If the test maker has IQ x. The test taker has IQ y. X is Less than Y and the person who has IQ Y has criticisms of the test....should the test be modified, through force of intelligence alone, by the person with IQ Y? Or should the person with IQ x maintain the nature of the test.Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:54 pmWell like I said, you haven't shown how that's actually the case. If we specifically define 'being more intelligence' as being able to point out the flaw in another's hypothesis, then sure. However, then you're just re-defining everything to suit your point so that you have one; It still doesn't have any genuine relation to those that made the IQ test.
Shown what exactly? the nature of all proof, that while objective, exists if and only if there is a symmetry between the proof itself and the subjective state of the observer.
Having a community of scientists determine the nature of relativity or put to question newton's laws does not require a series of either intelligent men equal to or greater than the founders of these specific empirical truths?
There is no act of me "redefining anything" as the nature of intelligence is premised in the observation of definition itself. Intelligence observes the boundaries which seperate or connect certain abstract or empirical truths...intelligence is the observation of definition as a form of defintion itself. You say I am redefining everything to suit my point, but that really is the nature of truth isn't it...we believe it is true because of the depth of complexity or definition which gives structure to that "truth".
What exactly are you defining which is not subjective?
Any idiot can potentially point out the flaws in something, though. It doesn't necessarily take someone who's more intelligent to be able to do that. The other day, I was having this sort of computer wizard helping me with my computer, and I pointed out that his mouse wasn't working because he didn't put the USB connector in. Does this simple mistake dilute the quality of his information over mine? Absolutely not, I don't know nearly that much about computers.
But you claimed earlier that genius is not necessary to make the discovery of truth statements....so an "idiot" can determine the nature of the test by sheer "discovery" alone.
I've been over this with you. I realize it's not a par-to-par comparison, but I believe the principle is the same; Something true doesn't have to be revealed by the most intelligent person in the respective field.However the correlation you make is false considering the test is not a scientific discovery but rather a system of testing.
It is not a par to par comparison and "I believe the principle is the same" is not an argument...we are not arguing religious dogma here.
In regards to truth see the above statement...one does not need an IQ of "x" in order to argue the above points.
That's just you asserting what has to be the case, without showing it in anyway.Those who make the test effectively have to take the test as a proof of their own intelligence in determining intelligence.
Actually no...if the person forms the standards they are subject to those very same standards they formed as those standards, determined by specifically chosen axioms, are extensions of the test takes themselves.
And what would show it?
This is something which clearly has counter-examples; Besides the one I've already given which you seem to think is insufficient, something like a basketball coach has never played a game of professional basketball in his life. Acting tutors don't actually know how to act well, either, they just know how to make someone convey emotions in their performance.The student's are only as good as the teachers.
It is certainly not unheard of for students to surpass their teachers.
Actually a basketball player does not have to play basketball in order to teach basketball...this point is irrelevant.
The teacher acts as a median of information...the teacher's inability to mediate information is fundamentally a fault of the teacher that transfers to the student if the student is dependent upon the teacher alone. Those student's who study on their own time, teach themselves, observe the environment around them, while listening to the teacher of course will surpass the teacher...but a student such as this has to do such things as the teacher already failed in providing both questions and answers.
Well you suggested that they should have had the highest IQ themselves, not just be intelligent to some degree.Circularity is self-referentiality....a person making a test about intelligence must be intelligent and this intelligence must be observed through the test.
We are left with a continually spiraling nature of the person with the highest IQ determining the nature of the test with each proceeding person with a higher IQ forming the test according to their wills.
However if the person without the high IQ is the one determining the test than intelligence is measured by those who are less intelligent.
Seriously, you've proven yourself to be a psychotic ass... so fuck off.