> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On 18 Nov 96 at 19:41, zaimoni@ksu.edu wrote:
[CLIP]
> > I'm going to assume that the only thing an accurate IQ measurement
> > measures is thinking speed, for the next statement:
>
> I agree with this wholeheartedly in principle, but I once again
> stress that I don't think we have yet developed the means of
> accurate measurement.
The current state of the art seems to be like one mid-1980's
voice-recognition of Japanese program [digitally based]: it had no
problem with native speakers, but foreign speakers were hopeless.
> > The above is worthless without the domain restriction 'useful for daily
> > life'. If it isn't a job skill or something used frequently, it doesn't
> > count.
>
> I still disagree with this. The incentive to learn may affect the
> application of intelligence but I don't think it affects intelligence
> itself. I think this may be related to our inability to measure the
> phenomenon. Perhaps we're using the term 'useful' in a slightly
> different manner. Do you mean it in an absolute sense (i.e. useful
> whether or not the subject thinks it is useful) or relatively (i.e.
> the subject finds it useful)?
Absolutely, and [initially] relatively. Of course, the subject's lack of
progress may cause him to reclassify its usefulness, within seconds or
minutes.
[CLIP]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////