> What did it ever mean? Probably the same thing it has always meant -- whatever people want it to mean. > Trying to quantify it through tests is such a… bull

> What did it ever mean? Probably the same thing it has always meant -- whatever people want it to mean. > Trying to quantify it through tests is such a… bullshit proposition. I completely agree. I think one of the biggest disservice of modern-ish thinking is how quickly we are to write-off individuals. Humans are creatures that are full of endless surprises, and sometimes it merely just takes being in the right place at the right time to achieve greatness. A person with an IQ of 100 is considered to be of average intelligence. However, I think it would be laughable, and a downright disservice, to claim that a person with an average IQ is only capable of average accomplishments because some proprietary test that has been arbitrarily slapped together with an equally laughably low correlation coefficient of 0.20 or whatever says so. I find all this idea to be so damaging to people. One does not have to be "greater than" to be great. How many successful musicians have had great careers despite average abilities? How many virtuosos have accomplished nothing noteworthy? Jimi Hendrix and Bach are both talented, but who is more talented? I think the better question is, "Who fucking cares? Why does it even matter?" They both created music that millions enjoy, and that is what truly matters. At least, to me.