|
 |
Chambers wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> I believe that IQ tests are a flawed concept.
>
> I agree. Any meaningful test needs to have a much more specific focus.
I, for one, don't agree. What's wrong with the concept of a generalised
test to determine an individuals approximate level of mental development?
Of course, I also vehemently disagree with my ex-landlord's position
that anything said by someone who is mentally impaired is invalid
explicitly because they're mentally impaired. That would mean if they
were able to say "one plus one equals two", regardless of understanding,
that must then be treated as false. Which is absurd. (That whole can
of worms had been opened by my incidental use of the phrase "can't we
all just get along," which I still think was in use from the 1960s at
least, not coined by Rodney King, even if he popularised it.)
*cough* Sorry. Ex-landlord had a lot of notions which were of dubious
veracity. Like thinking it'd be better to launch satellites from the
polar regions due to lesser gravity (Earth being an oblate sphereoid)
and thinner atmosphere, instead of as they are, from as close to the
equator as possible to get the momentum boost from the rotating Earth.
And the US Navy's nuclear submarines being able to be completely
remote-controlled if you send them the right access codes (since it was
in some movie). And the US having low-yield nukes (specifically nukes)
that don't produce radiation, or if they do, it decays within days,
instead of a century or so. And file permissions and user accounts in
UNIX being an add-on module that you had to specifically compile,
separate from the filesystem, with (modern) UNIX systems having
programmer-embedded backdoors at the OS level to permit complete access
to everything in case the admin forgot their password...and claiming
that a friend decompiled Windows and, by removing commented code,
decreased the recompiled executable and library size significantly.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
