Arm Wrestling on Wikipedia
A recent paper defined a CQ that was used in mathematical calculations instead of the traditional IQ. The difference between CQ and IQ is almost the same as between the strength, of an arm muscle measured by arm wrestling for instance, compared to the physical value of force as it is defined by Newtons’s law. Force is what accelerates a certain mass according to the formula given below.
Newton's definition of force
Intelligence is a subjective property describing a man’s intellectual capabilities, as strength describes his physical capabilities. (Please excuse sexual language that may annoy somebody. This holds true for women too, of course.) As strength can be measured by various methods with slightly different but statistically correlating results, also intelligence can be measured by different IQ-Tests, and again they produce different results, but on average they correlate.
Newton didn’t bother to develop his classical mechanics on such a shaky ground as strength measurements, and all the same, if you are trying to perform model calculations on intellectual capabilities, you cannot rely on a paramater that is both subjective and test dependent. Therefore a CQ, capability quotient, has been introduced. The CQ is task related. The better the outcome the better the CQ. In a special case, if the task is a specific IQ test, CQ is identical to IQ.
Well there is no fauceir page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauceir) it has been deleted as can be seen in this archive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult/archive1). AS can be learned from the adjacent talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fauceir), Mato never contested this deletion.
Actually, not exactly that, but rather the other way around.
More capable people are more likely to become atheists.
While I realize that my blog is increasingly found by the search term ‘militant atheist’, I felt this a bit annoying. My intention is not to spur controversies between atheists and theists. This blog is about fauceir evolution which includes the evolution of religious and non-religious faiths. Therefore I feel obliged to offer this rather placatory article 😉
All dominating on this planet religions are based on idols—humans that posses extraordinary qualities and capabilities. Such idols and the religious leaders who propagate those idols receive a special treatment: their superiority is unquestionable and unchallengeable. If however someone’s own capabilities (CQ) exceed the CQ of an ordained idol or religious leader…
The pictures taken from the publication with permission illustrates this problem. An individuals blind CQ area is marked in red. The CQ of an religious idol is marked by a vertical line. A low-CQ person (above) will accept this idol as it is in the blind area while the high-CQ person (below) would not, which marks him or her as an opponent of this religious faith.
The following conclusions may be drawn:
- The more the idol is stupid, the lower the average CQ of its followers.
- Religious leaders must try to keep their followers stupid as this ensures faithfulness.
- Intelligence is higher among those atheists converted from some religion while ‘naive’ low-CQ atheists are likely even to fall back.
See also this study that confirms the theoretical considrations empirically.
Well, not exactly the whole theory but partially. A model based on fauceir assumptions, is available here.
Saturday I attended a fantastic concert of modern (classical) music, and I was wondering all the time how music, the sequence of frequencies and rhythms, can be fauceirized. Yesterday while searching some score on Bach’s organ music, my eye fell on this YouTube video,
and after some research, on this website,
and I got I glimps into how music is knitted from patterns that evolve more and more complex. My most preferred pieces have remarkably the clearest hierarchical structure as Debussy’s ‘Clair de lune’