3 ms·

That may or may not be true, but it's not what we were talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.or

That may or may not be true, but it's not what we were talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_f...

mhurron 10y ago
Except it is, you are trying to put forward that IQ among engineers is high as some proof that HN must be of a higher general intelligence than the rest of the population. I said IQ is bullshit, the implication being it can not be used to prove your position. For IQ to support your position, it must be a valid measurement of intelligence. I am attacking the validity of your data.
- SamReidHughes 10y ago
  IQ is a valid measure of intelligence. Individuals' outcomes on different intelligence tests are positively correlated with one another, you see. And they're correlated with external metrics of ability, of course.
- Practicality 10y ago
  My original post was all about the distribution and rarity of people with different IQ results and how the article confuses the three different cohorts. Those three cohorts are defined by IQ. The terms "above average," "gifted" and "genius" all refer to IQ scores. I agree with you that using these terms in the colloquial sense is undefined, and therefore useless to discuss. Hence, why I wasn't using that meaning of the word "intelligent." If my argument was that HN commenters had higher intelligence and I was referring to an amorphous concept, then yes, my position would not be possible to defend. However, my position was that the majority of commenters on here would be in the top 10%, as defined by IQ tests, since that is what the original article was talking about. [Edit: I mean, what would I even be saying to say someone is in the top 10%, 1% or .01% of a subjective, poorly defined quality? It would be nonsense. I would have to be referring to something measurable to even try to divide people into cohorts by such measure. Unless you actually think I am sitting there looking at people and saying hmm, I think, yes, you are better than 99 out of 100 people I know in terms of intelligence. And you, yes, you, you are better than 9,999 out of 10,000 people. You are just that smart. That's just silly. And come to think of it, if I was referring to a subjective quality, then I could decide who is the best, and I could just declare that HN commentators are in the top 10%, because well, that's the the way I feel about it]

mhurron 10y ago

Except it is, you are trying to put forward that IQ among engineers is high as some proof that HN must be of a higher general intelligence than the rest of the population. I said IQ is bullshit, the implication being it can not be used to prove your position. For IQ to support your position, it must be a valid measurement of intelligence. I am attacking the validity of your data.

SamReidHughes 10y ago
IQ is a valid measure of intelligence. Individuals' outcomes on different intelligence tests are positively correlated with one another, you see. And they're correlated with external metrics of ability, of course.
Practicality 10y ago
My original post was all about the distribution and rarity of people with different IQ results and how the article confuses the three different cohorts. Those three cohorts are defined by IQ. The terms "above average," "gifted" and "genius" all refer to IQ scores. I agree with you that using these terms in the colloquial sense is undefined, and therefore useless to discuss. Hence, why I wasn't using that meaning of the word "intelligent." If my argument was that HN commenters had higher intelligence and I was referring to an amorphous concept, then yes, my position would not be possible to defend. However, my position was that the majority of commenters on here would be in the top 10%, as defined by IQ tests, since that is what the original article was talking about. [Edit: I mean, what would I even be saying to say someone is in the top 10%, 1% or .01% of a subjective, poorly defined quality? It would be nonsense. I would have to be referring to something measurable to even try to divide people into cohorts by such measure. Unless you actually think I am sitting there looking at people and saying hmm, I think, yes, you are better than 99 out of 100 people I know in terms of intelligence. And you, yes, you, you are better than 9,999 out of 10,000 people. You are just that smart. That's just silly. And come to think of it, if I was referring to a subjective quality, then I could decide who is the best, and I could just declare that HN commentators are in the top 10%, because well, that's the the way I feel about it]