How often do you see your man/woman?

[VertexSquared]

Sure, it was nice only studying the day before and then aceing exams... but really, what's the point??? Who CARES whether you're maximising your effort:result ratio or not??? Certainly not your future employers/scholarship awarders/etc, and they're the ones who matter.

 

Right -- besides, if you just cram everything in one day before an exam, the material won't stick in the long run and, as you just said in your recent post, it's likely a function of a good short-term memory. You'll make the grade, but your retention will likely plummet.

[SadandConfusedWA]

I don't think time spent is necessarily indicative of intelligence unless it's a purely isolated function. Some people are good at connecting the ideas together but just read more slowly. Perhaps they write their notes out more carefully. Perhaps their notetaking skills aren't as good and they don't necessarily paraphrase as effectively despite their talents at the subject. It's also possible that the person who takes longer studying has other activities that are simply more tiring and thus water down their ability to focus as effectively as the guy who is relatively destressed.

 

I know many people who spend a comparably longer time studying for a given subject for the same grade as someone else who was able to do it in half the time, but it'd be a grave mistake to place your bets in favor of the faster guy if it came down to choosing sides.

 

There are always other variables in anything. However in this case, they are pretty minor, and my original statement still stands. If you want to simplify, think of the timed IQ tests. They are timed for a reason.

[SadandConfusedWA]

And yes, as OP says, it's certainly no measure of intelligence. Measure of natural proficiency in the particular subject you're taking, maybe. I know people who have photographic memories and could score in my graduate exams with just reading through stuff once... but last I checked, memory was only ONE function of intelligence. My course does not account for analytical, numerical, and linguistic capabilities... just memory. So even then someone who maximises their effort:result ratio is simply good at memorizing.

 

Right, I agree to an extent. I was thinking of MY subjects when making the original statement and it being pure math, it has little to do with memory.

[SadandConfusedWA]

Right -- besides, if you just cram everything in one day before an exam, the material won't stick in the long run and, as you just said in your recent post, it's likely a function of a good short-term memory. You'll make the grade, but your retention will likely plummet.

 

While this is somewhat true, some people are simply not intelligent enough to get complex concepts if they start studying a day before an exam. Others are. That was my point and you seem to water it down with irrelevant details just for the sake of disagreeing with me

[SadandConfusedWA]

Oh BTW, I realize that calling people less intelligent or less bright is very un-PC of me and bound to provoke a reaction. Sometimes I wish people would just be more blunt and straight-forward.

[Els]

It's not about being un-PC, SC. It's just about being completely false.

 

It's basically like me saying that all fat people are lazy. I'd get jumped for that, not because it's un-PC, but because it's false.

[SadandConfusedWA]

It's not about being un-PC, SC. It's just about being completely false.

 

It's basically like me saying that all fat people are lazy. I'd get jumped for that, not because it's un-PC, but because it's false.

 

 

It is false as perceived by you. When you have no more arguments, this is what you say. And it is in no way similar to "all fat people are lazy" statement. Simply faulty logic on your part.

 

What I have described is well known concept by most teachers. But hey, you are not a teacher.

[Els]

Really? What's the difference? 'All fat people are lazy', as opposed to 'Everyone who spends a lot of time studying for classes is unintelligent'?

 

My friends in medical school put in a lot of effort - because they simply don't want to take risks. I would wager that one of them has a far higher IQ than you do (not because I think that an IQ score is the ultimate measure of intelligence, but because you use it as such), scoring 150-160 on several tests. But he studies as much as the average person in his course does - while they go through the material 2-3 times, he goes through it 6-7 times in the same span of time. Because he wants to guarantee himself excellent results. While he COULD probably have gotten nearly the same results with less input, most of the time... What's the point???

 

Plenty of bright people spend a lot of time and effort studying. If you can't accept that as a teacher, I'm frankly glad you're not mine.

[SadandConfusedWA]

Really? What's the difference? 'All fat people are lazy', as opposed to 'Everyone who spends a lot of time studying for classes is unintelligent'?

 

 

 

Plenty of bright people spend a lot of time and effort studying. If you can't accept that as a teacher, I'm frankly glad you're not mine.

 

I have never said that and if you actually go back and read what I wrote - you would see that. I won't even touch the dig at my IQ score hahaha.

[Els]

If you mean that you worked a lot on your subjects/assesments then you must have not been very high on academic talent.

 

Mm?

 

It wasn't a dig, 150 is probably around the 99th percentile, so it's sheer probability that it would be higher than yours. But if you would like to disprove it, feel free to disclose yours.

[SadandConfusedWA]

Mm?

 

It wasn't a dig, 150 is probably around the 99th percentile, so it's sheer probability that it would be higher than yours. But if you would like to disprove it, feel free to disclose yours.

 

OK, fair play - honestly the last time I had it officially tested it was few points lower than that. But you really do not know if people that tell you that their IQs are 150-160 are telling the truth - by sheer probability they are not

[Els]

I saw the Mensa results.

[VertexSquared]

I am not even going to get into why these arguments are all inaccurate, but IQ technically loses its recorded meaning past 140. The reason for this is mainly due to the fact that there are so few data points statistically that allow for a meaningful extrapolation past this point, and so the difference between 140/150/160 IQ is a bit hazy due to the inherent variance and I just roll my eyes at people who claim to have IQ's in this threshold. Many would simply say "Over 140" to be a bit more precise.

 

Also, SW, please read a bit more about what an IQ test is supposed to measure. There are plenty of really good tests out there that *do not* rely on time, and are technically a bit more accurate (have you heard of the .dk test that bases itself off the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices?)

 

I'm not disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreeing -- I am disagreeing because what you're saying is not entirely true. Time alone is a very poor measure of intellectual ability. You also need to consider factors like prior exposure and knowledge base, as there is a difference between knowledge and IQ.

[VertexSquared]

If you want some tests that are actually fairly decent:

 

http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf (one of the most reliable you'll find on the net)

http://www.cerebrals.org/tests/tri/TRI52.html (higher ceiling in this one)

 

This thread has officially become derailed. LOL.

 

Anyways the reason why such tests are "better" but not timed: They try to normalize out some high-variance factors such as verbal bias (hence the rather visual nature of the tests which are more "universal" in scope), and the fact that time won't necessarily help you. If you don't know how to answer something in X minutes, odds are you won't be much closer in X+10 or X+15. It tries to isolate your ability to make the connection and not how fast you can make simpler links (which is, again, a correlated but otherwise very poor measure).

[CLC2008]

To answer the original question, of course it varies from person to person.

 

Factoring profession, lifestyle, distance, etc.

 

There are many people who function typically well on very little sleep, and there are some that don't. I need at least 7-8 hours of sleep, and while I can function with less, if I go days without a sufficient amount of sleep, it catches up with me eventually and I basically crash.

 

I was just having a similar conversation with a family member, who is in the medical field. He was explaining how being sleep deprived, has caused quite a few errors in his profession, a couple that were life threatening to the patient. When you speak with him, you can tell he is very detached, which you kind of have to be in that field. His profession doesn't allow much time for anything.

[VertexSquared]

To answer the original question, of course it varies from person to person.

 

Factoring profession, lifestyle, distance, etc.

 

There are many people who function typically well on very little sleep, and there are some that don't. I need at least 7-8 hours of sleep, and while I can function with less, if I go days without a sufficient amount of sleep, it catches up with me eventually and I basically crash.

 

I was just having a similar conversation with a family member, who is in the medical field. He was explaining how being sleep deprived, has caused quite a few errors in his profession, a couple that were life threatening to the patient. When you speak with him, you can tell he is very detached, which you kind of have to be in that field. His profession doesn't allow much time for anything.

 

Oh wow, that's gotta suck. O.o

[Chocolat]

I work in academia and it is universally known that the true measure of student's ability is their subject mark adjusted for time they have spent working on that subject.

 

For example if Joe spends 2 hours per week on subject A and gets 80% final mark, and Jane spends 10 hours a week on subject A and gets 80% - Joe is simply brighter than Jane. This is the point I was trying to make.

 

I work in academia, too, and, while this example is possible, it is mostly a false dichotomy. In reality, what I see are students who spend a lot of time with their studies and do well (As or high Bs) versus those who spend very little time studying and door poorly. This is assuming, of course, that instructors are not simply handing out As like candy.

[CLC2008]

Oh wow, that's gotta suck. O.o

 

Yes. And he just started in that profession and he's not really enjoying it at all. It's a catch-22 really. They are understaffed, they expect him and others to work around the clock, and if there are any medical errors, they get slapped with a lawsuit.

 

I have another family member who is the medical field but was just terminated for a medical error. It's interesting to watch because she sleeps constantly now and is back to tending to her personal life, which involves about 40 years of paperwork and junk that she's now sifting through. It's a full time job .

[Chocolat]

I saw the Mensa results.

 

Mensa is a high-IQ club, not a testing organization.

 

Stanford Binet is the gold standard of IQ testing and quite expensive to have done. Most people spewing their numbers have not been tested on this measure. The numerous internet-based tests are largely inaccurate, as is testing after the age of 6 or so.

[VertexSquared]

Mensa is a high-IQ club, not a testing organization.

 

Stanford Binet is the gold standard of IQ testing and quite expensive to have done. Most people spewing their numbers have not been tested on this measure. The numerous internet-based tests are largely inaccurate, as is testing after the age of 6 or so.

 

Yep yep, this is correct.

[123BeachFan]

On average 2-3 times/week.

 

I'm a divorced mom with split custody, and I usually date guys who are also divorced and have their kids part of the time (not that I necessarily prefer divorced dads, it has just worked out that way). Two to three times a week has seemed to be the reasonable amount of time to see each other and also balance family and work.

Edited April 23, 2010 by 123BeachFan

[SadandConfusedWA]

Meh, I am not going to go deeper into the IQ disucssion and I somewhat agree on lots of IQ tests being inaccurate especially at the very high or low ends of the spectrum.

 

I still stand 100% by my premise, which is simply that students that require less time to understand a concept tend to be generally brighter that those that require more time to understand the same concept. Time is not the only factor, but it is a big one.

 

We have hired a few people that had perfect academic record but ended up performing poorly as post-grad students and researchers. We hyphotised that this was because during their college days, they spent huge amounts of time on their school work to keep up the good grades and now that they have other responsibilities (a partner, kids etc) they can't devote similar amounts of time and end up falling short and not performing well.

 

I recently did a single Masters level subject on X (not going into too much detail to protect identity) and scored 96%. The first thing my boss wanted to know is how much time I have spent on assesments and on preparing for exam lol. 96% can have quite a different meaning depending on the time factor.

 

I feel kind of silly arguing about this, because me and very senior academics that have had 10s of years of experience in teaching fully agree with this concept. What I am saying is about as true as saying that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celcius. If people on LS are going to disagree on something as obvious as this, then I hold little hope in having any reasonable arguments on more contraversial topics. Sigh. I am very dissapointed.

[Chocolat]

I still stand 100% by my premise, which is simply that students that require less time to understand a concept tend to be generally brighter that those that require more time to understand the same concept. Time is not the only factor, but it is a big one.

 

Not sure if this is directed to me, but I agree completely.

 

However, when it comes to writing papers and such, there is a minimum threshold of time required. In this instance, it is the students who are willing to put in the time who will do well.

 

It's one thing to understand a concept and another to be able to articulate it.

[VertexSquared]

Meh, I am not going to go deeper into the IQ disucssion and I somewhat agree on lots of IQ tests being inaccurate especially at the very high or low ends of the spectrum.

 

I still stand 100% by my premise, which is simply that students that require less time to understand a concept tend to be generally brighter that those that require more time to understand the same concept. Time is not the only factor, but it is a big one.

 

We have hired a few people that had perfect academic record but ended up performing poorly as post-grad students and researchers. We hyphotised that this was because during their college days, they spent huge amounts of time on their school work to keep up the good grades and now that they have other responsibilities (a partner, kids etc) they can't devote similar amounts of time and end up falling short and not performing well.

 

I recently did a single Masters level subject on X (not going into too much detail to protect identity) and scored 96%. The first thing my boss wanted to know is how much time I have spent on assesments and on preparing for exam lol. 96% can have quite a different meaning depending on the time factor.

 

I feel kind of silly arguing about this, because me and very senior academics that have had 10s of years of experience in teaching fully agree with this concept. What I am saying is about as true as saying that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celcius. If people on LS are going to disagree on something as obvious as this, then I hold little hope in having any reasonable arguments on more contraversial topics. Sigh. I am very dissapointed.

 

Well then you will be pleased to know that there are different pressure conditions that result in different boiling points in water. What you are saying is indeed about as true as that.

 

When it comes down to it, all you can do are correlate factors against each other. I agree that, given *all else is equal*, someone who achieves score X on subject Y in time T is "smarter" than someone who achieves the same score on the same subject but in T+[x>0] time. The problem is that the assumption here is a large one, and empirically you can see that the other factors typically weigh very heavily into issues where time is concerned.

 

If you'd like to discuss this further I am more than willing to start another thread about it -- but it's well-established that time is empirically not the best indicator of things, and I've got plenty of support for my claim if you wish to get into it.

[Els]

Meh, I am not going to go deeper into the IQ disucssion and I somewhat agree on lots of IQ tests being inaccurate especially at the very high or low ends of the spectrum.

 

I still stand 100% by my premise, which is simply that students that require less time to understand a concept tend to be generally brighter that those that require more time to understand the same concept. Time is not the only factor, but it is a big one.

 

We have hired a few people that had perfect academic record but ended up performing poorly as post-grad students and researchers. We hyphotised that this was because during their college days, they spent huge amounts of time on their school work to keep up the good grades and now that they have other responsibilities (a partner, kids etc) they can't devote similar amounts of time and end up falling short and not performing well.

 

I recently did a single Masters level subject on X (not going into too much detail to protect identity) and scored 96%. The first thing my boss wanted to know is how much time I have spent on assesments and on preparing for exam lol. 96% can have quite a different meaning depending on the time factor.

 

I feel kind of silly arguing about this, because me and very senior academics that have had 10s of years of experience in teaching fully agree with this concept. What I am saying is about as true as saying that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celcius. If people on LS are going to disagree on something as obvious as this, then I hold little hope in having any reasonable arguments on more contraversial topics. Sigh. I am very dissapointed.

 

Oh, c'mon. 10 years of experience in academia and you can't spell controversial, hypothesized nor disappointed?! 'Hyphotised', seriously!?!? Don't try and tell me those were typos either, because typos are like that 'disucssion' and 'assesments' up there. I smell a huge rat.

 

YES, students who spend less time to understand a concept are usually brighter than students who spend more time to understand the same concept. HOWEVER, when VS said he spent a lot of time working at college, you automatically assumed that if he had meant 'working at school-related stuff', he wasn't too bright because he spent a lot of time working at it. There is a world of a difference between the two statements, and frankly I'm in great doubt of your analytical skills if you can't tell the difference.

 

Here, let me spell it out for you. Intelligent people may understand something faster, but:

 

1) Not all grades are based on your ability to understand. Many courses have 'coursework' elements such as presentations in which the more time you put in, the more marks you typically get. So the brightest person in the world would have to put in a LOT of time for a coursework-heavy subject.

 

2) Even if they do understand something faster, many intelligent people prefer to, instead of goof around during the time that they save, use it to consolidate and learn more than the average person does, even if it is unnecessary or does not reflect in their grades.