You are defining imply such that X implies Y means that if X happens Y always occurs, whereas I’m defining imply to mean that if X happens Y is more likely to occur than if X didn’t happen. In this context my interpretation is better since yours renders MartinB’s statement trivially true and therefore vacuous.
I don’t think I actually understand your comment correctly. Could you elaborate? There are many intelligent people who do great work in one area while failing in another. A successful entrepreneur who is into alternative medicine is not particularly surprising.
IQ, a single number, is important because people who are smart in one area tend on average to be smart in others. Jobs was extremely good at making decisions based on an intelligent analysis of complex information so I would expect him to be at least above average at making personal medical decisions.
Are you assuming a linear relation between IQ and correct decision making? In medical issues a person of normal IQ could just go with whatever the doctor says, while a high IQ person might know enough to know about all the troubles with medical services, yet be not able to distinguish a case where the doctors way is the absolutely best option there is.
The article claims he choose wrongly, and we should be sad about that. But not necessarily surprised.
The importance of IQ, a single measure of intelligence, contradicts your statement.
Intelligence in one area is evidence of intelligence in another, but not infinite evidence. Problem dissolved.
You are defining imply such that X implies Y means that if X happens Y always occurs, whereas I’m defining imply to mean that if X happens Y is more likely to occur than if X didn’t happen. In this context my interpretation is better since yours renders MartinB’s statement trivially true and therefore vacuous.
Edit: I misinterpreted Oscar’s comment.
That’s exactly what I intended to mean (my comment wasn’t intended to support MartinB over you).
I don’t think I actually understand your comment correctly. Could you elaborate? There are many intelligent people who do great work in one area while failing in another. A successful entrepreneur who is into alternative medicine is not particularly surprising.
IQ, a single number, is important because people who are smart in one area tend on average to be smart in others. Jobs was extremely good at making decisions based on an intelligent analysis of complex information so I would expect him to be at least above average at making personal medical decisions.
Jobs has been described as
We should be shocked if he did an incompetent job of choosing his own cancer treatment.
Are you assuming a linear relation between IQ and correct decision making? In medical issues a person of normal IQ could just go with whatever the doctor says, while a high IQ person might know enough to know about all the troubles with medical services, yet be not able to distinguish a case where the doctors way is the absolutely best option there is.
The article claims he choose wrongly, and we should be sad about that. But not necessarily surprised.
What would that assumption even mean?