125's quite above average. About 1 in 20. It's easy to forget differences in the kind of intelligence IQ measures if you're in a career like engineering, programming etc etc where people are very likely to have significantly above average speed/competence with IQ test style questions. — fdrake
Not in Dungeons and Dragons. Wisdom is intuition, you can roll a wisdom check to assess someone's emotional state from body language, sensing motives is a wisdom based skill, medical knowledge is wisdom based, perception is wisdom based, capacity to learn a standard profession is wisdom based... — fdrake
Of course - 100 is the average by definition. In my experience of people in everyday life, apparent IQ level does not have a high correlation with competence, maturity, compassion, or responsibility. — T Clark
Indeed. IQ does not measure intelligence. It measures the ability to do the test. — charleton
That's simply not true as a matter of scientific fact. — Dachshund
That's simply not true as a matter of scientific fact. — Dachshund
Current standardised IQ tests do accurately and reliably measure general intelligence ("g-factor") as I defined it above. — Dachshund
Moreover, these measures of IQ have a very high predictive validity.
These are hard, incontrovertible facts. IQ tests DO NOT merely measure the ability to do IQ tests. Full Stop.
Taxation without representation likely won't end well. — Sydasis
There is an impressive body of recent research that strongly suggests:
(1) The "g-factor" represents a true high-order latent phenotype.
(2) The "g-factor" is largely a genetic phenomenon, with a heritability factor of over 0.85.
(3) "g" exists as a real phenomenon in the mind as well as in psychometric tests.
(4) "g" can be understood as a causal differences construct. — Dachshund
If you are interested in any citations from the literature re the above, I can provide them for you.
Edit: The rule of thumb is: quantities derived from observational studies have indeterminate causal structure. The most you can do is rule some structures out. Further, thou shalt not interpret small studies causally without systematic controls and power calculations. He who does not do statistical power calculations (or type M&S error simulations) has forgotten the face of his father. — fdrake
Maybe political scientists and psychometricians presently better heed the warnings and caveats from the professional statisticians who devise their methods and the software packages that they use
The UNCRPD section 12 distinguishes mental capacity from legal capacity, saying (in other words) that the lack of mental capacity shall not be grounds to remove legal capacity. So far only the Republic of Ireland is fully compliant with section 12 (in Europe anyway, not sure about elsewhere).
Th acquisition of legal capacity is a recognition of adulthood, regardless of how well people understand the world they live in. Being non-disabled is no bar to being an ignorant vote-savaging twat in any case. I'd happily be ruled by a bunch of bipolar people. — bert1
(4) the identification of performing hypothesis tests with enacting an empirical paradigm of research.
(5) the identification of scientific relevance with a rejected null hypothesis
is a driving force of poor quality science.
Hypothesis tests themselves reward noisy data collection. Gelman and his coauthors have worked extensively on this recently. — fdrake
And in 2014 a biomedical science journal outlawed the use of p-value hypothesis testing in submitted papers. Hopefully the times they are a'changing.
nah, children are considered "rational" "legally" from the moment they can be expected to understand that bad = no and good = yes, and that "x is bad is an instruction to be followed, basically. Before, the standard was 7 years old, which is where the "age of reason" expression comes from. Nowadays this is much lower than this, and 4-5 years old can be found "rational" in the eyes of the court. — Akanthinos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.