Vort

Members
  • Posts

    25580
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    559

Posts posted by Vort

  1. IQ stands for "intelligence quotient". IQ as such fails to have much (any) meaning past about 170.

    What does it mean to have an IQ of 300? Technically, at least originally (things might have changed), it meant that an adult with an IQ of 300 was three times the "intellectual age" of the average adult. By definition, all "adults" are 18 years old, and again by definition, the mean performance of a large group of randomly selected adults on a test of IQ is set at 100 using the formula

    IQ = (intellectual age based on test performance) / (chronological age) * 100

    The 100 multiple is to give a number between about 50 and 150 instead of some fractional number between about 0.5 and 1.5. So a person who performs exactly as expected for his/her (adult) age will score an 18 (the chronological age of adulthood), and 18 / 18 * 100 = 100—the average IQ.

    Now the trick becomes, How does one assign an "intellectual age" to a person based on his/her score on some test? When we have a very large group of people who (we assume) will fall along a normal distribution, we can use statistical methods to figure out what score on what test indicates what IQ. So we just take the results of many, many iterations of the tests with various test-takers, and we "normalize" the scores such that the mean is 100 and the standard deviation is 15 IQ points. That gives us a table for each test that reveals the IQ (or at least the IQ score for that test on that day) for the individual who took the test.

    But up around an IQ of 150 or 160, how do you reliably distinguish between individual performances? You can't just keep making the questions harder and harder. The idea of "intelligence" has been that it is a fixed quantity with which a person is born, and it does not/cannot increase with practice (though it can decrease with disease, age, injury, and lack of performance). (You can see immediately why this whole approach to measuring a supposedly inborn and invariant quantity is doomed from the start.) Maybe you include some questions requiring an understanding of, I don't know, differential equations or particle physics or spectral analysis or Old English literature. But are you now testing that person's native capabilities, or his education? Because the two are very different quantities, though they are also very intimately related and even intertwined. By the time you get to measuring an IQ of 190 or so, the tests don't really mean anything. We do not have the ability to discriminate between someone with an IQ of 190 and someone else with an IQ of 210, much less between someone with an IQ of 190 and someone with an IQ of 192. So saying that So-and-so has an IQ of 300 doesn't actually mean anything, as far as I can tell.

    There are many who say that IQ tests are stupid and meaningless. For the record, I am not one of those people; they are wrong. IQ tests are not stupid, and they most certainly are not meaningless. IQ tests are the most reliable psychometric tests ever created, the most reproducible, absolutely solid statistical indicators of people's general ability to perform across a very wide variety of tasks. They are very meaningful, robust, and reliable as real-world performance indicators.

    But instead of "intelligence quotient", I think they would be better characterized as an "intellectual performance quotient" or something of the sort. Intelligence is not what psychologists of 110 years ago thought it was, nor is it what today's researchers think it is. Defining "intelligence" is probably not something that modern science can do in a useful way, except in a very narrow sense. The best definition is given by scripture: Intelligence is the light of truth. Science as such cannot touch this definition, because it's not useful to science. But it is most useful to human beings.

  2. 3 hours ago, Backroads said:

    We're on season 2 and I had forgotten some of the stuff that goes down.

    I'm afraid of this series being a repeat of Once Upon a Time, where the premise sounds interesting and the series starts out solidly, only to degenerate all too quickly into a soap opera with manufactured drama and important-seeming but ultimately inconsequential events. I finished Season 2, and I honestly was put off by their treatment of religion and fanaticism—truly a Leftist's view of religion and the religious. I think of Obama talking disparagingly about those who "cling to guns or religion". The writers apparently share Obama's viewpoint. On the other hand, there is occasionally some raw honesty that seems to make the premise potentially insightful. But the leftist tropes too often interfere, which is disappointing. I am less than cautiously optimistic, but I am still hopeful. Maybe Season 3 will show some actual thoughtful and courageous writing rather than another paint-by-numbers recitation of the Leftist viewpoint.

  3. 3 hours ago, Backroads said:

    This is a rewatch for me, but it cycled back around into another viewing: tv series The Booth at the End. Consists entirely, and I mean entirely, of watching people chat in a diner booth. Guy hangs out there, and people that want something come to him, and he tells them to do things, and they report back. Kind of twisted at times, but really a fun watch if you like character-driven stuff.

    Just finished Season One. Curse you, Backroads!

  4. 13 minutes ago, classylady said:

    Anyhow, I’m a little more understanding of children who misbehave. Though, I do admit I find it hard to condone parents who blatantly just sit there and let their children be disruptive.

    Good for you, though I'm very sorry for the tragic route you've taken. Ftr, I'm talking about the parents who smile benignly as their little children run screaming through the aisles.

  5. 46 minutes ago, zil2 said:

    Sadly, the rebellion continues.  Apparently, these women (or some women) called for sisters to "boycott" yesterday's Sunday meetings and the RS broadcast last night over this issue.  Satan is laughing.  In what way does refraining from worship and instruction aid anyone?

    Anywho, before knowing anything about the boycott, my extremely introverted self opted not to go to the stake center last night, knowing I could watch it online today (at 2x, with pauses for pondering or notes, as I wished).  So this morning, as I was scrolling through IG, President Nelson's account had a portion of his talk from last night, and many of the comments were sadly negative, including complaints related to this sitting on the stand issue.  I read those negative comments and then went and watched the broadcast.  Funny thing: all but one concern those commenters had was addressed in some way by one of the speakers.  If they had only listened to the broadcast, with humble hearts, seeking answers through the Spirit, their minds could have been enlightened.

    Satan is deceiving "the very elect" with things like this, and it's heartbreaking.  Refraining from worship and instruction (surely the equivalent of telling the Spirit to take a hike) isn't the answer, sisters - faith, humility, covenants, Jesus Christ is the answer.  And if you think you don't have power or access or whatever, go re-read President Nelson's October 2019 GC talk, "Spiritual Treasures":

    This is nothing new.  Stop listening to the world and listen to Christ.

    If they were my daughters or perhaps my sisters who were involved in such shenanigans, I would probably feel great sorrow. As it is, I think it's wonderful that such wolves are removing their sheepskins so that we can more easily detect them.

  6. 21 hours ago, mikbone said:

    Nephi’s nephew here gains a testimony, is forgiven of his sins, and learns of Jesus Christ.

    I think his question, “How is it done?” is genius.

    Here is my question:  Don’t you think that Enos’s father Jacob had given him all this information in detail previously?

    There comes a moment in our lives when we must leave the nest, fly on our own and feed ourselves.  

    Notice that the answer to "How is it done?" is not a lesson in the details of divine spiritual mechanics. Nothing like "if one who is innocent willingly accepts the natural consequence of blah blah blah" here, just an immediate reference to the blood of Christ—literally, HOW one accesses forgiveness. Like someone asking, "How do I get to the 104th floor of this skyscraper?", and the respondent not launching into a lecture about stairs and incremental rises against gravity or counterweights and electric motors, but rather just pointing the guy toward the elevator door.

  7. 1 hour ago, Grunt said:

    It's my observation that people who don't keep their covenants often think it's "mean and drives people from the church" when you talk about keeping your covenants.

    Any talk of personal responsibility for embracing one's salvation is dismissed by many as "earning your way to heaven", and asserting that sin is real and that it separates us from God is characterized as denying the pure love of Christ. All manner of false doctrine exist. We cannot blame individuals for the existence of Satan's lies. But it is clear that at least some actively embrace the victimized "not my fault" mentality, eschewing all accountability for their actions. They will find to their dismay that their Creator will indeed require an accounting at their hand, despite their protestations.

  8. 4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

    The Lord was an extremely liberal radical during his time.

    No, he was not, not in any sense in which that word is used in American political discourse today.

    4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

    He called for things that most of the religious individuals at the time were against. 

    That is not a feature of today's American liberalism, unless you're saying that Jesus would call for the freedom to destroy your unborn baby if you feel it might inconvenience you. Pretty sure you're not saying that.

    4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

    He called for forgiving others who offended you, letting your rulers rule over you and keeping your religion separate from that of Caesars.

    Certainly not any sort of feature in modern American "liberalism".

    4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

    If you accept his apostles also spoke for him, he instituted a type of socialism (called Religious Socialism by many scholars today) where all property was shared amongst those in the church community for the benefit of others.

    This is simply false. We as Latter-day Saints are familiar with this general idea. It's an application of the law of consecration; early latter-day efforts were generally called "united orders", were entered into only by covenant, were always voluntary, could be left at any time, and were administered in all cases by leaders called of God and not by agents of profane governments. To compare such small, private, religiously motivated efforts to "a type of socialism" is way beyond the mark.

    I think it's worth noting that even with divine guidance, the early covenant Saints failed to get those societies to work as they were intended, until the effort was ultimately abandoned.

    4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

    He called for people to feed the poor and care for the sick so that none would be hungry and all would have basic necessities in a society of his. 

    As he has always done. Note that he did not call for Rome to care for the sick or for the nominal Jewish king Herod "to feed the poor and care for the sick so that none would be hungry and all would have basic necessities." Jesus' call to action was an individual charge, to be fulfilled individually and not to be abrogated to a government (profane or otherwise) to enforce such feeding and caring.

    4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

    These ideas offended those who were in power.  His ideas would tear down the more conservative ideals of the time (where church LEADERS dictated what you could do including how many steps to walk on the Sabbath, etc) which were alarmingly closely aligned to many of the ideas of today.

    I think you overstate, or simply misstate. Please outline which of "the more conservative ideals of the time...were alarmingly closely aligned with many of the [conservative] ideas of today."

    4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

    I think people would be surprised at HOW liberal his ideas really are.  Even today, his ideas are extremely liberal in relation to what we think in general.

    This is not even slightly true unless you intend the word "liberal" in almost the opposite sense to which it is normally used in America today.

  9. 1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

    That’s accurate, and it’s also accurate to say it’s very naive if someone thinks they can be spread truth by being abrasive, obnoxious or insulting. If I walk up to you and say “Hey, only an idiot doesn’t believe in the Book of Mormon.” You virtually guarantee that the person will never open a Book of Mormon in their lives.

    You are openly misrepresenting what I said.

  10. 3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

    Its an odd situation where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is funding the missionary efforts of the Community of Christ.The next time I renew my temple recommend I'm going to be asked whether I support or promote any teachings, practices or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter_Day Saints. If I'd provided just $1,000 to support the missionary efforts of a church whose missionaries taught that this was a false church I think I might have to answer yes to that question. I'm not going to say that the church should not have done this because its not my place to say such things. I'm just saying its an odd situation.

    I think this is rather more similar to buying a gallon of milk from a store that also sells cigarettes and booze. Engaging in a financial transaction could certainly be considered "supporting" someone or something, but that's a problematic stance to take for an organization that does not want to be isolationist.

  11. 1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

    But I think it is a gross misrepresentation to say that they do not believe in modern revelation. [...] ...it seems pretty clear from my vantage point as an external observer that they clearly believe God guides and directs them through revelation.

    Perhaps I would have better said that they don't believe in modern revelation in the sense preached throughout the Restoration—that is, that God reveals Himself to His prophets. They certainly believe in revelation such as inspiration and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which puts them in the same class as most of the rest of modern Christianity.

    You may still disagree with this, and maybe you're right, but right or wrong, that would be a better reflection of what I intended to communicate.

  12. 1 hour ago, pam said:

    I think that's why the Church is being very selective in what they say and how they say it. They realize that this is a sad time for those of the CoC. 

    I am sure this is true for some. I doubt it is the common sentiment among CoC members, who seem to have long since abandoned any real belief in the Book of Mormon, restoration, modern revelation, and so forth.

  13. 25 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

    There are many different ways it COULD work with a chamber or cave being within the Hill Cumorah, but if this is where the records are or how they are concealed for now is obviously not revealed to the general membership of the church. 

    The hill near the finger lakes region in eastern (upstate) New York that we call "Cumorah", where Joseph Smith first unearthed the plates of Mormon, is a drumlin—an enlongated, roundish hill composed of debris piled up by and left over from the actions of glaciers that retreated at the end of the last ice age, 13,000 or so years ago. Its structure is not like e.g. the mountains in Utah. You will not likely find limestone caverns in a drumlin. While I suppose it's possible there is some sort of large cave in the modern hill Cumorah, I doubt it, and don't see any convincing reason to suppose there is.

  14. 12 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

    There's also the fact that Laban betrayed the brothers, offering to sell them the record then ordering them slain after getting their possessions. 

    Even if we assume he was just that furious over them coming in the first time around and asking without any thought of compensation, what he did was inexcusable even by the standards of the day and could well have been the final sign that he was not worthy of the responsibility. 

    Laban was just a misunderstood guy with a temper problem. He lost his head. It happens.