> As soon as you refer to IQ you lose me. Can you restate your argument > without such mythology.
Raghu's argument is that intelligence is like beauty: there's no scalar metric like IQ -- that's a myth, as he agrees -- but we can all tell a stupid person from an intelligent person, just as we can all tell an attractive person from a troll. It's an original argument -- or at least, I haven't heard it before -- but it gives away a lot to the anti-intelligence crowd, like Carrol and me. After all, everybody knows that beauty is in the eye of the beholder; what was beautiful to Rubens is pretty repulsive to a lot of people nowadays. So it's odd to see Raghu in the same breath claiming that Obama is 'objectively' more intelligent than Bush. How can something so subjective be objectively determined? Perhaps this is shorthand. Perhaps the objectivity of Obama's greater intelligence consists in the claim that most currently living subjectivities would concur that I(Obie) > I(Bushie). Hmm. Well, would they? I think I know what lies behind all this foofaraw. Obie talks like a teacher, and Bushie talks like a frat boy. That's what it boils down to, really. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
