I think that our entire concept of measuring intelligence is a bit too simplistic because our models aren't giving an accurate picture of reality.
It's like we've figured out that atoms can have a bunch of electrons, and we might be able to guess an approximate number of electrons, but we don't understand that there are multiple orbitals than can be filled in multiple ways depending on the individual in question.
Yep, I totally agree with you on this one. I guess I was asking if we can even statistically interpret a 160 on these tests (compared to, say, a 150) or if we just have to wave our hands and say 'it's way out there'.
