Right. The parent comment I was replaying to stated “if intelligence is fixed” and I was attempting to cast doubt on the clause. I wouldn’t want to take position that intelligence is fixed in an argument.

The context was more of a fixed ceiling. Presumably everybody knows and agrees that being tired, drunk, ill, having dementia, etc. can affect apparent intelligence. By "fixed intelligence" the implication is that there is a ceiling where a person's brain has developed and they are fully functional that isn't straightforwardly or easily raised.

We don’t have clear evidence for this being true.

Perhaps for performance on a fixed kind of test or for certain kinds of raw calculation speed, it is true, but handling complexity and problem solving skills can continue to develop based on experience and exposure to concepts.

The belief that intelligence is fixed is a trap for the mind.

I wasn't asserting that it was true, and it seems that you want to argue with someone who both thinks that "it" is true and has a different definition of it from what I was using, in context.

It's a morass I'm uninterested in getting into.

Once again you violate the spirit of the group with ad hominem.

I agree your original comment used the conditional ‘if’ about the truth of fixed intelligence.

Such a proposition naturally invites examination of whether the conditions are in supported by evidence, which is all I am doing.

I am curious if you have a definition of intelligence that sheds light on your original argument.

I have no stake in what truth you believe.

However I think your argument is clearly incorrect.

As you suggest, I could be basing my conclusion on a different definition to the one you are using.

But if you won’t produce a clarifying definition, you can’t reasonably make claim to be operating under any principle of cooperation.

Aah, I misunderstood what you were saying.