Has there ever been any philosophy that accuratly describes the

>>425409
>Same goes for a test that quantifies intelligence
IQ tests

>>425441
>scientificly supported and accurate
>IQ
Pick one and only one

>>425448
I pick both, because that's the truth. IQ is widely accepted as a valid way to quantify intelligence in the expert community. The only people who deny the validity of IQ testing are laypeople.

What do you mean 'scientifically supported'? You could argue that all of them have a support from psychology (inb4 psychology, the exact science that studies the mind doesn't count).

Renay des carts' theory of tabulet rasa

>>425689
>Intelligence
He still uses that word and believes it exists.

>>425689
Iq tests are scientifically proven to help people autofellate. Its one of the most popular pseudo sciences to do such, second only to neo athiesm.

>>426738
Stfu and prove it to the world you fucking knowitall layperson (you know shit and are actually a fucking retard on the same level as the people that think psychiatry is BS, you read a few articles 10 years ago and now think you're some kind of expert)

>>425409
>philosophy
>scientifically supported

underage b&

>>426728
It's one of the few measures in the field that is reliable and actually reflects a real quality

>>426725
Hell no

>>426775
>you
>mad

pick any real number above two

>>426728
You don't believe in intelligence? You don't believe, for instance, that humans are more intelligent than, say, fungus?

>>426738
It's quite clear you know nothing about the subject other than what you've read on reddit. I kindly ask you to refrain from posting your garbage opinions.

>>425409
Yes, social Darwinism.

Literally the only reason this isn't widely supported is because of feelings, not that that's a bad thing but it's the case.

>>426993
Other than the fact that I know more about jt than you and spent a year or two reading through peer review journals. It serves its purpose but people tend to assume that unaccounted constant factors are always what they want it to be. There are too many factors in adult iq tests to derive meaningful data from it.

>>427010
>Other than the fact that I know more about jt than you
Considering you deny the validity of IQ, it's quite clear the only "journals" you've read have been subreddits.

>There are too many factors in adult iq tests to derive meaningful data from it.
What factors?

>>427018
Cant list them all on phone, but here are some asspulls
>public education
>gdp
>social exposure
>culture (ill linke an awesome article about this when i get home)
>nutrition
Not to mention the most important one, you can practice iq tests and become skilled at them. Young children dont do this.

>>425409
>philosophy that...is scientifically supported?

Has noone pointed that out yet?

>>427006

Supported.