Excerpted from The Jones Unabridged Dictionary of Neuroscience, 1st edition:
Chronaxie: noun, the relationship between the duration of a current
injection into an excitable cell and the probability of producing an
Rheobase: noun, the relationship between the magnitude of current injected
into an excitable cell and the probability of producing an action
IQ: (acronym for Intelligence Quotient), noun, a statistic developed for
measuring intelligence, originally derived by the U.S. military for
evaluation of soldiers in World War I. The test subjects used in
developing the nmeasure were patients in psychiatric institutions and
inmates in prisons. No sensible person would give any creedence to IQ as a
tool for making policy, estimating cognitive or problem solving power, or
any other purpose except when considering patients in psichiatric
institutions or prison inmates during World War I. Editor's Note: A much
more reliable measure of intelligence can be obtained by engaging the test
subject in a conversation, and weighing the clarity and scope of their
The Jones Unabridged Dictionary of Neuroscience is available free of
charge, and is worth exactly what you pay for it.
In article <TY%_6.6306$8O2.104566 at typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>, "Richard
Norman" <rsnorman at mediaone.net> wrote:
> "Andrew T. Austin." <aausti13 at NOSPAMford.com> wrote in message
> news:9hhhp2$fkn4 at eccws12.dearborn.ford.com...> >
> > jim horsman <jhorsman at jovanet.com> wrote in message
> > news:%lT_6.315$Y2.556608 at newt.tstonramp.com...> > > i am looking for a reference that has estimated the following equation
> > > child's iq= a*mom's iq +b* dad's iq
> > > a related problem
> > > suppose a kid has an iq of 130, what is the distribution of his mom's
> > > seems like an interesting and important question.
> > >
> > > any name or citation would be appreciated.
> > >
> > .....and which measuring tool would you be using to arrive at an
> > of IQ?
>> And what does IQ really mean? Is it something worthwhile to
>> Many decades (even a century) ago, serious neurophysiologists
> were very busy measuring "chronaxie" and "rheobase" for a large
> number of different kinds of excitable tissue. Who is interested in
> those ideas today? Who even knows what they mean?