False dichotomies and other fallacies RPGers use

[jeffh]

I see.

Sorry if I hit a bad chord on this with you, which brought out some defensiveness on your part. It was not my intention.

I'll just assume that your belief in reading being correlated to intelligence, was an off the cuff remark related to some past experiences or stuff which was read previously or "folklore".

Multiple posters have claimed differently, and you have given no reason for doubting them. In the rest of your post even you admit that you have now verified beyond reasonable doubt that this is more than "folklore". Why, then, would you persist in making such a claim?

 

[ggroy]

Multiple posters have claimed differently, and you have given no reason for doubting them. In the rest of your post even you admit that you have now verified beyond reasonable doubt that this is more than "folklore". Why, then, would you persist in making such a claim?

I was looking for whether there was more evidence than just folklore or anecdotal experiences.

Before the issue was even brought up, I suspected there was possibly some positive correlation between reading and intelligence, largely from past experiences and folklore. How much correlation there was, was not known to me previously.

 

[ggroy]

Why, then, would you persist in making such a claim?

Claims to the contrary were just counterexamples I was aware of. It does not imply that I believe that there was no correlation between reading and intelligence.

Are you assuming that just because I was making arguments to the contrary, that I actually believed in the contrary?

 

[jeffh]

Claims to the contrary were just counterexamples I was aware of. It does not imply that I believe that there was no correlation between reading and intelligence.

Are you assuming that just because I was making arguments to the contrary, that I actually believed in the contrary?

That would be the most likely reason, especially when they're made in what comes across as a surprisingly aggressive manner (albeit not a point where it warranted mod intervention, or anything like that). Other explanations are possible, but would require some, well, explanation.

 

[ggroy]

In the rest of your post even you admit that you have now verified beyond reasonable doubt that this is more than "folklore"

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is probably not the best choice of words.

The research studies reviewed in that linked paper, is highly suggestive that the zero correlation scenario of reading vs. intelligence can probably be ruled out in many cases. This is a more powerful statement.

 

[ggroy]

That would be the most likely reason, especially when they're made in what comes across as a surprisingly aggressive manner (albeit not a point where it warranted mod intervention, or anything like that).

Online conversations frequently are perceived that way unfortunately, even when not intentional.

With that being said, outlier points which don't fit in very well into a particular model are what makes things interesting. In the hard sciences, outliers are usually signs that a particular model may not be entirely correct (after taking account of things like systematic errors in the hardware). After subtracting out the data which can be explained, the remainder is checked whether it is more than just random noise. Something which appears to be more than just "random noise", could be something new such as a previously unknown or conjectured elementary particle (for example).

Deviations due to outliers could signify problems in the assumptions underlying a model, or something which was overlooked or not anticipated. Refining the assumptions and testing for them in later experiments, further examines the nature of such outliers. This is the biggest reason why so many experiments are done.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

The research studies reviewed in that linked paper, is highly suggestive that the zero correlation scenario of reading vs. intelligence can probably be ruled out in many cases. This is a more powerful statement.

I'm surprised that anyone here would fall for that. People who write intelligence tests read a lot, therefore those who read a lot appear to be more intelligent than those who don't when they take the tests. This is nonsense. They are simply more well read, not neccessarily more intelligent. (Does anyone else remember the big deal about how poor kids came across poorly in the old IQ tests because the social parts were based on what was normal for middle class kids? When the test asked 'what goes with cup' the answer was saucer, but the poor kids never had saucers, so put down table instead.)

 

[ggroy]

(Does anyone else remember the big deal about how poor kids came across poorly in the old IQ tests because the social parts were based on what was normal for middle class kids? When the test asked 'what goes with cup' the answer was saucer, but the poor kids never had saucers, so put down table instead.)

I don't remember that one specifically.

Various IQ tests I've written over the years, indicated I was anything from below average to significantly above average. After awhile I had no idea what these tests I wrote were attempting to measure.

 

[blargney the second]

Various IQ tests I've written over the years, indicated I was anything from below average to significantly above average. After awhile I had no idea what these tests I wrote were attempting to measure.

IQ tests measure how much you are a middle- or upper-class, English-speaking, North American caucasian.

In a lot of ways they're not too dissimilar to those annoying facebook quizzes that people take to reaffirm how much they are like they think they are.

 

[ggroy]

IQ tests measure how much you are a middle- or upper-class, English-speaking, North American caucasian.

In a lot of ways they're not too dissimilar to those annoying facebook quizzes that people take to reaffirm how much they are like they think they are.

Seems like it.

One of those "tests" I wrote was actually some Mensa entrance exam. (My ex-wife was in Mensa, and tried to convince me to join). I studied for it over several weeks by writing several older sample exams and working out a book full of Mensa exam style problems. Apparently the real Mensa entrance exam which I actually wrote, indicated that I wasn't considered "Mensa material".

Go figure.