From: Bryan Bishop (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jan 02 2008 - 21:26:35 MST
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On 1/2/08, Bryan Bishop <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Prediction and intelligence go hand-in-hand, so how is a number
> > (IQ) supposed to be at all intelligent?
> Huh? *Within a given context* we certainly can assign a number
> meaningfully representing a point on a distribution representing a
> system's ability to make effective predictions within a complex
Then the argument seems to be whether or not the given context of IQ
exams is at all useful. For broader applicable contexts, dealing with
the actual, direct, wet context of the brain itself is important.
> > "Never underestimate the ability of a small group of thoughtful,
> > dedicated individuals to change the world. Indeed, it is the only
> > thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead
> Margaret Mead (of Coming of Age in Samoa) was laughably gullible and
> sadly swayed by her idealism. Not a good reference hereabouts.
Really? I've been using the Mead quote for some time now. Should I stop?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:01 MDT