Quote:
Originally Posted by coordi
Are people saying meaningless?
But just to address your absurd hypothetical;
imagine your life depended on someone painting something that looked so real >50% of people could be fooled it was a photograph at a passing glance
Would you rather have someone who scored on the bottom left of an IQ bell cure or the bottom right?
Assuming the only information given is that we have 2 randomly chosen people who are an equal number of standard deviations from the mean in opposite directions, I'd pick the smarter (or, "bottom right", if you prefer) person to do literally anything, including painting a picture. Why, is there some evidence to suggest that people who score extremely low on IQ tests are better at painting?
I think there is probably some evidence that those who *choose*, say, artistry or sports as a career path generally perform more poorly in STEM-related areas, and therefore IQ tests, but that is far from the same thing. You have the directionality of the causal link the wrong way round. It doesn't mean that a randomly chosen person with a 70 IQ is more likely to be a gifted painter than a randomly chosen person with a 140 IQ. It means that a randomly chosen painter is more likely to have a 70 IQ than a 140 IQ.
Last edited by d2_e4; Today at 02:29 PM.