Intelligence

[Vzearr]

Permission given from Viet.

Why is this needed?​

Whilst reading through our current intelligence definitions, I couldn’t help but notice how contradictory, and genuinely bad they were. Terms like “greater cognitive ability than the norm, but not standing out” make no sense. It’s impossible to claim someone is cognitively superior to the average person and then insist they “don’t stand out.” That kind of inconsistency is exactly what leads to high balls where people throw characters into higher tiers without a grounded reason because the definitions themselves don’t enforce any structure. If the foundation of a definition is vague, everything following it will be unstable.

What I'm doing in this thread is rebuilding the definitions of intelligence, due to noticing how flawed our characters ratings are and how highballed they are. Each definition needs to mean something measurable, because intelligence is... Measurable.

Another big part of why this is fundamental is because we need to standardise our intelligence ratings. The wiki is built on logical reasoning, if we standardize AP values and speed metrics, there’s no reason as to why intelligence should remain so loosely defined. The new framework will make it harder to overrate characters.


Blog post:

Intelligence Revision

vsbattles.fandom.com

Currently, our intelligence ratings are okay, but there’s definitely room for improvement. In this first stage of what may become a multi step project, I plan to thoroughly update our Intelligence page. The goal is to make the page more logical, consistent, descriptive, and applicable across our wide range of profiles. This will involve refining existing definitions, refining what it means to have a rating and much more. I hope you enjoy!

Side Note: This thread will likely downgrade a vast amount of characters due to the definitions being so much more refined. Most characters as of current are highballed, so there will definitely be some changes.

Average Intelligence​

Average: Characters of average intelligence. While they have more developed intelligence in certain subjects, in many cases, their overall intelligence remains average.

Well, to be honest, the description is incredibly vague. and actually kinda contradictory, having more developed intelligence in certain subjects, but then having average intelligence is a bit contradictory, not to a level that's bad necessarily, but it could be refined, heavily. Another problem is the lack of examples and comparison. Improving on this would be as follows.

Average: Characters with cognitive abilities comparable to that of the average human. They think and reason logically also learning new information at a typical pace. Characters with this rating are capable of adapting to a variety of situations and can make practical decisions, however they are limited to moderately complex scenarios. Whilst they may show high levels of competency or expertise in specific areas, they generally lack the insight, creativity, adaptability, or skill to excel in highly abstract situations or challenges. Their overall cognitive ability remains within the normal human range.

My definition removes any real contradictions, expands on the definition and provides examples. Overall, being more in depth.

Above Average Intelligence​

Above Average: Characters that show greater cognitive ability than the norm, but do not particularly stand out in any intellectual or academic fields.

Again, it's extremely vague, and also contradicts itself, how can you show greater cognitive ability than the norm but not stand out in academic fields when even average people can stand out in academic fields. Also, the lack of examples make this, in my honest opinion, not a great definition.

Above Average: Character with cognitive abilities above that of the norm. They are capable of understanding abstract problems, and adapting faster than that of a regular human. Their learning capabilities also exceed that of a regular human and they have a much higher capacity to learn then others. They can excel in challenging scenarios but may struggle with highly abstract, strategic, or problems that require exceptional insight, creativity, or adaptability.

My definition removes any real contradictions, expands on the definition and provides examples. Overall, being more in depth.

Gifted Intelligence​

Gifted: Characters who demonstrate high reasoning ability, can master difficult concepts with few repetitions, and display high performance capability or notable mastery in intellectual or specific academic fields, which makes them equivalent to real-world experts in these areas.

This definition is far better than the others, but lacks detail.

Gifted: Characters with advanced cognitive abilities, far above that of the norm. They can quickly understand difficult concepts, solve complex problems, and learn new information with less repition. These characters often demonstrate expertise or mastery in specific intellectual or academical domains. They are capable of sophisticated reasoning, abstract thinking, and adapting to far more complex situations, of which would challenge most others.

My definition is overall more in depth.

 

[Phoenks]

Your definitions are overly specific and this ironically makes them less accurate for the purpose of an intelligence page.


For example:

Whilst they may show high levels of competency or expertise in specific areas, they generally lack the insight, creativity, adaptability, or skill to excel in highly abstract situations or challenges.

This entire section is just saying words for the sake of saying more words. The original rating already says the same exact thing.

You being more specific here doesn't even make much sense because "highly abstract situations" are not the only thing they'd have issues with. It just doesn't really make much more sense to me to be worth updating.

Again, it's extremely vague, and also contradicts itself, how can you show greater cognitive ability than the norm but not stand out in academic fields when even average people can stand out in academic fields.

You can show greater cognitive ability than the norm by having more knowledge. A simple example would be having a college degree of some kind.

Also the average section doesn't say they stand out in certain fields. It just says they could be more knowledgeable on particular subjects while remaining average. Which is completely reasonable and normal. Most people will have more knowledge on some particular subject than other things because we naturally have different interests and hobbies.

They are capable of understanding abstract problems, and adapting faster than that of a regular human. Their learning capabilities also exceed that of a regular human and they have a much higher capacity to learn then others.

This is just unnecessarily specific and limiting. Not all "above average" intellect characters even showcase these traits so it makes no sense to specify.

Characters with advanced cognitive abilities, far above that of the norm. They can quickly understand difficult concepts, solve complex problems, and learn new information with less repition. These characters often demonstrate expertise or mastery in specific intellectual or academical domains. They are capable of sophisticated reasoning, abstract thinking, and adapting to far more complex situations, of which would challenge most others.

This is okay but it is just saying the same thing but adding more words with basically zero additional purpose.


Intelligence on this wiki is such a broad category encompassing so many different aspects of our cognition that it is best to remain more vague on the subject.

 

[Antvasima]

I am afraid that I think that your new definitions are too narrowly specific, and a bit too highballed in the case of Above Average intelligence. Also, if we mess with our quite well-working definitions too much, we would have to revise too many of our wiki pages accordingly and be less certain where to place their intelligence statistics.

 

[Vzearr]

This entire section is just saying words for the sake of saying more words. The original rating already says the same exact thing.

There is a difference, you're just missing them.

The original phrasing doesn’t actually clarify what “average” entails, it just states it. My version makes a significant distinction between competence within a specific, or specific domains and generalized cognitive limitations for average intelligence, which is what prevents highballing which we experience way too much of in intelligence ratings. The extra details on my definition aren't “just more words”, it’s there to prevent "interpretation" loopholes.

If we want consistency across profile and definitions, we need to differentiate reasoning ability, adaptability, and more, not just repeat “above average” in slightly different wording. The current text allows people to interpret “average” or “above average” or "gifted" however they like, which is exactly why intelligence ratings are inconsistent across the wiki, for example, you'll have an average character given an above average rating. Why? Because the average and above average definitions are so similar. My definition closes any gaps and doesn't leave room for "I interpreted the definition like this, therefore this character should rank higher" instead my definition changes this scenario to "My character is capable of adapting to a variety of situations and can make practical decisions, however they are limited to moderately complex scenarios therefore they're average". The old definition is vague and can be misinterpreted to scale character far higher than what they are.

You being more specific here doesn't even make much sense because "highly abstract situations" are not the only thing they'd have issues with. It just doesn't really make much more sense to me to be worth updating.

Cool, that doesn't change the fact that my definition is better on the basis of the original definition not having any actual issues that they may struggle with.

Without identifying what those limitations actually are, the term “above average” has become meaningless, it could describe anything from someone who’s mildly clever but average to someone who’s nearly gifted.

You can show greater cognitive ability than the norm by having more knowledge. A simple example would be having a college degree of some kind.

That is not how it works at all.

Cognitive ability is the mental processes your brain uses for thinking, learning, and problem solving, while knowledge is defined as the awareness, understanding, or familiarity with facts, information, skills, and principles gained through experience or education.

There is a fundamental difference, but I'll explain it like this. Having a degree doesn’t mean you possess greater cognitive ability than the norm even though the norm doesn't have a degree, it indicates more knowledge and exposure, not higher cognitive function. Higher cognitive function would be problem solving, knowledge would be knowing a fact.

This is just unnecessarily specific and limiting. Not all "above average" intellect characters even showcase these traits so it makes no sense to specify.

This is circular.

"Not all above average intellect character showcase these traits according to our current definitions, therefore applying it to your definitions make it wrong"

Intelligence on this wiki is such a broad category encompassing so many different aspects of our cognition that it is best to remain more vague on the subject.

No, I disagree with you on levels.

Intelligence is a broad category encompassing many different aspects of our cognition like:

• Fluid Reasoning
• Visual Spatial Reasoning
• Quantitative Reasoning
• Working Memory
• Processing Speed
• Manipulation
• Emotional Intelligence
• Social Intelligence

Extremely broad, right? Now, you make the claim that it's best to remain vague on a subject thats largely quantifiable, and to that I can only ask you why would we remain vague on something that we can quantify when we don't remain vague on lifting strength, ap, speed and more subjects, when they're just as quantifiable as intelligence?

and a bit too highballed in the case of Above Average intelligence.

Why would they be highballed? Why do you see it as highballed when that is generally what an above average individual is capable of, I think we're forgetting that above average individuals are smarter than 75 percent of the population on a genuine level.

 

[Phoenks]

Why do you use so many words to say things that don't actually matter or make a difference, constantly?

If we want consistency across profile and definitions, we need to differentiate reasoning ability, adaptability, and more,

No, we don't, since doing so makes the sections overly-specific, which in-turn makes it more of a chore to debate who does and doesn't qualify for something that should not be that difficult to estimate otherwise.

You claim this is for "consistency across profiles," yet there doesn't seem to be some massive glaring issue with intelligence sections being inconsistent at the moment. If they are, it is one of those things that can already be readily changed with a post on the intelligence revision thread.

If I had to guess, it seems more like you're just trying to push this update because you want the page to fit your personal idea of what intelligence is, rather than what it should be for the purposes of a ~40,000 page large indexing site.

Cool, that doesn't change the fact that my definition is better on the basis of the original definition not having any actual issues that they may struggle with.

Uh, that's not how it works. Again, being more specific does not equate to it being a better definition.

Without identifying what those limitations actually are, the term “above average” has become meaningless, it could describe anything from someone who’s mildly clever but average to someone who’s nearly gifted.

That is exactly the point. They are meant to be vague catch-all's that can fit the most amount of characters who fit the definition, because intelligence on the wiki encompasses so many damn things that it would be ludicrous to try and specify every little detail or comment on what forms of intellect they should possess at that level. Again, this results in it being a chore to determine who qualifies and actually makes the issue of consistency even worse as a result, since it would mostly revolve around subjective arguments about tiny specific things like "who can solve these "abstract problems better?" which is just totally irrelevant for the vast majority of characters.

That is not how it works at all.

Cognitive ability is the mental processes your brain uses for thinking, learning, and problem solving, while knowledge is defined as the awareness, understanding, or familiarity with facts, information, skills, and principles gained through experience or education.

There is a fundamental difference, but I'll explain it like this. Having a degree doesn’t mean you possess greater cognitive ability than the norm even though the norm doesn't have a degree, it indicates more knowledge and exposure, not higher cognitive function. Higher cognitive function would be problem solving, knowledge would be knowing a fact.

You seem to miss the point that "Cognitive ability" and "intelligence" on this wiki also extends to general knowledge. They are used interchangeably, again, because separating them would make this more of a headache to index.

This supports my view on this revision being more about your own personal desires than what is best for the wiki overall.

"Not all above average intellect character showcase these traits according to our current definitions, therefore applying it to your definitions make it wrong"

Nothing about this is circular. Are you aware of what circular reasoning is?

This is perfectly reasonable. Because you again fail to consider our wiki is 40,000 pages large and people don't have the time to debate whether or not gifted character #4,589 meets your requirement of having "sophisticated reasoning, abstract thinking, and adapting to far more complex situations." For literally zero benefit because most of the time these specifications aren't going to help us any more than the current definitions already do.

It's a pointless endeavor.

No, I disagree with you on levels.

Intelligence is a broad category encompassing many different aspects of our cognition like:

• Fluid Reasoning
• Visual Spatial Reasoning
• Quantitative Reasoning
• Working Memory
• Processing Speed
• Manipulation
• Emotional Intelligence
• Social Intelligence

Extremely broad, right? Now, you make the claim that it's best to remain vague on a subject thats largely quantifiable, and to that I can only ask you why would we remain vague on something that we can quantify when we don't remain vague on lifting strength, ap, speed and more subjects, when they're just as quantifiable as intelligence?

Intelligence does not have some numerical measurement that can objectively measure it, so comparing it to categories that do such as speed, AP, etc, is a massive false equivalence. It is not "largely" quantifiable. Even systems like IQ, which is the most objective and well-supported method of measuring intelligence in the real world, are WIDELY criticized for being unable to fully capture how intelligent a person is. And completely misses out on quantifying some of the categories you yourself have mentioned, such as social intelligence.

Also, you fail to consider any form of knowledge as one of the categories of intelligence important for the wiki?

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, at my peak back when I continuously exerted my mind to extremes back in school, even I managed to score 164 and 167 on two of the IQ tests I took in foolish desperation to boost my self-esteem at the time, and I am quite dumb in several areas. The IQ tests I took narrowly measured pattern recognition and that's it, not, for example, memory, focus, organisation, learning ability, common sense, emotional intelligence, practical skills, and so onwards, all of which I would score far lower in, even though I do have high pattern recognition, observation, empathy, and literary abilities.

Intelligence spans a wide range of different types of aptitude, and as such we need to define it quite vaguely, or at least not narrowly defined to specific measurements, especially as we usually only have limited information to go by for fictional characters and our wiki spans so many different types of fiction.

 

[Vzearr]

Why do you use so many words to say things that don't actually matter or make a difference, constantly?

Diddyblud.

No, we don't, since doing so makes the sections overly-specific, which in-turn makes it more of a chore to debate who does and doesn't qualify for something that should not be that difficult to estimate otherwise.

Ah yes, lets make them not specific so we can have inaccurate definitions on the basis of "I don't wanna debate".

Also, that doesn’t make sense. Saying it would be a chore to debate who qualifies because it’s “difficult to estimate” is odd. When we change definitions, we make the process easier, not harder, because there’s less room for subjective interpretation. Specificity doesn’t complicate debates, what does is vagueness. The more specific our standards are, the faster we can come to a conclusion of which character fits under what rating. Right now, we dont waste enough time debating what “average” or “above average” or "gifted" because the current definitions leave everything open ended. My version fixes that by turning the defintions into measurable criteria.

I do not understand how you can disagree, you're not giving reasoning behind your rejection.

You claim this is for "consistency across profiles," yet there doesn't seem to be some massive glaring issue with intelligence sections being inconsistent at the moment. If they are, it is one of those things that can already be readily changed with a post on the intelligence revision thread.

It is a glaring issue in my eyes so much so that I'm surprised it has gone un-noticed.

If I had to guess, it seems more like you're just trying to push this update because you want the page to fit your personaly idea of what intelligence is, rather than what it should be for the purposes of a ~40,000 page large indexing site.

Alright buddy old pal, I don't wanna play this game of you making stuff up about me to try and pressure people into disagreeing with my reasoning on the basis of you not wanting to debate about your highballed characters intelligence. Stop being disrespectful and actually try to debate.

That is exactly the point. They are meant to be vague catch-all's that can fit the most amount of characters who fit the definition, because intelligence on the wiki encompasses so many damn things that it would be ludicrous to try and specify every little detail or comment on what forms of intellect they should possess at that level. Again, this results in it being a chore to determine who qualifies and actually makes the issue of consistency even worse as a result, since it would mostly revolve around subjective arguments about tiny specific things like "who can solve these "abstract problems better?" which is just totally irrelevant for the vast majority of characters.

If the goal of a definition is to serve as a “catch all characters” then it stops being a definition by definition. Definition is defined as the act of defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear, when you claim something has to "catch all characters" then it's just a placholder, not a definition. You can’t have both precision and "catch all be all", and right now, the intelligence tiers lean so far into "catch all be all" that they’ve lost any real meaning.

Nobody’s asking for every variable to be accounted for. The point is to introduce clear thresholds that distinguish one rating from the next, otherwise “Average”, "Above Average", “Gifted”, become interchangeable.

You seem to miss the point that "Cognitive ability" and "intelligence" on this wiki also extends to general knowledge. They are used interchangeably, again, because separating them would make this more of a headache to index.

That makes no sense, I've already explain why that's wrong.

Cognitive ability is the mental processes your brain uses for thinking, learning, and problem solving, while knowledge is defined as the awareness, understanding, or familiarity with facts, information, skills, and principles gained through experience or education.

There is a fundamental difference, but I'll explain it like this. Having a degree doesn’t mean you possess greater cognitive ability than the norm even though the norm doesn't have a degree, it indicates more knowledge and exposure, not higher cognitive function. Higher cognitive function would be problem solving, knowledge would be knowing a fact.

This supports my view on this revision being more about your own personal desires than what is best for the wiki overall.

Alright buddy old pal, I don't wanna play this game of you making stuff up about me to try and pressure people into disagreeing with my reasoning on the basis of you not wanting to debate about your highballed characters intelligence. Stop being disrespectful and actually try to debate.

Nothing about this is circular. Are you aware of what circular reasoning is?

Yes.

This is perfectly reasonable. Because you again fail to consider our wiki is 40,000 pages large and people don't have the time to debate whether or not gifted character #4,589 meets your requirement of having "sophisticated reasoning, abstract thinking, and adapting to far more complex situations." For literally zero benefit because most of the time these specifications aren't going to help us any more than the current definitions already do.

Again, the point of my changes isn't to make debates longer, it's to make them shorter, I'm not sure how else I can explain this to you and more than what I've already said.

Ah yes, lets make them not specific so we can have inaccurate definitions on the basis of "I don't wanna debate".

Also, that doesn’t make sense. Saying it would be a chore to debate who qualifies because it’s “difficult to estimate” is odd. When we change definitions, we make the process easier, not harder, because there’s less room for subjective interpretation. Specificity doesn’t complicate debates, what does is vagueness. The more specific our standards are, the faster we can come to a conclusion of which character fits under what rating. Right now, we dont waste enough time debating what “average” or “above average” or "gifted" because the current definitions leave everything open ended. My version fixes that by turning the defintions into measurable criteria.

I do not understand how you can disagree, you're not giving reasoning behind your rejection.

Intelligence does not have some numerical measurement that can objectively measure it, so comparing it to categories that do such as speed, AP, etc, is a massive false equivalence. It is not "largely" quantifiable. Even systems like IQ, which is the most objective and well-supported method of measuring intelligence in the real world, are WIDELY criticized for being unable to fully capture how intelligent a person is. And completely misses out on quantifying some of the categories you yourself have mentioned, such as social intelligence.

It literally does? Sure, IQ isn’t flawless, but it’s still the most vadated framework for general intelligence ever developed, and it does correlate strongly with reasoning, learning rate, and problem-solving ability. That makes it a perfectly reasonable conceptual anchor for how “Average” or “Above Average” might translate into fiction. Remember, I'm not saying to use IQ as a definition for our intelligence ratings, I'm saying to use IQ as an indicator for our ratings, dont strawman me. The goal isn’t to turn the wiki into a psychometrics testing facility, it’s to apply actually valid reasoning. Vague definitions just make things arbitrary.

Yes, at my peak back when I continuously exerted my mind to extremes back in school, even I managed to score 164 and 167 on two of the IQ tests I took in foolish desperation to boost my self-esteem at the time, and I am quite dumb in several areas. The IQ tests I took narrowly measured pattern recognition and that's it, not, for example, memory, focus, organisation, learning ability, common sense, emotional intelligence, practical skills, and so onwards, all of which I would score far lower in, even though I do have high pattern recognition, observation, empathy, and literary abilities.

Were these online tests? Current WAIS IV caps out at 160. The most validated online test with g-loadings of 0.90 (only 0 -0.5 below the WAIS-IV) and above cap out at 160 as well. I'm not doubting your IQ, I know you're quite smart, I'm just asking.

These tests take hours, and the most accurate online test, the CORE takes 3 hours to administer and is by far from a narrow measurement, the SAT, and other tests which are also highly g-loaded take over an hour to administer online, the WAIS-IV takes roughly 1 to 2 hours to administer.

 

[Phoenks]

I've said the main reason I disagree is because your specifications don't actually fix the main problem you're claiming there is: "profile inconsistency." All it does is add needless specification that don't apply to the vast majority of characters and thus make it more difficult, not less difficult, to categorize them within our terms. This does nothing to benefit the consistency of our wiki. It does the exact opposite.

Also, intelligence is the only section on the wiki where, due to not be an objectively quantifiable and measurable metric, the explanation for the "tier" they qualify for is actually vastly more important than the tier itself. It has always been this way. Even in the case that a character's rating is inaccurate, you can do the more thorough debating of which character is more intelligent on threads where that subject arises, based on the explanations given for those characters. A character being "extraordinary genius" doesn't automatically mean they are more intelligent in every way than a "genius" character, for example. Especially in ways that would matter for a particular thread.

You making the definitions more specific would not actually change this factor at all, so it serves to do little more for the wiki than convolute things.

This will be my last reply, as no new information has come up. And my opinion is unlikely to change based on the OP suggestion.

 

[Antvasima]

Were these online tests? Current WAIS IV caps out at 160. The most validated online test with g-loadings of 0.90 (only 0 -0.5 below the WAIS-IV) and above cap out at 160 as well. I'm not doubting your IQ, I know you're quite smart, I'm just asking.

These tests take hours, and the most accurate online test, the CORE takes 3 hours to administer and is by far from a narrow measurement, the SAT, and other tests which are also highly g-loaded take over an hour to administer online, the WAIS-IV takes roughly 1 to 2 hours to administer.

They were online tests, with the 164 one being much longer and allegedly being reputed as being very reliable for its time, and it was a very long time ago (I think that IQ tests measured up to 170 at the time), and I was far more advanced in the pattern recognition area back then, since I obsessively continuously trained my intelligence at the time to boost my self-esteem.

 

[Vietthai96]

While i was the one who gave permission to post this thread, i agree with Phoenks that this narrowing down Intelligence, which is not good. Intelligence is an extremely subjective field, while i can understand the concern about the vagueness, Intelligence need to be somewhat vague and broad to serve as a guideline, indicator. And i as i said, Intelligence is a very subjective field, we can't hardly put a strict colar on when X is this level of intelligence and Y is that level of intelligence unlike tiering system where you are Planetary when you blow up Planet

 

[Vzearr]

While i was the one who gave permission to post this thread, i agree with Phoenks that this narrowing down Intelligence, which is not good. Intelligence is an extremely subjective field, while i can understand the concern about the vagueness, Intelligence need to be somewhat vague and broad to serve as a guideline, indicator. And i as i said, Intelligence is a very subjective field, we can't hardly put a strict colar on when X is this level of intelligence and Y is that level of intelligence unlike tiering system where you are Planetary when you blow up Planet

Okay so your main contention is that intelligence is subjective, sorry, "extremely subjective". I will say that you're completely and utterly wrong.

Intelligence refers to the mental capacity to learn from experiences, adapt to new situations, understand and handle abstract concepts, and use knowledge to manipulate one's environment.

Now, I'll plainly debunk what you said:

Intelligence can't be subjective because you cannot measure something subjective. Just like you can measure how good writing of a TV show is, if you want to assume intelligence is subjective then we shouldn't even scale intelligence at all just like we don't scale every single subjective thing on the wiki. The faulty premise of "Intelligence is subjective" fails under scrutiny because it would debunk almost everything the intelligence page is established on. You cannot "vaguely" define intelligence and say it's because it's subjective when that in and of itself is contradictory.

However, intelligence is not subjective, it can be measured, thats why IQ tests exist... To measure intelligence...

 

[KLOL506]

Agree with the rest. Too subjective, not even that big of an improvement over what we have to justify such a massive change. Overcomplicates things way too much.

@Mr. Bambu @Agnaa @Planck69 @Elizhaa @LephyrTheRevanchist @Qawsedf234 @Firestorm808 @Abstractions @Celestial_Pegasus @Damage3245 @GrathOfLux @Everything12

 

[Vzearr]

Agree with the rest. Too subjective, not even that big of an improvement over what we have to justify such a massive change. Overcomplicates things way too much.

Intelligence can't be subjective because you cannot measure something subjective. Just like you can measure how good writing of a TV show is, if you want to assume intelligence is subjective then we shouldn't even scale intelligence at all just like we don't scale every single subjective thing on the wiki. The faulty premise of "Intelligence is subjective" fails under scrutiny because it would debunk almost everything the intelligence page is established on. You cannot "vaguely" define intelligence and say it's because it's subjective when that in and of itself is contradictory.

How do you sit down, read this, type out a comment, and somehow don't come to the conclusion that perhaps, a 1 in a million chance, that I'm correct.

I'm really trying to make it simple to understand here, I can try and make it more simple if you want.

 

[KLOL506]

I am not going to bother with your incoherent paragraphs. I'm just going to say I disagree with you on the basis that none of it is enough to convince us otherwise. My vote stands, even if it means nothing in a Staff-Only thread.

Have a nice day.

 

[Vzearr]

I am not going to bother with your incoherent paragraphs.

You can leave, you're not welcome in any on my threads anymore, you incoherent calculator, doesn't feel nice when it happens to you right? However I suppose it's true. If you truly want to act this way to other people then you should have your staff position revoked.

 

[Firestorm808]

typical pace

moderately complex scenarios

highly abstract situations or challenges

highly abstract, strategic, or problems that require exceptional insight, creativity, or adaptability.

sophisticated reasoning, abstract thinking, and adapting to far more complex situations, of which would challenge most others

Realistically speaking, how are we supposed to apply these standards to intelligence feats?

 

[Vzearr]

Realistically speaking, how are we supposed to apply these standards to intelligence feats?

We’d apply them by matching a character’s demonstrated feats to the closest described level, and because they're described more in depth, it'll be easier to match them. When I say stuff like “moderately complex” or “highly abstract,” I’m just describing how hard the problem they solved was. Basically if a character only handles day to day logic, they’re Average. If they deal with layered, multi variable problems, they’re Above Average. If they’re demonstrating high reasoning ability, mastering difficult concepts with few repetitions, and displaying high performance capability or notable mastery in intellectual or specific academic field that outthink most people, they’re Gifted.

 

[KLOL506]

You can leave, you're not welcome in any on my threads anymore, you incoherent calculator, doesn't feel nice when it happens to you right? However I suppose it's true. If you truly want to act this way to other people then you should have your staff position revoked.

Duly noted.

 

[Antvasima]

Both of you please stop obsessing over each other in a hostile manner.

 

[Agnaa]

Now, I'll plainly debunk what you said:

Intelligence can't be subjective because you cannot measure something subjective. Just like you can measure how good writing of a TV show is, if you want to assume intelligence is subjective then we shouldn't even scale intelligence at all just like we don't scale every single subjective thing on the wiki. The faulty premise of "Intelligence is subjective" fails under scrutiny because it would debunk almost everything the intelligence page is established on. You cannot "vaguely" define intelligence and say it's because it's subjective when that in and of itself is contradictory.

However, intelligence is not subjective, it can be measured, thats why IQ tests exist... To measure intelligence...

You can measure things that are subjective.

You can objectively measure how something lines up with subjectively-chosen criteria.

You can also subjectively measure how something lines up with subjectively-chosen criteria, but this would lead different people to come to different conclusions.

These sorts of subjectivity concerns are why Stamina has so few ratings.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't think our current ratings experience any dysfunction. If it works, I see no reason to adjust it, at least not on the basis provided by the OP.

 

[Agnaa]

Anyway, I generally don't think this is necessary.

Why is this needed?​

Whilst reading through our current intelligence definitions, I couldn’t help but notice how contradictory, and genuinely bad they were. Terms like “greater cognitive ability than the norm, but not standing out” make no sense. It’s impossible to claim someone is cognitively superior to the average person and then insist they “don’t stand out.”

30% of people have intelligence superior to the average person, in particular fields.

That 30% of people aren't standout experts in those fields.

What I'm doing in this thread is rebuilding the definitions of intelligence, due to noticing how flawed our characters ratings are and how highballed they are. Each definition needs to mean something measurable, because intelligence is... Measurable.

I don't think your definitions do that at all.

Intelligence is a broad category encompassing many different aspects of our cognition like:

• Fluid Reasoning
• Visual Spatial Reasoning
• Quantitative Reasoning
• Working Memory
• Processing Speed
• Manipulation
• Emotional Intelligence
• Social Intelligence

Honestly, I think it's best to split intelligence into just two categories; knowledge (having already memorised the correct answer, after having it provided by an outside source) and reasoning (deducing the correct answer).

Your categories are just passing those to specific domains, measuring a character's speed, or measuring a potential limiting factor on the character's ability to succeed at those two categories.

 

[Vietthai96]

Well, pretty much Agnaa already said what i want to say

 

[Vzearr]

Before we go into this I quickly wanna define a main point of my argument.

Operationalizing: The process through which a researcher explains how the idea being researched is measured, observed, or manipulated

You can measure things that are subjective.

Not entirely, or well, it doesn't entirely apply to intelligence in this case.

You can measure things that are subjective only after operationalizing them, for example measuring happiness on a scale, which makes it objective. Intelligence has already passed that bar because it’s been clearly defined, measured consistently, and validated to a point it's given biological correlations that prove it’s an objective construct, it's been turned into an objective construct, so making the claim that you can measure things that are subjective is partially true as in, some things you can measure, but it doesn't really apply to intelligence. Of course intelligence is measurable, but it's measurable in an objective construct.

Basically, while it started as a subjective idea, the way we measure it now makes it much more objective, in the context of the wiki, therefore we should be more specific on our intelligence values.

Once intelligence is operationalized, it produces consistent results across all types of contexts, while opinions about what “counts” as intelligence might differ, the measurements themselves do not, they meet on the same outcomes, making intelligence an objectively quantifiable construct rather than being able to be measured subjectively, like you've claimed it is.

You can objectively measure how something lines up with subjectively-chosen criteria.

You can measure things that are subjective only after operationalizing them.

You can also subjectively measure how something lines up with subjectively-chosen criteria, but this would lead different people to come to different conclusions.

You cannot come to a different conclusion in intelligence ratings, I'll explain.

Once intelligence is operationalized, it produces consistent results across all types of contexts, while opinions about what “counts” as intelligence might differ, the measurements themselves do not, they meet on the same outcomes, making intelligence an objectively quantifiable construct rather than being able to be measured subjectively, like you've claimed it is.

Therefore we should be more specific on intelligence values.

30% of people have intelligence superior to the average person, in particular fields.

That 30% of people aren't standout experts in those fields.

Are you referring to my definition of gifted?

I don't think your definitions do that at all.

I'm free to suggestions.

 

[Vzearr]

Wait I'm tired, Idk if I'm yapping. I'll come back later.

 

[Qawsedf234]

@Qawsedf234

I'm under the view point that Intelligence and Stamina are inherently a vague and character specific category. Just because two people have superhuman stamina doesn't mean they have the same level of stamina, Intelligence is the same.

I think the level of detail that Vzearr is asking for would be great if it was a dedicated franchise or we had infinite profile time for input, but we don't have.

A broader category that can account for the number of profiles we have and give roughly ballpark classifications fit the style better in my view. If a user feels like a character should be lower or higher than what they are, they can just argue that it does or doesn't meet certain thresholds.

So I'm not currently for the level of detail the OP is suggesting.

 

[KLOL506]

Disagreements from multiple admins and a bureaucrat. No point in keeping this open, it'll just keep running in circles and OP isn't gonna be convincing them to change their vote any time soon.

 

[Agnaa]

Before we go into this I quickly wanna define a main point of my argument.

Operationalizing: The process through which a researcher explains how the idea being researched is measured, observed, or manipulated

Not entirely, or well, it doesn't entirely apply to intelligence in this case.

You can measure things that are subjective only after operationalizing them, for example measuring happiness on a scale, which makes it objective. Intelligence has already passed that bar because it’s been clearly defined, measured consistently, and validated to a point it's given biological correlations that prove it’s an objective construct, it's been turned into an objective construct, so making the claim that you can measure things that are subjective is partially true as in, some things you can measure, but it doesn't really apply to intelligence. Of course intelligence is measurable, but it's measurable in an objective construct.

Basically, while it started as a subjective idea, the way we measure it now makes it much more objective, in the context of the wiki, therefore we should be more specific on our intelligence values.

Once intelligence is operationalized, it produces consistent results across all types of contexts, while opinions about what “counts” as intelligence might differ, the measurements themselves do not, they meet on the same outcomes, making intelligence an objectively quantifiable construct rather than being able to be measured subjectively, like you've claimed it is.

You cannot come to a different conclusion in intelligence ratings, I'll explain.

Once intelligence is operationalized, it produces consistent results across all types of contexts, while opinions about what “counts” as intelligence might differ, the measurements themselves do not, they meet on the same outcomes, making intelligence an objectively quantifiable construct rather than being able to be measured subjectively, like you've claimed it is.

Therefore we should be more specific on intelligence values.

That's still subjective.

If you define intelligence as "the ability to accurately answer trivia questions about The Simpsons", you can objectively tell whether someone is succeeding or failing at that metric, and that will have some broad-scale biological correlations, but that doesn't make such a definition an objective construct, and it doesn't make that useful for our wiki.

Are you referring to my definition of gifted?

No, I'm referring to the current definition of Above Average.

I'm free to suggestions.

I don't think your ideal is applicable to fictional characters. We can't give Goku an IQ test.