How intelligent are Billy and his bandmates?

[ninsp]

Billy was always told he was the smartest dude in the room and it shows

[topleybird]

Originally Posted by Candy Cane

Someone vote for Mike

I never pass up an opportunity to skew data

[Cool As Ice Cream]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

let's all be honest

hi, fuzzy!

[T&T]

can someone copy-paste the story of billy in the airplane validating classical composers as geniuses. I forget if it was Chopin or something.

Either way, hes' a fool who knows enough to fool idiots. he's no genius though.

[smashingjj]

Originally Posted by Cool As Ice Cream

hi, fuzzy!

I mean, let's face it:

[Mals Marola]

rock & roll just ain't what it used to be, there ain't been a great guitar band since Weezus!

[johncg]

Originally Posted by reprise85

Yeah but IQ is an imperfect measure. Someone could have some amazing IQ and still be a dumbass politically or socially. Billy probably has a higher-than-average IQ, but his social influences have changed since he was a kid and decades of ass-kissing would change anyone's personality. He also seems to be vulnerable to manipulation such as those deployed by cults and other propaganda proliferation.

IQ /= intelligence

Yes it does

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by Shallowed

I thought the average was 100

Yes, it's made so that there's a bell curve with 100 being the exact middle (in theory).

However, not that you asked, but there is a problem called the Flynn Effect. Essentially, IQ goes up over time in populations, so the tests are re-made and/or re-scored in order to "fix" it so the average is again 100.

This brings up the related question:
Are people actually getting smarter, or are we just getting better at things IQ tests test for? People definitely know more things now than they used to, or, at least there's a qualitative difference in what we know... but is that really mean we're smarter?

And that's just one example of how IQ measures something that correlates with intelligence but isn't exactly the same thing. The Flynn Effect happens over decades, so it's unlikely that we are becoming more intelligent as a species this quickly. According to Wikipedia, scores have gone up approximately 2.93 points per decade on both the Stanford–Binet and Wechsler tests. So someone with an IQ of 100 in 1950 would have a score of 115+ today. That's definitely significant.

There are reasons to think that better nutrition has had an epigentic effect on how our brains function, however it would have to be an extraordinary effect for it to still be ongoing for more than 80 years. It's unlikely that it is just genetics, even if they play a part.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by johncg

Yes it does

No it doesn't. IQ tests are a complex mix of different tests that are intended to measure certain traits, but intelligence consists of things that are not measurable in that way. For example, creativity. Even the test makers agree it doesn't actually test intelligence but something that correlates with it. There are also problems with how it scores different subsets of the population, especially poor people and minorities. For example, https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/newsletters/winter052/# (quick google search)

but now i've gotten off topic. corgan is a high average IQ dumbass

[Shallowed]

Whoever decided to call it Intelligence Quotient really fucked up.

[ilikeplanets]

Since intelligence implies the ability to acquire knowledge/mental processing power, I am gonna say Billy because he is always learning something new. I wouldn't call him the wisest, though.

[Shallowed]

Hey reprise, as far as you know, is the distinction made between intelligence and wisdom in DnD settings actually the same in the real world?

[panda show]

Originally Posted by reprise85

Are people actually getting smarter, or are we just getting better at things IQ tests test for? People definitely know more things now than they used to, or, at least there's a qualitative difference in what we know... but is that really mean we're smarter?

well what does "smarter" mean, if not to know/understand more things?

[T&T]

has netphoria decided if billy is smart?

If not, we should ask sad machines. are they smarter than us?

[trev]

Originally Posted by panda show

well what does "smarter" mean, if not to know/understand more things?

smart / intelligent more refers to how quickly you can pick something up. basically how well your brain functions and works.

they can get conflated often because people who are smarter-than-average typically know more or understand more-than-average, but this is because it is easier for smart people to do that.

[stumpycat]

I think that wHATcOLOR and Disco King are pretty much spot on in their assessment of BC. I haven’t got any doubt that he is at least above average in intelligence (and although his major success can be attributed to a great deal of “right place right time” type of luck, there was no doubt cunningness and savvy on his part in terms of positioning his band in a place of commercial viability) and, at the least, pretty “street smart”. He doesn’t seem to do recklessly impulsive things…he seems to know how to plan for the long term in terms of money, investments, etc…he seems quite capable of delaying gratification...he had the mental fortitude and “grit” to strategically work his way up from having few material means or resources to leading one of the biggest bands in the word (of the time). That speaks indirectly to possessing many of the traits associated with having a substantial general fund of intelligence.

HOWEVER--to take BC at his own word—I think he IS fundamentally a bit on the lazy side. His behavior evidences this. He does only as much as he needs to in order to get what he wants, and once he’s achieved that, it seems that there may be no further initiative for cultivation on his part. The key word here is CULTIVATION. Take as evidence (for one example of many that I could make) that he’s openly admitted to not really practicing or attempting to enhance his guitar skill much since the Gish days. (Contrast that to JC’s “continuous learning” approach towards drumming, in which he has evolved and progressed.) For that same lack of cultivation, I believe that BC’s intellectual acumen has probably stagnated sharply since his mid-twenties, when he still seemed to be holding onto all the typical habits (e.g. diligently keeping up with current affairs, reading fiction and nonfiction from a wide range of genres and perspectives, learning new skills, taking a keen interest in science, technology, history, the arts, etc.) of people whose identities are very much wrapped up in their own self-conception as an “arsty intellectual”. But as he could substitute that identity for the one of “rock star” (an identity which seems to have had a great deal more cultural capital attached to it for him, personally…just listen to how he still speaks of his own favorite rock stars in nothing short of idolizing fashion) he could afford to drop the former façade. (Apparently BC was planning to pursue a degree in history, for what it’s worth.)

SO, it’s not that he doesn’t have the intellectual capability – it’s just that nowadays he can’t be arsed to cultivate it through substantial investment of time and resources. However, it seems that many people of significant intelligence are very strongly driven towards continuous learning as something of an existential need, as a matter of achieving full self-actualization…so in that sense BC would be a little out of the norm for most intelligent folks, I think.

Inwardly, however, I think that Billy is on some level aware of this lack of intellectual cultivation on his part, and actually feels very self-conscious and insecure about it. Thus, he fulfills this source of insecurity (and perhaps also this aforementioned drive to at least feel as though one is acquiring interesting and novel information) with what I like to call “lazy intellectualism” or really, just pseudo-intellectualism. Enter Chemtrails, Climate Hoax, Comet Ping Pong Child Sex Ring, Vaccination Illness, and all the other Conspiracies. (Because, if you’re into one…I can bet that—more likely than not—you’re into the whole slew of them.) Conspiracies really bring on all the excitement and exclusivity of having novel “insider knowledge” without having to bother with putting in all those years of actual study to gain mastery of a subject! So you can FEEL smart immediately….which BC loves. In fact, I’d argue Conspiracies are the intellectual equivalent of a drug like crack or meth.

On a related note…Intelligent people tend to have a high drive for novelty, especially sensation seeking in the dimensions of Experience Seeking and Boredom Susceptibility. I’m betting BC has those traits in spades. He certainly found pleasure in copious quantities of psychedelics and surrounding himself with a motley assortment of oddball acquaintances in the early days of the band (and, it seems, the latter would STILL hold true.) He’s still quite the unconventional oddball himself. He can never seem to finish any of his grandiosely conceived projects as the allure of another has inevitably come along and distracted him like a shiny new thing that just dropped into his life. He’s sort of an unstable character overall. Not at all uncommon especially amongst artistically inclined people with a relatively high degree of intellectual aptitude.

[Mals Marola]

phew boy if anybody actually reads that post i'll give them 100$ CAD*



* i will not do this

[ilikeplanets]

I read it and agree

[stumpycat]

Originally Posted by reprise85

Yes, it's made so that there's a bell curve with 100 being the exact middle (in theory).

However, not that you asked, but there is a problem called the Flynn Effect. Essentially, IQ goes up over time in populations, so the tests are re-made and/or re-scored in order to "fix" it so the average is again 100.

This brings up the related question:
Are people actually getting smarter, or are we just getting better at things IQ tests test for? People definitely know more things now than they used to, or, at least there's a qualitative difference in what we know... but is that really mean we're smarter?

And that's just one example of how IQ measures something that correlates with intelligence but isn't exactly the same thing. The Flynn Effect happens over decades, so it's unlikely that we are becoming more intelligent as a species this quickly. According to Wikipedia, scores have gone up approximately 2.93 points per decade on both the Stanford–Binet and Wechsler tests. So someone with an IQ of 100 in 1950 would have a score of 115+ today. That's definitely significant.

There are reasons to think that better nutrition has had an epigentic effect on how our brains function, however it would have to be an extraordinary effect for it to still be ongoing for more than 80 years. It's unlikely that it is just genetics, even if they play a part.

I've heard it theorized that this particular phenomenon has to do with the fact that because IQ tests are an attempt to test for more innate, "unlearned," non-rote intelligence (i.e., "fluid", as opposed to "crystallized" intelligence), and that the complex systems, technologies, and fast pace of modern society tends to demand that one possesses an ever-greater fund of fluid intelligence to successfully adapt and survive within it, that society itself has actually helped cultivate fluid intelligence within individuals in such as way that it is reflected in the apparent increase in average IQ over time. (Which might prove that given substantial real world experience, this type of intelligence really can be cultivated--even if not explicitly "learned" in the traditional sense.) The western educational system itself was also historically highly reliant upon rote learning but that has dramatically lessened over the years. That might actually go towards also explaining why there can sometimes be such dramatic differences to be found in IQ scores across the world between geographical regions and their populations in the modern era. (Just apply the Flynn Effect in reverse....it seems to logically follow that a few generations ago, the modern score of 70--apparently the current average score in some regions of the world--would have been equivalent to about average range for that time, as is only now "substandard".)

[Candy Cane]

I read it. It was interesting.

"Conspiracies really bring on all the excitement and exclusivity of having novel “insider knowledge” without having to bother with putting in all those years of actual study to gain mastery of a subject! So you can FEEL smart immediately….which BC loves. In fact, I’d argue Conspiracies are the intellectual equivalent of a drug like crack or meth."

New thread topic: Does Stumpy Cat debunk the idea that all Texans are dumb-asses?

[Mals Marola]

congratulations, both of you. you'll both be not getting 100$ CAD from me

until next time!

[FoolofaTook]

stumpycat are you related to topleybird?

[stumpycat]

Originally Posted by Candy Cane

I read it. It was interesting.

"Conspiracies really bring on all the excitement and exclusivity of having novel “insider knowledge” without having to bother with putting in all those years of actual study to gain mastery of a subject! So you can FEEL smart immediately….which BC loves. In fact, I’d argue Conspiracies are the intellectual equivalent of a drug like crack or meth."

New thread topic: Does Stumpy Cat debunk the idea that all Texans are dumb-asses?

Trotsky wasn't a dumbass by any means....he just....self-imploded under weight of his own contradictions. Soniclovenoise (I think he's from Austin right?) seems part of the reasonably above-average bright folk here, too.

[FoolofaTook]

Yeah.

Dale Gribble, on the other hand...

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by Shallowed

Hey reprise, as far as you know, is the distinction made between intelligence and wisdom in DnD settings actually the same in the real world?

I mean I get where it's coming from but I've always seen intelligence as more like "cleverness" and wisdom as uh, wisdom I guess. Wisdom is also highly correlated with age, I'd think, whereas intelligence is not so much. IQ tests take age into account as modifiers when deciding IQ scores, e.g., older people get a boost because they naturally become cognitively slower. There is abnormal cognitive decline as well, but some is normal.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by panda show

well what does "smarter" mean, if not to know/understand more things?

That's one take on it. I don't claim to know what it really means. I think, for myself, it's cognitive diversity - the ability to understand many different things using cognition that might not be related in any other way. For example, language, math, logic, emotions, spatial ability, and others. Not that they are totally different, but someone who is really good at math is probably good at other things also. If they're not, how smart are they really? They're savants, sure, but their IQ won't be as high as someone with cognitive diversity.

btw calling dibs on that phrase if it doesn't already exist

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by stumpycat

I've heard it theorized that this particular phenomenon has to do with the fact that because IQ tests are an attempt to test for more innate, "unlearned," non-rote intelligence (i.e., "fluid", as opposed to "crystallized" intelligence), and that the complex systems, technologies, and fast pace of modern society tends to demand that one possesses an ever-greater fund of fluid intelligence to successfully adapt and survive within it, that society itself has actually helped cultivate fluid intelligence within individuals in such as way that it is reflected in the apparent increase in average IQ over time. (Which might prove that given substantial real world experience, this type of intelligence really can be cultivated--even if not explicitly "learned" in the traditional sense.) The western educational system itself was also historically highly reliant upon rote learning but that has dramatically lessened over the years. That might actually go towards also explaining why there can sometimes be such dramatic differences to be found in IQ scores across the world between geographical regions and their populations in the modern era. (Just apply the Flynn Effect in reverse....it seems to logically follow that a few generations ago, the modern score of 70--apparently the current average score in some regions of the world--would have been equivalent to about average range for that time, as is only now "substandard".)

Yes, I'm just questioning that it means people are actually smarter or more that they're having cultural cultivation of potential that just wasn't valued as much before. That makes a lot more sense than that our fundamental intellectual capacities have increased over such a short period of time. And IQ tests would have you believe that they are testing potential, but if they are, then (if what I'm saying is correct) people's IQs should not be going up so drastically over relatively short periods of time. They aren't testing what they have aspired to test, in that case.

My main point is that IQ /= intelligence, I don't know what right or wrong about the entire paradigm

[stumpycat]

Originally Posted by reprise85

Yes, I'm just questioning that it means people are actually smarter or more that they're having cultural cultivation of potential that just wasn't valued as much before. That makes a lot more sense than that our fundamental intellectual capacities have increased over such a short period of time. And IQ tests would have you believe that they are testing potential, but if they are, then (if what I'm saying is correct) people's IQs should not be going up so drastically over relatively short periods of time. They aren't testing what they have aspired to test, in that case.

Yeah...at least that is what seems to follow from the aforementioned theory, anyway. If the average is having to be re-normed with every successive generation the idea that it is testing some kind of fundamentally innate, unchanging potential seems slightly suspect. I mean, it's possible that people with stellar fluid intelligence are out-competing others in mate selection AND making babies...but...probably not. (More likely, they're graduating college, maybe going to graduate school, enjoying careers better than the majority of humans, getting married...and only then having some or maybe no children at all....which might even be more likely to be autistic due to their old eggs and all. Then they'll join the Anti-Vaccer movement in an attempt to save the ignorant unwashed masses. You know, the DINKs and yuppies.)

On the other hand...just an observation which may or may not be an actual trend--I've noticed this thing amongst upper-middle-class and affluent families over the past 20 years or so, of building 3+ children families. Like having multiple children has become a status symbol of sorts, however subconscious or unintentional. It seems like working class folks increasingly may have 1 or 2 kids--having them pretty early on, and maybe not completely intentionally--but just stop there. It could simply be a practicality thing, as it does better calibrate with perception of the tremendous amount of resources needed to raise children up into adulthood as long term "investments".

Anyway...what do you bet BC will have a 3rd kid with Chloe?

[FoolofaTook]

100$ (CAD)

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by stumpycat

Anyway...what do you bet BC will have a 3rd kid with Chloe?

I'd put it at 20%. I feel like he'll be content with one boy and one girl. But who knows, I'm definitely pulling that out of my ass.