• HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Microcosmic example. Take 3 people - a newborn (A), a professor of biology (B) and a professor in philosophy ©.

    You’re easily able to argue that both professors are more intelligent than the newborn (A<B and A<C). However, you’re unable to establish (in any meaningful way) whether B<C, or C<B; even B=C is out. This is because both professors have knowledge the other does not, so trying to meaningfully equate or order them in relation to one another is an act of futility.

    This is a fun example of a partial order that most of us see every day (in a less extreme form).

    • excral@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 hour ago

      That’s also part of the reason why IQ scores are deeply flawed. Using a single number to measure intelligence implies there is an absolute order.

      Fun fact: Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicist of the 20th century and legendary physics educator (author of the Feynman Lectures), was invited to join Mensa after he won the Nobel Prize in physics. He declined however, because he didn’t meet the IQ score of 130 normally required by Mensa.

    • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Put another way: like so may things, knowledge is multidimensional. If you just compared them on knowledge of chess openings, or how many digits of π they could recall, you could rank them more confidently on that axis.

      But general intelligence is such a slippery fish compared to isolated trivia.

    • TheBeege@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I didn’t know there was a term for this! Thank you! I try to convey this concept all the time, especially for intelligence and skills, so having a word for it is immensely helpful.