6 ms·
This pair of rhetorical questions actually has a non-rhetorical answer, and it is far more interesting (though less precious) than the one implied here. This b
by lambdaphage 12y ago
This pair of rhetorical questions actually has a non-rhetorical answer, and it is far more interesting (though less precious) than the one implied here.
This being the internet, the serious answer is a mouseclick away: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_%28psychometrics%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_%28psychometrics%29
- vince_refiti 12y agoIt is more correctly circular reasoning. The psychometric measure g does not break this circle at all. I will never believe in "intelligence tests" until this circular reasoning can be broken.
- lambdaphage 12y agoWhy do you think we observe the positive manifold, then?
- vince_refiti 12y agoI do not know why the positive manifold is as it is. But it still seems like it is a precise measure of an inaccuracy. What I am getting at in a roundabout way is that I cannot find any credible definition of intelligence that is not dependent on the these tests. If intelligence were able to measured some other way that corroborated these tests, then I will be more likely to believe them.