2012 Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)

[poopoo333]

I see you lurking IWS Grandpa, why you no post?!

[poopoo333]

Pretty excited for a Bellator fight this summer...Patricio Freire vs Pat Curran was announced for August 24th.

[Svino]

Interesting Slate article on "risk intelligence"

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2012/05/risk_intelligence_how_gamblers_and_weather_forecasters_assess_probabilities_.html

[MMA_scientist]

Interesting Slate article on "risk intelligence"

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...bilities_.html

I took the test...

**SPOILER ALERT**
I saw this after I took it:

"The RQ score ranges from 0 (low RQ) to 100 (high RQ). Your score is 87.61. Such a score is very high. Risk intelligence can be measured by calculating something called a "calibration curve". The red line displayed to your right is your calibration curve. A perfect calibration curve would lie exactly on the blue diagonal line, so the area between the curve and the diagonal would be zero. Nobody is perfectly calibrated, but people with high risk intelligence come very close to this ideal.

By now, you may have realized there is an easy way to game this test. If you always select the 50% category unless you are pretty certain that a statement is true or false – and if the test contains equal numbers of true and false statements – you will score very highly, perhaps very near 100. Our commercial Expert Test takes such gaming strategies (and more) into account."

I figured that bolded part out about 4 questions in... if I don't know the answer at all, which was the case for at least 90% of the questions, it was 50% (as likely to be true as not). I wasn't trying to "game" the test though, that is how I saw it... maybe it was true, maybe not 50%.

Not willing to pay to take the test to find out my true RQ though.

[Svino]

Yeah, the test is pretty iffy. I took it with "real" answers using the whole range regularly and got an 81.

After I read their scoring comment, I did it again with exactly one correct answer at 100% and the other 49 questions at 50%, and it was scored an 82. :-/

I'm trying to think of how to make a good test like that without a bazillion questions, and it's not obvious. You need to normalize for total knowledge while still allowing points to accumulate over the course of the test. Otherwise, you're rewarding people for answering 50%, when their real answer would be 80%, kind of like rewarding ultra-weak-tight play in poker.


Also: 300 Million English speakers in China, my ass.

[MMA_scientist]

lol. I probably answered 5 questions at either 100% or 0% that I was completely confident in. Everything else I answered 50%. Like I said, most of them that was my true feeling (I had no inkling either way). I am an absurdly good standardized test taker fwiw. I have always done really well on IQ tests too, even though I know I am not that smart in comparison to others.

As for normalizing the knowledge base... Are you familiar with the Weschler IQ tests? I run across the tests all the time in Psych Exams in my work, and I have to cross examine psychiatrists on them a lot. One of the things I always ask is about the rising mean on IQ tests. Because of licensing costs, a lot of practices still use the WAIS III (Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale III), even though the WAIS IV has been out for years. The same guy can take the WAIS III and WAIS IV, and they say the collective knowledge base will make the score anywhere from 5 to 10 points higher... the hive mind just gets smarter that fast. I think it is a really interesting phenomenon.

Read here: http://www.americanscientist.org/iss...ge=4&css=print

[Svino]

I'm not particularly familiar with the WAIS tests.

I think I read a couple of articles recently reporting that in the U.S., average I.Q. was actually starting to decrease, i.e. that the "idiocracy effect" was outpacing the Flynn Effect for the first time.

[MMA_scientist]

I'm not particularly familiar with the WAIS tests.

I think I read a couple of articles recently reporting that in the U.S., average I.Q. was actually starting to decrease, i.e. that the "idiocracy effect" was outpacing the Flynn Effect for the first time.

I haven't heard that. If that is true, I would like to see those articles...

[High5]

I see you lurking IWS Grandpa, why you no post?!

ME?

[poopoo333]

ME?

Of course!

[Svino]

I haven't heard that. If that is true, I would like to see those articles...

Hrm. I can't find the article I was thinking of, which was a 2012 article that I thought was focused on the U.S. I did find these though:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/intelligence-quotient-james-flynn/

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/num2/smart-as-we-can-get/1

[High5]

Of course!

Haha!
Not much to say I guess.....really not my way.
I only live bet now days, Works better for me. I don't spend as much time on MMA now that winter is over.....to busy tearing up the trails on my bike!
I do enjoy dropping in once a day or so to see what's up!
Thanks for noticing me. ha

[MMA_scientist]

Hrm. I can't find the article I was thinking of, which was a 2012 article that I thought was focused on the U.S. I did find these though:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/intelligence-quotient-james-flynn/

http://www.americanscientist.org/iss...s-we-can-get/1

Thanks. I don't think those are definitive, for one, the U.S. has not been affected. I try to stay at least somewhat abreast of the issue, so I am not surprised by a retort at some point.

[edman5555]

Haha!
Not much to say I guess.....really not my way.
I only live bet now days, Works better for me. I don't spend as much time on MMA now that winter is over.....to busy tearing up the trails on my bike!
I do enjoy dropping in once a day or so to see what's up!
Thanks for noticing me. ha

Come on buddy. You did well here. Stick around and say hello.

[poopoo333]

Kenny Florian is retired.