## The factory analogy for the two-factor intelligence model

Previously, the brainpower model of IQ.

In order to explain my two-factor model, I have to make an analogy to power consumption and capacity in a complex factory. But in order to make this analogy, I’ll have to introduce a functional understanding of factories. This will require an introductory understanding of algebraic physics and some simplified math.

The function of a machine component is to transform one sort of energy into another. For example, an electric actuator transforms electrical energy into linear work. A gear and a keyed shaft transform linear work into rotational work or vice versa. When you take something apart and find a bunch of little pieces inside, you can be confident that every little piece has some kind of energy transfer function. When you put all of those little functions together to make the larger component or a full machine, you can be confident that the larger component was designed with an energy transfer function in mind. Every machine can be characterized by its power consumption in work over time.

A factory can be thought of as a big machine made out of smaller little machines, which are in turn made out of components, which are made out of even smaller components. As you can see, the only real distinction between these levels of work is size and functional abstraction. The ideal factor is completely automated, without inputting any human work other than replacing machine components, so that there is no effective difference at all between a factory and a giant machine with a concrete housing. You shovel coal, steel, and replacement parts in one end and out the other end you get soot, widgets, and busted parts. The factor transforms the thermodynamic power produced by coal fires into the physical work done by the various drills, presses, robotic arms, etc. required in the process of producing widgets, and typical power consumption for this huge, complex process can again be described in a single unit: Watts.

None of this is particularly novel so far, and I still need to explain why we need two major factors for intelligence. Hopefully thinking of the human brain in industrial terms is a familiar process to you autists out there, so that the leaps I’ll be making won’t be too difficult. In brief, I will be modeling the brain functionally (and somewhat naively) as a system that transforms biological energy into solutions to problems, where intelligence is the brain’s physical load specifications. So we’ll be interested in all of the specifications that characterize an energy transfer system in general—typical performance specs, efficiency, maximum flow rate, maximum entropy differential (don’t worry, I’ll explain that)—even if we don’t understand what’s happening at the lower levels of abstraction, regarding components of components.

In the next post on this I’ll create a concrete example of a very simple hydraulic system and show how different flow rates and pressures change its behavior. This model will then be used to predict IQ test performance in terms of mental speed and caliber.

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

### 17 Responses to The factory analogy for the two-factor intelligence model

1. Ophiuchus says:
2. Heaviside says:

You should do Esoteric Let’s Plays of Final Fantasy:

(This is the “Trump is a Kantian” guy)

The “Esoteric Let’s Play” is a potential goldmine of top content.

• Aeoli Pera says:

The only Final Fantasy I really grok esoteric at this point is Chrono Trigger, although I’m working on a couple of the others.

This Trump is a Kantian guy reminds me of John C Wright in that he appears to only do counterfactual thinking in a humorous content. That’s why Wright conceives of himself as a schlock writer. For example, he did the entire Count to a Trillion series while thinking IQ is pseudoscience.

• Heaviside says:

Most of Wright’s political opinions are counterfactual thinking. He’s probably been mindkilled by the Acton Institute.

• Aeoli Pera says:

What, you liked him better as a militant atheist?

• Heaviside says:

His head is filled with trite basic bitch conservative positions. Catholics have a long history of resistance to the Anglo-American establishment, but since WWII American Catholics have been psyop’d into supporting it. The Acton Institute is one of the groups that did this. To the best of my knowledge, postwar American conservatism is not compatible with Catholic doctrine. You know that in general I don’t have many complaints about the Catholic Church, only fully assimilated American Catholics who have been mentally colonized by the establishment, casualties of the mindwar who don’t even know it.

For other evidence of Wright’s closemindedness, if you can’t tell from his political comments alone, see the encounter he had with geocentrists. You would think a Catholic would not be so immediately dismissive of geocentrism. I personally would side with Bruno over the Church but I don’t think geocentrists deserve ridicule or are stupid.

http://galileowaswrong.com/john-c-wright-couldnt-be-more-wrong-another-armchair-astronomer-tries-unsuccessfully-to-discredit-geocentrism/

• Aeoli Pera says:

I agree he’s closed-minded, my point is that he appears to allow himself to be open-minded for the purpose of writing what he regards as pulp science fiction. That is, he entertains such silly ideas as IQ, genetic evolution, hermeticism, and so on.

• Aeoli Pera says:

I know, I’ll do an esoteric playthrough of Grimoire! Just think of the potential audience, there’d be dozens…at least!

3. King Boss says:

Hey aeoli, what do you think of julius evola? Do you have any thoughts on the use of traditionalism and in particular stuff like Ride the Tiger or Men among the Ruins?

• Aeoli Pera says:

No opinion, I’ve never read any of his stuff and I haven’t heard of those things before. However, I can tell you immediately that the conservative instinct, which drives most of traditionalism, is the same idea as when you fix your computer by resetting to a previous working configuration.

• Heaviside says:
4. Pseudorandom Byspammer says:

Hey Aeoli, my quite effortful comment to Ophiuchus on the previous post got stuck in your blog’s spam filter. Is it gone forever or do you have some kind of moderation queue? This isn’t the first time when this happens. How come some others are able to post comments with images, as in is there something I could do to circumvent this?

Thanks.

• Aeoli Pera says:

Has been rescued. I try to go through spam regularly but this has suffered along with most things as free time dwindles (not even responding to most comments most days). I don’t know how to make the comment system better (apparently it’s not very user-friendly).

Sorry I’m not being more helpful, it’s just not a priority right now.

5. What do you think of Paul Cooijman’s thoughts on timed IQ tests?

“As an aside, it may be noted that many of the tests used in regular psychology can indeed not measure intelligence at high levels. Over the years I have begun to understand that one of the reasons for that is the fact that such tests are often purposely created to give sex-equal results, by leaving out or counterbalancing problems on which one sex does better than the other. Since males do better on difficult problems, difficult problems are left out, resulting in tests with low ceilings and no headroom for males to outscore females. In some cases one tries to cover this up by employing a short time limit to crank up the ceiling. The speed factor thus introduced then reduces the test’s g loading at high levels (and therewith the possible male-female difference) even more. Note the prejudice that underlies this approach to test construction: the paradigm of sex equality is by decision imposed upon reality, instead of letting scientific curiosity as to the actual state of affairs prevail.”

Important takeaway: “The speed factor thus introduced then reduces the test’s g loading at high levels”. I’m not sure how Cooijmans made this determination, but he seems to think that g is mainly related to mental caliber and not mental speed.

• Aeoli Pera says:

Cooijmans’ reflections on testing are the primary inspiration for this model.