Looking more deeply at some IQ results, something that pops out at me that should be important is "point of failure". For example in "progressive martices", it's called that because the questions get progressively harder. But what I notice when I take them, and the data seems...
... to bear this out is that there is a "point of failure". Basically the point in the test that a person, more or less, just stops being able to make sense of any question and answer in any meaningful way.
And I suspect this "point of failure" is more meaningful than overall...
And I suspect this "point of failure" is more meaningful than overall...
... score. Intuitively, it seems really uninteresting how "efficient" they are in the band of questions they can answer. That seems more like type-A, diligence sort of thing. IRL, you can, through effort, grind out those kinds of questions. But a meaningful intelligence test...
... should be focused on identifying the limits. And so an IQ test score should, instead of being % correct (I know g is extracted after the fact), should be more like "how far were they able to get".
Perhaps intelligence tests should have 2 scores (which ofc would be subdivided by subtest and whatever established factors are identified), and they should be efficiency and limit.
Limit is "how far you get", and efficiency is % correct up to the limit.
Limit is "how far you get", and efficiency is % correct up to the limit.
Who is more intelligent, the top bar or bottom bar?
(Just pretend the bottom bar has the same number of questions answered correctly, as that's what I'm intending to convey visually.)
(Just pretend the bottom bar has the same number of questions answered correctly, as that's what I'm intending to convey visually.)
And I suspect different minds are geared differently - some are more predisposed to high limit, others high efficiency. Obviously the correlation between efficiency at "easy" questions and the point of failure will be high, but we're talking about people who all have IQs @ ~120+
If this is true, and there are these "mind gearings", either geared toward efficiency or limit, then scientific advancement needs both. It basically needs high-limit types to make extensions or "breakthroughs", but they have to be minded by efficiency-geared minds.
Analogies would be an armored breakthrough in WW2. The tanks break through, but the advance must be covered by infantry. Or bombers who must be escorted by fighters. Or carriers and before that battleships who must be escorted by destroyers and light cruisers.
The analogy actually goes pretty far. Bombers, tanks, and capitol ships are "b type" units, while fighters, infantry and light ships are "a type" units. And in all arenas, when you're advancing and have the advantage, these "b type" units are extremely important.
But when you're on the back foot and getting hammered by a superior enemy, the "b type" units lose their effectiveness. In WW2, Germany shifted from tanks and bombers to fighters and "assault guns" - the stug's and hetzers that supported the infantry.
For the German navy, it's more complicated because the big war started earlier than Hitler planned, so the navy had more capitol ships than it would've had if Hitler knew the "big war" would start in 1939. But Germany quickly shifted from "b-type" capitol ships to "a-type" uboats
And I think this principle applies to intellectual pursuits. In times or relative stability, a people can afford "b type" thinkers who can push the pile and advance knowledge. In more difficult times, you need "conservative" or "a type" thinkers.
Today, the "conservative" or "a type" thinkers are shitlibs. The "scientific racists" are all b-type, and there's a kind of war between a-type and b-type. But b-type thinkers are far more dependent on competent support from a-types, while a-types can operate more independently.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
