You knew I would have
something to say about it right there didn't. That exact spot 😁 Now... I could make a jab and say "Well, maybe they're overestimating their
intellectual capacity but I think that would be low hanging fruit. I think it's more interesting to say that the disparity is to
great that I genuinely can't tell the difference between any of you.
Hym "You also have to consider (when talking about
intellectual compatibility) the fact that half of the population doesn't believe in the I.Q. literature as a reliable metric for intellectual and refer to the fact that early I.Q. tests involved American
history and pop-culture trivia while ingoring entirely the fact that THEY DON'T DO THAT NOW and it now consists in
3 sections (Word association,
Logic, and Number sequencing). But I don't think number sequencing relates to general cognitive ability as it relates to a certain type of innate mathematical perception OR mathematical literacy (as it can be learned and once you know the equation that solves number sequence problems you can just solve the problems). Right? They're mostly proponents of multiple intelligences theory or rely on field expertise or
education. But to use
education as a metric for intelligence you have to presuppose that the people who have taken the course would have done better than the people who hadn't, had the latter people taken the course (Which you WOULD but only because my staggering brilliance would embarrass the professor and he would sabotage me out of spite). Expertise is meaningless if the conclusion drawn by way of your expertise is wrong. And multiple intelligences is just 'expertise' and '
education' and 'emotional intelligence (which isn't real)' and 'creativity' as,
like, a plurality of ways in which a person can be considered 'intelligent.' So, there's that."
