my point of view on higher language level and ability is that it mostly serves discrimination and exclusion purposes, it doesn't improve communication. it's a sign that you are intelligent, but also and mostly that you spent enough childhood time in private schools (surrounded by high iq and english native teachers) when you're still a sponge for words (you can have a high iq but be surrounded by low iqs during childhood, also). maybe that's why private schools exist, they are a good investment, because they give good language markers to children for later in life--along with giving them good contacts, but maybe the language aspect is even more important. personally I started learning english only in my early 20s a few years ago-- and even though I absolutely love that language and I speak it everyday, I don't think I can attain the level of argumzio, ever, without nano implants.
-- so it's a natural social phenomena that during the evolution of languages, the elite will evolve markers to differentiate themselves from intruders. it's very effective, and that's how the world works. it served its purpose. maybe it's important that the high iqs stay together in group. but on the other hand, Albert Einstein didn't look smart when he spoke English--he will if you pay attention to what he says--but that's not flashy enough for most people, they just won't appreciate his ideas as much as flashy intellectual language use. most people are against good ideas at first. good ideas are hard to evaluate on the spot for most people. brain train also pointed out a very interesting idea: that jargon is also a protection from intruders in certain fields like law, but also in many others. pidgin languages are at the other end of the spectrum: languages made for communication, without any superfluous vocabulary. of course it can be imprecise sometimes. but overall it's not: communication with them can be just as accurate, even more because everyone understands (no lower iq cut from the conversation). I can totally see jargon as evil, and counterproductive. people seem to defend it on the basis that it is more precise, but I'm pretty sure that using simpler and more descriptive expressions will produce better communication than high level language or jargons. high level language protects the lower iqs in the elite social classes, and definitely prevents social mobility. it's good for the elite, but it's not good for the economy, that's cutting yourself from the advantages of the brain drain, something the US certainly didn't do.
also what's interesting is that old established ideas already have words and sayings, ready made phrases for them; on the other hand if you try t express a new idea, it will have more chance to sound awkward and you will need to make gestures and awkward metaphors in order to get your point across, *also simply because because people don't have the concept already in their minds so it's harder for them to understand it. no handy ready-made smooth sounding expression to say it, and also, (as a consequence!) the bar is put higher for people to understand it. it may seem trivial to you, but when you think about it languages are filled with ready-made concepts that everyone know and think along with. really cultures are still very different today.
so an emphasis on high level language would prevent social mobility and attracting high iqs from abroad, and I would argue, would also tend to prevent the flow of new ideas from mixing with the old ones.
one thing I love about american english but also british english to a certain extend, is that there is a kind of *no-bullshit *anti-intellectual culture embedded in it. yes even british english. to me this is not unrelated to its success in science and commerce--in a pattern mostly opposite to that of the countries of continental europe which them have a very different culture, more pedantic to sum it up in 1 word. there is a good quote I remember from George Orwell, where he basically said *don't use big words when you can use simple ones. but I can't find it quickly. this page is pretty interesting though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language he sounds like a pretty sharp guy reading this. I also remember a letter by Darwin where he complained that he wasn't concise enough and to-the-point.
in conclusion I think I would argue that English became simpler (evolved away from a level of complexity similar to that ot continental europe languages) as result of a pre-existing *openenss and *an appreciation that ideas count more than wordiness. maybe it was 1/the result of the interaction of different dialects within a territory, maybe it was 2/that populations in britain had a natural tendency toward social mobility because of high iqs being fairly evenly sparsed across the country--this is speculation. of course increased commerce and exchanges maybe made english even simpler and pidgin-like during the expansion of the british empire and after, but something was there in the first place for that culture to go down that path (maybe just because it was an island and closer to north america). to me this is a sign of intelligence, or at least a certain type of intelligence--but it is also a cultural trait that got established maybe in part because of chance. germany or france could have catched it but they didn't, they retained the verbose-pendantic-loving cultural trait. to me this appreciation that ideas count more than wordiness is also not completely unrelated to aspects of protestantism. it's a cultural trait and it's linked to commerce and northern europe. I'm not sure what triggered what though. any input about this is welcome.
one question I've been asking myself for a while was if britain had been attracting high iqs from continental europe before the US did. I think it's plausible, and I read signs of it, but I don't know how important it was. btw semi-unrelated but look at this map I saw a while ago. I found it mind blowing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqV-kx2ClXU it's incredible and it answers a few questions about history, when you know that CO2 emission are a good marker for economic growth and that economic growth is a good marker for iq (coupled with certain cultural traits and policies). any input welcome.
tags: wordiness, protestantism, social mobility, history of CO2 emissions.
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 3:36 PM, whoisbambam <smathern@gmail.com> wrote:
well, it was a GUESS, you know.
it is hard to say with you three.............
i know a sign of IQ is 'open-ness'........but once or twice you
considered some things (yeah, i forgot the details) that seemed a
little off the wall crazy............
because of this, i lowered your IQ.
:)
perhaps it is just a lack of experience, naivetity or whatever, who
knows...........
when it comes to pure IQ tests, i believe you are probably first or
second on the list............
but in my GUESSING, I have lowered your raw number based on my
experience with you...........
to be honest, the enitire concept of this is moronic,
really............
it is less than subjective IMO
it is meaningless
it changes nothing..........
i believe all three of you to be at 135 and higher..............if it
is any concilation..........
On May 20, 1:32 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it can be hard to pinpoint the IQ from what people post, besides
> some people already posted their scores, I got scores from 110-160 (no
> joke). But I do think that test anxiety when it comes to spatial/visual
> problems is a major reason behind my rather volatile performance. Never the
> less, as for brain training in general, it's important that everyone
> benefits to the discussion as this will make the forum more interesting
> for more people and expand the rather "small world" of n-backers.
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 7:39 PM, whoisbambam <smath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Mike,
>
> > you have mine in the right order........you mentioned whoisbambam
> > last........as would be my IQ in that list of names...........
>
> > I accept this, of course, and it is why I try to enhance my mind in
> > the first place......if anybody needs it, I do.
>
> > I am not trying to belittle the rest, but based on what i have read, I
> > would personally put Argumzio and Likeprestige at the top
>
> > After that, it gets more difficult, but probly Pontus......i would
> > have to read their posts again (lol, which is why i am at the bottom)
> > to formulate a better opinion (like at least 40posts by each)
>
> > On May 19, 6:54 pm, Mike <mikebk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > we should all try to guess everyone's IQ here. :)
> > > Ailambris
> > > Colin
> > > Pontus
> > > Argumzio
> > > Cev
> > > Likeprestige
> > > Christopher Dzialo
> > > Paul
> > > Gwern
> > > Milestone
> > > Jtotto
> > > Bofu
> > > Arkang3l
> > > Four Sigma
> > > and of course Whoisbambam
>
> > > (all these people and many others made some really interesting comments
> > > here! thanks, it's always interesting to read you!)
>
> > > we should make a form-questionnaire and calculate average results for
> > > everyone. I will be curious to know how much IQ you give *me*??? fun :P.
> > it
> > > would be interesting to compare evaluations and real average test
> > results.
>
> > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Colin Dickerman <
>
> > > collin.silvern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Not really, except in large deviations from the norm. Everybody sounds
> > > > smart and stupid sometimes.
>
> > > > On May 18, 10:14 pm, ailambris <ailamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Has the idea occurred to you, really, that others may be probing your
> > > > > intelligence without your being consciously aware of it? Isn't that
> > > > > exactly what is going on, in conversation, all the time? Nabakov
> > > > > casually placed estimations throughout his writing, wonder whether he
> > > > > was sort of on to something. Does anyone believe that it can be
> > > > > accurately, reliably be estimated, without a formal evaluation?
>
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to brain-training@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > brain-training+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to brain-training@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > brain-training+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-training@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-training+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-training@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-training+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
No comments:
Post a Comment