• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I think if they can score 100 on an IQ test, they can figure out any reasonable trash can eventually, assuming the moving parts are visible. Many people would rather just litter.

      • Rusty Shackleford@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        100 is the average, implying half the population is lower than that

        At the risk of pedantry, if 100 is the average (the mean), we’re saying “most people are at 100”. If it were the median, then we’re implying “100 is the middle score of those sampled”. A subtle, but important difference.

    • affiliate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      i’m not really sure what IQ has to do with this. it was originally designed to measure people’s proficiency in school. it was not designed to be a general measure of intelligence. that was something that was co opted by eugenicists.

      here’s a quote from Simon Bidet, the original creator of the IQ test, about his thoughts on the eugenicists using his test:

      Finally, when Binet did become aware of the “foreign ideas being grafted on his instrument” he condemned those who with ‘brutal pessimism’ and ‘deplorable verdicts’ were promoting the concept of intelligence as a single, unitary construct.

      you can read more about this stuff on his wikipedia page. (the quote is from wikipedia)

      even to this day, there is quite a bit of doubt as to how accurately IQ measures “general intelligence”