Define Intelligence

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

No those are not definitions of Intelligence, those are clichés spelling the obvious and not an inch beyond that...rather rock the boat then fall for that kind of small talk...

Well rock the boat then, go on, I want you to.

2 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

How about carefully nurturing the Flying Spaghetti Monster inside our heads while watching the Hollywood absurd soap opera around us without much complaining ? Wink

(I am still working on the complaining part)

0 Replies

As has been said, Intelligence is the ability to predict the future. It comes in two kinds of brain organizations: memorizers and problem-solvers.

Memorizers remember a particular set of circumstances and recall how the future will resolve itself from those conditions.

Problem-solvers are rare brains which assess a situation and tend to correctly imagine the future more often than not. Memorizers memorize the problem-solver's situation (when he/she is successful) and the problem-solver's solution for the memorizer's later use. Memorizers insure that the species do not have to
hazard solving the same problem repeatedly.

Modern education facilitates memorizers, and has little or nothing to say to problem-solvers.

2 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

The ability to reason

0 Replies

@mulout,

mulout wrote:

Modern education facilitates memorizers, and has little or nothing to say to problem-solvers.

This would seem quite natural, and it also seems to be nothing to worry about. It's natural that memorizers would remember how they learned and would pass it on to others. And we needn't worry, because if there's anyone who can solve the problem of working around their own educational exclusion it's the problem-solvers.

Am I missing something, or are you basically saying that our educational facilities are perfect?

2 Replies

@mulout,

That much is sadly true...(hate bureaucrats)

1 Reply

@Oylok,

Problem solvers, or the also called renaissance man´s, are in their eccentricity loners by definition, they don´t fit the common place, nor the common pack cliché...this day´s network society´s don´t need them any more, they have reached critical mass of group organization to do the solving even if each individual alone does n´t constitute much of a mind...problem solvers which always came in small numbers are extinct in the long run...

...and that which is already under way explains much of the standard absurdity of man´s modern era..."follow procedure nonsense".

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

No those are not definitions of Intelligence, those are clichés spelling the obvious and not an inch beyond that...rather rock the boat then fall for that kind of small talk...

Well rock the boat then, go on, I want you to.

..so Fil actually says something that I can agree on, amazing.

Imo my good PQ you confuse creativeness for intelligence, no sound company would hire him with that personal view, only as a very creative person who may inspire others, he would succeed.

I must urge you to read up on Neuro Science and Psycology.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

No those are not definitions of Intelligence, those are clichés spelling the obvious and not an inch beyond that...rather rock the boat then fall for that kind of small talk...

Well rock the boat then, go on, I want you to.

..so Fil actually says something that I can agree on, amazing.

Imo my good PQ you confuse creativeness for intelligence, no sound company would hire him with that personal view, only as a very creative person who may inspire others, he would succeed.

I must urge you to read up on Neuro Science and Psycology.

Well, I don't think the two can are actually that different. I don't understand the relationship between the two but I think it's both symbiotic and extremely complex.

You've said that before Hex. Do you want to elaborate to turn your criticism into something constructive. 'Neuroscience' and 'psychology' are massive areas, which parts do you suggest I look at? Send me a link or something.

2 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

Well, I don't think the two can are actually that different. I don't understand the relationship between the two but I think it's both symbiotic and extremely complex.

You've said that before Hex. Do you want to elaborate to turn your criticism into something constructive. 'Neuroscience' and 'psychology' are massive areas, which parts do you suggest I look at? Send me a link or something.

You are per se right in that there are little difference in being creative and intelligent, just that in the classical sense of "intelligent" it's meant to have rationallity, creativity, wisdom and knowledge, where as creativity only really relies on being imaginative and partial rely on kowledge and wisdom, but not nessesarily any rationallity.

I have no other reference than Wiki, then some random writings, no books.
With your claim of being able to be a critical thinker you should EASILY be able to look up Neuroscience and Psycology.

So, what's up with this "rationality" that I keep talking about, well baseline is many overly creative people usually doesn't care if their works really works irl, or will succeed, because their selfdelusion tells them that it will succeed, because they can't see the blatant errors and shortcomings.

For the most part rationallity will come with age, as it's hormorns that will control the inputs. It's commonly known that people with high testosterone/oestrogene lvls will have suppressed logic and rationallity, whilst they can be highly intelligent with academic things.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

Someone like Karl Marx was extremely creative, but had zero rationallity, just as his followers, everything made good sense to them, but they just refused to realize it didn't work. That's creativeness without rationallity.

Religious people lacks rationallity to realize they'r idiots. Often extreme xenophobic when they contradict themselves with loving, forgiving, mercifulness and what not, it always falls short when their group think values are compromized.

..and PQ instead of your usual boheme attitude, look up these things as you'll get a way better answer and understanding. It is basicly your inner boheme which constrains your intellect, as you never excell in any area and ends up having others do your thinking ..being a mere "follower".

1 Reply

Let me try another approach.

Who's the "good" person.

- the parent that gives plenty of candy and soda to the kids and lots of consol games?
- or the parent who only offers hard work, doing homwork and NO candy nor soda?

2 Replies

@HexHammer,

Both are boring... Cool

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

Let me try another approach.

Who's the "good" person.

- the parent that gives plenty of candy and soda to the kids and lots of consol games?
- or the parent who only offers hard work, doing homwork and NO candy nor soda?

neither , in the absolute sense

0 Replies

@Oylok,

To expand, I am saying that the world functions (necessarily) by acting on the basis of what accredited figures believe. Our stock of accredited figures (for example, environmentalists quoted in the New York Times) is presently (more so than in the past) sieved at every point in the educational process by (as happens, inexpensive, computer driven) memory testing. As we face new challenges, climate change for example, a problem which those who excel in the business of solving unrelated historical problems by recollection are unsuited to cope with, we leave ourselves in a precarious position. This is the problem not just of our times, but repeated through history: it is the problem of accepting that the earth goes around the sun when everyone of accreditation has been educated otherwise.

1 Reply

intelligence in the end is our ability to understand the whole and once we understand this , then we begin

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I know Fil, me too. But there it is, it requires boring people to plug away at boring jobs. I guess somebody's got to do it. It reminds me of, I think it was a kid from Cuba, quite a few years back, who was dieing of some rare disease. I don't remember his name, but let's say it was Bill. The kid says, when asked about the bad luck of getting such a rare disease, "I guess somebody had to be Bill." It's not the same as saying 'somebody had to be boring', but it is the same idea. In Bill's case though, he was a singularly smart kid.

0 Replies

@mulout,

You make a good point, mulout.

mulout wrote:

To expand, I am saying that the world functions (necessarily) by acting on the basis of what accredited figures believe. Our stock of accredited figures (for example, environmentalists quoted in the New York Times) is presently (more so than in the past) sieved at every point in the educational process by (as happens, inexpensive, computer driven) memory testing. As we face new challenges, climate change for example, a problem which those who excel in the business of solving unrelated historical problems by recollection are unsuited to cope with, we leave ourselves in a precarious position.

However, I think I also had a good point. The problem-solvers you mention, who are able to deal with all the novel stuff, are very creative and intelligent people. They can use that genius and learn as they go how to find loop-holes in the school system and in the rest of the bureaucracy that will allow them to get by, even if they don't always torch the memory tests. Or as I said before ... who better to solve the problem of his own exclusion than a problem-solver? Smile

Do you think someone is either purely bureaucratic or innovative? Or do you think there are shades of grey in between, putting those two cognitive types at opposite ends of a spectrum? And if memorisers and problem-solvers really are extremes on a continuous spectrum, is the population normally distributed along that spectrum, or is our distribution along that spectrum bimodal? My hunch would be that there is a spectrum, but that we are bimodally distributed along it.

If we assume there's a spectrum, solvers need to target the mid-spectrum types (the people who are half-innovator, half-bureaucrat) for collaboration. If a pure solver and innovator started collaborating with another person (one who just "knew the details" mainly, but could tolerate new and innovative ideas and could formulate innovative ideas into arguments that the accredited figures could understand), then I believe the stuff that the pair of them could come up with would put the ideas of the accredited masses to shame.

That's how I optimistically see the situation.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Problem solvers, or the also called renaissance man´s, are in their eccentricity loners by definition

Loners by birth, collaborators by choice--these days at least, if they want to succeed.

1 Reply

@north,

north wrote:

intelligence in the end is our ability to understand the whole and once we understand this , then we begin

north, for like 2% of all what you say, does indeed reflect some intelligence. I wish you could be quiet the rest of the time, but it would impossible for you to distinct nonsens from reason.

If we truly would understand the whole, our research would come to a halt, we would have found the cure for cancer, we would fly amongst the stars, we wouldn't pollute, there wouldn't be wars ..etc.

We only know a tiny bit of everything, which is why we do research all the time ..this should be very selfexplanatory ..if one is intelligent.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

north wrote:

intelligence in the end is our ability to understand the whole and once we understand this , then we begin

Quote:

north, for like 2% of all what you say, does indeed reflect some intelligence. I wish you could be quiet the rest of the time, but it would impossible for you to distinct nonsens from reason.

hire somebody that can then

Quote:

If we truly would understand the whole, our research would come to a halt, we would have found the cure for cancer, we would fly amongst the stars, we wouldn't pollute, there wouldn't be wars ..etc.

corporations do what they do , special interest groups , you know ....

Quote:

We only know a tiny bit of everything, which is why we do research all the time ..this should be very self explanatory ..if one is intelligent.

if one isn't

1 Reply

Define Intelligence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know