>>12054109I won't sink to your level but I will try to help you.
You've construed my argument as saying there is no bell curve of intelligence, everyone is at the same level. I have no idea how you could interpret my post as that, but anyway.
Let's say that everyone thinks with the same tool. Intelligence is normally distributed. So within these people, some will use their tool well, some won't. You'll have 120 iq people, 80 iq people.
Now let's say a set of people uses a completely different tool. The intelligence of these people will be normally distributed.
My assumption is that these two tools are very different but in the end similarly good, meaning that my assumption is that both probability density functions for their intelligence quotient are the same. Roughly same scale, roughly same location.
Now let's say these two groups both exist together. What we essentially have, since you care about intelligence, is two bell curves. Some will be rightmost, some leftmost. But depending on the sizes of these groups, my argument in essence is that at each IQ the relationship between how many of these people there are will be roughly the same.
If they're equally large, group 1 will at 120 iq be 1/2 of the people at that step, as will group 2. At 80 iq half of the people will be group 1, hald group 2.
If group 2 is just 10%, at 120 iq they will be 10% of the people there. At 80 iq they will be 100% of the people there.
If you want to legitimately argue against my position, here's how: say why the scale and location of the probability density function for intelligence would be lower for the population of the second group (the different tool of mind).
