/lit/ - Literature

>>3243981
What I think on the matter of intelligence being measured is that, apart from how silly IQ tests are, so even just considering the testing of the different kinds of intelligence (which are not actually separated, but comprehend a whole), there is stil given too much importance to something that is just crude.

The matters we face today on looking for a job and advancing in the educational system demand this testing all the time. The guy hiring you needs indicators on how good you can be at what he needs, because he can't afford to try out everyone and so it's always a bet. A good curriculum might say something about how competent you are. In the same way, intelligence tested (which is a measure of how intelligent you were while doing the test) is taken as an indicator of how intelligent you ought to be in other situations. Your opinion counts more because you did well on the test before. But even though we are all well aware that it is merely a prediction, how reliable is it? And isn't intelligence specially needed when an unexpected problem arise? That's why I think that even when a fraction of intelligence is measured in retrospect, it's slippery as a prediction, for as you change the context, you change how intelligence is used.

I understand with what you mean on education. It's just that I don't think the mathematician "collected" algebra, but incorporated it to be an integral part of his thinking. It's not steady, he will never be done with simple algebra.