4 ms·

The problem is there is no way to measure intelligence objectively. Every intelligence test ever devised either measures something else unintentionally (usually

The problem is there is no way to measure intelligence objectively. Every intelligence test ever devised either measures something else unintentionally (usually prior knowledge/communication skills), or nothing at all. Your response that it _could_ be done doesn't actually refute that it hasn't. Sending a man to walk on the sun feels as impossible now as sending a man to walk the moon 100 years ago. Do I think we're behind as a country because NASA isn't sending people to the sun now? No. I'm universally fine with waiting until there's a theoretically viable approach before throwing random innocent lives at things which have no evidence of working even in theory.

luckylion 4y ago
When you say "there is now way", are you saying that we don't currently have a way, or that it's impossible to do? If it's the former, more research would certainly help.
- DoctorOW 4y ago
  I don't find it valuable to say "impossible". I've said that pretending we're at that point now is harmful.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    But the same argument that they have against research in genetics applies there too, doesn't it? Attempting to measure intellectual capacity assumes that there can be a difference and tries to make that visible. Or, as others in this thread have argued: how should the person feel that doesn't get a high score, and shouldn't we outlaw research in that area to make sure they don't feel bad?
    - DoctorOW 4y ago
      No. I don't believe we should outlaw research that makes people feel bad. I predict that there's functionally very little genetic difference in cognitive abilities because human beings are simply far too similar (this does not say "exactly the same") to each other in all other measurable attributes. Still, it's moot because we can't measure intelligence and pretending we can isn't scientific.
inglor_cz 4y ago
Back in the early 19th century when electricity was being studied by the pioneers of the domain, there wasn't any understanding what electricity even means; people like Ampere, Volta and Ohm were alive, but the units named after them weren't. This didn't prevent the field into developing into what it is today, acquiring more knowledge along the way. As of today, we measure intelligence using tests on paper. In the future, it might be done using something like MR or CT, only more sophisticated. We can certainly map some cognitive processes in ways like that already, so it does not seem as absurd as walking in 6000 Kelvin on a gassy surface.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- DoctorOW 4y ago
  Regardless of if it is or isn't possible in the future, until there's evidence all the NIH is doing is preventing people from spreading pseudoscientific claims. I've no problem with saying mislabeling a key statistic in a study isn't scientific, especially when that is provably the plan ahead of time.

luckylion 4y ago

When you say "there is now way", are you saying that we don't currently have a way, or that it's impossible to do? If it's the former, more research would certainly help.

DoctorOW 4y ago
I don't find it valuable to say "impossible". I've said that pretending we're at that point now is harmful.
- luckylion 4y ago
  But the same argument that they have against research in genetics applies there too, doesn't it? Attempting to measure intellectual capacity assumes that there can be a difference and tries to make that visible. Or, as others in this thread have argued: how should the person feel that doesn't get a high score, and shouldn't we outlaw research in that area to make sure they don't feel bad?
  - DoctorOW 4y ago
    No. I don't believe we should outlaw research that makes people feel bad. I predict that there's functionally very little genetic difference in cognitive abilities because human beings are simply far too similar (this does not say "exactly the same") to each other in all other measurable attributes. Still, it's moot because we can't measure intelligence and pretending we can isn't scientific.

inglor_cz 4y ago

Back in the early 19th century when electricity was being studied by the pioneers of the domain, there wasn't any understanding what electricity even means; people like Ampere, Volta and Ohm were alive, but the units named after them weren't. This didn't prevent the field into developing into what it is today, acquiring more knowledge along the way. As of today, we measure intelligence using tests on paper. In the future, it might be done using something like MR or CT, only more sophisticated. We can certainly map some cognitive processes in ways like that already, so it does not seem as absurd as walking in 6000 Kelvin on a gassy surface.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
DoctorOW 4y ago
Regardless of if it is or isn't possible in the future, until there's evidence all the NIH is doing is preventing people from spreading pseudoscientific claims. I've no problem with saying mislabeling a key statistic in a study isn't scientific, especially when that is provably the plan ahead of time.