russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,740
- 11,190
And I'm trying to figure out if you are! Your argument style is to ask questions and imply a position without actually stating it. It makes it very difficult to tell what the point is that you are trying to make!goingmeta said:I can't tell if you're trolling or not.
You didn't ask a specific question, only a vague one. Not knowing what your point and level of knowledge of the facts was, it was impossible for me to guess how specific of an answer you wanted. So since the question was framed as a yes or no, I answered a yes or no.I asked you if you thought IQ was a static measurement. I guess I assumed you would have specified that it would be decreasing.
So now that I know what you are getting at: It really doesn't matter if it increases or decreases, only that it doesn't tend to increase by 25 points, enabling an average person to become Richard Feynman.
Moreover, there is a clear logical flaw in that reasoning of yours: Are all people able to increase their IQ only by enough to bring everyone up to exactly 125? If not, then the differences in ability and thus resulting attainment would be intact. And even if they did, the lost time would still cause differences due to starting IQ. It wouldn't make sense for that to be true/possible, even if we didn't already know that it isn't true, and even if it was, it still wouldn't produce the equality Feynman claims!
Again, the data and logic on this seems clear and simple to me. That there is argument about it is truly baffling to me.
Last edited: