Outside our houses are more divisions. A fence divides one garden from another. We can either be on one side or the other. The fence is a symbol of property demarcation. Nature is oblivious to such abstractions. Just look at the fuss some people make about an overhanging tree from a neighbouring garden.

The phrase "sitting on the fence" expresses the belief that we can only sit on one side of an issue or the other. It's a denial of the true nature of the universe, which is not so politically conventient. Sometimes we may not see the fence! It might look more like a hedge. A very short hedge, perhaps. It might be no taller than grass. It might just be a mount of earth. Some people may even be attracted to such a mound, like furniture in a house. Our eyes see an inviting spot on which to sit.

Intelligence isn't linear, either. Anyone who thinks it is is using an outdated model of intelligence. This is why experts on measuring I.Q. refuse to give their own I.Q. - they don't consider it meaningful.

In the late 70s, I was given such a test, and was unimpressed. It didn't seem to measure more than basic problem solving. Now I'd say that it attempted to reduce the complexity of the universe to a linear scale of difficulty.

In the late 80s, I was given an aptitude test for computer programming. I was similarly unimpressed. Today I can, perhaps, explain why. It tested nothing more than an individual's ability to do boolean calculus. Computer programming involves much more than this. Where are the tests for definining higher order abstraction or modeling machine state? At least a hint of lambda calculus would've been helpful.

I suspect that the boolean calculus test was actually more for identifying which people will be bad as computer programming. I wonder if it had been tested on people who actually were computer programmers? I predict that such a test would indicate a uniformly high score, while a test involving lambda calculus would distinquish the outstanding programmers from the feeble.