|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 24, 2014 8:12:15 GMT
Wearing Swimwear lowers the IQ.
Disclaimer, this was on a UK show Duck Quacks Dont Echo....
Who quite blatantly rip off Mythbusters myths, and get different conclusions, so I am going to call their research flawed, because they have some rather strange results.
[Especially when they tested walking/swimming/driving blindfold and they said not conclusive enough....]
According to the myth presented, wearing swimwear creates self doubt on how you think others may perceive you.
In doing that, you brain is "Tied up" with that, and cant concentrate.
On the aforementioned show, who's research was "Doubtful", a small set of "Average" type people were set 20 Maths questions fully clothed and then asked to do an equally difficult 20 questions in swimwear.
The marks for the second test on average were about half that of the first test.
If this is true, it can answer a LOT of questions on how people on a beach are STUPID........?....
Looks easy to test.
I also suggest a larger average crowd be used to get a better average.....
I also suggest testing in different places, where City Central people may not be comfortable in Swimmers, people living in a Beach and seaside town who swim and surf daily may be quite comfortable in swimmers....
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 24, 2014 9:53:59 GMT
Did not see that episode but you are right about their methods being suspect.
The other variable there is the addition of TV cameras, I think that people in their swimming wear would be even more nervous than normal when filmed.
Has anyone else experienced the feeling on holiday of it doesn't matter what I look like in these trunks, no one I know will see me, these strangers do not matter? However the inhibition I feel if someone I knew could see me is enough to put me off.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 24, 2014 14:14:00 GMT
I think more than their methods are suspect.
their logic is like saying saying having a lead ingot on the middle of a piece of lumber reduces its strength.
it must be so. if I take a board that requires 100 pounds of force to break, and put a 50 pound block of lead on it, then it only takes 50 pounds of force to break it. it must be weaker, right?
if your IQ is 100, then it is 100 whether you are doing an algebra test, or watching Teletubbies. it is 100 whether you are concentrating on a maths problem, or if you are trying to remember a grocery list while talking to your friend on the phone while buying a soda from vending machine.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 25, 2014 6:30:59 GMT
Ahhh.... Hang on a moment.....
If you have a 3gb RAM rig that works at say [x] Teraflops, it works at a certain speed.
Give it a picture or two to change from RAW to JPEG, then try to open Firefox.....
It will slow down.
IQ is measured presuming you are concentrating on the test.
Its down to available IQ whilst half the mind is tied up solving another problem....?...
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 25, 2014 7:41:09 GMT
Ahhh.... Hang on a moment..... If you have a 3gb RAM rig that works at say [x] Teraflops, it works at a certain speed. Give it a picture or two to change from RAW to JPEG, then try to open Firefox..... It will slow down. IQ is measured presuming you are concentrating on the test. Its down to available IQ whilst half the mind is tied up solving another problem....?... Which is why IQ tests are more or less a complete waste of time if you use them on their own. They only measure the amount of brain power you're able to commit to a task right now and not your entire capacity at any given time. I've taken dozens of IQ tests over the years and the results have ranged from 105 at the lowest to 152 at the highest. I've even had a swing of about 20 points on two different tests of (reportedly) the same difficulty during the same day, simply because I'd taken a distressing phone call from my mom in between. This is why people and organizations who take your performance seriously (like NASA) never let an IQ test stand alone as an absolute indicator of anything. They supplement the IQ test with stress tests and other things to get a more complete picture of how a person works and what can be expected of them under different circumstances. Putting someone in an uncomfortable situation - like taking an IQ test while wearing swimwear in public - might be one of those supplemental tests, but it would never be allowed to stand alone as an indicator of anything other than "this person feels uncomfortable wearing swimwear in public, which momentarily affects his/her ability to think clearly". |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 25, 2014 8:17:53 GMT
But get a whole bunch of them and introduce a shark......
Would people be so worried about how they look when getting out of the water 'cos there is a shark in there?...
This is why I say the test may be invalid, if its "Important", your whole IQ gets dominated?....
Humans have the ability to just dump whatever they were thinking about however important it may be if they believe life is in danger?... we can prioritise?...
If the person was completely naked, maybe they would not be so happy about getting out of the water, give 'em a good reason, they are out faster than you could measure?...
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 25, 2014 8:56:17 GMT
The whole question being asked and tested is downright stupid. If they'd thought this through, they'd at least have phrased the question more along the lines of:
"Does being exceedingly self-concious make your intellectual performance drop significantly?"
Like you said in your OP, if you're used to prancing around in swimwear all day, you're unlikely to show any significant drop in performance, since you won't be as self-concious about it as people who aren't used to it.
What was their "control", anyway? Did the test subjects do the initial, fully clothed tests in as public a setting with as many cameras watching them as was the case with the swimwear test? If not, how can you even be sure that it's being in swimwear and not just being in public and having cameras on them while they took the test that made them self-concious?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 25, 2014 9:17:17 GMT
Actually, sort of, it was the same room. However, they changed the room by putting in dividers in so no one was able to see each other, and removed all non essential personnel, including camera crew, they just set up the camera and left it running. Each person was in their own "Booth" and couldn't actually see or be seen by anyone but the camera. I still call bogus. No one is used to sitting in a booth on their own under test conditions. If that was a genuine test, surely the initial clothed test should have been done under exactly the same conditions....... Removing the camera crew changed the test parameters, putting in dividers also, it wasnt just the clothing requirements that changed, so its not that scientific is it?.... I also noted they provided identical swimwear that was only different on the men and women. So not your OWN swimwear either. These changes are why I call "Doubtful" on the result... it just wasnt scientific identical parameters, and the changes I saw in my own estimation would make me uneasy anyway, even before you ask me to wear strange clothing. However, I say the drop in self confidence I get in swimwear, there may be "Something".... I always feel I have missed something..... and on the day I did, I was nearly arrested.......  No I made that bit up. (They DID arrest me... :eek:  ) Ok, joking aside now, I always double treble check before I go swimming. I still get uneasy until I am in the water.... I think it may be the shoes thing?... not having any shoes on is strange. Plus the scars on my leg from Motorcycle accident nearly 40 years ago, and the scar on my back from surgery 5 years ago... they do attract attention..... {I have recently found a swimming pool that is friendly to Walking sticks, they even offered me use of the "Lift"....Yes, they have a lift that they use to lower wheelchair users in and out of the pool with...) |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 25, 2014 9:31:55 GMT
Well, there you go then. Results invalid. But then again, we already knew that, didn't we?
The only thing they've proven is that there's a performance drop when people are uncomfortable, but that's not what they claim to have proven, is it?
Putting this particular group of people in swimsuits made them uncomfortable, but that only says something about this particular group of people and nothing about swimsuits.
Saying their performance drop could only be attributed to the swimsuits is like saying the only thing keeping Burmese tigers away from Antarctica is the ice.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 25, 2014 9:40:03 GMT
Ok, so, how about playing annoying music, loudly?..... as in plastic pop to Rock fans, or even Jedward singing "I know a song that will get on your nerves"............ Or having someone perform a play down the other end of the room. Or getting them to Cross-Dress..... Or wearing their own clothes on backwards. (Except shoes of course?...) Or even get them to do the test whilst someone tries to talk to them...... I have an Evil Senior Member plan as well. Give them a problem to solve before they take the second test, and tell them they must give the answer at the end of the test, promising some decent reward if they get it even close to right, but tell them they wont get a reminder at all, they just have to remember the answer, and dont give them enough time to work out that answer anyway. [Edit... I think you should just give them the reward for even taking part anyway, but dont tell them that before?...]Now see if they can perform whilst distracted with that one. Even MORE evil, combine all of the above suggestions...... as many as possible of course.... Who, Me?... Evil?...  |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 25, 2014 9:42:44 GMT
Ok, so, how about playing annoying music, loudly?..... as in plastic pop to Rock fans, or even Jedward singing "I know a song that will get on your nerves"............ Or having someone perform a play down the other end of the room. Or getting them to Cross-Dress..... Or wearing their own clothes on backwards. (Except shoes of course?...) Or even get them to do the test whilst someone tries to talk to them...... I have an Evil Senior Member plan as well. Give them a problem to solve before they take the second test, and tell them they must give the answer at the end of the test, promising some decent reward if they get it even close to right, but tell them they wont get a reminder at all, they just have to remember the answer, and dont give them enough time to work out that answer anyway. Now see if they can perform whilst distracted with that one. Even MORE evil, combine all of the above suggestions...... as many as possible of course.... Who, Me?... Evil?... Or just have them redo the test in their own clothes, but this time have a stranger hovering over them the whole time, making disapproving noises now and again. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 25, 2014 9:48:52 GMT
I had a teacher in school do that once... it gave me a nasty aversion to anyone watching over my shoulder if I work.
That teacher went too far, I used to move to sit with my back to the wall, and cover my work if he came close.
He tried to make me "Partake", I walked out.
I went to the Headmaster, and got him to change my classes..... I never had that teacher again.
I was that close to poking his bloody eye out.
Unfortunately, it HAS affected me, I now get very nasty to people who do the over-your-shoulder thing, even if its just reading the same newspaper as I am?....
I CANT STAND THAT......
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 25, 2014 13:47:14 GMT
Ahhh.... Hang on a moment..... If you have a 3gb RAM rig that works at say [x] Teraflops, it works at a certain speed. Give it a picture or two to change from RAW to JPEG, then try to open Firefox..... It will slow down. IQ is measured presuming you are concentrating on the test. Its down to available IQ whilst half the mind is tied up solving another problem....?... but having it crunch a graphics problem does not change it to a 1gb RAM, [c]teraflop processor - which is the point I am trying to make. their premise is invalid. it is as invalid as saying the moon is smaller at crescent than it is at gibbous. the only thing that lowers IQ is brain damage. other things may lower test performance, but they do not lower IQ. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 25, 2014 14:45:50 GMT
Ahhh.... Hang on a moment..... If you have a 3gb RAM rig that works at say [x] Teraflops, it works at a certain speed. Give it a picture or two to change from RAW to JPEG, then try to open Firefox..... It will slow down. IQ is measured presuming you are concentrating on the test. Its down to available IQ whilst half the mind is tied up solving another problem....?... but having it crunch a graphics problem does not change it to a 1gb RAM, [c]teraflop processor - which is the point I am trying to make. their premise is invalid. it is as invalid as saying the moon is smaller at crescent than it is at gibbous. the only thing that lowers IQ is brain damage. other things may lower test performance, but they do not lower IQ. Well, as far as I understand it, the "drop in IQ" thing was SD's phrasing, not the actual phrasing of the show, which I understood to be this: "According to the myth presented, wearing swimwear creates self doubt on how you think others may perceive you." As far as I can tell, they never claimed your actual IQ would drop. Just that your capacity to use it would. The premise is still false, though. As I said, they've succesfully demonstrated that being excessively self-concious can affect your ability to utilize your mental capacity to its fullest extent. What they haven't done is prove beyond any doubt that wearing a swimsuit will have that effect on all people, which is what they claim to have done. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 25, 2014 15:00:48 GMT
but having it crunch a graphics problem does not change it to a 1gb RAM, [c]teraflop processor - which is the point I am trying to make. their premise is invalid. it is as invalid as saying the moon is smaller at crescent than it is at gibbous. the only thing that lowers IQ is brain damage. other things may lower test performance, but they do not lower IQ. Well, as far as I understand it, the "drop in IQ" thing was SD's phrasing, not the actual phrasing of the show, which I understood to be this: "According to the myth presented, wearing swimwear creates self doubt on how you think others may perceive you." As far as I can tell, they never claimed your actual IQ would drop. Just that your capacity to use it would. The premise is still false, though. As I said, they've succesfully demonstrated that being excessively self-concious can affect your ability to utilize your mental capacity to its fullest extent. What they haven't done is prove beyond any doubt that wearing a swimsuit will have that effect on all people, which is what they claim to have done. okay, now we can move on to their procedural problems, then. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 26, 2014 7:40:16 GMT
Ahhh.... Hang on a moment..... If you have a 3gb RAM rig that works at say [x] Teraflops, it works at a certain speed. Give it a picture or two to change from RAW to JPEG, then try to open Firefox..... It will slow down. IQ is measured presuming you are concentrating on the test. Its down to available IQ whilst half the mind is tied up solving another problem....?... but having it crunch a graphics problem does not change it to a 1gb RAM, [c]teraflop processor - which is the point I am trying to make. their premise is invalid. it is as invalid as saying the moon is smaller at crescent than it is at gibbous. the only thing that lowers IQ is brain damage. other things may lower test performance, but they do not lower IQ. Both sides of the same argument... total IQ against Available "At that time" IQ.......?... But yes, you are right, we dont actually drop IQ points when we are distracted, we just Multi-task. The original claim was that it drops the IQ. Which is Bogus. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 26, 2014 8:28:23 GMT
but having it crunch a graphics problem does not change it to a 1gb RAM, [c]teraflop processor - which is the point I am trying to make. their premise is invalid. it is as invalid as saying the moon is smaller at crescent than it is at gibbous. the only thing that lowers IQ is brain damage. other things may lower test performance, but they do not lower IQ. Both sides of the same argument... total IQ against Available "At that time" IQ.......?... But yes, you are right, we dont actually drop IQ points when we are distracted, we just Multi-task. The original claim was that it drops the IQ. Which is Bogus. If that's the original claim, I'm 100% with TLW on this one. NOTHING drops IQ except brain damage (be that from trauma, chemicals, disease, old age or whatever). Pure and simple. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 26, 2014 8:47:04 GMT
Good Morning Oziris, and yes, that was the astounding original claim....
I called BS from that bit onwards.
But, I do hold with the idea that being distracted lowers your ability to problem solve.
Which is maybe why beach dwellers from out of town are a but stupid at times?....
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 26, 2014 8:57:33 GMT
Good Morning Oziris, and yes, that was the astounding original claim.... I called BS from that bit onwards. But, I do hold with the idea that being distracted lowers your ability to problem solve. Which is maybe why beach dwellers from out of town are a but stupid at times?.... Good morning right back at ya  And I agree completely with you on that one. Of course distractions will lower your ability to problem solve. That's common knowledge. What I have a problem with at this point is the claim that wearing a swimsuit will invariably do that to anyone and everyone. It's without doubt true that SOME people will be affected like that by wearing swimmers (maybe even many people), but not all. I'm sure beach bums in places like Hawaii won't have the same problem. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 27, 2014 9:10:34 GMT
Which is why I suggested testing Beach dwellers and city dwellers, and then getting them to change, putting Beach dwellers in a full "Boardroom" suit....
Beach Bums in Manchester are all of lower IQ anyway... we are some 50 mile from the nearest Seaside.
|
|
)
