter or heavier?
how am i supposed to...ARGH!
promise you´ll give us the solution, if it hasn´t been solved within...
let´s say 36 hours!

Should be easy for plonker if he´s such a genius.
Besides, i don´t give a fuck about this whole IQ-test thing anyway.
I think it´s highly questionable. How can intelligence be measured?
what is intelligence? *think*think*think*

put a puzzle like this into a game and you either extend the gameplay length by months... or get dog poop shoved thru your letter box..!

I like the idea of putting it into a game Kat - how bout a mod where you have to solve puzzles to kill demons instead of shooting them!



It's kindof an interesting question, and actually i have talked with a couple of friends and done some reading on it. There is a lot of debate, but there is also a lot of evidence for some central measure of Intelligence (ie IQ). For a very detailed discussion of this (since it is the foundation of the book) i would suggest going through and reading the first few chapters of The Bell Curve. While it generated a lot of stir (most of it unfounded and generated by people who had not read the work) it is actually quite a good piece of scientific literature. What i drew from it is that IQ (the measure Intelligence Quotient) is something that can be reproducibly measured based on a persons ability to solve certain types of puzzles/questions and how quickly they can do so. Most IQ tests try not to be culturally biased (though some argue they are) and are more questions like dumb down versions of the one above. Weather you believe that IQ measures intelligence (i personally do, to some extent), or weather IQ says anything about the quality of a person (i do not remotely) it is something that can be measured and measured consistently and reputably. IQ values tend to vary in childhood but by mid teens they tend to level out and remain constant throughout most of someone’s adult life. This means it has scientific value, even if you don't know what IQ specifically is. Also, IQ has been correlated to many things (such as how well someone does in school, or in work, weather they go on welfare, weather they graduate college etc.), and while a correlation doesn't imply cause there are some good arguments for that (someone who solves things quicker will do better on tests, for ex). The part of "The Bell Curve" that pissed off so many people is when they said that there is a correlation between race and IQ that is not due to any currently measured social reasons, and suggested that IQ is, in part at least, genetic.

It is not a clear cut issue however, and IQ is not the end all in determining success, happiness etc. One thing to keep in mind is that all of this information is from statistical analysis, so the majority of people with a low IQ may do poorer in school, but it says nothing about how an individual with a low IQ will do in school. Another point is that an IQ test does test with certain types of questions, and while some may be difficult (invariably) it is possible to 'learn' how to take an IQ test and improve through repetition.

As for an IQ of 150 ... I wish i had one.

I dunno, i took the IQ test at emode.com, got a 136. but that doesnt mean anything now does it.
i bet if i actually went to school the last few years i'd be doing better.
i dont believe IQ is purely genetic. though i do know some people that "never learn" its not that they cant, but they dont spend the time to try.

the thing you've always got to keep in mind is to not confuse a high IQ with being 'intelligent'. As Feffer point out having a high IQ doesn't necessairly mean you're clever.. all it actually shows it you have an aptitude for thinking in a certain way.

As an example, when I was doing my A-levels (higher ed) there were many people in my peer group that if you spoke to them about some abstract fantasy idea would stare at you with a look of 'wtf are you talking about' plastered all over their faces. These same people went on to get 'A' and 'B' grades in the subjects of study.

Now if all these tests were a 'true' test of 'intelligence' would the fact that they couldn't understand an abstracted idea be picked up on?? Not really as that's not what IQ is testing.. it's not testing your ability to understand a specific concept but a 'generalised pattern of thought' that fits into the parameters of the statistical personality type (which you always do).

If you have a low IQ it (generally) doesn't mean you're stupid and conversly if you have a high IQ it doesn't (generally) mean you're clever... just incase you were wondering my 'unofficial' score was 120 something... can't remember exactly as I took it some time ago now though.

If they had an IQ test for football aptitude, I'd be close to moronic levels

IQ is more that just the ability of pattern recognition or mathmatical problem solving, it's also about physicality. A blunt example would be a be-spectacled professor of linguistics that cannot kick a football in the neccessary direction.

Who has the higher IQ ?

The genius professor who cannot kick a football straight, or Beckham who most certainly can.

The professor can speak 13 languages.
Beckhams football language is universal.

The standard IQ test imho, is a institutionally devised process that is more about govermental paranoia than cold hard facts.

For some reason my IQ scores keep dropping.

quote: bb_matt


It would probably be more 'Scientific community paranoia' then government. The government gets involved at only a very superficial level, and usually gets it wrong (as is mostly the case when science is involved). But part of my point was that the IQ test does measure something real and that this real thing is correlated non-randomly with other observations, and is a predictor of future outcome. Lets take wage earnings for a 40 year old man. If you measure his IQ at age 25 and it is 130, statistically speaking he will have higher earnings at the age 40 than someone who, at age 25, had an IQ of 90. And these experiments have been controlled for most variables (ie they would make sure that both men were starting with the same opportunities, education etc). This doesn't proove a causal relationship (it could be that people with white teeth have higher IQ's and white teeth also are the deciding factor in eventual earnings). This doesn't conclusively prove the function of IQ, but it does show that there is a relationship and that shows IQ as a real measurable variable, making it a valid test. It may be less about 'cold hard facts' in the general population, but in the scientific community the concept of IQ is fairly well accepted and has been researched quite thoroughly.

quote: kat


Very nice, and a very good post Kat, though ...

quote: kat


Doesn't that depend on how you define 'stupid' and 'clever'. Some would define them as the way an IQ test tests thinking. But is there a difference between, lets say, stupid and lazy. I would think there is, though they might functionally end up with the same result (a stupid receptionist at the hospital might mess up your appointment just as much as a lazy one, though with different causes), though the IQ's may be different. So it isn't all about IQ. BUT! But, i personally think that if you take stupid to mean 'less intelligent' and clever to mean 'more intelligent' then IQ score does correlate between these. I don't say that lightly. I don't know all of the evidence off hand, but i have read of a more than a few of the studies that have showed that IQ tests correlate well with many other measures of Intelligence (certain memory tests, for example). While there is still an unresolved debate about weather there is a central type of intelligence or distinct categories (mathematical, linguistic, artistic etc.), there is a lot of evidence for a central intelligence, though with some overlap of separate talents. There seems to be overlap, and someone who is 'intelligent' will do better in whatever they try. Could Mozart have been just as renowned a Mathematician if he had gone into it? Could we think of Mozart paintings as Rembrandts or Van Goghs? Maybe not - Mozart was a child prodigy, which suggests to me a specific aptitude. Or was he just 'intelligent'? I am lucky enough to be around some really great scientists, and they are (i would say) Wicked Smart. The thing i notice is that many of them are multi-talented. They are scientists, but also musicians, athletes, writers etc. and generally good at what else they try to do. But i must admit, this is not a diverse sample ...

quote: Qwertys


Almost nobody believes that IQ is purely genetic. The debate (in the scientific community) ranges between 30 and 70% (give or take) being contributed by genetics. Obviously nutrition and schooling through childhood play a role, but how much of a role? How a child was raised may effect their IQ, but what if there is a genetic 'upper limit' for that child, something that even the best schooling etc. cannot overcome (mental retardation is an extreme example of this). The problem is that people (a lot of people) get really upset when you start talking about genetics controlling something like intelligence. It's not politically correct to say that there is only a certain level someone can achieve (on an IQ scale) and that is because mommy and daddy didn't have the right things to pass on. It is a frightening thought and can put some limits on the control we have over our own destinies. That said, it isn't just genetics and environment certainly plays a role (an extreme would be someone suffering a serious head trauma that leaves them mentally crippled). Then we start getting to these questions of weather they 'can't' or the just 'don't try' (as you point out) and is there a functional difference?

I guess what i would say after all this rambling is, first, thanks for sticking with me. I am impressed you took the time. But second, that IQ is a real 'thing' that can be measured and does correlate with other measurable observations. But that doesn't mean that IQ is all there is to an individual person, there is so much more that goes into determining their life and success and worth. And that quality of life, as well as importance of life, doesn't relate to IQ.

Cheers,

Feff

Maybe it has something to do with that avatar...

Music at high decebels kills brain cells? Oh no!

Hehehe.

Brain cells grow back ... don't they?

Exactly...!

What we have here in the IQ test is a certain 'methodology' for testing people relative to the fundamental workings of the IQ system itself. Using the IQ scale to assess people requires results that have meaning only to the IQ system itself... hense someone with a low score is regarded as 'stupid' as a result. Whenever a topic like this crops up with friends I always, always mention context. You have to and must always keep things in context so the results of any action have some meaning relatively... in this case a low IQ would mean you were stupid only in relation to the IQ system itself outside of that system it has no meaning.

I can't speak for other countries but in the UK they use the IQ system (or a dirivative of it) quite extensively in schools and the work place to assess whether someone should do 'this or that' action (I mean that in the sense of a job you do or subjects you study), the fundamental problem with the IQ system is that it tests 'thinkers' not 'do'ers' (people who 'do' things rather than 'think' of solutions'), it's actually an increaably 'left side of the brain' way to look at things and although there are pictures and images involved in the tests it still doesn't account for a % of people that simply don't think that way.

I quite like taking IQ tests and doing puzzles (and I'm crap at them btw) simply becasue I like the challange, BUT I don't hold any merits to the system out of context. Societies problem, generally speaking, is that it does, a low test score means you're thick and it doesn't address the fundental issue that a person may think differently, visually, audibly, by touch or feel.... as Qwertie quote you highlighted commented on is a case in point of this...



it's not that people 'never learn' but more so they are being tought 'incorrectly' so what they are trying to learn never goes in and stays in. This is the fundamental flaw, not of the IQ system itself, but of the relience society has come to have on that type of 'left brained' thinking leaves a lot of people out in the cold, they don't progress further, not becasue they can't learn or that they are stupid, but becasue they can't learn using that IQ based & left brain thinking logic system, it just doesn't address the fundamental difference in the way people look at the world around them and only takes into account one system and methodology of doing things. It what our whole educational system is based on (at least in the UK).

What's more, and to prove a point in some ways regarding taking IQ out of context.... Mozart would have been crap at Maths becasue he thought with sound, not with numbers (although it could be argued that scoring music is a little like mathmatics). Same goes for Rembrant and VanGogh (especially him... he was increadably frustrated at his lack of 'acedemic' schooling), they thought with images (or more precisly 'colour') and yet if you were to talk to any of them from the stand point of IQ they'd probably be pretty average, maybe above average (that's a gross assumption btw and could never be proved unless we invent a time machine..!!) but they may not necessarily be 'geniuses using the IQ quoter.

I know from my readings of VanGogh that people didn't regard him as being clever at all, he was crap at the little schooling he did have and had trouble making himself understood... classically a 'stupid' person... but with the hindsight that time has given us we can see he was/is infact a genius, fullstop, new paragraph.


As you can tell I do get a little hot under the collor when my friends (or anyone) starts to talk about being 'intelligent', 'clever' or having a high IQ, becasue I'm actually one of those 'stupid' people we've been discussing. I was and still am shit at math... I'm not joking when I say I need to use a calcualator to add 64 to 256 grid units in GTK or adding an extra 16 pixels to an image used in a webpage.

I'm crap at spelling (as you'll probably have noticed reading my posts.. and I can't blame my crap old keyboard either for that one), but I can string a story together with words that would have you crying in your sleep (metaphorically speaking... ) for days... I could tell you things about ancient folklore that you'd never heard of....

....but all of this has no meaning inside the world of IQ and of the general interpretation of that methodology of thinking that societies have as it applies to schooling, to our general way of living... maths and the written word (aka *spleeing* or should that be s.p.e.l.l.i.n.g.), you are simply regarded as being stupid or not very bright becasue you can't add or spell, and whilst not a issus with the IQ system itself, it is a indirect result of that system.

feck.... I didn't mean to ramble on this much but 'intellenege' and 'who is and isn't' is such a fundamental issue for me persoanly that it makes me verbally gesticulate waaayyyy to much.

double feck.. I just realised this has to be the longest post I've ever made and it has nothing to do with level design or texture making....!!

[quote="kat]I just realised this has to be the longest post I've ever made and it has nothing to do with level design or texture making....!![/quote]

You make me smile Kat.

In the US there is actually a lot of legislation governing whether an employer can use an IQ test in a job interview to discriminate amongst multiple applicants. And the truth is that 'IQ' alone is not a valid measure, for all the reasons you mention above. And yes, context does matter, to some extent. But part of the point that i was making was that there have been studies showing that someone with a high IQ, as measured but this contextual test, still tends to do better in other tests of intelligence and tends to do better in a wide variety of fields (hence the Mozart example).

But, and here is a big point, this is just statistical tendencies. That means that in big group of people this will tend to be the case, but means nothing about individuals. So while it may not be 'right', i think this is why a company would use it to discriminate. It doesn't mean the individual will do better, but if you hire 100 people with higher IQ's the tendency will be for that group to be more productive than a group with below average IQ score.

I don't want you to think i am attacking or discrediting you kat. I agree that there are exceptions and subtleties and depths to this question that people do not have the answer to yet. And discriminating based on IQ is no different than racism. But i would argue that IQ is a valid test and has meaning beyond the context of the test itself. This isn't always clear cut, but it is real.

Shrug.

heh.. no I didn't think you were attacking me, I actually agree with you becasue we're basically talking about the same 'limitation' (or 'advantage' depending on you're outlook) of IQ, or rather what people on the whole expect from it... it really is "just statistical tendencies".. and I do certainly think it has, and is, a very important aspect of understanding the way we do the things we do

Did you really mean to say that?

If you were consulting a physician for a difficult to diagnose medical problem or if you needed brain surgery, would you prefer a doctor with an extremely high IQ or an extremely low IQ?

I'm sure you would chose the high IQ doctor over the low IQ doctor (as would I). That would be the epitome of a rational decision. I expect medical schools to discriminate based on IQ. I expect employers to discriminate on the basis of IQ. IQ is an objective measure that is positively correlated to success in most of life's endeavors (however, as a former college football player, I have to agree with bb_matt that IQ does not have much meaning in that particular field.)

I would hardly equate discriminating based on IQ with discriminating based on race.

well question is if the doctor with the high iq is automatically the better one.. i doubt anyone could answere this question 100% right.. but if they both managed their medicine faculty they can't be honchos either..

but i'm actualy more interested if somebody has solved the puzzle yet? i tried it but the fucking flu doesn't make it very easy to concentrate. so does flu decrease youre IQ.. well well alot of mysterious questions..

I did actually mean to say that, though i think that it requires a little explanation on my part, including how i define some things. The explanation is that in our politically correct society most people take any generalization about a group of people, any stereotype, as racism. This is just stupid. Groups of people (broken up by race, creed, shoe size) have things in common that can be generalized (stereotyped). For example, people who have big shoes tend to have big feet. Asians tend to have slanted eyes and little body hair. These stereotypes just mean that if you took a random sampling from a group you would, more often then not, come up with someone fitting that stereotype. These are not limited to physical descriptions. Asians tend to score higher on IQ tests. Catholics tend to be more conservative. Blacks like fried chicken and watermelon. People with a high IQ tend to do better in school. But a stereotype is just a statistical tendency. Does it mean it is always the case? No. Does it make a group worse/better than another? It could - if we say something like 'criminals tend to do bad things', then sure. Some of that depends on personal and social values. Does that make an individual in that group better or worse than an individual of another group? No. And that is where i distinguish racism. Racism involves not just stereotyping but also attributing that to every individual in a group, and passing a value judgment. Sometimes racism is making generalizations that are not true or founded, but for me racism is taking a general grouping (no matter what it is) and applying that (with value judgment) to every individual irrespective of anything else they show. In that sense, distinguishing based on IQ alone would be racism.

As for the doctors, if a person were to make it through medical school they would probably not have an extremely low IQ. But i would feel more comfortable with the doctor that was competent and had experience. If you had two doctors that were exactly the same in every other regard, but one had a significantly higher IQ, i would say that in that case the one with the higher IQ would be a decent enough discriminator. But it is rare to find two people who are the same in all regards save IQ.

On a related (to racism) note, i suggest the fine intellectual discussion put forth in South Park Episode 614 – The Death Camp of Tolerance.

On a related related note (this is how i started the post):



I solved it, but i don't know if that counts. I had the answer before i posted.

Zoorado posted a link above to the solution (with some interesting asides). The link is: http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/ ... m#weighing