[Subfallen]

tame -

What do you think about Alex-db's post? He also suggests that the referent domains of "intelligence" are quite atomic and correlate heavily with IQ. So when you say...

[ QUOTE ]
Simply put the measure LACKS the ability to measure a large set of values we need to measure a meaningful value for intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

...you confuse us, because IQ seems quite comprehensive and meaningful to Alex and me. Again, I cannot think of any scenario where someone scores 150 and then appears unintelligent to me.

[ QUOTE ]
A skilled piano player has exceptionally fine motor control and a highly developed nervous system and sense of touch. His sense of hearing is immense, the sense of rhytm highly evolved, the centres of his brains that pick up sound patterns is also highly developed. His brain will be specialized for this in the same way a skilled mathematician is skilled in maths. But the whole package is in its right, from a pure 'nervous system capacity' standpoint far more impressive. But still his ability may fall entirely outside of the realm of what an IQ test measures and his intelligence may even be ranked as average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ironically, I have extensive experience with pianists, and the best are always very "intelligent" in the IQ-y sense that Alex and I mean.

But that's neither here nor there...again, I'm just saying that in normal usage, there is no aspect of "intelligence" that a high IQ score is not sufficient for demonstrating.