"Never underestimate the stupidity of a chess player who claims he is smarter than you." Anonymous
@MeepMonster Thank you very much for your answer!
First of all, I have to say: my bad. I included redundant sources in order to show that this wasn't an isolated study that no one had heard about; since there can be much divergence with respect to reliability, may one person trusted one site while another person trusted another site. I apologize for not having specified beyond "here are some links referring to the meta-analysis study conducted on this very topic, as well as some additional discussion on it".
Now, about the first source you commented on: you are correct, but I cited it because I trust Melão; from what I've read from him, everything he touches on he absolutely wrecks it. I trust his intellectual judgement and, as a consequence, his sources. Maybe I shouldn't, but he's only given me reason to do so, and not otherwise.
Regarding the EloIQ source, this is actually a bit complicated. As you saw, the guy used a idea from the ELO system concerning probability of an outcome to calculate the difficulty of questions from the Mega Test (Hoeflin) and Test for Genius (Cooijmans) - which is exactly what I think is done in order to calculate the difficulty Rating of puzzles here, on Lichess - and thus to estimate the I.Q. of top-scores on Mega. However, he arbitrarily assigned a mean of 2500 to the top-100 scores when he had no reason to.
Here's the catch: Melão, putting together the work of Grady Towers, John Scoville and Bill McGaugh (this guy) created a norming method he put into used on his Sigma Test, one much, much better than previous ones used on Mega and all other hard tests. The great functionality of his proved that McGaugh had something up his sleeve.
Yes, that is one of my main ideas!
In fact, a lot of this had already been hypothesized and experimented with... I've read some stuff, always out of curiosity, and sometimes can't find where it was.
One of these was conducted by Albert Frank, a member of Sigma Society (a high I.Q. society created by Melão). As you might deduce, since I trust Melão and Melão trusts Albert...
(http://reason-and-rhyme.blogspot.com.br/2007/10/chess-and-aptitudes.html)
(http://www.scholasticchess.mb.ca/docs/ciers.pdf)
I didn't even know he had a blog, jesus.
And this is not to mention interviews of sorts, with Melão, Jensen etc. In the case of Jensen, reading him (The g Factor) will make you trust his research. On the other hand, for instance, I have a bit more trouble trusting Flynn's results; although the Flynn Effect is incontestable, his reasoning seems a bit strange sometimes.
I do think we could cite all reliable sources and the talk about proper methodology used etc. This is what, of course, should be done in order to seriously evaluate a hypotheses.
What baffles my mind, though, is to think that most people think there's NO correlation between the ability to "do something that requires immense amount of learning and logical coherency " and intelligence. For what is worth, this is exactly how intelligence is often (loosely) defined!
I think a purely verbal-argumentative point could be made (and it was, by... me) in favor of a positive (maybe substantial) correlation between the two; however, I do not think there's a good argument for the opposite point of view.
In fact, given that the meta-analysis study was done properly (my guess would be "yes"), enough evidence has been provided in order for one to agree with the hypotheses more than to disagree with it, since barely, if any, proper counterarguments were made.
Any correlation beyond +0.3 would suffice, and I'd bet is no lower than that.
Finally, I'd like to thank you, again, for both your patience and elegance. It has been a pleasure exchanging messages/posts/responses with you.
Have a nice day!
"And the **** keeps getting deeper." Anonymous
"Intelligence" is loosely defined by those who so choose to define it as meeting a specific set of correlations. What is "logical" to some is not relevant to others. People insist upon placing themselves "superior" to others. Claims of being "smarter" is most common.
It is very easy to quote studies. Studies are a matter of routine. Want to prove something? Conduct a study. Be sure everyone is of a like mind and the results are a forgone conclusion. Bought and signed for.
All this nonsense that chess teaches us "logical thinking", "memorization skills", "better grades in school" has been shown to be a fallacy.
Chess is a wonderful board game. Can be argued as a hobby it is the best. It tests ones skills. It is competition between gentleman. It is lastly a measure of intelligence, but rather a measure of character.
@mdinnerspace ^^^^^^
(P.s. he may want your sources) :p
@Acoffe writes: "
What baffles my mind, though, is to think that most people think there's NO correlation between the ability to "do something that requires immense amount of learning and logical coherency " and intelligence. For what is worth, this is exactly how intelligence is often (loosely) defined!"
Explained: Your mind is baffled because it is viewing the world through a looking glass, seeing the world from a single perspective. Better to reevaluate your view of "intelligence".
Your assertion, a chess rating is a measure, is of course a "study" for the psychoanalyst, not me!
Sources are easily googled. 1000's are available for both sides. As I mentioned, studies are bought. Results are foregone. It is more a matter of what is believed to be true. There are very few truly independent studies made. Studies need funding, the parties donating the funds expect certain results. If the result contradicts their premise, it never sees the light of day.
@mdinnerspace In my conception, Intelligence is the pursuance of self-actualization through synergistic heuristics , going against the Universal tendency of positive Entropy. More simply, it can be regarded as the pursuit of order, instead of disorder.
However, this broad definition does nothing for human intelligence. For us, realizing that there is one single most powerful underlying factor explaining the variance in virtually every mental activity ever measured, may, just may, be the way to go.
Of course, if one fails to understand the scientific method, then one's definition must be concocted on the basis of purely verbal-argumentative structure, one that coherently fits our overall perception of human interactivity.
If one then decides intelligence is to vague of a term, then, sure, my initial post focused on I.Q., not on intelligence. I.Q. can be much more easily defined.
However, if one simply does not understand psychometrics, then we're running out of things that one understands.
That was pretty embarrassing; you did it on purpose, didn't you? The "has shown to be a fallacy" line. That was great!
But okay, bias occurs.
If you insist on not acknowledging scientific studies on this matter, the discussion can be - as it was originally intended; that's why there were no sources initially - merely "philosophical"; I'll warn you, though, it's not looking good so far.
No one claimed to be smarter here. It seems, ironically, that you were the first one to make a statement resembling such a comparison.
This rises the question: what are you so afraid of?
This is one post from an Internet forum, and yet you just cannot stop yourself from commenting, most of the time not bringing anything to the table.
I, as a gentleman, did not feed the troll until the troll specifically begged for my attention.
Accordingly, this will be your first and last meal; do not behave, and starvation will ensue.
Grow up and learn to be well-mannered.
I'm sensing an "ad hominem" attack here.
@MeepMonster I'm guilty.
Of course, after my efforts to promote interesting discussion and the troll stabs - also ad hominem; little/none was actually in the form of civilized conversation - at me directed, explaining myself was not enough.
At best, it could be called "ad hominem defense".
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.