Do you know what a tree is?
Of course, everyone knows what a tree is, and no this is not some silly trick using the computer science definition of “tree.”
So, what is a tree?
Tree (noun): a woody perennial plant having a single usually elongate main stem generally with few or no branches on its lower part.
— Tree Definition, Merriam Webster
Ask a young child what a tree is.
What is the answer?
Probably a drawing, a gesture or some explanation including ducks and dinosaurs.
So, what is a tree?
Is a tree the definition in a dictionary?
Does the child know what a tree really is?
Is it a class of biological organisms that satisfy specific technical characteristics?
What concrete meaning does the symbol point to?
WHAT IS A TREE?
“Tree” in this context is a symbolic abstraction that points to something concrete. However, completely describing the concrete phenomenon is impossible. Instead, we create a different contextual models using the same symbol. The public model of a tree is different than that of a child’s, which is different than the botanist’s, which is different than the arborist’s, etc.
Another good example is the word atom.
Do you know what an atom is?
Doubtful, because that word merely points to your private model based on your personal exposure to information. What you “know” is not the same as what someone else “knows,” because there is no guarantee your private models are the same, nor any guarantee those models are in precise and complete correspondence with reality. However, the same word can be used to refer to either model.
Suppose you refer to a dictionary or science book.
Does that entry fully describe an atom? No, the entry is another model, but represented in a lexical format that is easier to share and teach to groups of people, but the dictionary entry is still a modelled abstraction.
What about technical definitions of an atom? Well, if you go down that road, you will find a vast array of mathematical models ranging from classical mechanics, statistical mechanics, electrodynamics, chemistry, quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, particle physics, blah blah blah, that are all different based on their application contexts, but use the same word atom.
So is anything real? If universal consistency is a description of reality, then quite clearly so, but we have to be honest about one important concept: our perception of reality is not reality itself, and we can be easily fooled by language.
This concept has grave implications.
IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient, which is considered a metric of human intelligence calculated through standardized tests. IQ was first termed in the 1912 book The Psychological Methods of Testing Intelligence by William Stern, which attempts to score an individual’s ability to reason and solve problems.
Shortly before in 1904, British psychologist Charles Spearman discovered a positive correlation in children's school grades between unrelated subjects. After testing the relationship between grades from Classics, French, English, Math and Music, he discovered that the correlation was apparent across all subjects.
i.e., Is there a positive relationship between a student’s performance in Math and English?
Yes. Performance in one subject may be indicative of overall performance, which is an indictor of general intelligence.
Spearman proposed that each person has some level of general intelligence, which he called the g factor. This score is determined using an organized collection of tests, called a test battery, that evaluates specific cognitive tasks. The tests for specific tasks are weighed into a statistical variable that measures the g factor. These weights are initially calculated using the highest correlations between all item scores, which is called g loadings.1
e.g., In the WAIS-R test battery, questions related to Vocabulary, Similarities, Information, Comprehension have a higher correlation to general intelligence than questions for Picture completion, Digit span, Object assembly.
Those with high g scores perform well on all subjects, and low g scores perform poorly on all subjects. Spearman published this result in “General Intelligence,” Objectively Determined and Measured. However, the g factor contains a margin of error per subject, to which he proposed subject specific factors called s factors. Spearman suggested that specific factors could be trained, but general intelligence was fixed.
In a recent article,
wrote about a new study, Cognitive ability, health policy, and the dynamics of COVID-19 vaccination, that identified a correlation between cognitive ability (i.e., IQ) and COVID-19 vaccine uptake.This topic has generated some interesting discussions.
wrote an article suggesting a similar study should measure vaccine uptake by personality traits.Following the topic,
further discusses his rationale to explain the importance of the IQ correlation.I too would like to elaborate on these observations, particularly by examining the technical measurement of IQ and the linguistic implications.
To begin with, the methodology for the IQ test creates a misleading label regarding the term intelligence. Much like the symbol tree previously described, intelligence is a symbol selected to represent the g factor from a test battery. Based on the calculation of the g factor, an IQ test is technically measuring an individual’s general reproducibility from a standardized set of inputs.
i.e., How accurately can an individual reproduce an answer from a standardized statement?
This rephrasal instead describes trainability.
(i.e., An associative learning score.)
Since the g factor is topic independent, it becomes a general measure of how trainable an individual is to statements and vocabulary. This is supported by the g factor’s strong correlation with general knowledge and vocabulary, as per Spearman.
But, general knowledge is not absolute knowledge of reality.
In a previous article, I described the difference between reality and models of reality.
Consider Galileo and his persecution. His support for Copernicus’s theory, that the Sun was the centre of the solar system (i.e., heliocentrism), resulted in a conviction of heresy, where he spent the rest of his life under house arrest.2
General knowledge during this period purported that geocentrism (i.e., the Earth is the centre of the Universe) was an indisputable fact. Individuals proficient with this general knowledge would likely deny heliocentrism using established heuristics.
The IQ score represents a general abstract ability to reproduce knowledge.
Therefore, IQ could be more accurately termed General Trainability Quotient, which is much less flattering, and suggests that abstract behaviour can be engineered. While these general intelligence tests likely do correspond with overall intelligence, it also reveals an exploit in social cognitive systems.
How could general abstract reproducibility be exploitable, as I so claimed?
Assume questions in a test battery take the following form.
The variable t is the test as a function, q is the question as an input and a is the answer as an output. The test t could be a logical question or a language question that cognitively manipulates the individual through wording in q or multiple choices in a. The test t is organized in classes, which are correlated to the g score to give a measure of general intelligence. In this case, the test is absolute and has no ambiguous answers.
The individual will produce mental models as the following.
𝓜(t, q, a) are the cognitive models for questions q, the methods of producing answers t and the resulting answers a. Thus, the general intelligence test is a measure of how accurately 𝓜(a) corresponds with a for a test battery of t. If 𝓜(a) = a then one can assume 𝓜(q) = q and 𝓜(t) = t, implying cognitive models of the question and the reasoning process are similar enough to those established by the tester.
The general intelligence test measures the trainablility of private models 𝓜.
Suppose a knowledge set is taught in the form of questions, answers and inference processes. Consider that this trained knowledge, including representation and inference, has no external validation requirements and could be reinforced using conditioning schemes (e.g., social conformity, authority figure, punishment and reward, etc.).
This has two major implications.
A knowledge set could be completely fictitious, but individuals on average are able correctly recall the learned representations and inferences.
The meanings that t, q or a represent can be altered, but individuals will still correctly recall the learned representations and inferences.
For 1., contemplate on the present academic environment with recently emerging studies in humanities and social sciences. The knowledge set could be entirely fictional, but higher IQ individuals reliably reproduce these representations and inferences, and apply them to other fields.
Notice how “discrimination” and “systemic bias” are used to explain away statements inconsistent with established “general knowledge.” Individuals could use this learned associative logic and apply it to virtually any topic if prompted.
For 2., recall the example of the tree and atom from the outset, and consider the term “vaccine.” The statements “vaccines have saved lives,” “all approved vaccines are safe,” and “vaccines are safe and effective” cannot be easily reproduced like other scientific claims in physical science.
e.g., Reproducing the torque to rpm curve for an engine can be setup fairly easily in a garage. How easy is it to reproduce vaccine safety claims? Reliance on these claims is delegated to experts, institutions and specialized statistical analyses of curated data.
Thus, high IQ individuals can be trained with these knowledge sets and still produce expected answers even after altering the semantics of word phrases. What is the correct interpretation of the words “vaccine,” “safe,” “effective” or “saved lives”?
This is referred to as the language game.
Manipulating the expected input value for a function to produce alternative behaviour is defined as hacking in computer systems engineering. These exploits could be considered behavioural hacking by training populations with fictitious knowledge or by altering semantics through language games.
Normalization of Deviations in Performance
One of the best examples of trainability (i.e., psychological conditioning) in high IQ individuals is normalization of deviation, where individuals or organizations gradually accept lower performance standards until a lower standard becomes the “norm.” Normalization of deviation was first termed by sociologist Diane Vaughan when reviewing the Challenger disaster.3
Normalization of deviation occurs in an environment of punishment and reward, where these pressures encourage lower standards to deliver promises. Relaxing these standards “gets the job done,” and resolves the pressure with no adverse effect. However when pressures return, the lower standards are used again. Eventually, individuals and organizations begin to consider the lower standards as acceptable and not deviations. Thus standards, procedures and expectations are renormalized.
The classic example involves two NASA space shuttle accidents: Challenger and Columbia. The Challenger incident was the result of an O-ring seal failure, which was found to be malfunctioning after every flight — yet resulted in no significant consequence. Concerns for these deviations were ignored due to continued success, and the potential for failure was disregarded. The Rogers Commission, established to investigate the accident, discovered that NASA managers had known of the potential for catastrophic failure and disregarded warnings from engineers.4
Without active change to an individual or organization’s culture, reversing the normalization of deviance is difficult. People easily believe that minor departure from defined standards is acceptable in environments of reward and punishment.
Normalization of deviation demonstrably affects high IQ individuals.
Concluding remarks
IQ is not a shield against propaganda, but rather a fruitful ally.
Intelligence is like a knife, it allows us to cut through complex problems but its misuse may result in personal injury. The sharper the knife, the deeper the cut. Higher intelligence can be weaponized in punishment and reward environments, where emotional pressures may produce dangerous behaviour.
Normalization of deviation, the perceptual shift of the fault tolerance curve, is a phenomenon of concern. Accompanied by systemic compliance, deviant behaviour gradually drifts us further from established and proven norms. This is true in the societal sense, but also technically as per the recent OceanGate Titan accident.
Until June 18th, a manned deep-ocean submersible had never imploded.
But, to McCallum, Lahey, and other experts, the OceanGate disaster did not come as a surprise—they had been warning of the submersible’s design flaws for more than five years, filing complaints to the U.S. government and to OceanGate itself, and pleading with Rush to abandon his aspirations.
“It’s not about being a disruptor. It’s about the laws of physics.”
— The Titan Submersible Was “an Accident Waiting to Happen,” by Ben Taub, The New Yorker (Jul. 1, 2023)
How many other systems have been compromised due to this behaviour?
Consider reading the most recent post by
describing historical deviance in western civilization, which results in the lowering of standards, loss of values and a disregard for the law.Consider how society’s overall worldview, and its obsession with possession, is self-terminating and a precursor to the disruptive horrors we see unfold.
If intelligence quotients are a reflection of general trainability, how can we protect ourselves from social engineering exploits delivered through persuasive influence?
In a previous post, I suggest 3 principles that may be of practical use.
Critical thinking, in conjunction with emotional intelligence, may help avoid learning fictitious knowledge and falling prey to language games. However, the public must become more aware of any nefarious actors using the mind for political gain.
The cultural obsession with intelligence is a subversive obsession with compliance.
Always question your strongest beliefs, because what you think you know, likely contains error. Identify emotive responses to specific terms or fields of knowledge, because it can be used as a potential exploit against you.
Keep your head above water, but be wary of the many drowning victims.
Kendra Cherry, M. (Jul. 25, 2011). How general intelligence (G factor) is determined. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-general-intelligence-2795210
Why was Galileo persecuted for his discoveries? (2023). In Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/video/232458/who-was-Galileo
Price, M. R., & Williams, T. C. (2018). When doing wrong feels so right: Normalization of deviance. Journal of Patient Safety, 14(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/pts.0000000000000157
Occupational Health & Safety (2021). Normalization of Deviations in Performance. https://ohsonline.com/Articles/2021/10/01/Normalization-of-Deviations-in-Performance.aspx
Nice post, Theodore, and I very much agree with this message.
You wrote, "The cultural obsession with intelligence is a subversive obsession with compliance. Always question your strongest beliefs, because what you think you know, likely contains error. Identify emotive responses to specific terms or fields of knowledge, because it can be used as a potential exploit against you." Indeed, we all likely come face to face every day with highly intelligent NPCs who regurgitate the latest globohomo propaganda slop, and we wonder why they so-clearly believe such obvious nonsense. The number of people I know who question authority and their own beliefs is very small. Indeed, it is ultimately the blind acceptance of authority from almost everyone, *especially* among the so-called "intelligent", that has created the Hell world we are in today, not the few sociopaths who take advantage of the situation.
hello. I do not really like to read a lot but a cursory examination of this shows some similarities between your interests and mine. So, here is one recent example of our similar interests, Theodore: https://silverman.substack.com/p/argument-vs-fact I mentioned that I do not like to read a lot. I also do not like writing that much, but I re-wrote this one a few times so maybe it is okay now. Let me know, if anything makes sense or adds up!