First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Assign job based on brain scan
54 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
On my laptop
Offline
Posted 5/12/17

PrinceJudar wrote:

There are so many things wrong with this topic.

Intelligence is limited, demonstrative proof of this can be found in learning disorders and disorders of intelligence. If you're human (which you all are), then you have biological limitations determined by your genetic predisposition--unique to any other individual. Not everyone progresses or learns subjects at the same rates and not everyone can solve cognitive problems at the same level. If I had 50 children confined to the same environment, some children are still bound to be at the top and others at the bottom depending on the subject and process being utilized. Personally, I have deficits in communication, that entails other processes will attempt to compensate--some will, others won't. Some individuals are able to compensate better for deficits than others. Some of you seem to think that the human brain has no limits, but I am assured that none of you have the 'cure' to autism or other neurological conditions because brain plasticity is limited. Neuroplasticity, additionally, is extremely less subject to change as one ages beyond the early developmental period. Not everyone is capable of being a respected engineer--apologies in bursting your "humans are born of equal potential" childhood fairy tale. You have limits, hard work has limits--no human is limitless. Additionally, the whole concept that humans have the same cognitive limitations is laughable--you're not born equal. You're not the same as the person standing next to you. The world is both unfair and deliciously diverse in its offerings.

That being said, just because humans have limitations doesn't mean we have a good way of measuring such matters--or defining it. Intelligence is not strictly defined by structure, size, or appearance--certainly. Brain scans, intelligence tests--all are rigged with bias and predisposed ideas as to how to define intelligence.

So know this: You are not limitless, but your potential cannot be measured--it is up to individuals to discover what they are capable of...only effort can do that--not a test, textbook or a definition.



Beautifully said. I agree on all accounts. I just want to point out I don't think your saying "roll over and die" if you come from less than ideal circumstances. While you may not be respected engineer material, surely you can amount to something greater than "May I take your order" if you put forth a decent effort early on in life.
19383 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/13/17
What if you were selected for a job you absolutely would not do, by the brain scan?

21953 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 5/13/17

cdarklock wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

So your saying


*you're

You do understand that your consistent failure to use possessives correctly is a credibility issue, right?


you've never tried to understand an insanely difficult concept for your brain to comprehend to the point where your head starts to over heat and eventually you need to take a nap?


That's not what "suffer massive headaches" means. So, you know, more credibility down the toilet.

Also, no. That's never happened to me.


If you haven't then you have never really tried to comprehend something.


Maybe the subjects you find "insanely difficult" are just honestly not that hard to other people.

I mean, apostrophes aren't exactly rocket surgery.


Someone sounds butthurt. You having fun. Attacking my cell phone grammar instead of my points?

Try doing it sometime. Though be ready to take a nap right afterwards or suffer from a massive headache. Your brain needs rest and to cool down.
249 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/13/17 , edited 5/13/17
I find this to be one of the worst ideas I have ever heard, although fortunate to know what not to ever give into. Not only is this idea pro-slavery by favoring jobs, but its also teaching conforming to dictator rule while dismissing evolution entirely (except that all dialogue comes with evolution) and pretending science has adequately understood brains and bodies at all. Hint: all of science is wrong until you make your own meaning.

And no I don't believe some are born smart. I believe we are all equal and by adopting meaning from others some either conform to that faster or slower (or not at all), often creating the illusion of smart and stupid, or any perceivable division.
20760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 5/13/17

Rujikin wrote:

Someone sounds butthurt.



You're making that up. You literally have no information on how I sound.


You having fun.


That sentence no verb.


Attacking my cell phone grammar


Neither of the above were caused by your cell phone.


instead of my points?


If you want to tell people about the human brain's amazing capabilities, and use yourself as the example of how amazing it is, step one is to have an amazing brain.

You don't. You need to find a better example. If you are especially attached to using yourself as the example, first you need to go out and become amazing.

I happen to agree with you: I believe the human brain can transcend its structural limitations. There's only one problem... we don't know what those limitations are.

We've literally never seen someone learn and know so much stuff, their brain stops being able to hold it all. The brain's capacity seems to be so variable, that it automatically alters its structure every six to seven years in anticipation of future needs. (Axon-terminal synaptic pruning. Look it up.) But according to all actual data in the field, past the age of about 26, future needs always decrease. We've never observed a case in maturity where the brain's prediction of future needs has been "we need more space." It's always "we need to get rid of some shit" (arbor pruning).

Even then, hypnotism successfully recovers memories long after they've been forgotten. There is some controversy about that, because the brain is also well-known to just make shit up when it can't find a memory - "I don't know what actually happened, so I'll just invent something I consider plausible" - in much the same way you thought I sounded butthurt. This was a plausible idea to you, and you had no meaningful data to say otherwise, so your brain just scrawled that on your memory centres and now you think it's true.

That's not because you're stupid or defective. It's how brains work. Most studies paradoxically suggest that this behaviour is most common in smarter people. Rather than give up when it hits anything resembling a dead end, the more-effective brain just digs a tunnel in some likely direction. Mathematically, this improves the chances of reaching the intended destination - it just also increases the chances of winding up out in left field somewhere, trying to argue that the human brain is like an enormous fish.

We have a pretty good understanding of how brains work. What we don't understand is where the structural limits are. We suppose, logically, that there are some. But for all intents and purposes, it is practically impossible to reach them.

Which begs the question: how is this materially different from your conjecture that they can be exceeded?

Let us take on the one hand your idea that you can restructure your brain to learn anything you like.

Then let us take on the other the evidentiary claim that your brain is already structured just fine to learn anything you like.

Since both of these end with "therefore, you can learn anything you like," does it actually matter which one is true?
29761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 5/13/17 , edited 5/13/17

cdarklock wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

Someone sounds butthurt.



You're making that up. You literally have no information on how I sound.


You having fun.


That sentence no verb.


Attacking my cell phone grammar


Neither of the above were caused by your cell phone.


instead of my points?


If you want to tell people about the human brain's amazing capabilities, and use yourself as the example of how amazing it is, step one is to have an amazing brain.

You don't. You need to find a better example. If you are especially attached to using yourself as the example, first you need to go out and become amazing.

I happen to agree with you: I believe the human brain can transcend its structural limitations. There's only one problem... we don't know what those limitations are.

We've literally never seen someone learn and know so much stuff, their brain stops being able to hold it all. The brain's capacity seems to be so variable, that it automatically alters its structure every six to seven years in anticipation of future needs. (Axon-terminal synaptic pruning. Look it up.) But according to all actual data in the field, past the age of about 26, future needs always decrease. We've never observed a case in maturity where the brain's prediction of future needs has been "we need more space." It's always "we need to get rid of some shit" (arbor pruning).

Even then, hypnotism successfully recovers memories long after they've been forgotten. There is some controversy about that, because the brain is also well-known to just make shit up when it can't find a memory - "I don't know what actually happened, so I'll just invent something I consider plausible" - in much the same way you thought I sounded butthurt. This was a plausible idea to you, and you had no meaningful data to say otherwise, so your brain just scrawled that on your memory centres and now you think it's true.

That's not because you're stupid or defective. It's how brains work. Most studies paradoxically suggest that this behaviour is most common in smarter people. Rather than give up when it hits anything resembling a dead end, the more-effective brain just digs a tunnel in some likely direction. Mathematically, this improves the chances of reaching the intended destination - it just also increases the chances of winding up out in left field somewhere, trying to argue that the human brain is like an enormous fish.

We have a pretty good understanding of how brains work. What we don't understand is where the structural limits are. We suppose, logically, that there are some. But for all intents and purposes, it is practically impossible to reach them.

Which begs the question: how is this materially different from your conjecture that they can be exceeded?

Let us take on the one hand your idea that you can restructure your brain to learn anything you like.

Then let us take on the other the evidentiary claim that your brain is already structured just fine to learn anything you like.

Since both of these end with "therefore, you can learn anything you like," does it actually matter which one is true?



This though even if we never reach our limits that doesn't mean everyone can be as intelligent as Einstein I just feel the need to put that out there before someone asserts it does.

Mostly because people learn at very different paces have different aptitudes and other variables

55117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / M
Offline
Posted 5/13/17
I got question, Doesn't China do this? They have students take test and than assigned them to jobs they're best at? I heard that they have no right to chose what jobs they wanted!!

I was top in my class in Computers.. but after I got the job at court house, I got burnt out.. wasn't happy. They even want me to learn Java and other program! LOL

24100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 5/13/17 , edited 5/13/17
Fred, you have to realize the technological limitations, and what you are asking. This is just premonition, in an age where we can be wrong about the weather, and cannot predict future earthquakes, much less the expanse of a persons life and what "potential" they may have. It has never been simply a matter of brain scanning and it never will be. We would be better of raising children to be their best rather than try to measure it out, which is why such a thing has been a hypothetical in stories, which usually ends with the notion that technology will have some flaw in accuracy or misuse.

In essence, what you are proclaiming is not possible now, nor does it appear it will ever be.

The reason I dislike the notion of similar notions about what to expect from life is "One does not know", and to predict that one cannot be an astronaut, simply based on what we have seen from them, and the adequate expectations set forth for children, is disgusting cynicism for the most part. One may not reach a goal if they told it is impossible for them to do so, and it usually is the case.

20760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 5/13/17

Ryulightorb wrote:

This though even if we never reach our limits that doesn't mean everyone can be as intelligent as Einstein I just feel the need to put that out there before someone asserts it does.



Well, it doesn't mean we can't, either. It's kind of an open question. We can say with complete certainty that the average person today is smarter than the average person fifty years ago, though, and there's no evidence that the brain has changed in any meaningful way. It's not hard to propose that Einstein's historical intelligence will be lower than the average at some future date.

But my personal history just kind of automatically leads me to protest whenever someone says there's an inherent limit to people's intelligence. It hits my "fuck you" button pretty hard.
24100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 5/14/17
I think knowledge and potential brain power are a bit different, which appears to be what Fred is talking about. You can have a high capacity for learning and not be able to utilize it. If you ever heard of the case of Genie, it is pretty damning example of underutilized intelligence.
Banned
4637 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Akihibra
Offline
Posted 5/14/17
Me stupid need a job
29761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 5/14/17 , edited 5/14/17

cdarklock wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

This though even if we never reach our limits that doesn't mean everyone can be as intelligent as Einstein I just feel the need to put that out there before someone asserts it does.



Well, it doesn't mean we can't, either. It's kind of an open question. We can say with complete certainty that the average person today is smarter than the average person fifty years ago, though, and there's no evidence that the brain has changed in any meaningful way. It's not hard to propose that Einstein's historical intelligence will be lower than the average at some future date.

But my personal history just kind of automatically leads me to protest whenever someone says there's an inherent limit to people's intelligence. It hits my "fuck you" button pretty hard.


Well most people in general try all their lives to reach that level of knowledge and never do it so maybe we can but some people need more time then they have on earth to reach that level

There is an inherent limit but as you said it's debatable if we have reached it or ever will.

It's possible humans will all one day be smarter then Einstein but at the moment you can't expect that from everyone even if they dedicated their whole life to it
14305 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 5/14/17

Ryulightorb wrote:


RedExodus wrote:

Well I'm not arguing against the physical limits of intelligence but I don't think people know where the limits actually are. For all we know, no man in the history of earth has reached even 0.001% of his limits and so a regular person can theoretically surpass what Einstein has done even if it is at a probability of 0.000000001% as long as he reaches near his limit.

When coming up with the special theory of relavity, he was racing Henri Poincare to see who could come up with it first and they actually finished at around the same time. They had a little spat about who did it first and Henri gave Einstein the win... 'cuz Einstein worked harder...(quoted from Michio Kaku, a well known physicist who did a biography on Einstein)
The thing is, Henri took an IQ test since he lives in France where the test was developed and he got a score of a moron. So he got a low-ass score and he still tied Einstein despite not working as hard. Not looking good for Einstein. When you think of someone who hit his limits, you'd expect him to excel in every area but Henri clearly has areas in which he has not reached his potential(IQ).

The limits would be palpable if it was at least domain specific though like for a specific sport as an S-shaped learning curve is observed for many disciplines but intelligence is too expansive.




Well i would think we have reached our limits in some people because many people study all their lives and never become as smart or anywhere near albert einstein although that could be said it's because of their unique speed of learning.

I do agree with you fully though i just wanted to make sure you knew there was limits because alot of people on cr lately have been spreading this "human can learn infinitely" shit which has so many flaws that i don't know where to begin.


I can see that some people study all their lives but that doesn't say much IMO. For example, by studying all your life, do you mean you're like Kim Peek where you simultaneously read 2 books at the same time, 1 with each eye? Is it done for 12+ hours a day every single day? How many people would be willing to do this? Not a single person in a thousand.

There's also the issue of having an efficient method or the right trick which I believe is the most important. Most people have not learned how to speed read so this limits their learning speed for example. Also, a lot of people spend many years and a lot of money doing accelerated education to raise their IQ by around 1 SD when they could've achieved the same result in 1 month or less with one of the methods I have shown.

If you went 1 million years into the future to where people understand the most efficient ways of changing/boosting the brain and can tailor a walkthrough for you, I think explosive growth is possible. Nowadays, understanding of the brain is primitive so most people who try to boost their brains don't know what they're doing. They are like the people who think they can learn a foreign language fluently just from taking language classes from school yet they don't reach anywhere near a reasonable level in years and they forget the language years later. Meanwhile, people who learn from the massive input method reach the C1 level within the same time frame.

Thus, I argue that nobody has reached anywhere close to their limits 'cuz
1. People aren't robots, they get bored/stressed trying for extended periods of time
2. Nobody knows the absolutely best methods that are physically possible
29761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 5/14/17

RedExodus wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


RedExodus wrote:

Well I'm not arguing against the physical limits of intelligence but I don't think people know where the limits actually are. For all we know, no man in the history of earth has reached even 0.001% of his limits and so a regular person can theoretically surpass what Einstein has done even if it is at a probability of 0.000000001% as long as he reaches near his limit.

When coming up with the special theory of relavity, he was racing Henri Poincare to see who could come up with it first and they actually finished at around the same time. They had a little spat about who did it first and Henri gave Einstein the win... 'cuz Einstein worked harder...(quoted from Michio Kaku, a well known physicist who did a biography on Einstein)
The thing is, Henri took an IQ test since he lives in France where the test was developed and he got a score of a moron. So he got a low-ass score and he still tied Einstein despite not working as hard. Not looking good for Einstein. When you think of someone who hit his limits, you'd expect him to excel in every area but Henri clearly has areas in which he has not reached his potential(IQ).

The limits would be palpable if it was at least domain specific though like for a specific sport as an S-shaped learning curve is observed for many disciplines but intelligence is too expansive.




Well i would think we have reached our limits in some people because many people study all their lives and never become as smart or anywhere near albert einstein although that could be said it's because of their unique speed of learning.

I do agree with you fully though i just wanted to make sure you knew there was limits because alot of people on cr lately have been spreading this "human can learn infinitely" shit which has so many flaws that i don't know where to begin.


I can see that some people study all their lives but that doesn't say much IMO. For example, by studying all your life, do you mean you're like Kim Peek where you simultaneously read 2 books at the same time, 1 with each eye? Is it done for 12+ hours a day every single day? How many people would be willing to do this? Not a single person in a thousand.

There's also the issue of having an efficient method or the right trick which I believe is the most important. Most people have not learned how to speed read so this limits their learning speed for example. Also, a lot of people spend many years and a lot of money doing accelerated education to raise their IQ by around 1 SD when they could've achieved the same result in 1 month or less with one of the methods I have shown.

If you went 1 million years into the future to where people understand the most efficient ways of changing/boosting the brain and can tailor a walkthrough for you, I think explosive growth is possible. Nowadays, understanding of the brain is primitive so most people who try to boost their brains don't know what they're doing. They are like the people who think they can learn a foreign language fluently just from taking language classes from school yet they don't reach anywhere near a reasonable level in years and they forget the language years later. Meanwhile, people who learn from the massive input method reach the C1 level within the same time frame.

Thus, I argue that nobody has reached anywhere close to their limits 'cuz
1. People aren't robots, they get bored/stressed trying for extended periods of time
2. Nobody knows the absolutely best methods that are physically possible


That's more to my point that everyone has an aptitude to growth in learning if you set two people down doing the exact same routine for their life one night only gain 1/5th of the knowledge the other has and that's because their aptitude to learning is lower.

Not everyone's learning speed is equal even when put on equal terms and they can read just as fast.
My point being made was not everyone even using the most draining methods could reach said goal in their lifetime some people are just that slow with learning or learn differently.

No one may have gotten near there limits that's true but there is a limit on what we can learn in our given time on earth loosely because not everyone will study 24/7 and even if they did one person may not get the same results.

The whol idea that all people could become hyper intelligent if they tried is flawed at least with the time humans are given to live and current technology that is because some people are just slow learners by nature
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.