@philcore
So you think a skill is only worth anything if you've worked for it?

I could extrapolate and say even achievements you work for aren't impressive as you can't 'take credit' for a having a good attitude to hard work, or 'take credit' for being passionate about something, or 'take credit' for having the combination of skills and willingness to work to accomplish something.

@dave - no, that's not what I said. I said that an inherent trait is not a skill.

I'm saying it's more impressive ("worth" has nothing to do with my argument) to achieve something difficult than to be born with a certain trait.

And now that I re-read your question, I gotta think ... arguing is not a "skill" you possess, is it? Taking what I said and misconstruing it into some extreme version ("ONLY worth ANYTHING") when we were talking about relative merits was clue number one. then your attempt at the combination strawman paired up with the slippery slope in order to characterize what you thought my argument was, is downright obamish. Bad extrapolation.

There was a bad-logic thread going on a couple days ago. That post would have been more appropriate there

My point, philcore, was that not everyone is allowed to even apply for Phi Betta Kappa.

@Philcore - "You accomplish something when you work hard for it"

I've never truly worked hard at anything in my life. Most things have always come easy. Some things occassionally required a little extra effort (practice on piano, guitar, trombone, and french horn for instance) but even that wasn't "working hard" as the little extra effort I put in I also enjoyed.

First, I don't believe in hard work. "Work smart, not hard" is my motto. So I guess I've never accomplished anything in my life and all the lives my software at RoadID has helped to save haven't held value because I didn't accomplish anything there.

Intellect is a skill that, if not exercised and used, can diminish over time. this has been proven in studies involving Alzheimer's patients. Working the mind keeps it sharp, so to say your IQ is purely a genetic/inherited/basic attribute but a natural skill with a basketball or the ability to jump really high, or a natural speed as a runner is somehow earned is disingenuous.

"you haven't accomplished anything by being born with some inherent attribute. You accomplish something when you work hard for it "

Hm, philcore, I gotta admit, you have a very valid point here. The basketball and height analogy is particularly effective. Would you say that the more effort was put in, the more of an accomplishment a feat was? Or simply that a feat must require effort to be considered an accomplishment?

I just won my first ever game of Civilization Five with a domination victory! Go me!

@Philcore
"And Since Mensa's only entrance criteria is IQ score, you esentially belong to a society that exludes or includes based on something you can't even take credit for."

I did not read through your whole discussion but mainly picked up on this thing you said, quoted above. I may then have misunderstood what you were trying to say? To me, though, that seemed to imply that you thought skills achieved through natural ability weren't as valuable as ones achieved through hard work. I tried to point out that even the skill to work/attain goals, is also an inherent one.
Would you say Bolt's world record breaking time would have been less impressive if he hadn't worked for it?
Is his fast running not a skill because its an "inherent trait"?

I also think your differentiation between having a skill and accomplishing something isn't solid, because ultimately an accomplishment is an applied skill. Application of skills is also a skill though.

I'm sorry my post annoyed you so much, but I simply disagree with yout point of view. Sorry.

Also, "obamish"?
And I debate for my school and reached the grand final (top 4 out of thousands) of the International Competition for Young Debaters (ICYD).

@Draug - oh come on, my entire agument has been destroyed because we differ on the meaning of the expression "hard work"? Seriously?

I hereby accuse Draugner and Dave_Bishop of being multis!!!

Evidence? Their arguing styles and their insistence that "value" or "worth" have anything to do with this argument!

But seriously, you both take this slippery-slope approach "I guess NOTHING I've ever done in life matters then, huh?"

I think I made my point very well and to have to differ with it by going to the ridiculous extreme of saying that "None of the lives I've saved with my software matters, then?"

Seriously? fucking seriously??? Mensa should kick you out for that.

And Value/worth Vs Accomplishment/Achievement/Feat ... I don't care about value! I don't care about worth. We're not talking about that. Achievement Vs Inherent trait is all.I've been talking about.

There are many achievements/feats/accomplishments that have absolutely no value at all! Walking a tight rope between two really tall buildings with no safety rope ... Acheivement? Hell Yeah! lots of practice? Hell yeah! Valuable? Worth anything? ummmm ... no not to me anyway.

Begging for money on a freeway offramp - Valuable? Apparently, they keep doing it. Worth anything? yeah, worth the money for their next fix (or meal if you believe the sign). Acheivement/Accomplishment/Feat? Clearly not.

So enough with equating things in order to build a strawman argument.

Intellect is not a skill. Being able to play guitar is a skill. You can't POSSIBLY think that since I said the phrase "hard work" and you don't think learning the guitar was "hard" that my point is invalid do you? If so I hearby retract the word "hard" from my earlier post.

If there was a way to measure someone's inherent potential ability to learn music, lets call it a Music Quotient, you'd have probably scored high on that too. For that matter maybe IQ is a good measure of that. Would you consider someone an accomplished musician because they took a test when they were 10 that said their musical potential was more like a 17 year old and therefore their MQ is 170 - top 2% of the population?

You, as a musician of many instruments, would probably say ... big deal, you can't play anything yet. You have to work at that ... and for the sake of argument lets just pretend that I equate work and practice and repetition. It really doesn't matter which words I use, the concept is valid, isn't it? taking a word in order to make a counter-argument rather than the spirit of the argument you're trying to counter, doesn't make for good arguing.

@Crisp - If you're still reading, congrats! I guess in my opinion, the level of effort you have to put into something in order to be good at it, depends largely on your natural ability. So I think that someone with less natural ability can be compensate for that by working "harder" (practicing more, working smarter, whatever). There are lots of examples.

Take the basketball analogy. I'm pretty sure Mugsy Bogues (5'3") had to work WAAAAY harder than Shaq (7'1") to get into the NBA, because height is such a huge natural advantage in that sport. But they both still accomplished it.

So you latch onto one thing and ignore the argument that intellect is a use it or lose it deal and therefore a skill. Do you deny the scientific evidence that Alzheimer's patients who regularly exercise their mind with mental puzzles retain their cognitive abilities longer?

@dave : "I did not read through your whole discussion but mainly picked up on this thing you said, quoted above. I may then have misunderstood what you were trying to say? "

That about sums it up. I hope you research your debate topics better than that.

I never differentiated skill from achievement - I think it's an acheivement to acquire a skill. I think the skill is the thing you have to work at or practice at. They are the 2 that I relate closely with each other

It's the notion that your IQ score is either an acheivement or a skill that I've been arguing against.

I don't know who Bolt is, but again with the extreme example - accusing me of thinking that a freaking world record holder for speed isn't impressive, because it shows the ridiculousness of my argument ... I'm clearly not getting through to you.

No clue who the guy is but I can guarentee you that he is at the pinnical of natural ability and EXTREME hard work in order to acheive a world speed record.

That's at a level that a lack of either of the 2 components can make up for.

Again in my basketball analogy - that's Michael Jordan. Extreme Natural ability +Extreme hard work (even if you think its fun Draug) = extreme acheivement.

and "Obamish" refers to Obama's annoying tendency to use straw men arguments to try to state why people who disagree with him are stupid. Anytime he starts with "There are those out there who think ..." He's about to let one fly.

Again you avoid my argument that intellect is a skill that must be regularly used or you lose it.

Still dodging my point by not addressing it at all I see.

Draug, you're severely conflating intellectual quotient, which is an estimation of your mental potential, with cognitive ability, which relies on mental "shortcuts" and logic pathways which must be built and developed over time. The latter is lost due to Alzheimers (or Parkinsons, or dementia), whereas the former is a genetic constant.

The American Psychological Ass'n has ruled out most, if not all, environmental factors (including practice, nutrition, memorization, etc.) from contributing to IQ.

The "beauty" of the IQ test is that it relies only in small part on the latter, but can fully measure the former. In other words, a baby with undeveloped logical pathways can't take an IQ test; on the other hand, an 8 year old can easily best a 45 year old in a standard IQ test.

Draug -- also, I'm not saying PBK is the end-all and be-all. I, like you, don't believe that one has to have a college degree to be worth anything.

If you didn't go to college, and get elevated to the McDonald's Managers High Council, or win Best Steer at your Senior FFA competition, or design a killer program with no higher education that nets you beaucoup bills, then that's something.

A society you join based on a test that a 3rd grader can take (and often 3rd graders do take, to place into Academically Gifted programs), is not an "achievement", so much as it is a representation of your God-given gifts.

Isn't it an accomplishment if God likes you better?

If you have a lot of skill, it doesn't mean God likes you better, it just means God gave you a tougher job.

Sorry, I should have said, "a lot of talent."

philcore, would you say that Mugsy and Shaq are at about equal "accomplishment"? Or would you say that Mugsy is more accomplished because he had to work so much harder? Or maybe its apples and oranges?

What do you say to the idea that you can improve your IQ through practice? I've heard that people who do tons of logic puzzles every day can improve thieir IQ. Of course, this might not really be increasing their intelligence potential so much as it is gaming the IQ test by practicing the sorts of problems that might appear. In that sense, though IQ sets out to measure an inherent ability more than a skill, there is still an element of test taking skill in an IQ test.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like there's an implicit assumption here that IQ is determined, at least mostly, by genetics or perhaps random environmental factors such as being dropped on the head or having a particular bad parasite as a toddler. If it was found that IQ wass affected by good nutrition, regular exercise, or other more controllable environmental factors such that a calculated effort could be made, would you revise your stance?

You can say what you like about Dawkins but when God was handing out brains he was at the front of the queue.

(With acknowledgments to Dave Gorman)

Ugh I hate when you make a properly-argued and referenced post but then the server crashes when you post it. In short: whatever the American Psychological Association say (do they not read the literature?) IQ has been linked to, yes, nutrition, as well as myriad other factors including exposure to pollutants, upbringing, and even musical training

The APA's views on IQ are pretty archaic. They formed them long ago and just haven't bothered to officially revise them.

@Draug - first, don't accuse me of "dodging" you argument. Reread all of my posts again, clearly I'm trying to address everything that not only you, but dave_bishop are saying, with little or no comments or addressing of the points I've made by either of you. It's ok to conceed a point from time time if you think the other person has made one, you know. This isn't a battle that you must win at all costs (like your reputation as a logically sound debater, for instance). You sound like someone defending Creationism. Instead of considering the points I've made and trying to decide if the reason we differ has at least been identified, you bring up alzheiners ... ??? huh? As if the fact that a brain destroying disease somehow negates my argument ? Damn, this is tedious arguing with you.

Having said that, I do agree with you that there is some aspect of intellegence that you can lose if not exercised. Instead of working out some explanation of where the imaginary line between the inherent part and the developed part is, I'll just refer to FOBs post, because he said it WAY more clearly and succinctly than I would be able to.

@ Chrisp: In my opinion an accomplishment should be looked at without regard to what it took to achieve it. Now sometimes what it took to achieve it is actually a crucial part of the achievement, so it's obviously not a clear cut thing. But a couple examples to clarify.

Winning the Tour de France 7 consecutive times -- Hell of an achievment!! I don't care who you are or what you overcame, including testicular cancer. Doen't make it more impressive, the acheivement stands on it own.

Riding a bike for 5 miles in 5 hours - not a big achievement in anyones book, in fact if you're in any kind of shape, you could do that with pit stops inluded at every bar/McDonalds/Coffee House ou passed on the way. Cause that freaking SLOOOOOOW! But ... If I told you the person that did it used to weigh 1000 pounds and be bedridden for the last 20 years of his life and over the last 4 years, had gradually worked his way down in weight and up in activity to the point of finally being able to ride 5 miles on a bike, and by the way it took 5 hours. Well now you see that the accomplishment ISN'T the 5 miles in 5 hours. It's actually the transformation from a bed-ridden, dieing mess of a person, to someone who can actually function.

Does that make sense? Obviously I don't have all the details worked out, but you were only asking my opinion ... I'm sure dave or draug will pick a word or phrase out and somehow wander down an illogical path ending in an accusation of me of not caring about all the people dying of AIDS in Africa or something.

As to the IQ Testing and my stance - I was presenting my arguments all along as though what is normally said about IQ is a given. I personally don't agree that it is, but the IQ people say it is, and Mensa says it is, and those were my starting assumptions - true or not - that led to my original statement about it. I agree with you that it's a test, and test taking is a skill (something you learn) and if you're good at it, then reprtion of the same test will eventually lead to improved scores. I even checked out the Mensa website since this discussion started and the funny thing is, they actually have a practice test ... Huh? So clearly they don't even fully buy into the total inherentness of IQ anymore.

And finally, if it was found that you could - through effort of some kind, proving it's not inherent, after all - improve your IQ, then absolutely my stance would be different. Because then, through some effort, if you have improved your actual intellegence, and it was measurable, then I would call that an accomplishment.

oh wow thread derailment who'da thunk

"not caring about all the people dying of AIDS in Africa"

What?! You don't care about the people dying of AIDS in Africa?! You cad!

Just kidding. My biggest point I guess sort of agrees with you, but in an indirect way. What I do with my intellect defines my acheivements, so I guess by that standard that is the "work" part. Having a 152+ IQ and being able to get a perfect score on the typical IQ test (normally max from 140 to 150) isn't, in and of itself, an achievement. I can agree with that. So, in a way, we are in agreement. I just don't believe it's fair to compare and "academics only" Society (i.e. you have to be attending a university) to a Society anyone can apply to. Maybe there is a Society that requires some level of accomplishments to show you have applied the intellect.

Anyone know of any?

And now ... finally for my gloat!!! Back to the subject of the thread ... ready?

I got Draugnar to agree with me ... sort of ... with his biggest point, at least ... in an indirect way ... but still that's my gloat ;-)

And I assure you, it was definitely hard work!!

whew, now that that's done, I would say that since you're obviously a musician and a programmer, there must be pleanty of societies (clubs, user groups, whatever) for those two interests. And that, by the way, goes back to my very first point about Mensa, that it wasn't based on any common interests, only a common attribute.

Personally (and I'm also a programmer and musician, by the way), I've never thought of joining a society of any kind other than the physics club in college (SPS) But it was more social than academic and the only entrance criteria was the $18 yearly membership dues. But after college, I just never really even thought about joining anything like a society or club. I guess I'm just not the "member" type. But if I was, then I would join a club based on one of my many interests (programming by the way, has ceased to interest me, but it does still pay the bills).

I was a member of Mu Alpha Theta in high school and joined MENSA back then, but I haven't been an active dues paying member since I got married (dues were steep and I had a new bride to take care of). I've thought about rejoining if they have a local enough branch to actually *do* something. Some of the local branches get together and have discussions and brainstorming sessions.

Joining MENSA for me was less about meeting other persons with a high IQ as it was just meeting people. From joining i have met a huge range of people with diverse interests and have found myself experiencing many hobbies and interests that previously i wouldn't have done. Its a little like this site. The reason i have stayed so long, is not only the common enjoyment of this game but of the forum and its depth.

I have a high IQ, i took a test and passed and took the opportunity to do something with it. Its a common attribute and from that i have joined a group with a multitude of different interests. I became a 'qualified' bee keeper for instance. Not something i had though much about, but i find it very interesting.

As for the comment about the practice test....well, whats the best way to make some money other than paying subs? Get people to pay for a home test, then pay to take the full test with more payments on top of that to join etc.

@Draug...and thanks, seems like we have a common attribute to enjoy!

And if this thread had not been about gloating, i wouldn't have said anything, its just seemed like the right place.