Defining IQ

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

It is objective for humans but subjective from a scientific point of view because it will probably not be transferable to other sapient species.

I think the word you want is "relative." That's not quite the same as "subjective." How much I weigh, for example, is relative to what planet I'm on, but it's not subjective.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by whswhs

The idea that ethics comes down to personal preference, or in other words is subjective, is a popular dogma of the twentieth century, due in part to Hume's skepticism (and its later formalization into logical positivism) and in part to Nietzsche's will to power theory and cultural relativism. But it's not the only meta-ethical view. The long tradition of virtue ethics, from Plato and Aristotle to Aquinas and Spinoza (of which Rand is a recent outlier), does not consider ethics to be subjective.


Now, I'm not going to take up more bandwidth arguing for the correctness of that view. I'm just saying that what you take to be obviously correct, seemingly to the point of its being an axiom that cannot be questioned, is a belief that some very rational people have rejected on grounds that I find convincing.

You're right the perspective that ethic's is a matter subjective preferences is itself in abstract a subjective perspective! However the counter position that it's objective and scientific requires more than a negative refutation of my point as being subjective (and using rhetorical but subjective phases like dogma and axiom), it require a positive demonstration that it is objective and "scientific".

I.e you saying well that's just your "subjective opinion of my position" doesn't strengthen the position that ethics is a matter of objective fact, only objective fact does that. I know my opinion is subjective but than since it's my contention the entire subject matter is subjective I could hardly argue otherwise!

Originally Posted by whswhs

So you aren't going to convince me that your views are right by simply asserting that ethics is subjective; you would need to present a detailed argument, and a detailed critique of the other view.

Well I'm not trying to convince you of anything. But actually I don't need to provide you with a convincing counter argument for why ethics isn't objective but instead subjective, because the burden of proof is not the same for both positions.


This is kind of the key point about claiming scientific objectivity, it comes with a burden of actually providing proof of that. I.e you can't just say "ethics is scientific and objective fact". You have to actually show that to be the case. Whereas since my point is ethics is a matter of personal preferences and subjective, I don't really need any proof because subjectivity and personal preference isn't relient on any*.

Which is why setting them in opposition and saying well you've not convinced me so therefore mine is proved. Is to miss the point that these are not two mutually exclusive factual positions were only two outcomes are possible and if one is unproven therefore the other is proven. They are intrinsically too different to directly compare in that way.

What's ironic here is this distinction is one of the differences you were alluding to between "folk" physics and chemistry vs. "scientific" Physics and chemistry

Originally Posted by whswhs

But if ethics is a science, then the fact that an ethical view is intuitively appealing to a lot of people can't be taken as making it valid, any more than the fact that a lot of people find it intuitively obvious that heavy things fall faster than light ones makes this valid in physics. Scientific truth is not democratic.

I quite agree. But assuming you making this point in reference to your earlier point about "popular dogma of the twentieth century", it doesn't then follow that just because a lot of people think one way the counter position is made any more scientific for it?

I.e your point seems to be just because a lot of people from the C20th onwards say ethics is subjective personal preferences does not prove it's not an objective science. And yeah you're right it doesn't, however that itself doesn't prove it is an objective science. You need objective "scientific" proof for that.

Basically the fact scientific proof isn't democratic does mean the popular theory isn't automatically proven, but equally the unpopular one isn't automatically proven either


Similarly to go back to your point that there are rational people you find compelling that have questioned the axiom you attribute to me, that doesn't actually amount to proof of your position. My position is after all subjective, and can easily be subjectively questioned.
But while I know you said you didn't want to devote more bandwidth to it I'd be interested in what proof they have for supporting the assertion that ethics can be matter of objective fact. Or even just examples of who you refer to so I can get feel for where you are coming from. Are we talking about Plato Aristotle, Aquinas, Spinoza and Rand?

But yeah fair enough if you want to take it to PM or want to leave it here that's cool too!


Just quickly I don't want to give you the impression that I think you are just citing a position that you have come to without serious consideration. And equally if we don't continue this discussion I don't take that that as proof you have have no answer to my points, just that you don't want to give one right here right now!


anyway either way

cheers

TD


*yeah I realise this sounds like an awfully convenient semantic gotcha, but well we are talking about different things

[AlexanderHowl]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I think the word you want is "relative." That's not quite the same as "subjective." How much I weigh, for example, is relative to what planet I'm on, but it's not subjective.

No, I think that subjective is the appropriate because ethics is an individual expression of ideals (ethics comes from the Ancient Greek ethos, which simply means habit). Ethics evolves from the intersection of the environment of an individual (nurture) and the neurology of the individual (nature). Individual humans develop their subjective ethics through contemplation and self-exploration. An alien being will never truly be able to practice human ethics, even if raised within a human environment, because they will never share human neurology (so an AI could never share human ethics).

I believe that morality is relative because morality is a group expressive of ideals. Morality evolves from the rules that govern societies and serve as the 'soft' power to regulate individual behavior within a society (laws serves as the 'hard' power to regulate individual behavior within a society). Since morality is a product of society (and not a product of biology), an alien being can practice human morality as long as they can participate within human societies (so an AI could share human morality even if they cannot share human ethics).

The intersection of human ethics and human morality exists in individual human beings. The majority of human beings have not developed their individual ethics because they have not spent sufficient time in contemplation and self-reflection, and they tend to default to the human morality of the human society where they exist (though they are usually not that moral). Human societies prefer human morality to human ethics because the subjective nature of human ethics means that they make individuals unpredictable.

In GURPS terms, an ethical person will probably develop a Sense of Duty while a moral person with probably develop Honesty (though a moral person could develop a Sense of Duty to a particular group while an ethical person could develop Honesty if they approve of the laws of their society). Either type of person can also develop Codes of Honor, though an ethical person will probably develop a Code of Honor around their actions as an individual while a moral person will probably develop a Code of Honor around their actions within a group.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Similarly to go back to your point that there are rational people you find compelling that have questioned the axiom you attribute to me, that doesn't actually amount to proof of your position. My position is after all subjective, and can easily be subjectively questioned.
But while I know you said you didn't want to devote more bandwidth to it I'd be interested in what proof they have for supporting the assertion that ethics can be matter of objective fact. Or even just examples of who you refer to so I can get feel for where you are coming from. Are we talking about Plato Aristotle, Aquinas, Spinoza and Rand?

I think each of them has some valid ideas on the subject, to differing degrees.

The thing is, I'm not atempting to prove my position. I'm simply pointing out that in asserting that ethics is subjective, you are stating as an obvious truth something that is not obvious to everyone and may not be true; there have been philosophers who are still studied after centuries or millennia who held the contrary view.

If I were prepared to discuss this at length here, this would be an opening move in dialectic, and would lead to examination of the implications and presuppositions of our different positions. Since I'm not, I'm just going to say that of course you're entitled to say that you don't believe there is an objective ethics without having one demonstrated, but saying that there can't be an objective ethics is a different and much stronger position, and one that also requires positive demonstration. I'm not asking you to provide that demonstration; I'm simply noting that one would be needed.

My real point was that the fact that many human beings find certain moral ideas intuitively persuasive doesn't show that those ideas are valid. That seems to be consistent both with my view of ethics as an applied science, and with your view of ethics as subjective.

[sjard]

<Moderator> This thread is now considerably off topic, please return to the topic, or, if that has been exhausted, let the thread die off.

Thank you.
</Moderator>

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

The purpose is to translate fictional capabilities in real world numbers. By doing such comparisons, I am capable of roleplaying more effectively because I know which people I have met through my life to emulate for a particular character. Since I have known a wide variety of people, from people with intellectual disabilities to people who are supergeniuses with multiple doctorates, I have an adequate sample group for comparison.

That's interesting.

The idea that one would want to know how smart in real-world terms a character is to know how smart to play them is a fair one, though it isn't terribly well-aligned with how I would run my games or play a character.

I do wonder, though: other posts in the thread make me think that you see a lot more than just how smart one is aligned with the GURPS stat of IQ. You mentioned at one point that smart people were more likely to make health-conscious choices or something of that sort. From that standpoint, even if that's true it seems like an odd way to approach role-playing an individual, who may deviate strongly from that generalization.

For what it's worth: when I was interested in building a model for this sort of thing, I used the following:

IQ has mean 100 and Standard Deviation 15.
For IQs above 10, I used a log-Normal distribution with each point of GURPS IQ representing 1.3 Standard deviations.
For IQs below 10, I used a normal distribution with each each point of GURPS IQ representing 1.3 Standard deviations.

This gave me the following results in a population of 1,000,000, which matched what I wanted.

IQ #
06 3
07 574
08 25,011
09 232,258
10 474,602
11 223,968
12 39,528
13 3,795
14 248
15 13
16 1

I wasn't trying to match the way IQs distribute in the real world, though that did inform some of my choices. I was just using the math to get results that felt right for the way that I view the rarity of the various characteristic levels.

Now, for what it's worth, I also viewed these as the inborn talent level, and when I used these data to build populations, I adjusted the values, considering access to education to be worth a potential +1 and a cosmopolitan lifestyle as worth another potential +1.

[Edited to add]Looking at this spreadsheet for the first time in more than 10 years, I'm not sure I would approach it the same way now. I like the results of how many people are at each characteristic level but don't like the mapping to real-world IQ.

[Flyndaran]

Only a very very tiny portion of Gurps IQ counts as whatever real world IQ is.
Gurps IQ includes everything mental not adjusted by (dis)advantages or skills or that fits under coordination or reflexes.
I don't believe I.Q. exists in the real world as a single thing, but rather modules of cognitive talents. All humans are chock full of linguistic I.Q. compared to all other animals, for example. Squirrels are amazing at complex three dimensional obstacle courses that few humans could so easily solve.

[JoelSammallahti]

Originally Posted by D10

I know we are talking mostly about human IQ, but since GURPS IQ is broad and applies to animals, I thought this was worth mentioning. After my master's I formed the opinion that theres something about IQ that entails how efficient and assertive your learning patterns are in a way to produce the best situational awareness possible.

I think that's a great observation, and interesting research, too. Animal intelligence is one of those fascinating topics I wish were being studied more.

[gruundehn]

As far as the original topic goes, any relation of GURPS IQ to real life IQ is founded in what was known, or believed, in the 1970s. GURPS has not changed their working definition, or not very much, since then. BUT, even then the primary focus was game mechanics. While, for example, weapon damage to the human body tries hard to simulate reality, the Attributes do not. Those Attributes are there in order to make the game playable. Trying to make a good simulation of reality would require two or more dozen attributes that change on a constant basis.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

The purpose is to translate fictional capabilities in real world numbers. By doing such comparisons, I am capable of roleplaying more effectively because I know which people I have met through my life to emulate for a particular character. Since I have known a wide variety of people, from people with intellectual disabilities to people who are supergeniuses with multiple doctorates, I have an adequate sample group for comparison.

I strongly believe that GURPS authors* didn't have real IQ in mind when they thought about GURPS IQ, but that they thought about fictive characters' IQ.

Indeed, GURPS is not a game designed to play real world people. You can do it, of course (and even do it more easily than with a lot of other roleplaying games), but the purpose of GURPS is to play adventures. And how many of us will live a roleplaying-game-like adventure in his life? Almost none (except maybe those who are cops or soldiers - and even for them, it is not sure).

Now, what about fictive characters? In novels, movies or TV series, those with a high IQ also have a strong will, a very good perception, know an amazing number of mental skills and are also smooth operators. Except those who have a clear mental disadvantage, of course.

Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, Gandalf, Peter Bishop (From Fringe TV series), Walter O'Brien (from Scorpion TV series) Little Finger (from Game of Thrones) ... All those genius heroes (or antiheroes) do what they have to do no matter the danger, do notice the lesser detail, are able to convince almost anyone that they are right with outstandingly good arguments, and so on.

It is exactly as for GURPS Dexterity. No real people has such a broad ability for every physical activity. But as soon as you think about fictional heroes, like Lara croft (who is able to climb, swim, dodge anything, ride any mount, use any weapon, drive or pilot any vehicle ...), you immediately understand GURPS DX.

So, the best way to better roleplay GURPS characters is not to compare them to real people, in my humble opinion, but to compare them to fictional heroes.

_____

* Don't hesitate to correct me if I am wrong.