4 ms·
Depends on your deviation. And how do you mean "specific and vague". IQ isn't precise because like all of our physical attributes, there's wiggle room. Like h
by bena 4y ago
Depends on your deviation.
And how do you mean "specific and vague".
IQ isn't precise because like all of our physical attributes, there's wiggle room. Like how you may think you're a certain height, but you actually fluctuate throughout the day. Same with weight. Or strength. Or speed. IQ is a rough measure. It can really only tell us what you get when you take the test. But if you take it several times, it should fall within a range.
And a good IQ test shouldn't test knowledge. It should test reasoning, spatial ability, pattern matching, etc. You know, the factors that make up our raw processing power.
Are you saying it's "specific and vague" because it's an imprecise measure of a specific ability? That wouldn't be "specific and vague" in the way you mean. You could say it's a vague claim about a specific thing, but that's not mysterious.
- denton-scratch 4y agoI meant "specific and vague" like this: > Then you say that you don't believe there are people that are orders of magnitude smarter than the average. There are. So you're stating that some people are orders of magnitude smarter than the average; but you've adduced no evidence. I don't agree; you're making the claim, so the burden is on you. > IQ is the rough measure of the raw processing power of a human brain. That's a very specific claim. I know what "raw processing power" means in the context of a CPU, and I know of various ways of measuring it. But a brain is not a CPU. It's not a processor; arguably what it does is not similar to information processing.