Comments | justinkick: Intelligence: Redux

justinkick

Intelligence: Redux

Oct 01, 2006 19:26

I've been thinking about intelligence again. In our last little discussion, we all seemed to agree that intelligence was, at its core, the ability to learn new concepts. What we disagreed on however, was how to measure this. I may have a solution ( Read more... )

Comments 15

(The comment has been removed)

justinkick October 2 2006, 02:52:49 UTC

no i dont, because YET AGAIN YOU SPELT SAVANT WRONG!!!!! its spelt savant. not sevant, not savante, not anything else! S-A-V-A-N-T!!

and im not saying that intelligence is metaphorically based, im saying that learning is metaphorically based, and that intelligence can be measured by how fast someone can learn something.

(The comment has been removed)

justinkick October 2 2006, 11:28:50 UTC

I find your lack of concern for the basic structures of English grammar disconcerting. Not only did you not make a point with your first comment, you read the entire entry wrong. I know that intelligence is not based on metaphors. I postulated that intelligence is based on learning, which is done through the use of metaphors. I don't feel as though your opinion was attacking mine, I feel as though you don't have one, which is certainly not the point of these very open and public forums.

That said, reread the post, formulate an opinion, structure it appropriately, spell-check it, and then post it, so that we may be able to get on with the discussion. These spelling comments do nothing for anybody.

Thread 5

thehopelesscaus October 2 2006, 01:30:04 UTC

everything is metaphor-based, honestly ( ... )

justinkick October 2 2006, 03:03:41 UTC

you said it for me max. "some people learn much more quickly through visualization, seeing a representation of the concept, while some people learn more quickly just hearing the idea." excuse me for being blunt, but isnt a visualization a metaphor? not in the literary sense, since it is not written down, but isnt a visual a symbol for something else? hence a visual is a metaphor. the same is true for for "people [who] learn more quickly just hearing the idea." words, and thus conversation, are metaphors. the point is all learning, save for a priori knowledge, is based on previous metaphors. thus, the more complicated the metaphor, or perhaps better put, the less simple the metaphor, the more intelligent the learner. i think ( ... )

thehopelesscaus October 2 2006, 14:09:28 UTC

i think we're saying the same things...any kind of conceptualisation of a any idea is a metaphor, be it physical, written, or communicated.

intelligence is not based on simply understanding one field; in order to to be intelligent, one must understand a great deal of information, and be able to apply it competently when necessary.
again, we are saying the same thing.
i'm not sure whether or not speed has anything to do with it. surely, learning more quickly gives one the upper hand, but if, at the end of life, both individuals have the same amount of knowledge, are they not equals?

justinkick October 2 2006, 16:46:14 UTC

equals in their amount of knowledge, but knowing alot of stuff should not make you an intelligent person. someones ability to adapt to new situations and apply previous information and knowledge, along with an ability to master new situations must be their yardstick by which we measure intelligence.

Thread 7

(The comment has been removed)

thehopelesscaus October 2 2006, 14:04:47 UTC

i concur.

abnormalfreak October 2 2006, 21:04:36 UTC

okay, i kept saying this last time, but i still believe it. there are different kinds, or if you prefer, aspects of intelligence. surely the savant (and by the way, that is not just math, there are also musical savants and such (i think?)) is not stupid. only being good at one thing does not make him unintelligent. in one way, he is incredibly intelligent, and in others, he is decidedly unintelligent ( ... )

justinkick October 2 2006, 22:10:59 UTC

i never said that only being good at one thing makes someone more unintelligent at something, but certainly a savant is not as intelligent as someone who can learn regardless of the material. from what i know about savants, i gather that they learn through a wholly different set of metaphors; from an interview i read, this particular savant had different visualizations for each number and each mathematical concept, and he saw mathematics through these symbols. this is the interview http://www.esquire.com/cgi-bin/printtool/print.cgi?pages=1&filename=%2Ffeatures%2Farticles%2F2005%2F060705_mfe_August_05_WIFL_Savant.html&x=50&y=15... )

abnormalfreak October 3 2006, 00:34:44 UTC

yes, but again, you're making a blanket statement for something that you can't make a blanket statement towards ( ... )

justinkick October 3 2006, 12:03:55 UTC

i disagree. savants have a disorder (pardon the wording, whether or not they suffer is up to you). i agree that someone who could learn anything as fast as the savant would indeed be a genius. but i'm not talking about geniuses. im talking about normal people who are able to grasp concepts quickly from their given learning styles. these people, when compared with people who must be taught concepts through simple metaphors, must be considered more intelligent.

but yea, someone who is savant-like in all areas of study. i wouldn't wish that on anyone.