ruveyn wrote:
b9 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
b9 wrote:
if someone has an IQ of 101, then they are smarter than "most" of the population.
No. It means they have scored better on the tests.
ruveyn
they scored better on the tests for a reason. if that reason is pre-familiarization with the questions, then their score is void, and i was not talking about void results.
.
That is a supposition on your part. Where is the hard proof?
i believe intelligence is purely "problem solving ability". that is the flavor of my intelligence.
one can say that the problems that i solve are the barriers to my understanding of what i am curious about.
i place more credit in IQ tests than you do, because i can see how the design of the questions are intentionally cryptic to varying degrees.
in my previous post i was being reasonably literal in interpreting "most" as greater than 50%.
if 500,000 people are given a puzzle box to open, and if the criteria of the test are 1. the ability to think of a way to open the box, and 2. the time taken to think of that way, then
if 250,100 people (the majority) solved how to open the box, then the next level of assessment is of the measurement of the time taken to solve the problem.
249,900 people are dismissed from further consideration because they took infinite time (> 1 hour (or some other arbitrary period of time)) to solve the box, and from the 250,100 who solved it, their solving times would rank them in order of intelligence i would imagine.
ruveyn wrote:
Can you document what you say from objective unimpeachable sources?
no. it is simply my opinion that is compiled from my experience of being extensively studied as a child. i have no links to show that what i say is just a parrots utterance.
ruveyn wrote:
If you can't then you are blowing hot air.
it is better to blow than to suck.