Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Alexop]

@r0ckyreed the better you survive the harder to pass the real "IQ test"

Camel... eye of the needle... Heaven

 

 

[Leo Gura]

The point of the test is to show how unformalizable intelligence is.

[Xonas Pitfall]

This test seems flawed... If one person is stronger or faster and another is weaker or slower, yet both conceptually understand that the animal is dangerous and that escape is required, then success on the performance test mostly reflects pre-existing physical traits. It also reflects what someone happened to focus on in life, such as athletics rather than academic or analytical skills.

I would agree with the test if it focused on interaction with an unfamiliar object, animal, or alien. In that case, it could measure openness, comprehension, adaptability, and the ability to process abnormal or unexpected features. How much can you accept something that is foreign to you? How well can you work with paradoxical traits? How do you make sense of something when you have very little prior reference for what it is?
However, the moment you add the possibility of physical attack, the test becomes about survival.

I can be the most intelligent and conscious person in the world, but if an animal outruns me and eats my guts alive because I do not have the genetic composition of a panther or a cheetah, and that somehow counts as a study of my “intelligence”, then I would not call that a good measure at all.

It reminds me of an argument from Charisma on Command interview with Leo. “Fine Leo... all this psychedelics and consciousness talk is irrelevant if someone can just shoot you with a gun.” Leo responded that if someone shot Einstein in the head during a lecture, it would not invalidate Einstein’s theories. So if the theory is not disproven at the moment survival ends, then survival itself should not be used as the measure in the first place (or, at the very least, carefully removed or accounted for on the test.)

Quote

The point of the test is to show how unformalizable intelligence is.

You could say something is “unformalizable,” yet you would still try to use logic to comprehend God, or at least the “logic of God,” the pure logic itself. There are more and less accurate systems of utilization and judgement for a characteristic. By that same argument, I could also say:

“I invented my own IQ test. The true test is how much blind faith you can place in an imaginary figure. It measures your ability to be open, receptive, and unjudging or unbiased before reality. And to be clear, I am not saying IQ is linked to faith. I am pointing out how unformalizable intelligence really is.”

Edited 3 hours ago by Xonas Pitfall

[CARDOZZO]

"The only true test of intelligence is if you get what you want out of life." Naval

"If You're So Smart, Why Aren't You Happy?" Naval

"If You're So Smart, Why Aren't You Awakened?" Cardozzo 

[Alexop]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The point of the test is to show how unformalizable intelligence is.

"But Leo we need a clear definition/formula for everything, otherwise it means we don't get it. Not that it is impossible to do it" 😆 

[Vali2003]

@Leo Gura Will you be working with a professional editor for your book? I have a feeling it really makes the end-product a lot better. However, may be hard  to find someone that gets your content deeply enough and has editorial skills. 

Also, must be annoying to always have people tell you what they think you should do.