Trump

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Trump

I'm not going to waste thirty minutes taking some online quiz. I've had to take a real IQ test before. I already know where I stand.

You seem to be confused about what I mean when I say that the LSAT and GMAT are accredited by Mensa. If you score well enough on them, you can join Mensa. But truthfully, I wouldn't join Mensa if you paid me. It's honestly not very exclusive. You only need to score in the 95th percentile on the LSAT or GMAT to get in. Even in the so-called Triple Nine Society, you only need to score in the 99th percentile on the LSAT (not sure about the GMAT). Again, not all that exclusive.

I find it weird how you all seem to think chess ability correlates accurately with intelligence. Actually, it's not weird at all; I suspect you're better at chess than you are intelligent, so belief in this fallacy boosts your ego. Anyway, most of the very smart people I've met in my life suck at chess. I know a rocket scientist who barely knows more than the rules; his rating is less than 1000 on chess.com. You must be dying to do this bet with him, right? Surely, if you believe that our similar chess ratings indicate a bet between us would be a "coin flip," then you believe that your clear chess superiority indicates a bet between you two would be a massacre for you. Why don't you do this bet with him, even give him some odds, since you're a way stronger chess player?

Ok so you don't need to take the test if you already did it. So, where do you stand? What score do i need to beat? By the way both the online tests took me about ten-fifteen minutes each no where near the thirty minutes given. So humor me and take ten maybe fifteen minutes of your time and take the Mensa Workout. As for chess ratings I agree entirely that they are not at all indicative of intelligence, it was simply the only clue available to me about where we stand. I don't think any of these tests are either but you were the one that brought it up.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Trump

Ok so you don't need to take the test if you already did it. So, where do you stand? What score do i need to beat? By the way both the online tests took me about ten-fifteen minutes each no where near the thirty minutes given. So humor me and take ten maybe fifteen minutes of your time and take the Mensa Workout. As for chess ratings I agree entirely that they are not at all indicative of intelligence, it was simply the only clue available to me about where we stand. I don't think any of these tests are either but you were the one that brought it up.

Fine, I'll do the test after my finals are over.

Speaking generally, IQ tests are pretty good at measuring intelligence, as long as you're defining intelligence narrowly. One might see intelligence as something like--and this is nothing close to an academic definition, but my own intuition with the molding of some rudimentary reading--the ability to process, store, organize, manipulate and recall information. This is obviously a very analytical conception of intelligence. Anyway, IQ tests are adept at measuring one's ability to process and manipulate information, and to store, organize and recall information on a short-term basis. So based on this analytical conception of intelligence, IQ tests seem like a decent measuring tool.

When people talk about intelligence as some sort of ability to adapt to or thrive in one's surroundings, then IQ testing has no place. But it seems like a stretch to call that intelligence. So many more evolutionary traits go into whether or not one thrives, and one's ability to adapt is influenced by one's mental resolve as much as it is by one's intelligence, I would suggest.

I understand the desire to describe intelligence as something broader than one's analytical faculties. After all, a whole conception of intelligence, I would imagine, should account for the ability to reach accurate conclusions intuitively. People often refer to "emotional intelligence" (which, incidentally is a horrible term--see Edwin Locke's explanation if you're interested), a notion which typically includes the ability to, in non-technical terms, read people accurately. This is not an analytical process. It's not like people actively comb through catalogs of behaviors and appearances and perform deductions to discern one's emotional state. They just see someone, notice some trait or traits, and recognize the trait or these traits as implying a certain emotional state. And IQ tests do nothing to measure this sort of intelligence.

[Garland Best]

Re: Trump

I did both tests. Got 27/30 on the Mensa, 170 IQ on the other. On the Mensa one I missed out on three involving unscrambling letters to form words. I should have gotten parachute, but i never would have found banalities. English is my weakness, not the math. So my opinion on the basic math in IQ tests would probably be opposite of Ben's.

PS: I sit firmly on the agnostic fence. I attend church with my wife, want to believe in a god, don't like the examples in traditional religion (Old testament god definitely doesn't work for me). Can work with a creator that is very far removed from actually being involved with my personal affairs, but this is of no direct benefit to me.

PPS: For those who want to learn more about the philosophy of theism, and philosophy in general, I strongly recommend the following YouTube playlist: Crash Course Philosophy

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Trump

Fwiw, there's a saying "If you don't follow politics, politics will follow you". I think it works something like that with spiritual matters, though it may take longer to notice (though perhaps there's 'instant karma' at least sometimes).

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump

I did both tests. Got 27/30 on the Mensa, 170 IQ on the other. On the Mensa one I missed out on three involving unscrambling letters to form words. I should have gotten parachute, but i never would have found banalities. English is my weakness, not the math. So my opinion on the basic math in IQ tests would probably be opposite of Ben's.

PS: I sit firmly on the agnostic fence. I attend church with my wife, want to believe in a god, don't like the examples in traditional religion (Old testament god definitely doesn't work for me). Can work with a creator that is very far removed from actually being involved with my personal affairs, but this is of no direct benefit to me.

PPS: For those who want to learn more about the philosophy of theism, and philosophy in general, I strongly recommend the following YouTube playlist: Crash Course Philosophy

Garland, since you bring up both logic and spiritual beliefs, I'm wondering if you might share my main reason for (1) believing in a creator but (2) not believing in the evangelistic message of the New Testament of the Bible, which is completion of the process known as being "born again". That process is explained here for anyone who doesn't know it.

The reason I can't believe in (2) is simple logic. The message throughout the New Testament is that God loves each of us with a love that defies our imagining, even far surpassing the love of a mother for her own child. If that is true, how could that same God expect that each one of us, facing totally unique situations and wildly varying levels of hardship in our lives and being very different from each other emotionally, physically, intellectually, should nevertheless all within our lifetime on Earth arrive at the same point, i.e. being born again? And even more to the point, how could that God with all this unimaginable love for us all sentence any soul who dies without being born again to the evangelist Christian's vision of eternal torment, aka Hell? Could a normal loving parent do this to his or her own child? Could Vlad Drkulec do this to Kirsan? :D

The evangelist's response to this is usually something like "God works in mysterious ways". They simply won't address the total logical fallacy of this belief.

It is also logically impossible that someone who "made it" into heaven could be forever in a state of bliss, all the while knowing that someone they loved intensely on Earth (perhaps their child, or sibling, or parent, or spouse) didn't make it and is in that state of eternal Hell.

Therefore it only stands to reason that if there is a heaven and a loving God, and if one soul makes it to heaven, ALL souls must (eventually) make it to heaven.

And there is evidence for this in the confessions of people who have had near-death experiences. Yes, those experiences can be simulated via chemicals like ketamine... BUT many who have had NDEs bring back some information that they could not have known because they were brain dead at the time, with no response to any stimuli. They can relate the statements and actions of the people trying to save them, even of loved ones that were in another area or even another building altogether during the time of brain death. That makes an NDE very different from a ketamine experience.

The overwhelming message that they bring back is that there is no judgment except your own judgment for your actions during your life. There is a life review process during which you get to experience everyone else's experience in response to things you did.

Anyone interested in knowing more about this can go to iands.org which an organization devoted to the study of near death experiences.

[Mavros Whissell]

Re: Trump

Hi Vlad,

I would guess that Ben is anti-Christian too, from his simple comment on biblical literalism. He claims to be an aetheist. It would be interesting to hear his thoughts on Islam, or even Sharia Law??? If he could manage to write a sentence without spewing so much bile, that is. Very hard to read through his hatred.

Mavros

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Trump

I would guess that Ben is anti-Christian too, from his simple comment on biblical literalism.

My comment was that being a biblical literalist in 2017 is hilarious. What is anti-Christian about that? Biblical literalists believe in things which science has disproved. I find anyone who believes in things which science has disproved to be hilarious, regardless of their religion. The only reason I brought up biblical literalism and not literalism of some other religious text is because Pacey is a Christian. If a scientifically challenged Muslim had insulted me (as--it behooves us to note--Pacey did, before I had said anything to him), I would have pointed out that I think Koranic literalism is hilarious. As I said previously, maybe, MAYBE one could argue (incorrectly) that I'm anti-religious. But nothing I have said suggests I'm anti-Christian in particular.

It would be interesting to hear his thoughts on Islam

I'm an atheist. The hell you think my thoughts on Islam are? Islamic belief, to the extent that it pertains to the existence of a god, is factually inaccurate. That's what I think of Islam.

Very hard to read through his hatred.

You clearly just use this as an excuse to avoid responding to well-reasoned arguments. Here, I'll excerpt this post for you:

I branded Whissel a racist because he implied that I seem to be an "immigrant" and to have a "home country" other than Canada, presumably because of my last name. He was implying that people of my ancestry cannot be truly native to Canada.

Do you really still not see why what you said is racist? Do I actually have to break it down further? I am not an immigrant. My home country is Canada. To say that I am an immigrant and that my home country is not Canada is incorrect. Thus, you said something incorrect about me. You said that I'm an immigrant and that my home country is not Canada because I have an Indian last name. Thus, you said something incorrect about me because I'm Indian. It is racist to think incorrect things about someone because of their race. If you think someone is a thief because he's black, you're a racist. If you think someone is a bad driver because she's Chinese, you're a racist. You called me an immigrant and said that my home country is not Canada because I'm an Indian. Thus, you're a racist.

Fret not. You can reform yourself. You can learn about the social justice movements of our time and start to evacuate your thoughts and words of prejudice. Or, you can stay ignorant, continue being part of the problem, and ultimately go down on the wrong side of history. Your call.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Trump

Hi Vlad,

I would guess that Ben is anti-Christian too, from his simple comment on biblical literalism.

There was his post upon learning that I was a Christian which makes very clear his views on Christians which are not unlike the Democratic national committee's views as shown in the Podesta emails. That was my first clue that we were dealing with a slightly dimmer version of one of the more creative trolls of my past experience. The IQ and standardized test gambit is a slightly more convoluted version of one of the NLP trolls suggestion to send your mark off on a wild goose chase involving some expense and investment of time. Once you prove that your IQ is higher he will demand some other proof sending you on further wild goose chases.

He claims to be an aetheist. It would be interesting to hear his thoughts on Islam, or even Sharia Law??? If he could manage to write a sentence without spewing so much bile, that is. Very hard to read through his hatred.

Mavros

Its kind of funny that the South Park episode "THE END OF SERIALIZATION AS WE KNOW IT" was on tv tonight just as we are dealing with a troll who seems to be reading from a trolling manual and trying to apply the strategies one after another. We need to take Ben Daswani as serious as that episode which is to say not at all. Clearly a ‘pestilent’ fellow as our friend Proust would have described. Why is he so afraid of the written section of the GMAT? A lack of ability with the written word perhaps? Life is not a multiple choice test which by the way people can usually score about fifty percent on even if they don't know anything about the material they are being tested on by simply using a few rules of logic.



"Dude chill they are totally trying to use Trevors Axiom to get a reaction from you"

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Trump

I'm an atheist. The hell you think my thoughts on Islam are?

Do you believe of the hell existence? LOL I always wondered what atheist would do if their were no other religions. Would they create one to deny it late? :)

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Trump

I did both tests. Got 27/30 on the Mensa, 170 IQ on the other. On the Mensa one I missed out on three involving unscrambling letters to form words. I should have gotten parachute, but i never would have found banalities. English is my weakness, not the math. So my opinion on the basic math in IQ tests would probably be opposite of Ben's.

PS: I sit firmly on the agnostic fence. I attend church with my wife, want to believe in a god, don't like the examples in traditional religion (Old testament god definitely doesn't work for me). Can work with a creator that is very far removed from actually being involved with my personal affairs, but this is of no direct benefit to me.

PPS: For those who want to learn more about the philosophy of theism, and philosophy in general, I strongly recommend the following YouTube playlist: Crash Course Philosophy

On the Mensa Test about 1/3 of my time was spent finding the word Banalities. That was about the only thing in that test that was really hard. The other test had two rows of letters where the top row of letters shared an attribute that if you turned the letters around sideways they looked the same and the bottom row of letters had an attribute that if you turned the letters upside down they were the same. You were then asked to find the next letter that would work for both rows. That question took me a while and then I noticed that the choice H shared both these attributes. I suspect that would be the only one you would have got wrong. About the only thing the tests prove is one's ability to look for patterns that might be outside of the norm. In my view that does not signify much at all.
I know a young woman in New York who scored perfect on her GMAT's and she now makes a very nice living tutoring kids in practicing this test who did not do well on it. All of the kids she tutored scored near perfect on these tests so it shows that with practice one can do well on these tests and again does not signify anything at all.
Recent research has shown that almost any skill can be achieved with "mindful learning" and practice. The idea of inate talent is baloney. One of the more famous experiments was where a student was selected at random in a population of volunteers for the following test. He was asked to repeat back seven digits rapidly spoken out. The number was then increased to eight. If he was successful in that then nine were spoken out. When the subject was out of his comfort zone (say nine digits) they then went back to eight digits and only went back to nine when ti was clear he was ok with eight. After a year of this process he could repeat back 82(!) digits spoken to him. He did not display any particular talent for this before the test and they also later on found that anyone could do this.
The same is true of chess, with proper techniques in mindful learning one can indeed improve. So a higher rating simply proves that you have more patterns that you have stored away. Basically ten minutes of mindful practice is more important then two hours of mindless practice. So for example if i were to attempt Ben's challenge of the GMAT i would probably enlist the young women in New York to train me. I would assume Ben's score was perfect ( he chided Vlad for having a less then perfect score) so the bet would be a complete waste of time as the best outcome is break even. I suspect that is why he wanted GMAT or LSAT instead of an IQ test.
The IQ test would also be a waste of time albeit I would be interested to know what score I would need to beat before considering such a bet. Information that Ben has not yet disclosed. In any event Ben has been claiming how he is so much smarter then the rest of us and I find that to be obnoxious. I also find his statement that he is an Atheist but "he does not believe in the non existance of a God" to fall under the definition of agnostic.
In my opinion if the only value one place's on someone is how well they have learned to write a test or play a game of chess then they have missed the boat when it comes to life.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Trump

I would assume Ben's score was perfect ( he chided Vlad for having a less then perfect score) so the bet would be a complete waste of time as the best outcome is break even. I suspect that is why he wanted GMAT or LSAT instead of an IQ test.

Of course it was perfect. I'm not in the habit of making bets I might lose. Incidentally, I didn't want the GMAT or the LSAT instead of an IQ test. The GMAT and the LSAT are IQ tests, at least according to Mensa.

The IQ test would also be a waste of time albeit I would be interested to know what score I would need to beat before considering such a bet. Information that Ben has not yet disclosed.

I have already said I will take the test after my finals end.

In any event Ben has been claiming how he is so much smarter then the rest of us and I find that to be obnoxious.

I never claimed I'm smarter than anyone. I've just called a couple people stupid. Please point to a quote which indicates otherwise.

I also find his statement that he is an Atheist but "he does not believe in the non existance of a God" to fall under the definition of agnostic.

Please don't put quote marks around things I've never said. It's akin to slander. What I said was that to be an atheist one need not affirmatively believe in the non-existence of a god. I never said that I don't affirmatively believe in the non-existence of a god.

Here's the Google definition of atheist: "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." See, disbelieves or lacks belief. All that's required to make someone an atheist is a lack of an affirmative belief in a god. Being an atheist and being an agnostic are not mutually exclusive. I'm surprised you've never heard of the phrase "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist."

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Trump

My comment was that being a biblical literalist in 2017 is hilarious. What is anti-Christian about that? Biblical literalists believe in things which science has disproved. I find anyone who believes in things which science has disproved to be hilarious, regardless of their religion. The only reason I brought up biblical literalism and not literalism of some other religious text is because Pacey is a Christian. If a scientifically challenged Muslim had insulted me (as--it behooves us to note--Pacey did, before I had said anything to him), I would have pointed out that I think Koranic literalism is hilarious. As I said previously, maybe, MAYBE one could argue (incorrectly) that I'm anti-religious. But nothing I have said suggests I'm anti-Christian in particular.


I'm an atheist. The hell you think my thoughts on Islam are? Islamic belief, to the extent that it pertains to the existence of a god, is factually inaccurate. That's what I think of Islam.


You clearly just use this as an excuse to avoid responding to well-reasoned arguments. Here, I'll excerpt this post for you:



Do you really still not see why what you said is racist? Do I actually have to break it down further? I am not an immigrant. My home country is Canada. To say that I am an immigrant and that my home country is not Canada is incorrect. Thus, you said something incorrect about me. You said that I'm an immigrant and that my home country is not Canada because I have an Indian last name. Thus, you said something incorrect about me because I'm Indian. It is racist to think incorrect things about someone because of their race. If you think someone is a thief because he's black, you're a racist. If you think someone is a bad driver because she's Chinese, you're a racist. You called me an immigrant and said that my home country is not Canada because I'm an Indian. Thus, you're a racist.

Fret not. You can reform yourself. You can learn about the social justice movements of our time and start to evacuate your thoughts and words of prejudice. Or, you can stay ignorant, continue being part of the problem, and ultimately go down on the wrong side of history. Your call.

Well written, Ben. I don't know how you could be any clearer than that. And you didn't even mention Whissell's pathetic, passive-aggressive attempt to link you to Himmler! If Whissell doesn't 'get it' at this point then I suggest you ignore him from this point forward. Either Whissell is pretending to have racist views (a despicable thing to do) in order to harrass you (i.e. he's a troll) or he's so deeply entrenched in his bigoted, intolerant ways that he's not going to see the light, period.

Good luck in Chicago.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Trump

Of course it was perfect. I'm not in the habit of making bets I might lose. Incidentally, I didn't want the GMAT or the LSAT instead of an IQ test. The GMAT and the LSAT are IQ tests, at least according to Mensa.

All well and good except that you gave me this long story about the GMAT and LSAT being a better test and that testing facilities were more widely available for this particular test.This was simply an attempt to con me into entering an unwinnable bet. I did not hesitate to disclose to you that my results at least on the sample IQ tests were 100% so you might be wasting $1000.00 betting on the outcome of the real IQ test.
Don't bother with the sample IQ tests, I have no interest into entering into a wager with a con artist.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Trump

I know a young woman in New York who scored perfect on her GMAT's and she now makes a very nice living tutoring kids in practicing this test who did not do well on it. All of the kids she tutored scored near perfect on these tests so it shows that with practice one can do well on these tests and again does not signify anything at all.

I recall studying how to take multiple choice tests particularly standardized tests where the various sub-variant question types were analyzed. At the time it was possible to use a variety of these techniques to reduce questions to a fifty percent probability even where you had no idea about the subject matter. I recall testing these assertions against questions about books I had not read for example and found that these techniques did in fact work. For a test like the GMAT there is almost no excuse with adequate prep time to not be familiar with the subject matter of the tests and types of questions.

Recent research has shown that almost any skill can be achieved with "mindful learning" and practice. The idea of inate talent is baloney.

I would respectfully disagree though possibly innate talent is not as important as the ability for deliberate practice.

One of the more famous experiments was where a student was selected at random in a population of volunteers for the following test. He was asked to repeat back seven digits rapidly spoken out. The number was then increased to eight. If he was successful in that then nine were spoken out. When the subject was out of his comfort zone (say nine digits) they then went back to eight digits and only went back to nine when ti was clear he was ok with eight. After a year of this process he could repeat back 82(!) digits spoken to him. He did not display any particular talent for this before the test and they also later on found that anyone could do this.

People are certainly capable of many things with the right practice and by utilizing altered states of consciousness.

The same is true of chess, with proper techniques in mindful learning one can indeed improve.

I think it is probably possible to reach 2400 without any reference to innate talent if you study the right things. Neurolinguistic programming (NLP) techniques promise as much. NLP itself simply appropriates the ideas from many different disciplines including the techniques of world class therapists and educators. I do think that talent does play some role. There is something more going on in the people who reach 2800 FIDE versus those who reach 2400 FIDE.

So a higher rating simply proves that you have more patterns that you have stored away. Basically ten minutes of mindful practice is more important then two hours of mindless practice. So for example if i were to attempt Ben's challenge of the GMAT i would probably enlist the young women in New York to train me.

I would also suggest investing in some practice test books which you can find in every bookstore.

I would assume Ben's score was perfect ( he chided Vlad for having a less then perfect score)

Trolls have been known to be less than truthful. I tend to be agnostic when people ask me to believe without evidence that they are the second coming of Albert Einstein without any evidence and particularly when their writings and logical leaps indicate some deficits in their reasoning ability and confused thinking possibly attributable to toxoplasma gondii. He reminds me a great deal of a person who I once knew, a very sad case.

so the bet would be a complete waste of time as the best outcome is break even.

Why would you with all your accomplishments need to waste the time to prove anything to a Chesstalk troll? Even if you were willing to accept the premise that his hardware was superior as you seem to be implying clearly the software he is running is nowhere close to yours.

I suspect that is why he wanted GMAT or LSAT instead of an IQ test.

He is seeking advantage from his sunk costs. Before proceeding down this path of his choosing it would probably make sense to insist that he rewrite these tests as they only provide a standardized score to compare the pool of current test takers. Obviously it is easier today to stand out from the fuzzy thinkers today in comparison to those who would have written the tests a generation or two ago. Educational standards have certainly fallen in the interim.

The IQ test would also be a waste of time albeit I would be interested to know what score I would need to beat before considering such a bet. Information that Ben has not yet disclosed. In any event Ben has been claiming how he is so much smarter then the rest of us and I find that to be obnoxious.

That is precisely his intent, to be obnoxious. If you want to understand him you could have spent years on usenet battling trolls or you could spend a few minutes watching this season of South Park which has a running theme about internet trolls.

I also find his statement that he is an Atheist but "he does not believe in the non existance of a God" to fall under the definition of agnostic.

Its hard to use words that he does not understand.

In my opinion if the only value one place's on someone is how well they have learned to write a test or play a game of chess then they have missed the boat when it comes to life.

The big point of being a chess player, is that you realize that life is pretty pointless. It doesn’t have a purpose. - Nigel Short

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Trump

Don't bother with the sample IQ tests, I have no interest into entering into a wager with a con artist.

OPR. Only now, at the end, do you understand ...

He says in love and war all is fair
But he's got cards he ain't showing- ISLEY BROTHERS "Sunshine"