Define Intelligence

@north,

north wrote:

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

Then one should be quiet for the common good of all.

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

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.

Of course I can research neuroscience and psychology, but since you are so persistently telling me to do so I assumed there was a specific area that you had in mind. Otherwise it just sounds like a general insult, which I'm sure it isn't Wink

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

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".

Well that's just rude. What's the point, Hex? I really do think it's pathetic to come on the internet to talk down to people you don't know and make yourself feel good.

That aside, I don't think a bohemian attitude constrains intellect, just finds more interesting corners for it to reside in. I agree that it is EXTREMELY important to critique these corners, but it depends to what purpose really. I want to be an art theorist/musicologist, so the balance is a bit of a difficult one sometimes, but that's an issue I find very interesting.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

Well that's just rude. What's the point, Hex? I really do think it's pathetic to come on the internet to talk down to people you don't know and make yourself feel good.

That aside, I don't think a bohemian attitude constrains intellect, just finds more interesting corners for it to reside in. I agree that it is EXTREMELY important to critique these corners, but it depends to what purpose really. I want to be an art theorist/musicologist, so the balance is a bit of a difficult one sometimes, but that's an issue I find very interesting.

I think it's due to my ADHD, what I find as very normal, others finds as great insults, I really have to sit and consentrate and put each and every word right if I shall bypass my faults, I'm sorry it wasn't meant as an insult to you.

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

Of course I can research neuroscience and psychology, but since you are so persistently telling me to do so I assumed there was a specific area that you had in mind. Otherwise it just sounds like a general insult, which I'm sure it isn't

I have no specific area that you should study in these 2 respective areas, as more information can never hurt, however studying erotomania may be a good start.

When you have studiet it, I would like to have a discussion about your findings.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

The Pentacle Queen wrote:
Of course I can research neuroscience and psychology, but since you are so persistently telling me to do so I assumed there was a specific area that you had in mind. Otherwise it just sounds like a general insult, which I'm sure it isn't
I have no specific area that you should study in these 2 respective areas, as more information can never hurt, however studying erotomania may be a good start.

When you have studiet it, I would like to have a discussion about your findings.

What? This? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotomania
Ok, well it's pretty obvious you're joking now.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

The Pentacle Queen wrote:
Of course I can research neuroscience and psychology, but since you are so persistently telling me to do so I assumed there was a specific area that you had in mind. Otherwise it just sounds like a general insult, which I'm sure it isn't
I have no specific area that you should study in these 2 respective areas, as more information can never hurt, however studying erotomania may be a good start.

When you have studiet it, I would like to have a discussion about your findings.

What? This? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotomania
Ok, well it's pretty obvious you're joking now.

No, I'm very serious, read and we shall discuss.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

The Pentacle Queen wrote:
Of course I can research neuroscience and psychology, but since you are so persistently telling me to do so I assumed there was a specific area that you had in mind. Otherwise it just sounds like a general insult, which I'm sure it isn't
I have no specific area that you should study in these 2 respective areas, as more information can never hurt, however studying erotomania may be a good start.

When you have studiet it, I would like to have a discussion about your findings.

What? This? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotomania
Ok, well it's pretty obvious you're joking now.

No, I'm very serious, read and we shall discuss.

Ok, well I read the wikipedia page. What aspects would you like to discuss? Perhaps you would like to pose a question?

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

Ok, well I read the wikipedia page. What aspects would you like to discuss? Perhaps you would like to pose a question?

Indeed I would like to pose a question ..a simple question.

What did you learn?

1 Reply

@Oylok,

Disclaimer: I know someone very well who is a professional in the field, so some of what I say is not entirely rubbish simply by virtue of association, but never the less, I am a corn-pone in the business and am merely spouting off. But of course, since you are willing to engage me on the subject, I appreciate the attention.

It has been my impression that whatever the developmental brain chemistry is that results in a brain that predominately memorizes, on the one extreme, or one that predominantly problem solves on the other, that functional distribution seems to be an upside down bell curve. The result is that those who primarily problem solve seems to have correspondingly abysmal memories (the absent minded professor of yore) , and the spectrum-middle seems to be relatively empty. It may be in the evolutionary advantage of the thing, that there is no particular advantage in the lukewarm middle ground. I take it that the inability to fixate on reality is a different proposition and may negate any advantage to brains organized as either memorizers 'or' problem solvers.

As to a solution, I have proposed in the past that people should go to college in pairs, but not proposed with conviction. In a near state of nature, as best as I have read, for example in the histories the Iroquois, the members of 'pair-chiefs' were constantly changing over time (individuals being subject to recall by the woman's oversight council, oh dread, oh dread).

1 Reply

0 Replies

@mulout,

Thanks, that was very interesting.

No offence, but I admit that when I read your first post dichotomising intelligence, I mistook you for one of those over-confident people who think they have "unlocked the secrets of the universe" through passive observation alone, but you've really been able to back up your proposed dichotomy. And no, I don't think your commentary sounds anything like that of a "corn pone". Laughing

Actually, I see myself as the "solver" type. I have two suggestions for other solvers. The first is to learn how to organise what you have learned into a sort of conceptual web. This may mean building an off-line computer database, filled with everything you have learned, and similar in structure to Wikipedia. You can link concepts together in unusual ways that make sense to you, and you can fill pages with facts you think may be relevant to certain problems you wish to solve. That way, when you come to a problem similar to what you've dealt with in the past, you will know (conceptually speaking) which way to turn. This will help solver types overcome their mnemonic shortcomings.

The second possible coping mechanism is to find someone matching the "memoriser" description and enter into a collaboration with him or her. This would be easier if people weren't so hell-bent on fame and fortune, but instead defined success by the degree to which they could influence society and steer it in the direction they wanted it to go. Collaborations are far more effective when neither half distracts itself with petty concerns over who played a greater role in the process.

On a personal note...

When I went to college the first time, to study mathematics, I was one heck of a loner. Not only that, but I prided myself on being able to break the ego of any "memoriser" who derided me for lacking an encyclopaedic knowledge of the subject similar to his own. I would accomplish that by waiting for some really difficult bonus problem to come up, and then I'd propose an answer that seemed to approach the problem completely the wrong way, but always worked.

I had to win at everything, and I had to win on my own. There were a couple of really brilliant young polymaths (memoriser types) at the school who would have been willing to spend time working with me, but I could not abide the way they laughed at me, or worse, the looks of horror and pity that would materialise on their faces at times, whenever I revealed my almost childish ignorance on one of the many subjects they knew practically everything about.

My first trip to college was a disaster, but one learns and, hopefully, evolves.

Oylok

2 Replies

@Oylok,

Since memory its actually of extreme importance to retain, and build upon, knowledge, my personal trick is to stick with the fundamentals, memorizing the "logical mechanic" of the problem instead of concentrating in the names and stuff like that. This is specially useful if one is interested in many fields of knowledge like I am, and your mind starts to get filled up with lots of data...another advise is to check for pattern conceptual similarities from these different science fields while trying to have an epistemological approach to the root of the concepts which normally have underneath the different clothing a common operational function thus many times meaning very much the same even if technically from subject to subject the names and descriptions apparently don´t match...

...hope this helps all those "crusaders" among you willing to kick bureaucrats ass for their often profoundly stupid "box" approach to knowledge...after all, Philosophy is exactly about that...see you around people ! Wink

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Thanks, that's good advice.

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

The Pentacle Queen wrote:
Ok, well I read the wikipedia page. What aspects would you like to discuss? Perhaps you would like to pose a question?

Indeed I would like to pose a question ..a simple question.

What did you learn?

That some people are considered to have delusional beliefs about people being in love with them. What did you think I'd learn?

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

That some people are considered to have delusional beliefs about people being in love with them. What did you think I'd learn?

The unwritten other half, that one can be mentally sick, while the other brain parts may act perfectly normal, as learned in neuroscience that some brain parts can function independantly and some can work together.

The consequenses of this illness. How many suffer from it, and who.

..etc.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

The Pentacle Queen wrote:
That some people are considered to have delusional beliefs about people being in love with them. What did you think I'd learn?
The unwritten other half, that one can be mentally sick, while the other brain parts may act perfectly normal, as learned in neuroscience that some brain parts can function independantly and some can work together.

The consequenses of this illness. How many suffer from it, and who.

..etc.

Ok. I presumed that was the case. I don't like the word 'sick'. What light do you think this sheds on the topic title?

2 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

Please don't try to buy off the answer from me.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

I don't like the word 'sick'.

Then what do you prefer?

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

Please don't try to buy off the answer from me.

Well, this might make me dumb, but the only implication I think you're trying to make is that if other parts of the brain can work coherently, yet a small part can still be what is termed as 'delusional'. Possibly you're using this to back your claim that certain people can be intelligent whilst possessing 'zero rationality' and that I, perhaps, am one of them?

1 Reply

Define Intelligence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know