All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Frauds try to be psychologists, fail miserably
2/21/2014 5:25 PM
you are basically constructing a straw man here etta... people are not in a position to mcgyver a car back to working order with some sticks and rocks they find on the side of the road. we all know this. while the poster was suggesting walking outside to his car, he was responding to a post about how super intelligent people may have zero ability to fix their car themselves - even with resources such as money and transportation to go buy supplies. the post was not, hey if your transmission blows, even a genius can't fix it without any parts or supplies - its, they can't fix it even with access to tools and parts. you are making a statement that is so obviously true it goes against the spirit of intelligent conversation, and ignoring the actual point of the posts (as someone already pointed out)


2/21/2014 5:43 PM
Posted by gillispie1 on 2/21/2014 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mamxet on 2/21/2014 3:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 2/21/2014 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Um, pretty much everyone studies for the GMAT. Most people study a lot for it.

Your ignorance is showing.
I took the GMAT.  I am well aware that it is common to study for it.   Common doesnt mean universal.

I was making the point - a bit subtle - that it is interesting that someone can claim supreme intellect but need to practice.  And that he could also take the view that the development of hoop IQ makes no sense in a game.

in my experience people of really high intelligence dont quickly refer to their scores or make excuses for disappointing scores.  
Many really intelligent folks tend to let their words and analysis allow others to appreciate their intellect rather than referring to test results.  But to each his own.

By the way, saying that someone is ignorant is a personal attack - see other thread,  Saying that a statement is silly or wrong is not a personal attack.  


mets nails it exactly here what i was specifically referring to in your case etta, when i said intellect is better measured by success at various pursuits. instead of success, performance would have been a better word choice - as you pointed out, performance and success are often greatly disconnected. 

so, just as the computer scientist's successful attempt to solve a really hard theoretical problem gives me MUCH better information that he is highly intelligent, than his IQ score ever could - your inability to convince the general population of points you so passionately believe in, and which you have devoted oh-so-much time to claiming & defending - tells me much more about your level of intellect than your hypothetical IQ test scores ever could.

of course, you could argue your communication and social skills are just substantially sub-par, and that the kind of intellect you possess is different in nature. that would be a perfectly reasonable claim. i am a believer in the model of different forms of intelligence - and IQ testing does not even attempt to measure intelligence of many of those different forms. for example, a musician such as john lennon could have a below average IQ (i highly doubt it in his case, but substitute someone more moronic if you find it necessary), but there is no denying his absolute genius in the areas of musical and artistic intelligence. 


Bahahaha so now my intelligence is determined by the ability of other people to understand and their willingness to agree? Good Lord that's ridiculous.

"Performance" is really not much better than "success", because again it's dependent on the ideal on which the definition of performance is based. In a manufacturing setting, is whoever produced the most units the smartest person? I would say not only is that uncertain, it's highly unlikely given the nature of most manufacturing processes. Any process labor-intensive enough for unit production to be traceable to a person is probably one that intelligent people are going to find monotonous and unmotivating. Therefore, the most intelligent person is quite unlikely to be the best "performer".

Any performing art is likely another example, sales very possibly yet another. And you could on and on. "Performance" can be a function of favorable genetics (some people just have faster reflexes, better hand-eye coordination, perfect pitch, etc), training, resources, dedication to improvement, and probably a lot more I'm not thinking of. 

At no point have I suggested that IQ is predictive of "success" by any definition, though many others have with significant evidence to support, but by their definition of success. 

2/21/2014 5:48 PM
Posted by gillispie1 on 2/21/2014 5:26:00 PM (view original):
you are basically constructing a straw man here etta... people are not in a position to mcgyver a car back to working order with some sticks and rocks they find on the side of the road. we all know this. while the poster was suggesting walking outside to his car, he was responding to a post about how super intelligent people may have zero ability to fix their car themselves - even with resources such as money and transportation to go buy supplies. the post was not, hey if your transmission blows, even a genius can't fix it without any parts or supplies - its, they can't fix it even with access to tools and parts. you are making a statement that is so obviously true it goes against the spirit of intelligent conversation, and ignoring the actual point of the posts (as someone already pointed out)


So I can only talk about the topic the way you want?

People keep trying to make the mechanic thing something it's not. It's not a problem to be solved. You already know how to solve the problem. It's an inconvenience until it is solved, certainly. But it's not like your car doesn't start and you're like "hrmmm, I wonder what I could do to make the car start again." The person who knows what is wrong with the car is, in the vast majority of cases, in no better a position to make that happen independently than one who doesn't. 

Cognitive tests are specifically designed and engineered and re-engineered to avoid this kind of experiential bias to as much extent as those making the test can muster.
2/21/2014 6:01 PM
etta, you clearly know nothing about fixing cars. you say -  But it's not like your car doesn't start and you're like "hrmmm, I wonder what I could do to make the car start again."

this is about the most ignorant statement about automobile repair i have heard in my life. people don't talk about diagnosing the problem with your car because there is nothing to diagnose. to suggest there is no intellectual analysis, only experience, just suggests its a near miracle you can even pump your own gas.
2/21/2014 7:02 PM (edited)
Posted by ettaexpress on 2/21/2014 5:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 2/21/2014 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mamxet on 2/21/2014 3:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 2/21/2014 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Um, pretty much everyone studies for the GMAT. Most people study a lot for it.

Your ignorance is showing.
I took the GMAT.  I am well aware that it is common to study for it.   Common doesnt mean universal.

I was making the point - a bit subtle - that it is interesting that someone can claim supreme intellect but need to practice.  And that he could also take the view that the development of hoop IQ makes no sense in a game.

in my experience people of really high intelligence dont quickly refer to their scores or make excuses for disappointing scores.  
Many really intelligent folks tend to let their words and analysis allow others to appreciate their intellect rather than referring to test results.  But to each his own.

By the way, saying that someone is ignorant is a personal attack - see other thread,  Saying that a statement is silly or wrong is not a personal attack.  


mets nails it exactly here what i was specifically referring to in your case etta, when i said intellect is better measured by success at various pursuits. instead of success, performance would have been a better word choice - as you pointed out, performance and success are often greatly disconnected. 

so, just as the computer scientist's successful attempt to solve a really hard theoretical problem gives me MUCH better information that he is highly intelligent, than his IQ score ever could - your inability to convince the general population of points you so passionately believe in, and which you have devoted oh-so-much time to claiming & defending - tells me much more about your level of intellect than your hypothetical IQ test scores ever could.

of course, you could argue your communication and social skills are just substantially sub-par, and that the kind of intellect you possess is different in nature. that would be a perfectly reasonable claim. i am a believer in the model of different forms of intelligence - and IQ testing does not even attempt to measure intelligence of many of those different forms. for example, a musician such as john lennon could have a below average IQ (i highly doubt it in his case, but substitute someone more moronic if you find it necessary), but there is no denying his absolute genius in the areas of musical and artistic intelligence. 


Bahahaha so now my intelligence is determined by the ability of other people to understand and their willingness to agree? Good Lord that's ridiculous.

"Performance" is really not much better than "success", because again it's dependent on the ideal on which the definition of performance is based. In a manufacturing setting, is whoever produced the most units the smartest person? I would say not only is that uncertain, it's highly unlikely given the nature of most manufacturing processes. Any process labor-intensive enough for unit production to be traceable to a person is probably one that intelligent people are going to find monotonous and unmotivating. Therefore, the most intelligent person is quite unlikely to be the best "performer".

Any performing art is likely another example, sales very possibly yet another. And you could on and on. "Performance" can be a function of favorable genetics (some people just have faster reflexes, better hand-eye coordination, perfect pitch, etc), training, resources, dedication to improvement, and probably a lot more I'm not thinking of. 

At no point have I suggested that IQ is predictive of "success" by any definition, though many others have with significant evidence to support, but by their definition of success. 

are you really this dense, or are you pretending? NO, its not based on the ability of people to understand and their willingness to agree. are you seriously so full of yourself you can't even understand the 2 way nature of communication? what i said, is yes, your intelligence is partially determined by your ability to communicate these ideas you are so passionate about. what part of that says other people's ability? obviously, other people's ability doesn't indicate anything about your level of ability or intelligent. obviously. that you could even have such a ridiculous take away is baffling. but please, continue to go on and make trivially obvious statements while avoiding the substance of every post, it just gives people more material for their parody.

using performance or successfully accomplishing objectives absolutely is a demonstration of intelligence. it is very telling what you go to is manufacturing, which, while a respectable job, does not usually require a high level of intelligence. generally high performance in areas with low requirements does suggest you at least meet those low requirements. the examples i used, like a computer science colleague solving a difficult theoretical problem, that has a high requirement on intelligence, so gives me a good idea of the floor of the intelligence of that person. the ability to communicate ideas in a reasonably intellectual setting has a much lower bar - but the bar is still reasonably high enough - so failing to be successful suggests you may not have the required level of intelligence. failing again and again across the better part of 100 pages, well now, that suggests it pretty damn strongly. do you get it, yet?
2/21/2014 6:50 PM
You say you're baffled (seems a common state here). Clearly, that's my fault even though it could not be more obvious. You've said very clearly that if other people don't understand me, it says something about my intelligence. Actually, you said it helps DETERMINE my intelligence, which is totally wrong. It's still wrong if you say it reveals or indicates, but it's a lot less wrong than what you said. 

In most of your second paragraph, you make my point for me. Performance =/ intelligence. The only thing about which you quibble is what is worthy of being called success or an accomplishment. Apparently accomplishing objectives in your chosen field is worth more than doing so in another field because you think your field requires more intelligence. 

I guess my friend that's a PhD candidate in chemistry is stupid because I don't know enough about chemistry to hold up my end of a conversation on her research.

2/21/2014 6:53 PM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2/21/2014 7:05 PM (edited)
Posted by ettaexpress on 2/21/2014 6:50:00 PM (view original):
You say you're baffled (seems a common state here). Clearly, that's my fault even though it could not be more obvious. You've said very clearly that if other people don't understand me, it says something about my intelligence. Actually, you said it helps DETERMINE my intelligence, which is totally wrong. It's still wrong if you say it reveals or indicates, but it's a lot less wrong than what you said. 

In most of your second paragraph, you make my point for me. Performance =/ intelligence. The only thing about which you quibble is what is worthy of being called success or an accomplishment. Apparently accomplishing objectives in your chosen field is worth more than doing so in another field because you think your field requires more intelligence. 

I guess my friend that's a PhD candidate in chemistry is stupid because I don't know enough about chemistry to hold up my end of a conversation on her research.

just a terrible, god-awful analogy (like so many others). here is why it is grossly inappropriate - the first person has a great depth of knowledge on the subject, the second has very little, and they are trying to have a high end conversation. in this case, to call the one with a high level of understanding stupid, is very inappropriate, as there is no logical basis.

heres the situation here - you are trying to discuss the simulation engine, in which virtually everyone has far greater knowledge than you do (so that is the reverse case), and also sprinkled in are ties to regular basketball, where we are having low level discussions in which most parties have a suitable working knowledge, appropriate for the level of the conversation. see how that is almost the reverse of your example? and at a minimum, not at all similar?

your analogy is actually almost there if its you talking about chemistry, and her not understanding you. its unlikely she is the idiot, because she is more knowledge on the subject. well, that leaves one other explanation...

a better analogy than yours but still not so great, is if your friend is talking to others with great proficiency in chemistry, and she can't communicate her research to just about any of them. then yes, she is stupid, not all of them. now, to make the analogy appropriate, assume she knows very little about chemistry, but tries to communicate her ideas anyway. when all the professors tell her she has it wrong, she tells them they lack the intelligence or grasp of the subject matter to comprehend her points. this makes her not only an idiot, but an arrogant fool. now, this is an EXTREMELY appropriate analogy.

2/21/2014 7:07 PM
Posted by llamanunts on 2/21/2014 6:53:00 PM (view original):
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
interesting, never saw it by that name. its funny they get credit, when philosophers have made this clear for hundreds and thousands of years... but yeah, perfect for this situation. 
2/21/2014 8:06 PM
I never pretended to know more about the sim than you all. 

Nothing else you said makes sense in light of that fact.

Whatever, you've grown boring to me. Off to do something more interesting, like clip my toenails or chew tinfoil.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
2/21/2014 8:18 PM
They get credit for testing the hypothesis and producing some evidence of its validity... I don't think they claimed to invent the notion. I don't really know.
2/21/2014 8:20 PM
I'm not playing gotcha. There's no valid way to portray that as playing gotcha. I just think you're someone who fits that characterization.
2/21/2014 8:39 PM
Posted by ettaexpress on 2/21/2014 8:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by llamanunts on 2/21/2014 6:53:00 PM (view original):
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Provably inapplicable here. I could tell you the story, but you don't really care. You're just interested in playing gotcha.

But I can tell you it's pretty funny when people suspect this and then find out they're the ones that were wrong.
That effect is absolutely applicable in your case. You've done nothing but underestimate the engine (largely because of your own incompetency to use it properly...depth charts, fatigue, etc.) and overestimate both the quality of your own team and your acumen of simulated games as it relates to this one...and to set it all off...you've continually dismissed the advice of people with expertise on the subject - often times in an amazingly arrogant fashion.

2/21/2014 8:57 PM
I thin k I was was one of the participants in that study.
of 20
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Frauds try to be psychologists, fail miserably

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.