• Ramin Shokrizade, a level 0 monster with 107 posts — 8 months, 4 weeks ago:

    The Nature of Will: A Third Measure of Intelligence?

    Recently I had some discussions with my girlfriend about the question “How many geniuses are there on Earth?”. I just threw out that the top 1% of the top 1% of intelligence might make a good easy measure (the most intelligent one person out of every 10,000). Of course this begs the question “how do you measure intelligence?” It is one thing to attempt to assign an IQ or EQ to an individual with standardized tests. If you could do so with perfect accuracy and precision, then you could say “These are the 700,000 geniuses on Earth (1% of 1% of 7B).”

    Even if you count all of the artistic, philosophical and humanistic geniuses in the world, common sense indicates that only a small portion of these individuals are actually shaping our future. Some are too young or too old, some may be experiencing social or financial hardships that prevent them from participating, and some may have just “checked out” due to feeling out of place or even shunned in society.

    This paper was prompted by an insight I had last night, which was New Years Eve (the last day in 2011). I became intoxicated, a very rare (less than once a year) event for me, and I spent some time observing how my brain responded. Normally when I think of an idea, object, or concept, I get a flood of connections to things that might be related. Imagine if someone asked “What comes to mind when I say the word ‘Fire truck’?” Many things may come to mind. Google seems to work the same way. When I type ‘fire truck’ into Google I get 28,600,000 connections. I assume the number of connections I get, if I could count them, would be a much smaller number.

    I would propose that the number of connections I get to any particular idea is based on the totality of my personal experience, weighted to those areas I have more interest in. This may be related in some ways to Raymond Cattell’s concept of crystallized intelligence. The advantage I have over Google when I do a search of my (smaller) database is that I can include the relevance of various things to each other in ways that Google cannot. The latest generation of humanity has unprecedented access to information, but if they do a search for something, and the most relevant thing they are seeking ends up on the 3000th page of a Google search, this just prevents them from finding it.

    Last night I had this experience of my “relevant objects/concepts” map breaking down. Before I fell asleep I had gotten to the point where it was very difficult to focus on anything more than one object/concept, and that one thing lacked relevance. The more related ideas I have to something, the more ways I can think of using something. This is critical in problem solving. When relevance drops to zero, I noticed that I lost all will to take action. I lost my volition. When a person is presented with some data, if they don’t see how it is relevant, it seems unimportant and no action is taken on it.

    What if, beyond IQ and EQ, it took a concept of relevance for a genius to take action and use their abilities to innovate? What if this sense of volition was tied to the perception of relevance, and relevance was linked to that person’s totality of experience or crystallized intelligence? What if you used volition as a third measure of intelligence? This would result in a construct where the combination of IQ, EQ, and Volition resulted in a measure of a person’s propensity to make and apply cognitive leaps?

    The Flynn effect is the observation that IQ seems to be rising for humans over time. I would propose that increased access to information and ideas, and interactive media in particular, are responsible for this. On the down side, since we now have access to so much information on demand, I think our species is relying less on history, rote memorization, and study. When I went back to school recently to study economics, it shocked me how little the students paid attention or asked questions in the most advanced classes. They probably figure “Why memorize anything when I can just look it up on Google if I need it?”. Well yes that’s true, but if their ability to see the relevance of something is dependent on knowledge held internally, then volition will decrease using this method.

    What would be the result of a civilization whose IQ increased over time while their volition decreased? I suggest that what you would see is an increased ability to emulate, and a decreased ability to innovate, which is exactly what I observe in the interactive media industry. I would imagine this trend is not unique to just that one industry. Corporate structures promote this also. When seeking new labor resources, corporations usually have a very narrow perception of how a person should be trained and experienced, and how they fit into the grand scheme of the organization.

    When was the last time a corporation put out a job ad for someone that “can make our product or business better?”. If you could find that person, wouldn’t that person be really valuable? If so, why don’t companies do this? Are there some industries that do do this regularly? If so, are valuable lessons being learned there that can be used elsewhere?

    In the interactive media industry there are many new players who are good at business but know little about games or their history. Some brag that even though they barely know how to turn on the devices that play their products, that they know how to sell anything and thus can sell games. These same people seem to make the most obvious mistakes to me, because they lack this relevance. As soon as I start talking about marketing they have a similar reaction to me. When something they want to sell doesn’t, they fire up their analytics software and start looking for an answer from their data. Despite how much data the computer might know, you might get a better answer from someone with a lot of real experience with that specific subject. Why isn’t that person an appropriate job position? How have computers made that person obsolete?

    I invite discussion on this idea of “volition” as a measure of applied intelligence based on the ability to identify relevance. Is the ability to create and identify relevance on the decline even as total information is increasing? Does this make crystallized intelligence even more important now, or has it become obsolete? Please share your thoughts.

  • Avatar ImageJames Coote, a level 0 monster with 16 posts — 8 months, 4 weeks ago:

    I personally would call it ‘lateral thinking’

    Being able to communicate our lessons to our children allows us humans to short-circuit the learning process that every new born animal has to go through.

    The internet makes it easier to communicate and increases the breadth of people we can communicate with

    Imagine a line that you plot people’s opinions, from one extreme viewpoint at one end, to another extreme at the other. The truth is the average of all those opinions. The more opinions you add, the closer the average gets to the truth, but no opinion will ever be smack-on

    Experience has a diminishing return the more people it passes through. So we can add a weight to an opinion / experience / viewpoint. First-hand = 1.0, second-hand, 0.5, third-hand 0.25 and so on

    Next, we can alter the rate the weights diminish by how well the information is communicated. Orally communicated /= 3, written /=2, demonstrated or re-enacted /= 4 and so on.

    Finally we allow weights to be affected by existing weights. Or to put it another way, we trust some people more than others based on how accurate they were about something in the past. Something like stack overflow where people can vote up or down questions and answers

    All this is something computers can do as well, hence why most of the time, google manages to put the most relevant result at the top, not on page 300

    Google could also be seen as a collective memory extension. Just as we might outsource our emails or other memory and processor intensive tasks to cloud computing, so we can do the same with our brains. Facebook outsources the dull part of social skills like matching faces to names, so we can concentrate on more ‘executive’ functions. Digital photographs allow us to outsource the physical elements of memories, so we can store the more important emotions and feelings we attached to those memories. Check the number of people who outsource memorising a map by just t...

    This all makes sense, until you consider it is only 1 dimensional. The sales person has a great network of experiences and weighted connections when it comes to business and sales. However, they have a far more poorly populated network when it comes to game design

    Consider what the sales person is trying to do. Sell games. Sell is the primary, games the secondary. That is why the best person to sell games is a sales person who started off making games. They understand enough to know what is good and what isn’t (and perhaps enough to know they aren’t good at making games but can tell who is).

    Looking more broadly, the best sales person will be able to ‘think laterally’, or ‘identify relevance’ and apply it to something else. This is the ability to abstract an experience or lesson and then apply abstract thought to a specific problem. How well animals can do this too is a hot topic for many researchers right now

    By way of an example of how to abstract:
    The problem is that the sales person does not play the game they are trying to sell. This abstracts into the person does not understand the psychology of a group of people other than themselves.

    There are many ways of simply avoiding the problem. These are the things like using shiny adverts on TV or delegating the understanding to someone more in tune, such as the editors of a games-review magazine

    Most people are not capable of thinking from someone elses perspective, as it not only takes a lot of brain processing power and acute self-awareness, but also a deep understanding of the motivations and background of that person. This is why roleplayers spend so much effort writing the backstories for their characters and why actors are payed so much

    However, second-hand experience can be crucial to basically get the answer from someone who has achieved the above feat of understanding if you are not capable of it yourself. Hence why you can learn some insight into human nature by reading a book or watching a film

    So, to answer the questions,

    1) As the amount of information increases, it makes for more points of view, but makes it harder to put accurate weights on all those connections

    2) We are changing the way we think. The brain is flexible enough to spend more time/effort weighing lots of connections than infering meaning from each experience

    Or “We care less about your opinion and more on just getting lots of opinions”. The expression TLDR: is a perfect example of this

    If you measured intelligence objectively and based on results (actions), then yes, volition would be one way to measure

  • Avatar ImageRamin Shokrizade, a level 0 monster with 107 posts — 8 months, 4 weeks ago:

    James, thank you for your thoughtful reply. This is not my area of expertise so I am very much still in the question. I find that as I delve deeper and further into understanding the behavior of those in virtual space, it makes me wonder more about how people behave in “real space” and why.

  • Avatar ImageRamin Shokrizade, a level 0 monster with 107 posts — 5 months, 2 weeks ago:

    This article on Mashable seems to be saying the same thing, in a different way:
    The Internet Is Ruining Your Brain [INFOGRAPHIC]%3A+Mashable%2FSocialMedia+%28Mashable+%C2%BB+Social+Media+Feed%29

Views: 644

Replies to This Discussion

Your arguments reminded me strongly of a TED talk by Ken Jennings.   As he is an expert on having a huge amount of trivial knowledge at his fingertips, he laments how our culture is putting less and less value in learning and remembering things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2M-SeKey4o

RSS

Welcome

Welcome Gameful Monster!

Welcome to Gameful, which we are happy to report is officially a partner with Games for Change!

After you signup, here's what you can do to get started:

  • Explore the groups. Find one that interests you? Join it! Want to invite friends and find new allies? Create your own group.
  • Looking for an opportunity? Looking for collaborators? Check out the classifieds. By the way, here is a Gameful opportunity
  • Check the webinars and learn more about what we love the most
  • Invite friends and group members from Gameful 1.0 to join this shiny new one
  • Make a blog post
  • Friend and talk to the Mayor, or chat with anyone online (lower right)
  • Stay tuned for Gameful challenges, where you can design your own social impact game!
  • Take off your shoes and enjoy :)

Thanks everyone!

Members

© 2017   Created by Mod.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service