:
te:
rote:
viation below mine.
that most people estimate most others as less intelligent than themselves m ost of the time.
od reasons, but aren't. It's nothing new. It's why teamwork is important.
barrier to valuing their contributions. A lot of the work I did didn't req uire much intelligence, or experience but it was quicker to do it myself th an to take the time to package it up and pass it on to one of my junior col leagues
tests - isn't a single skill and there's no evidence that whatever is being measured and touted as intelligence - essentially exam-passing capacity - is normally distributed (in the sense of conforming to the Gaussian bell cu rve).
xam passing capacity.
o the bell curve.
ates - to some extent - with the concept of intelligence.
You do like to think that, but since you don't spell out what going on, it' s an empty claim.
The point you thought that you were making was that "IQ is numbers assigned to various levels of intelligence" which does happen to be wrong, because the IQ (intelligence quotient) is a number evaluated by pencil and paper IQ tests.
It's useful because it correlates with the - poorly defined - quality usual ly referred to as intelligence, but it doesn't quantify anything that is di rectly related to actual intelligence (whatever that might be).
Psychologist do like to try to define intelligence as "that property measur ed by intelligence tests" but Mensa exists to prove them wrong.
gence tests.
itself fits any bell curve. This is IQ 101 stuff, there's little point anyo ne debating it.
paying attention in that particular undergraduate class.
was being given, I can understand your unwillingness to cope with the cons equences.
e this, but resorting endlessly to childishness makes you look childish. An d guess what, it is childish.
The fact that you can't - or won't - process the information content doesn' t demonstrate that it isn't there. There's nothing childish about the reque st to define your terms - it happens to be the basis of any useful discussi on - and your unwillingness to engage with the idea that IQ is only weakly related to intelligence makes you are rather unsophisticated discussant.
Children frequently are unsophisticated, but your lack of sophistication lo oks rather more like a life-time addiction to sloppy thinking.
exam-passing capacity, so administrators take it seriously, but nobody els e needs to and most probably shouldn't.
u are, you would have known that there is real climate science (as publishe d in peer reviewed journals) and denialist propaganda that's fed into any m edia outlet that is too cheapskate to do real science reporting. Asking for "evidence" that this has been going on for years is roughly like insisting that somebody identifies Donald Trump as a contender for the Republican Pa rty nomination as a presidential candidate.
sic knowledge of the world. He failed.
ell thought out but it has too many holes in it to convince others. Don't l et your ego fool you into thinking otherwise.
ing facts or by linking to more or less authoratitive sources. I'm afraid t hat it's your ego that is on display here, and it looks to be enlarged with hot air.
I'm well aware that my capacities are finite, but you aren't testing them.
You haven't quantified their limits in any way. You have asserted that you don't find my arguments convincing, but you have done so in a way that make s it perfectly clear that you haven't understood them.
My capacities may be finite, but yours seem to be even more restricted, and you don't seem to have noticed that you are out of your depth.