Possibly here: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_27/b3991401.htm
-vk -------------- Original message -------------- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hello all: > > I'd like to point out that while all that has been said in this and the other > thread are germane, despite this, G:IQ is actually easier to > model/categorize/adhere to a normal distribution than RL IQ. While G:IQ > attempts to encompass all those disparate factors that have been mentioned, > they > ultimately will, by the nature of the game, follow a 3d6 distribution-- no > matter what facet of G:IQ to which you refer. > > Using RL IQ tests for a comparison of a measure of intelligence performance > with > population distribution in some ways more accurately models the intent of > G:IQ > distribution in a population than could be had using parallel methodology in > RL > to model distribution of all that we attribute to intelligence. > > It is a point of reference, not encompassing, but in handling this dirty of a > distribution, you take what you can. Epidemiology is frequently about > modeling > with like systems-- and deriving theories, then using those models to > predict. > Darwinian/Mendelian genetics has since proven to not be the entire story. Nor > has Einsteinian gravitation. But at the core, there are some principles which > still stand. > > Despite this admission, I would like to point out that in the field of > cognitive > assessment, multiple different "IQ-like" tests are administered to assess > verbal > memory, 3d-spatial memory, visual vs. auditory processing, visual vs. > auditory > problem-solving, etcetera. With *few* exceptions, we identify specific > deficits > (and I'm talking for real now, because this is within my area of professional > expertise) in individuals with neurologic compromise by utilizing points of > reference. If a subject has IQ roughly 110 in everything but visual memory , > we > assume that that deficit is due to the neurologic insult *unless* we uncover > data from work and/or school performance that leads us to believe otherwise. > > In general, we will have *similar* IQs for different tasks that we measure. > That's a fact. You, as an individual may recognize that you're not very good > at > math relative to reading, for example, but on the cognitive evals that we > give, > testing the kind of cognitive functions that I listed (and others), you will > likely score in the same ballpark in the indicators that contribute to either > reading and/or math function. There will be relative strengths and > weaknesses, > but the significant disparity is the exception, not the rule. This includes > several assessments where there *is no right answer* (a more common example > is > the Myers-Briggs assessment which is a personality assessment, not an IQ > test, > but it's easy to find in case you want to look it up)-- so test-taking skill > doesn't necessarily apply-- although I admit there is such a thing in RL, as > well as a test-taking Talent in RL. We've tested from menial laborers to > award-winning college professors, so there must be som > e vali > dity to what I am saying (I cannot, however, cite specific literature, but > know > those who can, and this is what I've learned from them). > > For the purposes of modeling, then, if we could confirm through some > omnipotent > deity (maybe someone will generate one in GURPS?) I would not be surprised if > the numbers I proposed were, in fact, not that far off. Yes, I know that's a > ludicrous thing to say, but I'm trying to emphasize that I honestly don't > think > that it's such a terrible thing to utilize an IQ test distribution as a point > of > reference, particularly since it yields fairly elegant numbers, to derive > G:IQ > distribution in a fictional GURPS society. > > OTOH, look at pre-industrial England. How many geniuses "sprang up" right > around then? In that locale? Why? Opportunity? How would Hooke compare with > today's Ivy League professor? How would Newton compare with Feynman or > Hawking? > Mozart vs John Williams or Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder? I.e. would Newton > totally solve the unified field theory now? Knowing what we know, being able > to > confirm what we can? Or would he be equally stumped, relying on string theory > to make everything come together? > > I've wondered-- if there are more people alive today, now, then have lived on > this planet in all its prior history-- then where is our allottment of > DaVinci > and Michelangelo and Newton and Einstein and Mozart and Euclid and Aristotle > etcetera etcetera. We should have *one of each* right here, right now, on > this > planet. Maybe we do. > > -vk > _______________________________________________ > GurpsNet-L mailing list > http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
