Re: Intelligence, fixed or wobbly? was Re: Ethics, IQ

From: Randall Randall (
Date: Tue Feb 08 2005 - 03:32:51 MST

On Feb 7, 2005, at 7:23 PM, maru wrote:
> Randall Randall wrote:
>> What could you possibly mean by a statement about having
>> the mental capacity to increase mental capacity? The
>> idea that one could increase one's intelligence by an
>> act of will, likewise, seems so obviously wrong that it
>> seems to indicate that you and others on this list are
>> not using the term "IQ" to mean the same things.
> Now wait, are you trying to say that IQ is inevitable, that no matter
> what you do it is fixed? That exercise won't improve it,
> that healthy eating will have no effect, that engaging in stimulating
> work and activites and recreation will do nothing?
> That seems pretty wrong to me.

No, that isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that
it seems unlikely that processing power can be increased
*by* processing, without action; by "force of will", for
which "having the will" to do so is important. To be
clear, my objection is with the idea that determination
is more important than things like diet, exercise, and
mind design.

Laying aside the expectation that technology will be able
to increase intelligence through brain enhancement and
other methods, it seems clear that a human's intelligence
has a definite ceiling, above which no amount of good diet,
exercise, and practice will shatter. This ceiling is
the concept to which I would expect people usually refer
when speaking of someone's "IQ" or "raw intelligence" or

Randall Randall <>
Property law should use #'EQ , not #'EQUAL .

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT