Fitzambey on 5/10/2006 at 02:53
It's a reference to a rather obscure and very short play by GB Shaw. Reginald Fitzambey is the main character.
Come to think of it, I wish I'd just gone with the character's full name, but it doesn't matter.
ercles on 5/10/2006 at 13:50
Mine's simply a contraction of my name with les tacked on the end (ericles is just unwieldy), a nickname that started way back when and has unfortunately stuck.
Agent Monkeysee on 5/10/2006 at 15:56
Quote Posted by Javert4186
Now think about people. Would you say that the most intelligent are the most socially capable? Or even that the socially skilled are always the smartest? I know we are talking about animals, but if social behavior = intelligence, then it is the logical conclusion of your argument.
M
Heh yeah that's not what I said at all. My point was social behavior requires a certain set of complex cognitive functions, functions which humans possess and which we typically view as, at least partly, "intelligence" and in general the more social an animal the more "intelligent" in this narrowly defined human sense and OH GOD I DON'T EVEN CARE WHY AM I EXPLAINING THIS TO YOU GBM DID IT BETTER ANYWAY AND YOU STILL DIDN'T GET IT.
pavlovscat on 5/10/2006 at 18:00
Quote Posted by Javert4186
In animals, the test of intelligence is problem solving, not social behavior (for example, the classic experiment where they showed monkeys could figure out how to stack a box on another box to get a reward while other animals could not).
If that is true, it would mean that birds are very intelligent. Some birds are capable of solving intricate puzzles to get a treat or of learning to drop a nut on the street for cars to roll over & crack the shell for them.
SD on 5/10/2006 at 18:41
Birds are very intelligent.
Gingerbread Man on 5/10/2006 at 18:44
Without recapping hundreds of years of intelligence theory, here's the issue:
A unidimensional theory of intelligence simply doesn't work. There is no single key factor -- not speed of processing, not capacity for creative solutions, not behavioural complexity, not problem-solving nor outcome-generation nor ready recall of familiar things nor synthesis and extrapolation of novel things.
It's a multidimensional phenomenon, but the fun doesn't end there. Not only are there as many factors as people decide to nitpick another name and circumstance for, even if you could distill all of them down into acceptable general categories the problem remains that nearly all of them are utterly untestable in any meaningful sense. But let's suppose that we managed to rework those factors into quantifiable, scalable, testable criteria... How are you going to construct a unified model out of them? Multidimensional things are buggery enough to run stats on, without some of them being nominal scales, some ordinal, some interval, and some ratio. I have an easy and intuitive grasp of statistics, and even I wouldn't want to sit down with that one unless I was getting paid ludicrous sums of cash.
Anyway, the bottom line between "cat people" and "dog people" is simple. If anyone thinks it's any different than having a preference for chocolate over vanilla, they're mistaken and probably falsely ascribing / transferring personality traits to the animals. And let's not start on personality, because I assure you I will have precisely the same things to say about personality theory as I do about intelligence theory.
Javert4186 on 6/10/2006 at 01:12
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
Heh yeah that's not what I said at all. My point was social behavior requires a certain set of complex cognitive functions, functions which humans possess and which we typically view as, at least partly, "intelligence" and in general the more social an animal the more "intelligent" in this narrowly defined human sense and OH GOD I DON'T EVEN CARE WHY AM I EXPLAINING THIS TO YOU GBM DID IT BETTER ANYWAY AND YOU STILL DIDN'T GET IT.
Don't start stamping your feet and pouting. How about citing just just one reputable piece of literature to support your claim. That will shut me up.
And to GBM, much like intelligence has "g" - general intelligence, personality has "the big 5" which tend to do a good job accounting for most of the variance on which personality can differ. I guess when people make their living and careers studying these things, I wonder how it is you get to proclaim them as "utterly untestable in any meaningful sense"?
Stitch on 6/10/2006 at 03:30
Quote Posted by Javert4186
Don't start stamping your feet and pouting.
CAN THIS ROOKIE UNSEAT THE UNDEFEATED CHAMP FOLKS
Mortal Monkey on 6/10/2006 at 03:44
I forgot to mention this, but Malygris is awesome.
Me, I am your father. I am hairy and died in Vietnam for you. Hence, Mortal Monkey.
I trust you found the heirloom I hid up my ass?
DarthMRN on 6/10/2006 at 03:45
In case there is need for an explanation:
Sith Lords rox + Initials
