SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
the researchers have focused on risk preference or aversion, and the possibility that it might be measurable and compared to others, offering a scale of sorts.
To learn more about how eager people are to engage in risky behavior, the researchers enlisted the assistance of 1500 volunteer adults to take a series of tests (39 tests in all), which together were meant to gauge a person's desire to seek out risky behavior. The team then analyzed the data and found that 61 percent of the variation in risky behavior scores could be summed up with a single component—a person's risk preference quotient, if you will. The remaining factors could all be attributed to which particular type of risk was involved. The single component, which the team dubbed as R, is general, the team notes, which suggests it can be applied multiple to[sic] risk situations along with other factors attributable to a particular type of risk.
The top level in intelligence quotient is called, "genius." Should the top level in risk quotient be called, "Hey Y'all, hold my beer?"
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Sunday October 08 2017, @04:03AM (3 children)
The problem with social science is that social scientists keep changing terms until the outcome matches their desired worldview. Distribution of intelligence does not match what we want it to match? Let's redefine intelligence so that it no longer means high innate abstract problem solving ability. Problem fucking solved!
Intelligence does not represent just any function of the brain, it specifically represents the "general purpose" part of the brain as opposed to specialized functionality, or in other words the ability to resolve tasks regardless of instinctive and trained behavior. If the brain was a computer, then "intelligence" would be the performance of the CPU, while nonsense bullshit terms like "emotional intelligence" would refer to things like the sophistication and quality of the Ethernet interface firmware. You can programs faster if your CPU is faster, but if your Ethernet card sucks, you will still randomly disconnect from the WiFi.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Phoenix666 on Sunday October 08 2017, @01:45PM (2 children)
Yes, real scientists never change their models to better describe observed phenomena.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Informative) by nekomata on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:22PM
Changing the model is fine, but if you do it for ideological reasons it stops being science.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Sunday October 08 2017, @08:02PM
Broadening the definition of something for no good reason does not describe anything better. If I took the word "wood" and decided that now includes all plant flesh because otherwise flowers would feel excluded, that would not be a superior definition in any way. Now all I have is a broad generic term for a certain category of plant matter and no word for real wood. Then again, if I didn't have a proper way to describe intelligence, people can just say "but mah different types of intelligence" whenever intelligence comes up in a political discussion, thus allowing them to beat the conversation to death with a red herring without ever addressing the issue.
It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of language.