"And whenever someone accuses IQ of being inadequate, and they come out with their More Complete test, it turns out that their measuremen...

"And whenever someone accuses IQ of being inadequate, and they come out with their More Complete test, it turns out that their measurements and predictions are insufficiently distinctive from IQ, which even further supports the idea of a "general" mental ability." Here's the thing... I'm criticising IQ tests, but I'm not suggesting we create a more complete test, I'm suggesting the whole idea of measuring intelligence numerically is fundamentally flawed. There are a few reasons I believe measuring intelligence numerically is flawed, but probably the central one is that I don't believe it exists as a fixed entity, I believe it's adaptive depending on the circumstances we find ourselves in. As with any debate on human traits the tendency is to go back to the nature vs. nurture question. I believe you can have a natural aptitude for something, but the environment you live in is what helps your intelligence develop, and this is the largest differentiator in what we perceive as intelligence. Put simply, change the environment and you change the intelligence. Therefore scores like IQ do not measure someone's true potential, they only hint at what they've already been exposed to. That's why to me such tests are a waste of time.

Posted by ZenoArrow on Oct 16, 2014, 3:57 PM

Tags

• hackernews (Other)

Related issues

• Not sure what you suggest to do.
• Why is this not yet published on the official website and why is there no CVE?
• The biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained&#x2...
• The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
• (My comment is about detached houses).
• The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...