3 ms·
I don't understand why you're presupposing "performance" as a measure of intelligence, and what you mean by it. No one is saying that intelligence alone (above
by anonymouskimmer 3y ago
I don't understand why you're presupposing "performance" as a measure of intelligence, and what you mean by it. No one is saying that intelligence alone (above a threshold) equates to demonstrated, or even potential, life outcomes.
- mjburgess 3y agothen your definitions are circular, "intelligence is whatever the IQ test measures, assuming it measures anything" this is no way to establish validity or reliability. you need an independent theory of intelligence and a variety of indepenent objective measures -- otherwise the whole enterprise is circular
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoAgain, I wrote that I don't understand what you mean by "performance", so you can't claim a circular definition yet. In the context of intelligence or IQ the word "performance" means to me either demonstration of something (and I don't understand what you expect CEOs to be demonstrating other than attaining a particular social position), or the "performance score" of the Wechler IQ test. > you need an independent theory of intelligence Sure. We have some of these. Despite it's flaws and limitations I'm partial to portions of Guilford's Structure of Intellect. > and a variety of indepenent objective measures The various sub-tests in an IQ test are nominally independent, yes? Going back to your "CEOs", I don't see how a social position can be assumed to be objective when it is subjectively contingent on external social processes.