2 ms·

Who said that it was?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Who said that it was? You said "'intelligence' is an attribute that's not readily ranked in a linear manner" while complaining about IQ. IQ doesn't rank intelligence linearly.
- defrost 2y ago
  I'll assume you understand the difference between a 1D line, a 2D plane, a 3D space and grasp basic english. What is your issue here?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > I'll assume you understand the difference between a 1D line, a 2D plane IQ isn't linear because it is not superposable. A 100 IQ person isn't twice as clever, within the definition of cleverness IQ measures, as someone with a 50 IQ. (An 8' man is twice as tall as a 4' child.) If you need to force it into a geometric analogy, the distribution IQ rests on cannot be described by a line.
    - defrost 2y ago
      > IQ isn't linear because it is not superposable. A 100 IQ person isn't twice as clever, within the definition of cleverness IQ measures, as someone with a 50 IQ. You appear to be thinking of a uniform distribution as compared to a normal distribution. Nominally both height and IQ approximate a normal distribution (sans the infinite tails, leaving aside discrete ordinal bucketing). "Linear" (see the O.E.D. for example) is a word with many meanings, mostly pertaining to lines and things resembling a line. You can line up people by height or by IQ score, you cannot line up people by "intelligence", it's a partial order at best. > the distribution IQ rests on cannot be described by a line. You're the only one of us that connected the scalar IQ distribution to a line .. I've been aware of the central limit theorem for 45+ years now. The geometric analogy is that mapping people by intelligence to a line is a poor fit, to a plane or higher space would make more sense. As evidenced by this exchange.
  - butter999 2y ago
    You probably meant that there doesn't exist a total order for comparing intelligence and/or that it isn't a scalar quantity like height, but "linear" didn't convey that meaning.
    - defrost 2y ago
      Intelligence clearly isn't a scalar quantity like height, the implication is that a faux scalar quantity like IQ or other ordinal scale doesn't well describe intelligence.
      - butter999 2y ago
        I agree, I think any test that gets you a meaningfully different result if you take it twice or are coached beforehand isn't measuring something intrinsic or meaningful, I'm just trying to help bridge a miscommunication.
        defrost 2y ago
        Appreciated. Ranking people by "intelligence" is compounded by it being multifactored, language skills and numerical skills can differ independently, spatial skills are a third vector unaligned with either.

> Who said that it was? You said "'intelligence' is an attribute that's not readily ranked in a linear manner" while complaining about IQ. IQ doesn't rank intelligence linearly.

defrost 2y ago
I'll assume you understand the difference between a 1D line, a 2D plane, a 3D space and grasp basic english. What is your issue here?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > I'll assume you understand the difference between a 1D line, a 2D plane IQ isn't linear because it is not superposable. A 100 IQ person isn't twice as clever, within the definition of cleverness IQ measures, as someone with a 50 IQ. (An 8' man is twice as tall as a 4' child.) If you need to force it into a geometric analogy, the distribution IQ rests on cannot be described by a line.
  - defrost 2y ago
    > IQ isn't linear because it is not superposable. A 100 IQ person isn't twice as clever, within the definition of cleverness IQ measures, as someone with a 50 IQ. You appear to be thinking of a uniform distribution as compared to a normal distribution. Nominally both height and IQ approximate a normal distribution (sans the infinite tails, leaving aside discrete ordinal bucketing). "Linear" (see the O.E.D. for example) is a word with many meanings, mostly pertaining to lines and things resembling a line. You can line up people by height or by IQ score, you cannot line up people by "intelligence", it's a partial order at best. > the distribution IQ rests on cannot be described by a line. You're the only one of us that connected the scalar IQ distribution to a line .. I've been aware of the central limit theorem for 45+ years now. The geometric analogy is that mapping people by intelligence to a line is a poor fit, to a plane or higher space would make more sense. As evidenced by this exchange.
- butter999 2y ago
  You probably meant that there doesn't exist a total order for comparing intelligence and/or that it isn't a scalar quantity like height, but "linear" didn't convey that meaning.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Intelligence clearly isn't a scalar quantity like height, the implication is that a faux scalar quantity like IQ or other ordinal scale doesn't well describe intelligence.
    - butter999 2y ago
      I agree, I think any test that gets you a meaningfully different result if you take it twice or are coached beforehand isn't measuring something intrinsic or meaningful, I'm just trying to help bridge a miscommunication.
      - defrost 2y ago
        Appreciated. Ranking people by "intelligence" is compounded by it being multifactored, language skills and numerical skills can differ independently, spatial skills are a third vector unaligned with either.