Quote:
Originally Posted by FireFly
I'm having a hard time believing that Sharon Stone is smarter than I.
|
And you shouldn't believe it--at least not based on I.Q. scores. A common misconception about I.Q. is that it's a raw measure of intelligence. I.Q. was originally an age-based quotient designed to measure how children compared to the mean intelligence expected in a normal child of their age. Scores above 100 indicated above average intelligence, those below indicated below average intelligence. In adults, a different test is used, but it's been essentially discredited, for many reasons--one being that "intelligence" turns out to be a far more slippery concept than we think. Until you know what it is, you can't measure it. More critically for this discussion, I.Q. is unreliable in very intelligent people, because I.Q. tests don't contain enough difficult questions anyway. There's some useful information about this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ
I.Q. is not a reliable metric in this or any case in my view. The results speak for themselves: George Bush is smarter than Andy Warhol? Please.