Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
The I.Q., or Intelligence Quotient — back in my day, as it was explained to me — is your maturity age (M.A.), as assessed by some sort of test, usually a written exam, times a hundred and then divided by your chronological age (C.A.). So a set of answers might contribute toward a measurement of 118 I.Q. when you’re fourteen, and if you submitted the same answers at age ten maybe your I.Q. would turn out to be in the 130’s or 140’s.
The more news I see about this healthcare.gov fiasco, the more I learn about how it came about, and the more observations I make about how ObamaCare proponents see the situation, and draw their inferences about what it all means…the more value I see in measuring what we could call the F.Q., the Fantasy Quotient. This would be the weight of everything that contributed toward your final opinion about something, divided into one hundred times the influence of your first-impressions. So travel back in time a few years, Obama and crew say something about health insurance for the first time and you go — cool! Maybe. You get inspired, the inspiration creates a fantasy. The fantasy creates a prejudice. The prejudice, by definition of the word, feeds into the final judgment, even if it has to withstand an onslaught of subsequent and contrary experience. How much or how little the subsequent and contrary experience diminishes that original impression, says something about you, and that something is reflected in the F.Q.
A good software-testing engineer has an F.Q. approaching zero. A healthy F.Q. might be somewhere in the twenties, maybe down in the teens.
If your F.Q. is a hundred, you’re pretty much incapable of ever learning a damn thing, and that’s a widespread problem we have now. Pavlov’s bell rings, people slobber, and their minds are made up at that point. We’ve got a lot of people walking around right now, as free to live and vote as you and me, with 100 F.Q.’s. They live in fantasy. ObamaCare is still just as wonderful for them as when they first heard about it. I really don’t know how this happens, I don’t get it. Maybe it’s their way of dealing with disappointment? Just don’t deal with it?
It isn’t just ObamaCare. These so-called “researchers” probably have very high F.Q.’s.
Nelson Mandela is a saint, or something. Barack Obama is a holy prophet, or Messiah, or something. Raising the minimum wage will actually raise wages. Gun control will stop gun violence. Trees must be saved. But babies are nothing more than “tissue.” We must be suffering because of something called “unfettered capitalism.” Everybody has ADD (hat tip to Maggie’s Farm). We can condition and shame men into not looking at pretty women anymore. And, my personal favorite, everyone who sees a problem in Barack Obama must be motivated by skin color.
These people can’t apply tests. Not really. Sure, they can run tests on things, but they can’t learn anything from the results. Their minds are already made up. You won’t see them revising an opinion about anything, nor do they have any stories to tell about ever having been compelled to change their minds about anything.
EVER.
Quothe severian:
As near as I can reconstruct the liberal “thought” process, the speech act somehow creates reality, if one is of sufficiently pure heart. Choices and their observable, measurable outcomes don’t matter; if you say it loud enough and long enough, it will become true. Healthcare.gov is expanding coverage and global warming is happening, because consensus. Repeating it makes it real.
Meanwhile, it doesn’t matter what the impure of heart say — or do — because we all know what they really mean. Calling Obama a Marxist is somehow raaaaacist. Hell, calling Obama “Obama” is raaaaacist according to Chris Matthews. Just as snow in Cairo and expanding Arctic ice is somehow evidence for global warming, not saying racist things is exactly the same as saying racist things. Lather, rinse, repeat, and it will be true soon enough, because words are magic.
Megyn Kelly said Santa Claus is white. That created a firestorm, somehow. As near as I can understand the thoughts and feelings that go into this round-robin heckling, the problem with Ms. Kelly’s comment is that she injected the attribute of quantifiability into something that is not quantifiable, because there is no reality, none whatsoever, associated with the mythical Santa Claus. Two problems arise with that argument, if that is indeed the argument being made. One, it isn’t true, since Santa Claus is based on stories that really were told, and one-to-some people who actually existed. Two, if it’s really all-mythical and everybody’s perception of Santa Claus is as good as anybody else’s…why is Megyn Kelly deserving of all this derision, then? Doesn’t she enjoy the same privileges and protections as the kids whose Christmases are supposedly ruined by the vision of a white Santa?
That is all neglecting the obvious third problem, which in my book is a real doozy. Who are these kids? How have they been raised? Not only is their F.Q. way up high, apparently, but it seems they experience a lot of consternation when they think about a white person giving them presents, and it isn’t the ordinary consternation that comes with a stranger climbing down your chimney and entering your house. There is someone else making skin color a part of this, in a most negative and unhealthy way, in a way that insists the races are supposed to be somehow separated. People of this-skin-color are not supposed to do anything nice for people of that-skin-color. Megyn Kelly is not the person harboring this fantasy; it’s somebody else. And I guess my own F.Q. is being tested, because I thought we as a society were supposed to be past all that.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[…] Read it all. […]
- Fantasy Quotient | Western Rifle Shooters Association | 12/19/2013 @ 08:27This is so funny and so true. Well thought out, as well. Merry Christmas.
- ron8072 | 12/19/2013 @ 08:48To you & yours, as well. Thanks!
- mkfreeberg | 12/19/2013 @ 14:22mkfreeberg: The I.Q., or Intelligence Quotient — back in my day, as it was explained to me — is your maturity age (M.A.), as assessed by some sort of test, usually a written exam, times a hundred and then divided by your chronological age (C.A.).
It’s not essential to your point, but IQ is no longer calculated as a ratio of mental age and chronological age. Rather, it’s a standard distribution of the cohort.
mkfreeberg: This would be the weight of everything that contributed toward your final opinion about something, divided into one hundred times the influence of your first-impressions.
You’re proposing a quantitation of something that is may not be quantifiable. More particularly, to measure F,Q., you would have to devise tractable tests with unambiguous standards. It’s okay as a thought-experiment though.
mkfreeberg: The prejudice, by definition of the word, feeds into the final judgment, even if it has to withstand an onslaught of subsequent and contrary experience.
Sure, that’s possible. People have troubles changing their minds once they’ve committed to a position. And all knowledge has to be integrated into what people already know. On the other hand, it is often reasonable for people to support continuing on a course, despite setbacks, because they understand that complex tasks often take time and involve setbacks.
mkfreeberg: A good software-testing engineer has an F.Q. approaching zero.
At least on the lower end of the F.Q. scale.
mkfreeberg: If your F.Q. is a hundred, you’re pretty much incapable of ever learning a damn thing, and that’s a widespread problem we have now.
Presumably no one has a F.Q. of 100—they couldn’t function. But people with high F.Q. may be more creative in many respects, and be able to solve certain problems that others might not.
mkfreeberg: These so-called “researchers” probably have very high F.Q.’s.
As we pointed out on the thread in question, you ignored the evidence, not the authors of the report.
mkfreeberg: Sure, they can run tests on things, but they can’t learn anything from the results.
Your notions on F.Q. are especially ironic in light of your support of Intelligent Design Creationism.
mkfreeberg: Megyn Kelly said Santa Claus is white.
No. She said he is “just white”. So when a black father dons the white beard, he’s not Santa for his kids. When a hundred Koreans put on the red suit to deliver presents to preemies, they’re not Santa.
But they are! They are!
mkfreeberg: One, it isn’t true, since Santa Claus is based on stories that really were told, and one-to-some people who actually existed.
Santa didn’t always live at the North Pole and ride a sleigh drawn by flying reindeer.
mkfreeberg: Doesn’t she enjoy the same privileges and protections as the kids whose Christmases are supposedly ruined by the vision of a white Santa?
“I would imagine that he’s probably white, yellow, black – every color. Santa Claus is Santa Claus to everyone, red, white, yellow, black. We’re all children.”
Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond.
- Zachriel | 12/19/2013 @ 18:01Wouldn’t it be much shorter and quicker to just type in “Hold on there, you’re measuring something we don’t want anybody measuring” or something similar to that?
- mkfreeberg | 12/19/2013 @ 18:09mkfreeberg: Wouldn’t it be much shorter and quicker to just type in “Hold on there, you’re measuring something we don’t want anybody measuring” or something similar to that?
It’s okay as a thought-experiment, but you’re not *measuring* anything.
- Zachriel | 12/19/2013 @ 18:17It’s okay as a thought-experiment, but you’re not *measuring* anything.
Well, I guess that’s an open question.
We could find someone we suspect of having a 100 F.Q., and ask them if they have ever, even once, been forced to change their mind about something after the facts came in. If they can’t even provide one example, that would be a thought experiment and a measurement.
- mkfreeberg | 12/19/2013 @ 18:24mkfreeberg: Well, I guess that’s an open question.
To measure F,Q., you would have to devise tractable tests with unambiguous standards.
mkfreeberg: We could find someone we suspect of having a 100 F.Q., and ask them if they have ever, even once, been forced to change their mind about something after the facts came in.
Presumably no one has a F.Q. of 100—they couldn’t function. Everyone learns to some degree.
- Zachriel | 12/19/2013 @ 18:29mkfreeberg: We could find someone we suspect of having a 100 F.Q., and ask them if they have ever, even once, been forced to change their mind about something after the facts came in.
That wouldn’t be an appropriate measure, as it doesn’t measure their learning, but their self-perception of learning.
- Zachriel | 12/19/2013 @ 18:30That wouldn’t be an appropriate measure, as it doesn’t measure their learning, but their self-perception of learning.
By which you mean, you can come up with a plausible scenario in which case the measurement would be burdened with the trait of inaccuracy — as all measurements arguably are. That doesn’t mean it would be inappropriate.
We could fairly assume that if someone is capable of learning from experience, against the grain of their prior preconceptions, they might be able to remember having done so. There may be some isolated exceptions to this, but as an expectation it doesn’t seem at all unreasonable, to me.
- mkfreeberg | 12/19/2013 @ 18:49mkfreeberg: By which you mean, you can come up with a plausible scenario in which case the measurement would be burdened with the trait of inaccuracy — as all measurements arguably are.
Accuracy isn’t the issue we raised, but validity. Studies have shown cognitive biases such that people tend to over-estimate their competence.
- Zachriel | 12/19/2013 @ 19:11mkfreeberg: By which you mean, you can come up with a plausible scenario in which case the measurement would be burdened with the trait of inaccuracy — as all measurements arguably are.
Accuracy isn’t the issue we raised, but validity. Studies have shown cognitive biases such that people tend to over-estimate their competence.
- Zachriel | 12/19/2013 @ 19:11If I understand the objection correctly, y’all are positing that the measurement is not valid because it cannot be made. Also, that a F.Q. of 100 is impossible because if a person did possess such a metric, that person would cease to exist because he would have been naturally selected for extinction by environmental exigencies.
My rebuttal would be that not only is this based on several things that are not true, but that by advancing it, y’all are providing evidence to support the original contention. Persons with F.Q. of 100 do not exist, because…well, there are some anonymous people on the Internet going by the name “Zachriel” who say they don’t believe in such people. Because of that, the rest of us are supposed to refuse to believe. But does that really disprove it?
- mkfreeberg | 12/19/2013 @ 19:22mkfreeberg: are positing that the measurement is not valid because it cannot be made.
You’re confusing several things. Your proposed test isn’t valid because it doesn’t measure what you want to measure. An actual quantitative measurement may be possible, you would have to devise tractable tests with unambiguous standards.
mkfreeberg: Also, that a F.Q. of 100 is impossible because if a person did possess such a metric, that person would cease to exist because he would have been naturally selected for extinction by environmental exigencies.
Such a person would certainly be highly unusual. In any case, you wouldn’t be able to create a scale based only on the extreme.
mkfreeberg: Persons with F.Q. of 100 do not exist, because…well, there are some anonymous people on the Internet going by the name “Zachriel” who say they don’t believe in such people.
Your inability to convince us of your peculiar positions is not evidence that we never change our views in the light of evidence. This brings us back to the difficulty of your project, especially as you are incapable of even seeing the difficulties. That would seem to indicate that you have a high F.Q., but people can often be stubborn in one area, yet open-minded in another.
If you had a high F.Q., how would you know?
- Zachriel | 12/19/2013 @ 19:43Your proposed test isn’t valid because it doesn’t measure what you want to measure. An actual quantitative measurement may be possible, you would have to devise tractable tests with unambiguous standards.
The F.Q.’s failure to satisfy the requirement imposed by the latter statement, does not logically prove the former statement. As far as success in satisfying the requirement imposed by the latter statement, well, the I.Q. doesn’t meet that so it is isn’t clear that there’s any sort of problem here.
Your inability to convince us of your peculiar positions is not evidence that we never change our views in the light of evidence. This brings us back to the difficulty of your project, especially as you are incapable of even seeing the difficulties. That would seem to indicate that you have a high F.Q., but people can often be stubborn in one area, yet open-minded in another.
If you had a high F.Q., how would you know?
Yes, lots of people like to tell others what to think, that’s fun after all…every now and then they come up against some difficulty there, and rationalize that the problem all belongs to the other person, that can be fun too. But having fun ≠ remaining attached to reality.
There is a metric here, since it can be demonstrated there is such a property (F.Q.) within objects (people). We can certainly say things like, “If this person over here had an F.Q. of 0, and that person over there also had an F.Q. of 0, we would be seeing results we are not, in fact, seeing.” That would be deductive reasoning; if we see the situation persist in a variety of person-to-person interactions, with one person remaining a constant fixture and the other person being swapped out as the experiment is repeated, we can start to arrive at more & more solid tentative conclusions, which is an inductive reasoning process. This is all part of the scientific method.
In fact, I seem to recall there was a Dunning-Kruger Effect defining & describing “a cognitive bias in which people perform poorly on a task, but lack the meta-cognitive capacity to properly evaluate their performance.” The F.Q. would be so conceptually similar to that, that I would have to hesitate to claim it as an original thought; it’s certainly difficult to substantiate how one could be any more quantifiable than the other, yet the DKE research was awarded the Nobel prize in Psychology in 2000.
“Not valid.” It’s easy and fun to say that. But if we held our hands over our ears and yelled “can not hear, la la la” every time that case could be made, a lot of science would never have happened; we’d still be reading scrolls, by candlelight.
- mkfreeberg | 12/20/2013 @ 02:28Why does Zachriel always find their (I use this pronoun because Zachriel invariably employs “we”) way to blogs I like? They were kicked off another blog I read for incurable blowhard-ism, and now they turn up here. Is there no escape?
- FunkyPhD | 12/20/2013 @ 05:23mkfreeberg: The F.Q.’s failure to satisfy the requirement imposed by the latter statement, does not logically prove the former statement.
We explained the problem of self-reporting of ability, but because it didn’t fit into your preconceptions, you ignored it. Your concept may be suitable for a thought-experiment. Not sure why you insist that you could actually quantify it.
Zachriel: Your inability to convince us of your peculiar positions is not evidence that we never change our views in the light of evidence.
mkfreeberg: Yes, lots of people like to tell others what to think, that’s fun after all
We didn’t tell you what to think. We pointed out that your inability to convince us of your peculiar positions is not evidence we never change our views.
Zachriel: This brings us back to the difficulty of your project, especially as you are incapable of even seeing the difficulties.
mkfreeberg: Yes, lots of people like to tell others what to think, that’s fun after all
We didn’t tell you what to think. We pointed out that you are ignoring the difficulties in your project.
Zachriel: That would seem to indicate that you have a high F.Q.,
mkfreeberg: Yes, lots of people like to tell others what to think, that’s fun after all
We didn’t tell you what to think. We used your metric, noting you have ignored problems with your project rather than grapple with those problems, something you said indicates a high F.Q.
Zachriel: but people can often be stubborn in one area, yet open-minded in another.
mkfreeberg: Yes, lots of people like to tell others what to think, that’s fun after all
We didn’t tell you what to think. We pointed out another problem with your metric, that people’s openness to evidence may vary depending on the subject.
Zachriel: If you had a high F.Q., how would you know?
mkfreeberg: Yes, lots of people like to tell others what to think, that’s fun after all
We didn’t tell you what to think. We asked you a question.
mkfreeberg: “If this person over here had an F.Q. of 0, and that person over there also had an F.Q. of 0…” </I.
Again, you can't create a *quantitative* scale by only looking at the ends of the spectrum.
mkfreeberg: I seem to recall there was a Dunning-Kruger Effect …
Yes, as we said, “Studies have shown cognitive biases such that people tend to over-estimate their competence.”
mkfreeberg: … defining & describing “a cognitive bias in which people perform poorly on a task, but lack the meta-cognitive capacity to properly evaluate their performance.”
Which is why self-reporting of ability is not a valid measure of ability. Glad you agree.
- Zachriel | 12/20/2013 @ 05:32FunkyPhD: Why does Zachriel always find their (I use this pronoun because Zachriel invariably employs “we”) way to blogs I like?
Feel free to ignore our comments. But an argument doesn’t disappear simply because you ignore it.
- Zachriel | 12/20/2013 @ 05:33mkfreeberg: “Not valid.” It’s easy and fun to say that.
A measurement can be accurate and reliable, but not valid. Do they teach the basics of science in your country?
- Zachriel | 12/20/2013 @ 05:35[…] From House of Eratosthenes: http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/fantasy-quotient/ […]
- ZION'S TRUMPET » The F.Q. | 12/20/2013 @ 06:48Notably, I pointed out that the F.Q. doesn’t fail anything that the I.Q. doesn’t fail. And, y’all ignored that.
- mkfreeberg | 12/20/2013 @ 06:54Ahhh, the Zachriel. Ironically, you guys are very like Santa, in that nobody catches you at your work but overnight there are suddenly loads of comments under the tree.
Further irony of ironies… when you show up and repeat, like an incantation, “We didn’t tell you what to think,” over and over, when it’s clear that all you ever do or ever want to do. Or, if I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I’d observe that you don’t so much TELL others what to think as you dismiss it when it isn’t what you happen to believe. Which leads to a third irony – your constant accusations that others are unaware or ignorant.
Leaving all that aside (and my Ironymeter melted about twelve comments back, anyway), I had to wonder how the science-uber-alles collective came up with such impassioned flowing language such as “supernal beauty” and all… and yup, it’s the famous “Yes Virginia” letter. The thing is, you linked the letter in the prior thread and quoted from the beginning of it, and have ever since been dropping other bits of it, unattributed, into your otherwise-pristine and uncontaminated machine-prose. And it’s accepted practice to at least use quotes to show that you didn’t write it yourself, unless the quote has passed into common usage… so, for example, you wouldn’t need “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus,” any more than you have to attribute “It was Greek to me” to Shakespeare. But the rest of the letter? I think Francis Church deserves the credit.
- nightfly | 12/20/2013 @ 08:49@FunkyPhD,
You’ve been to grad school — every seminar is full of ’em. After all, where else in the world do people have to listen to you bloviate for hours at a time? The Zachriel just never left. They’re on the twenty-year plan.
- Severian | 12/20/2013 @ 08:53@nightfly,
Nice sleuthing! Good luck trying to get them to admit their plagiarism, though. They didn’t admit they were pulling their list of criteria for a valid argument from authority word for word off some Canadian World War II site. But then again, what do you expect from people who are still quoting themselves, word for word, from a blog post they wrote in 2005? (Check the link to their blogspot account).
I’m trying to think of a single opinion I still hold, completely unmodified in any way, from ten years ago. Good thing they’re not trying to tell us what to think, though.
- Severian | 12/20/2013 @ 09:00“I’m trying to think of a single opinion I still hold, completely unmodified in any way, from ten years ago. Good thing they’re not trying to tell us what to think, though.”
It’s also a good thing that they’re always re-evaluating their views based on new evidence.
- nightfly | 12/20/2013 @ 09:29True, true…. but as “climate science” has shown, only stuff that confirms your predetermined opinion counts as new evidence. Because science.
- Severian | 12/20/2013 @ 09:45mkfreeberg: Notably, I pointed out that the F.Q. doesn’t fail anything that the I.Q. doesn’t fail.
We pointed out that studies have shown that people tend to overestimate their abilities. Your proposed test of F.Q. relies on self-reporting. The equivalent would be measuring I.Q. by asking people whether they thought they were smart. By this measure, most people would be above average.
nightfly: when you show up and repeat, like an incantation, “We didn’t tell you what to think,” over and over, when it’s clear that all you ever do or ever want to do.
Nope. But we do hope that people will support their positions.
nightfly: Or, if I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I’d observe that you don’t so much TELL others what to think as you dismiss it when it isn’t what you happen to believe.
Nope. We are more than happy to listen to contrary arguments, and are open to persuasion. Indeed, we seek common ground.
nightfly: I had to wonder how the science-uber-alles collective came up with such impassioned flowing language such as “supernal beauty” and all… and yup, it’s the famous “Yes Virginia” letter.
Yup. It was clear to those following the conversation, as we have quoted it extensively on this blog.
nightfly: And it’s accepted practice to at least use quotes to show that you didn’t write it yourself, unless the quote has passed into common usage …
Thought it was so well known that there would have been no confusion.
Severian: I’m trying to think of a single opinion I still hold, completely unmodified in any way, from ten years ago.
Ten years ago, we were of the opinion that the Earth revolved around the Sun. We have considered and reconsidered this opinion, but have not changed our view.
- Zachriel | 12/20/2013 @ 16:49We pointed out that studies have shown that people tend to overestimate their abilities. Your proposed test of F.Q. relies on self-reporting.
If the subject can’t come up with an example of having changed his mind based on lately-arriving evidence, it’s probably safe to assume there hasn’t been one.
The I.Q. has been challenged, with some legitimacy, with regard to the soft (unintentional) cultural biases built into the questions. So there would be a lot of problems involved in asserting the I.Q. is “tractable tests with unambiguous standards”, nor do I see any authorities actually asserting such a thing. It’s just a test, when you get down to it. Just clues. If Subject A has a score of 130, and Subject B has a score of 85, certain things can be presumed.
That’s still much better than a mere “thought experiment.” There is some reality being measured here.
- mkfreeberg | 12/20/2013 @ 17:00mkfreeberg: If the subject can’t come up with an example of having changed his mind based on lately-arriving evidence, it’s probably safe to assume there hasn’t been one.
Again, you can’t devise a metric by only considering the extremes. In any case, most everyone thinks they are open-minded.
mkfreeberg: The I.Q. has been challenged, with some legitimacy
Sure. But at least they try to test intelligence directly, rather than through self-reporting. Well, that’s the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.
- Zachriel | 12/20/2013 @ 19:33Again, you can’t devise a metric by only considering the extremes.
Horsepuckey. Fahrenheit, Celsius and Kelvin are all defined exactly that way.
In any case, most everyone thinks they are open-minded.
Well goody, here’s a way we can test that. The alternative to which is…not to. It’s more scientific to do the testing, even if y’all don’t like the testing or can find quibbles with it. Testing beats not-testing.
But at least they try to test intelligence directly, rather than through self-reporting.
Your error here is to conflate self-reporting with error, evidently thinking subjective interpretation has to be a vital and inseparable part of the exercise. My job is to catch a ball. Y’all throw the ball, I fail to catch the ball, I’m asked “Mkfreeberg, did you manage to catch the ball?” Sure I can lie and say I caught it; I can self-deceive and say I caught it; it does not follow from that that this is an unverifiable event. All the bystanders can verify it, and easily.
As noted above, a good software test engineer will have (or at least make use of) an F.Q. of 0, which might arguably be beneath an optimally healthy level perhaps in the teens or twenties. This will make a lot more sense to someone who has actually done software testing, for awhile, during which time one will find oneself struggling to shove the F.Q. downward. Serving on a jury — to conservatives, anyway — involves a similar self-struggle, since their effort is to reconcile the rules of the statutes and the Constitution with the circumstances of the case before them (as opposed to the liberals who are just looking for excuses to acquit the guilty).
The famous “PARIS IN THE THE SPRING” triangle challenges the reader’s F.Q. It has been hypothesized by many that overall, the people who pass this test will be found to have not attained the reading skills mastered by the people who fail it; acquiring the greater skill necessitates a prerequisite skill in economizing, skimming. It’s the good readers who won’t nail this, they have their brains trained to pick up articles like “the” on one level, and the more important English words like nouns and verbs at a different level. So a high F.Q. would not necessarily be a bad thing.
But we can safely assume it’s a handicap, if a thinking person imagines his F.Q. to be way down at one level, when practice shows it to be way up at a higher level. As is the case with the Dunning-Kruger effect, the subject’s own extraordinary rating on the metric interferes with the subject’s ability to self-assess according to that very metric.
- mkfreeberg | 12/21/2013 @ 00:09Ten years ago, we were of the opinion that the Earth revolved around the Sun. We have considered and reconsidered this opinion, but have not changed our view.
Let us all note that in the Zachriel’s world, the revolution of the Earth around the Sun is an opinion, but global warming is a fact.
Kinda says it all.
- Severian | 12/21/2013 @ 05:07Zachriel: Again, you can’t devise a metric by only considering the extremes.
mkfreeberg: Fahrenheit, Celsius and Kelvin are all defined exactly that way.
Well, no. Zero°K is defined as absolute zero and 273.15°K is defined as the triple point of water. While the former can be said to represent an extreme, the upper end is arbitrarily chosen. More important, it isn’t defined by references to just the extremes, but the entire scale is defined with the well-articulated and gradable property of temperature.
I.Q., which was your original model, uses an entirely different method, and is based on a normal curve.
F.Q., on the other hand, defines an upper and lower bound, but no way to grade the middle values, at least none we’ve seen. Presumably, you could devise some sort of test, but the test you’ve provided is not valid, meaning it doesn’t measure what you are attempting to measure.
mkfreeberg: here’s a way we can test that.
It’s been tested. People tend to overestimate their abilities, especially when they are non-experts in a field.
mkfreeberg: Testing beats not-testing.
Only when the testing is valid, otherwise, it leads to faulty conclusions.
mkfreeberg: Your error here is to conflate self-reporting with error, …
It’s not a question of definition, but an empirical result. Self-reporting is unreliable when it comes to ability. You would have to extract the true data from the skewed data. This might be possible, but can’t be done by flailing about unknowingly.
mkfreeberg: Y’all throw the ball, I fail to catch the ball, I’m asked “Mkfreeberg, did you manage to catch the ball?” Sure I can lie and say I caught it; I can self-deceive and say I caught it; it does not follow from that that this is an unverifiable event. All the bystanders can verify it, and easily.
Sure, we mentioned that above. That would be an example of a tractable test with an unambiguous standard. But you haven’t proposed such a test. Unless that’s your test, but it would seem most people would answer correctly.
mkfreeberg: So a high F.Q. would not necessarily be a bad thing.
Your F.Q. is so ill-defined, it isn’t clear how it applies. People who are excellent programmers may or may not catch the error. People who live pie-in-the-sky may or may not catch the error. Unfortunately, you’ve taken something that might be interesting as a thought-experiment and rendered it untenable by insisting you can quantify it.
- Zachriel | 12/21/2013 @ 07:07Severian: Let us all note that in the Zachriel’s world, the revolution of the Earth around the Sun is an opinion, but global warming is a fact.
“‘Fact’ does not mean ‘absolute certainty’ … In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'”
- Zachriel | 12/21/2013 @ 07:09Well, no.
Fahrenheit: 0 == A salt-ice mixture made by Fahrenheit, who got it just as cold as he could get it. 100 == Body temperature of Mrs. Fahrenheit, who had a fever at the time. An extreme, and an extreme. The useful stuff, for Farhenheit’s purposes, is in-between, since it was outside the scope of his work to go measuring radiator cases or anything of the like…
Celsius: 0 == Freezing temp of water, 100 == Boiling point of water. Extremes. Again, the useful stuff is in between.
Kelvin: 0 == Absolute zero, an extreme. Kelvin degrees are equal in “size” to Celsius degrees. So, we see you have labeled my statement as incorrect. Again. Y’all have been shown to be wrong in doing this. Again.
It’s not a question of definition, but an empirical result.
I do agree there could be an issue here, if the measurement had to be taken entirely by self-assessment. That is not the case; it is a bit of fantasy y’all are inserting.
If y’all throw the ball to me and I drop it, we do not need to rely on my self-assessment to see that I dropped the ball. Similarly, if someone does not change his mind about something, for years at a time, and discusses an ever-broadening range of topics, all without ever changing his mind about anything, and then is shown to be incorrect about things, refuses to admit it, then is proven to be incorrect about things, still refuses to admit it…certain things may be concluded. More knowledge, coupled with rational and reliable means of measurement, leads to better understanding. It’s the scientific method.
As is the case with the I.Q., the bulk of the work involved in producing a quantifiable measurement strategy, is before the numbers are produced for the division operation. By the time we’re producing the quotient, that work is done, and it’s just math. Hard to argue with math.
- mkfreeberg | 12/21/2013 @ 07:42mkfreeberg: Fahrenheit: 0 == A salt-ice mixture made by Fahrenheit, who got it just as cold as he could get it. 100 == Body temperature of Mrs. Fahrenheit, who had a fever at the time. An extreme, and an extreme.
Neither temperature is an extreme, and the scale continues in both directions.
mkfreeberg: Celsius: 0 == Freezing temp of water, 100 == Boiling point of water. Extremes.
Neither temperature is an extreme, and the scale continues in both directions.
mkfreeberg: Again, the useful stuff is in between.
That’s the crux. The scale is clearly defined thermometrically for points in between. We can always provide an unambiguous measure.
mkfreeberg: Kelvin: 0 == Absolute zero, an extreme. Kelvin degrees are equal in “size” to Celsius degrees.
While a lower bound exists, an upper bound does not, and the scale is defined thermometrically for points in between.
mkfreeberg: I do agree there could be an issue here, if the measurement had to be taken entirely by self-assessment.
At this point, all you have is a vague concept. We can unambiguously report temperature on the Celsius scale. The same can’t be said for F.Q. The only inkling we have is not a valid measure.
mkfreeberg: If y’all throw the ball to me and I drop it, we do not need to rely on my self-assessment to see that I dropped the ball.
That is correct. That would be a measure of your ability to catch a ball.
mkfreeberg: Similarly, if someone does not change his mind about something, for years at a time, and discusses an ever-broadening range of topics, all without ever changing his mind about anything, and then is shown to be incorrect about things, refuses to admit it, then is proven to be incorrect about things, still refuses to admit it
We change our views frequently. For instance, our own views have changed considerably on natural selection and neutral drift in evolutionary biology. We have also gained insights into the mechanics of speciation.
mkfreeberg: As is the case with the I.Q., the bulk of the work involved in producing a quantifiable measurement strategy, is before the numbers are produced for the division operation.
You haven’t done the work, or even proposed a reasonable process.
- Zachriel | 12/21/2013 @ 08:01Neither temperature is an extreme, and the scale continues in both directions.
Depends on the context. If, for example, you’re doing work with water in the liquid state, or something that relies on that — then yes, the freezing temp would be an extreme, and so would the boiling point.
I can certainly appreciate y’all’s motivation in arguing that the measurement should not be made. Trouble is, it’s a flop. Y’all called out that the demarcation is between the extremes, which are defined first and there’s somehow something wrong with that. There actually isn’t anything wrong with that, I’ve cited the example of temperature scales, and now y’all are reduced to just nit-picking, pointlessly. Y’all argued that there will always be residual uncertainty in quantifying the measurements, I’ve provided the rebuttal that the I.Q. test labors under similar difficulties and yet still it survives. Then y’all tried to reduce it to a fictitious “thought exercise” or some such, but anybody who’s had experience arguing with anybody for any purpose at all knows there’s something real being measured here.
But the real irony is that, while arguing there isn’t a measurement to be made here, y’all are providing beautiful examples of what is to be measured.
- mkfreeberg | 12/21/2013 @ 08:07mkfreeberg: If, for example, you’re doing work with water in the liquid state, or something that relies on that — then yes, the freezing temp would be an extreme, and so would the boiling point.
Your scale has an absolute minimum of zero, and an absolute maximum of a hundred. You have to not only define the absolute minimum and maximum, but how to determine values in between.
mkfreeberg: I can certainly appreciate y’all’s motivation in arguing that the measurement should not be made.
Quite the contrary. We have our magnifying glass and notepad at the ready. There are grad students who might love to have such a project for their dissertations. You have proposed something called F.Q., claimed it is quantifiable, but have provided no operational definition.
- Zachriel | 12/21/2013 @ 08:11Your scale has an absolute minimum of zero, and an absolute maximum of a hundred. You have to not only define the absolute minimum and maximum, but how to determine values in between.
In order to do what, exactly? With what’s defined already, statements can be made about reality, such as “Their F.Q. seems close to a hundred, to me” or “His F.Q. is way too high.” Or, “A bureaucracy has a way of boosting the F.Q. way up there.” These statements are all debatable. They’re also testable. You wish to oblige me to objectively and definitively resolve conflicts among professionals, I suppose, such as “This tester produced an F.Q. on this subject of 25, and this other one produced a number of 45 because the questions were weighted differently.” Think I’ll punt on that one. The I.Q. test doesn’t seek to resolve these in any one singular objective way. Why should the F.Q.? The case has not been made.
Yes, it’s zero to a hundred; can’t be < 0 and can’t be > 100. A portion of something is being divided by the totality of that thing. Those are the range constraints that naturally result.
- mkfreeberg | 12/21/2013 @ 08:16And then there’s Dunning-Kruger, which has won a Nobel Prize in psychology.
That is merely an effect, and arguably a matter of only opinion. In fact, it has been postulated that people who cite it most frequently, are in fact the most frequent victims of it.
Maybe Dunning & Kruger should give back their prize?
- mkfreeberg | 12/21/2013 @ 08:19mkfreeberg: In order to do what, exactly?
So far you have provided a vague idea of what 0 F.Q and 100 F.Q. might be, but no way to determine values in between.
mkfreeberg: With what’s defined already, statements can be made about reality, such as “Their F.Q. seems close to a hundred, to me” or “His F.Q. is way too high.” Or, “A bureaucracy has a way of boosting the F.Q. way up there.”
Those are qualitative. As we suggested, that might be worth thinking about, but you insisted it was quantifiable.
mkfreeberg: They’re also testable.
That’s your claim, but haven’t provided an unambiguous measure.
mkfreeberg: The I.Q. test doesn’t seek to resolve these in any one singular objective way.
Actually, I.Q. tests do attempt to provide a quantitative valuation. They also attempt to equate these results to some measure of intelligence, and while native intelligence is probably a component of I.Q., it is apparently not the only component.
mkfreeberg: And then there’s Dunning-Kruger, which has won a Nobel Prize in psychology. That is merely an effect, and arguably a matter of only opinion.
Um, not “only opinion”, but empirically supported.
- Zachriel | 12/21/2013 @ 08:24Um, not “only opinion”, but empirically supported.
When an observation is made of F.Q. == 100, the F.Q. certainly does enjoy that much support. It’s empirical observation of the lack of something, which is just as valid. So your objections fail here, too.
So let’s handle it this way. If y’all don’t want something measured, don’t measure it. Leave it to others to do science.
- mkfreeberg | 12/21/2013 @ 08:28mkfreeberg: When an observation is made of F.Q. == 100 …
There is no such thing, at least you have yet to define any observation as such.
mkfreeberg: If y’all don’t want something measured, don’t measure it.
We have our magnifying glass and notepad at the ready. If someone says to measure the temperature in °C, there is an operational definition. If someone says to measure the speed of light in km/s, there is an operational definition. If someone says to add 2 g of salt to a beaker, there is an operational definition. That means that anyone, if they follow the procedure, can measure temperature in °C, speed in km/s, and add 2 g of salt to a beaker.
You have proposed something called F.Q., claimed it is quantifiable, but have provided no operational definition.
- Zachriel | 12/21/2013 @ 08:41There is no such thing [as a 100-Fantasy-Quotient], at least you have yet to define any observation as such.
Priceless!
We have our magnifying glass and notepad at the ready.
Oh really? Because what I’ve seen is more like a kid somewhere between seventh grade and sophomore year, coming up with a busy bushel of rationalizations about why he shouldn’t have to do his homework because algebra is so dumb and he’ll never actually use it.
- mkfreeberg | 12/21/2013 @ 08:48mkfreeberg: Priceless!
We frequently change our views in light of the evidence. For instance, our views have changed considerably on the roles of natural selection and neutral drift in evolutionary biology. We have also garnered insights into the mechanics of speciation.
mkfreeberg: Oh really?
You claimed that your fanciful Fantasy-Quotient could be quantified. You seem to have retreated from that claim somewhat.
- Zachriel | 12/21/2013 @ 08:54You claimed that your fanciful Fantasy-Quotient could be quantified. You seem to have retreated from that claim somewhat.
It can be quantified to the same extent, by way of the same methods, with the same residual uncertainty as the I.Q.
There is also an E.Q., for Emotional (Maturity) Quotient, which likely provides a much better example of the unquantifiable of which y’all wish to speak.
There’s nothing extraordinary about new artificial metrics borrowing methodologies from other established metrics. Kelvin/Celsius, for example. Anyway, if y’all don’t want to make the measurements or hear of the measurements, y’all are perfectly welcome to clap your hands around your ears and go “can’t hear it, la la la.” But of course that’s not science, that’s rather the opposite of science.
- mkfreeberg | 12/21/2013 @ 09:07mkfreeberg: It can be quantified to the same extent, by way of the same methods, with the same residual uncertainty as the I.Q.
That’s what you keep saying, but not showing.
mkfreeberg: There is also an E.Q., for Emotional (Maturity) Quotient, which likely provides a much better example of the unquantifiable of which y’all wish to speak.
The Emotional Quotient is a quantitative measure, there are specific tests, but the results are of questionable validity and reliability. At least they have a testing procedure to discuss, something you haven’t yet developed.
mkfreeberg: There’s nothing extraordinary about new artificial metrics borrowing methodologies from other established metrics.
Not at all. Let us know when you have a quantitative test, then we can discuss whether it is valid or reliable.
- Zachriel | 12/21/2013 @ 09:19At least they have a testing procedure to discuss, something you haven’t yet developed.
Oh, so that’s what it’s about, a “testing procedure.”
You’re right, I haven’t developed one. And that’s fine.
That’s what’s called “out of scope.” Doesn’t mean I disagree with y’all that it’s necessary. But if the point y’all are trying to make is “device a methodology right now, or resolve not to ever measure it,” then y’all are welcome to go down that road without me.
- mkfreeberg | 12/21/2013 @ 09:27mkfreeberg: Oh, so that’s what it’s about, a “testing procedure.” I haven’t developed one. And that’s fine.
Fair enough.
Z: An actual quantitative measurement may be possible, you would have to devise tractable tests with unambiguous standards.
- Zachriel | 12/21/2013 @ 09:37And yet, the I.Q. test survives. As do diagnoses for bipolar, dyslexia, Aspergers, ADHD…
- mkfreeberg | 12/21/2013 @ 09:59mkfreeberg: And yet, the I.Q. test survives.
Sure, they have clear testing methodologies, and try to understand the limitations and validity of those methods, something you don’t seem to have much interest in.
- Zachriel | 12/21/2013 @ 10:09They have clear testing methodologies, which were developed by way of doing the testing. First comes the idea, then comes the initial round of measuring, which then enters into an evolutionary process and is refined over time. Even after that’s done, knowledgeable professionals argue about whether the testing is good or not, with perfectly valid arguments presented on both sides. But meanwhile, science is presumably in better shape at the end of it because the measurements are being made, and more information is gathered.
You don’t try to develop the testing methodology into it’s ultimate end-state before running a single test. That’s something you try to do only if you want to kill the measurement because you don’t want the measurements to be made.
- mkfreeberg | 12/21/2013 @ 10:13mkfreeberg: You don’t try to develop the testing methodology into it’s ultimate end-state before running a single test.
No, but neither do they reach conclusions before testing, as you did in your original post. It’s an interesting idea, but you seem to use it as more of a talking point—”People who disagree with me are full of F.Q.”
- Zachriel | 12/21/2013 @ 10:18Two assertions of things I have done. Both incorrect.
Priceless!
- mkfreeberg | 12/21/2013 @ 10:26I see comment threads like this and my brain is full of FQ. Or something like that.
- Rich Fader | 12/21/2013 @ 15:52[…] Me, shortly after the healthcare.gov debacle: […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 02/25/2014 @ 07:34[…] …or, could He just be playing to a crowd that’s feeling this burst. Or maybe this has nothing to do with what people find exciting or titillating? Could it be just a maturity problem? A failure to develop the intellectual hardiness we use when we take in unwelcome information? An unnaturally high F.Q., or Fantasy Quotient? […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 07/16/2016 @ 10:49