5 ms·
The previous comments were talking of IQ in a quantitative way ("x points less"), so they fit in the first definition. Even the second definition is not really
by zimza 11mo ago
The previous comments were talking of IQ in a quantitative way ("x points less"), so they fit in the first definition.
Even the second definition is not really a thing. Intelligence as a concept doesn't mean much and needs to be defined properly. Using it this way is just another way to divide people superficially.
- bluGill 11mo agoI started the thread with '"5 iq points dumber" (whatever that means)'. I intended that to be read something like "as if there was an objective measure of intelligence that scaled like iq'. I cannot say what other intended, but at least some people are reading this whole thread in that context and I would expect you to as well even if others didn't intend that. (that is "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." - hopefully this helps you see context better)
- sokoloff 11mo ago> talking of IQ in a quantitative way ("x points less") I read that as a within a single individual, case A (no brain damage from cause C) vs case B (with brain damage from cause C), where using it as a shorthand for intelligence differences within a single individual makes it a useful shorthand for most readers, IMO.