But What Is Knowledge ?

IMO - IQ's are measured something like this'
---
l
l
l
(Level of exposure in early childhood)
l
l
l
l
l
l
---
Like those old cell phone batteries - if they were not charged to their fullest potential when you first got them - their "fully charged level" would be lower than the creator intended.
If a child is given a "full charge" ( a greater level of exposure to complex ideas and practical application) in early childhood - his maximum expectation of success is increased.


But IQ tests only measure the potential level of the full charge - not how much an individual actually charges his battery (not any actual or true knowledge).
Someone with an IQ of 178 may only be functioning at 50% of their potential (or at the IQ level of 88) because of variables such as environment, disease or social pressures.
Is this person (IQ 178) any smarter than someone with an IQ of 110 who functions at 100% of their potential?

But even if someone has accomplished their fullest level of their potential - what does this tell us?
I know many teachers who can't teach. They (the teacher) understand the material - but they can't convey that information to their students.
Is this teacher "smart"?
Nope. They can't interpret the knowledge they hold to their students.
Since the objective of teaching is to teach - these "smart" teachers fail at their given task.
Their full potential is hindered by any ability to use it.


In some cultures, being too smart is not in one's best interest in terms of survival.
Smart people are often called "nerds' or "geeks" and picked on by other, more physical, members of that culture.

Even if someone had both intelligence and physical prowess (the physical prowess is what often gets the girls) - physical prowess would become the trait that is featured as dominant. Thus increasing his chances of reproduction and the continuation of his genetic history.

If a culture existed where someone would be punished or killed for displaying any ability to read or write - the practice of acquiring knowledge would be discouraged - thus enabling one to keep his life and have the opportunity to see his progeny.
Being intelligent in one way of life can be detrimental to one's survival in another.


But what do these IQ tests tell us?
Most often they measure the potential of an individual to fit into the social structure of those who are giving the test.
Are these tests fair? Sure.

These tests enable the administrator to see the likelihood of someone being able to continue the current society in a way that is compatible to their (the administrating entity) own.
As long as the person reading the tests understands what they are reading (not real knowledge - but the potential for knowledge), these tests can serve a purpose.
If the tests are culturally biased - that (to continue the current culture) is the intent.


Like the bear example earlier - each group is best suited to survive and continue his species in his own environment and social structure. Even when different types of bears live in the same area with the same conditions of climate, food and geography - different skills and abilities may be required for each to survive.
One is not necessarily smarter than the other - it's just that his conditions for survival dictate which traits to flaunt and which to suppress.
Their knowledge is not as important as their ability to use their knowledge.