IQ is renormalized to the bell curve by definition, so multiplying it by 10 isn’t guaranteed to be a meaningful operation. And since we have no other way to measure intelligence, it’s not clear what Carrier meant by “10 times smarter”.
Well… IQ is meant to be a direct quantification of raw “intellectual capacity”. So while its distribution is relative given the history of tests thus far, it still remains a quantification. But, that being said, this only further exascerbates the point I’m really getting at here: the ‘logic’ the man used is… fuzzy.
IQ is meant to be a direct quantification of raw “intellectual capacity”.
No it isn’t; it is a framework for relative rankings. Developing some means of “direct quantification” would be a major intellectual achievement, which as a first step would require a good definition of intelligence. I have been thinking about this and while there are quite a few useful definitions of intelligence out there, they each have notable weaknesses, we are a long way from a good definition.
Just as thermometers are a tool that measures temperature as relative degrees, and a serious understanding of and definition of heat waited on the development of the statistical theory of molecular motions.
Just as thermometers are a tool that measures temperature as relative degrees,
Amusing—those are a direct quantification of temperature. Degrees Celsius for example goes to degrees Kelvin rather well. They use arbitrarily fixed points above zero K—but the IQ scale does not do this.
Now, of course, IQ is not g. And we have no means of quantifying g.
I think maybe you are under the misapprehension that by “intellectual capacity” I was saying “intelligence”. If I had meant “intelligence” I would have said “intelligence”.
Well… IQ is meant to be a direct quantification of raw “intellectual capacity”. So while its distribution is relative given the history of tests thus far, it still remains a quantification. But, that being said, this only further exascerbates the point I’m really getting at here: the ‘logic’ the man used is… fuzzy.
No it isn’t; it is a framework for relative rankings. Developing some means of “direct quantification” would be a major intellectual achievement, which as a first step would require a good definition of intelligence. I have been thinking about this and while there are quite a few useful definitions of intelligence out there, they each have notable weaknesses, we are a long way from a good definition.
Just as thermometers are a tool that measures temperature as relative degrees, and a serious understanding of and definition of heat waited on the development of the statistical theory of molecular motions.
Amusing—those are a direct quantification of temperature. Degrees Celsius for example goes to degrees Kelvin rather well. They use arbitrarily fixed points above zero K—but the IQ scale does not do this.
Now, of course, IQ is not
g. And we have no means of quantifyingg.I think maybe you are under the misapprehension that by “intellectual capacity” I was saying “intelligence”. If I had meant “intelligence” I would have said “intelligence”.