so therefore IQ is not additive? I would agree.
-
-
Replying to @karlrohe @Meaningness and
Or rather, it is not additive at the extremes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
right. All I have is anecdata, but suspicion is there’s some functional modularity involved, and the
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @karlrohe and
extremely smart have high “regular IQ” which is normally distributed bcs additive, PLUS unusual ability >
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @karlrohe and
in some other module that’s largely independent of the g system. Existence of idiot savants is consistent
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
yes. maybe g-system is additive-ish. exceptional is software; better algorithms (inference, etc).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Maybe! That would tend to contradict my low-confidence theory that very smart people can’t learn each >
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @karlrohe and
others’ peculiar abilities. But that is a very low confidence theory (am thinking of exceptions already)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
should "peculiar abilities" have more topology? subsets/types of abilities, hierarchies of sets, etc
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
a typology would be great. I was thinking of cognitive, particularly academic-ish abilities because
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
those are the outliers I happen to know
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @karlrohe and
Greatness by Dean Simonton is a good read. Not 100% on IQ/intelligence, but hits a lot of it in studying genius, accomplishment, etc.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.