Yes. You need to have an objective description of intelligence. The most popular single measure of intelligence is criticized for not being accurate enough.
I think a logical way would be to have more dimensions for the different kinds of intelligence.
So, instead of using this one dimensional gaussian like curve, I think it should instead use a multivariate gaussian instead. In case of multiple dimensions, the ordering of different points in the curve would make comparison difficult. So, we would have to measure them using Mahalanobis distance from the origin. For that, we would have to assign weights to the different dimensions, which can change the distance from the origin.
So, in order to compare intelligence, we would have assign some weights, which would be subjective anyway.
I think this would be a pointless exercise.
If we do use the conventional measure, despite the flaws, the distribution of scientists does have a higher average measure of iq. The distribution of scientists, despite being small, would still be higher than any other group's distribution.
Also, your point about scientists being a tiny fraction doesn't make much difference. I just shared something which showed a group, which is highly atheistic and does have the highest iq. I didn't try to show it for all atheists. Even for that, studies do show a negative correlation for religiosity and intelligence.
Yes. You need to have an objective description of intelligence. The most popular single measure of intelligence is criticized for not being accurate enough.
I think a logical way would be to have more dimensions for the different kinds of intelligence.
So, instead of using this one dimensional gaussian like curve, I think it should instead use a multivariate gaussian instead. In case of multiple dimensions, the ordering of different points in the curve would make comparison difficult. So, we would have to measure them using Mahalanobis distance from the origin. For that, we would have to assign weights to the different dimensions, which can change the distance from the origin.
So, in order to compare intelligence, we would have assign some weights, which would be subjective anyway.
I think this would be a pointless exercise.
If we do use the conventional measure, despite the flaws, the distribution of scientists does have a higher average measure of iq. The distribution of scientists, despite being small, would still be higher than any other group's distribution.
Also, your point about scientists being a tiny fraction doesn't make much difference. I just shared something which showed a group, which is highly atheistic and does have the highest iq. I didn't try to show it for all atheists. Even for that, studies do show a negative correlation for religiosity and intelligence.