実理
K
The starting point for today's *meritocracy, of course, is the idea that intelligence
exists and can be measured, like weight or strength or fluency in French.
The most obvious difference between intelligence and these other traits is that all
the others are presumably changeable. If someone weighs too much, he can go on a
その人
→Heyで受けるのが一般的
5 diet; if he's weak, he can lift weights; if he wants to learn French, he can take a course.
But in principle he can't change his intelligence. There is another important difference
原則として
MV
between intelligence and other traits. Height and weight and speed and strength and
サフィス体例
関係性が強い文がくる
even conversational fluency are real things; there's no doubt about what's being
間違いなん
measured. Intelligence is a much murkier concept. Some people are generally
(2)
m2 Vogue
10 smarter than others, and some are obviously talented in specific ways; they're chess
天才
S
masters, math *prodigies. But can the factors that make one person seem quicker
than another be measured precisely, like height and weight? Can we confidently say
that one person is 10 percent smarter than another, in the same way we can say he's 10
へんて、いつだっ
S
percent faster in the hundred-yard dash? And can we be confident that two thirds of
櫂へん
言いかえ
15 all people have IQs within one standard deviation of the norm that is, between 90
ように
and 110
-
-
as we can be sure that two thirds of all people have heights within one
standard deviation of the norm for height? Yes, they can, and yes, we can.
besure
least, are the answers that the IQ part of the meritocracy rests on.
Those, at
(3)-
