Originally Posted by aldfig0
Look from 4:36 to 7:10. The person that came the closest had much less math experience than the others.
That's a very vague categorization. You can say anything is anything like that. I could say math is just a form of art, which would then make this debate meaningless.
SATs are taken in high school, where everyone essentially has had the same education. So that is simply saying smarter people have higher test scores. The GRE, on the other hand, is taken after a student has had further instruction in a more narrow field. If English is essentially the same as mathematics, as you say, then math majors should be able to use the same skills they have learned in their math classes for English, and perform as well if not better, but that is not the case.
You are trying to disprove years of research on intelligence...
First I'll cover the SAT vs GRE, apparently they are equal. Either way that's null as I'm going to explain some heavy psych theory that covers both.
That video is flawed. I've also read up on that psychologist and know his theory and beliefs on intelligence. As apt as they may be there are problems with this, as well as other things he doesn't talk about. The entire concept behind that isn't well explained, mainly because a lot of people won't understand how detailed and problematic it is. I'm going to try and explain my current ideas and theory behind it (with some known theory that has been well established, I'm not disproving him but expanding on how we get to those IQs).
When you get into skills, or learned abilities, they never explain exactly how the brain stores information. More to the point, they don't go to explain that when you learn certain information you essentially lose other information (slowly). Theoretically we all start as a blank slate, unless you have a disability or genetic anomaly (bad or good). So far so good?
At birth you rapidly start to process the world, this process is what starts to wire your brain. You have a natural tendency to wire the brain a certain way, that is all kids develop more or less equally with most subjects. We all learn to walk around the age 1, they believe (current theory) that this is a hardwired process. You learn to walk because your brain develops in a way that allows you to do so, as well as certain other cognitive abilities (language, perception, and concepts like object permanence all happen at certain "times"). This is all well documented and talked about as the current solid models for human development.
Now, after a certain amount of brain development we become fully self-aware and self-conscious. We also start with a base amount of brain space being used for certain motor skills. Yes, certain parts of the brain are dedicated to certain physical abilities. Taste, smell, Sight, touch, muscle control (fine and gross), things of that nature. In fact a HUGE portion of our brain is dedicated to our facial region alone. Just like a huge portion of a dog's brain is dedicated to their nose.
Here is where things get tricky and where his ideas get foggy. As you learn things in life they start to occupy brain space, literally. Though you don't exactly map out knowledge directly, you do it indirectly for a lot of things. Take the idea of a ball, what is a ball? Well first what are it's base components? It's a sphere, before that though it is a circle with shading/depth. Your brain will, from current research, map both a sphere and a circle under the same region. It likes to associate things if it can, creating ideas and concepts from separate regions. Even though it does that we have huge problems specializing in specific fields.
What does this mean? Well for starters Sturnburg believes that having huge athletic ability might mean your smart. Not really, it just means your brain was wired to use more of it's space towards moving your body. Essentially over years of training your brain becomes wired for physical ability. I don't believe that's being smart, your sacrificing intelligence for physical ability. Literally.
This also happens when you use mnemonic devices, they take up brain space just like everything else. A doctor having what seems like infinite knowledge in medical might actually be no more intelligent than an English major. Though his training in math would make that a poor example.
How about comparing an English major to a History major? Both are based heavily on memorizing facts, they both use up wasted brain space. We can all memorize something, or at least as previously stated we all start with equal ability to do so. That would be an equal comparison on the intelligence level of majors.
I keep saying we all start with the equal ability to do so, and this is true. Though everything you do starts to occupy your brain and wire it in a way that allows you to do those skills better. Even skills that don't require much thought or cognitive abilities. The idea that you can't teach an old dog new tricks, you can but... Everything you do starts to take away at your potential, it takes away from that blank slate and causes you to lose ability.
So when you start creating tests that measure "specific" talents or abilities you have an obvious bias. You are creating tests that will measure how well their brain is wired for those abilities. We need a test that can measure two things; Your ability to learn and your ability to solve equations. Problem: There are no tests that can do that in a single sitting, that is what your life is for.
This doesn't even cover the problems with "creative thinking" being intelligent. Or the idea that the artist has more intelligence than the mathematician. And unfortunately for you I was going to be an Art major, I've posted my art here before to show that I do know a bit about it. Art, the concept of drawing (painting, ect... ect..), isn't logic based but it is repetition (there are also new tricks to re-teach your self reality, that's something that we all can do though). The problem with art is it's a fine motor skill. Everyone has the ability to be an artist, there is NOBODY who can't. Just like earlier when I said it was mapped by the brain so is art. It's muscle memory in the form of fine motor control (opposed to gross). Everyone can train their body to do these activities. Outside of that Art itself is just expression, there is no right or wrong. Some people start with a higher natural ability, at least they have the ability to "create" things easier (though I could go into why that happens, again it goes back to your childhood and how you were raised).
Creativity itself is thought to be something anyone can do, we all have an inner creator. So if you go off that than it's not a learned intelligence but an ability that is natural to everyone. You now have a huge hole in his theory, which has some sound concepts but is one of 3 major psych theories behind intelligence.
So, quick recap: if you go to physical attributes versus the educated you will have the person who's been an athlete their whole life win. If you go into problem solving, straight logistics, you have the math person. If you get into creativity/art, there is enough evidence to say that part of his theory has holes.
Ok ok, so what about english vs math? Who would win? Unless you had completely unknown variables in subjects that were new to both and equally tested them you'll never know. Any current IQ test will favor the math major, logic based thinking wins in solving problems. If you go into anything English related, grammar, linguistics, the english major wins. History is all mnemonic, there is no intelligence behind it. What's left?
What about Psychology? Same concept, once you get far enough into a major most of it is memorizing. That is why Doctors are taught as much as Physics, for problem solving.
If you were giving equal knowledge of the situation I would put my bet on the math major every time.  Or equal access to knowledge, they could find and read books or articles that can aid them. I'm going to say the tougher problems will naturally favor logistics.
[edit: Going to bed so no edit edit edits I swear]
I want to go into Neuro Psychology, mainly I want to help map out how the brain physically wires in relation to cognitive thought. I literally want to know how the brain works, what affects it, how memory and intelligence are stored. What forms of intelligence favor the brain being wired in a way that aids learning new intelligence and so on. I believe that we haven't even touched the potential of the human brain, not even close. Until we can further map that we will have no idea what intelligence really is or how to create our children to become more intelligent. So this is really my subject, I LOVE to talk about this in all forms. [edit: I lied] I'll probably end up with a bio/chem major, or something close with Psych. If I get tired of schooling I might opt just for generic Med school and get a practitioners license for something.
[edit: Lied] Intelligence is what causes us to be smart, to cognitively process a problem. Memorizing facts just uses your brain for something anyone can do. We can all memorize, at least science says we can. Not all of us has the ability to solve certain problems; A is where we were (are) and C is where we are going (solution). To get there we need B, the problem is we have to create B. That's what all the hard sciences do, they solve the worlds problems by inventing the the link. ABC! Engineers, doctors, all the hard sciences are based off logic (math based/logic based). Anything else is a lesser degree, it's literally a lesser degree.
I am NOT saying they don't fulfill a function of society, they do. We need every major, they wouldn't be one if we didn't need it. We even need janitors, fast food workers, they fill a huge function in society. However the rated intelligence levels for those jobs are minimal.
“Scientists discover the world that exists; engineers create the world that never was.” -Theodore Von Karman (without both we would be equally lost)Edited by mushroomboy - 5/22/11 at 11:43pm