| ▲ | sokoloff 4 days ago |
| IQ as a precise, cross-comparable measure? Sure. As a conceptual shorthand to describe the concept of intelligence? No. |
|
| ▲ | zimza 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The previous comments were talking of IQ in a quantitative way ("x points less"), so they fit in the first definition. Even the second definition is not really a thing. Intelligence as a concept doesn't mean much and needs to be defined properly. Using it this way is just another way to divide people superficially. |
| |
| ▲ | bluGill 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I started the thread with '"5 iq points dumber" (whatever that means)'. I intended that to be read something like "as if there was an objective measure of intelligence that scaled like iq'. I cannot say what other intended, but at least some people are reading this whole thread in that context and I would expect you to as well even if others didn't intend that. (that is "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." - hopefully this helps you see context better) | |
| ▲ | sokoloff 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > talking of IQ in a quantitative way ("x points less") I read that as a within a single individual, case A (no brain damage from cause C) vs case B (with brain damage from cause C), where using it as a shorthand for intelligence differences within a single individual makes it a useful shorthand for most readers, IMO. |
|
|
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
