= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
buybuydandavis comments on In Defense of Moral Investigation - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (78)
That's what I'm getting at. Your rejection of racial differences seemed to be unfalsifiable, so I kept on asking for you to identify some hypothetical evidence where you would accept that there are differences.
You had previously said
Now you say that you don't have a sturdy definition of intelligence. It seems like a cop out.
If intelligence is too ineffable to be measured, then any comparison between groups is meaningless, whether equal, less than, or greater than, and you should equally reject any of these propositions as meaningless. Are you equally reticent to say that groups have equal intelligence?
I don't have to have a sturdy definition of intelligence to know that IQ is not intelligence, in much the same way that I know that the capacity to identify paperclips is not intelligence.
I don't know enough about psychometrics to adequately define intelligence in a way that can be measured. I do believe that there exists some sturdy definition that can be measured and adequately reflects most people's intuitions of what "intelligence" means, but I do not know what that definition is.
Whether or not IQ is intelligence however you define it, you have to explain why it has such strong correlation with success.
What do you mean by success?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Real-life_accomplishments
That's strong evidence that IQ is correlated with intelligence, yes. Does that mean that IQ is intelligence? Not necessarily.