Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
In fairness, what Mudd continued on to say, in The Head Game, was that all of us are below average AT SOMETHING. In other words, not everyone is below average all the time (although, arguably, some certainly are); but all of us, with few exceptions, are below average at some skill or comprehension or capability. I know that's true for me; I'm skilled at a number of things, but a total doofus at others.
|
The trick is a realistic estimation of what you are good at and what you aren't. Most of the issues I deal with revolve around people who think they know more and have more skills at something than they actually do. This is often generational, with young folks unwilling to listen to older ones, sublimely convinced that they know better. It would be less annoying if more of them learned something when their ignorance bit them.
Quote:
|
HOWEVER, yes, the IQ thing is also true, and that's enough to keep you in the fetal position for the rest of your natural-born life. And those folks VOTE, too. (no, mods, that's not a political comment).
|
IQ is somewhat out of favor these days, and the Stanford Binet tests got knocked as flawed and biased because various groups did less well on them. These days, I think there are about a dozen different major forms of intelligence being spoken of, with people possessing a varying mix of them.
The problem is that intelligence is domain specific: do you have enough of the type required to deal with the situation you are in? If you don't, you have problems. And the sorts of capabilities the Stanford Binet tests measure are the ones you are most likely to need to deal with a modern technological society. So while it's unfashionable to talk about it, folks with low IQs are likely to have problems
because they have low IQs, don't learn as quickly or as well, and may simply not comprehend critical concepts.
______
Dennis