(no title)
zimza | 3 months ago
Even the second definition is not really a thing. Intelligence as a concept doesn't mean much and needs to be defined properly. Using it this way is just another way to divide people superficially.
zimza | 3 months ago
Even the second definition is not really a thing. Intelligence as a concept doesn't mean much and needs to be defined properly. Using it this way is just another way to divide people superficially.
bluGill|3 months ago
I cannot say what other intended, but at least some people are reading this whole thread in that context and I would expect you to as well even if others didn't intend that. (that is "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." - hopefully this helps you see context better)
sokoloff|3 months ago
I read that as a within a single individual, case A (no brain damage from cause C) vs case B (with brain damage from cause C), where using it as a shorthand for intelligence differences within a single individual makes it a useful shorthand for most readers, IMO.