# your intelligence assessed



## WhyShouldEye (Jun 12, 2015)

I would say that the current consensus on what is "intelligent" is partially a sham. I have known plenty of people in my life with more processing power than I posses. That is to say, when given a concept to understand, they could understand it faster than I. However, there is a distinct difference between the ability to use knowledge well and the desire to use knowledge. 

The desire to deeply understand information and all of the subjects surrounding that information is what I would consider the key to genius. Regardless of one's processing power, if one possess this desire, he/she _will_ reach higher points than those that lack it.

Another way to put this is that traditional intelligence is a tool, while genius is a skill set. I would say I, at some level, posses this, and I have seen others who posses this as well. It isn't an innate characteristic, really; it's more of a learned goal. People that score higher on traditional intelligence tests have better tools to reach this goal, which is perhaps why we tend to conflate IQ with genius.


----------



## Kalane (Oct 22, 2014)

AnalytiKathy said:


> Stultum's right-- None of these opinions regarding intelligence are under conscious control.
> 
> I think threads about intelligence make everyone uncomfortable so we never really come to any good conclusions. There are too many "everyone is intelligent" in their own way comments. This opinion is popular because nobody wants to admit there are people smarter than them. Let's face the truth, everyone has strengths, but not everyone is equal in intelligence.
> 
> ...


I honestly believe, since I cannot quantify others intelligence or advantage in general, how can I honestly make the assumption that I am smarter..? I'm very intelligent, I think, and I'm not willing to make that jump without having all the data on another person.. Here's my example... I grew up in an all T family except for me and my father.. Which means three of us were thinkers.. I always assumed I was the dumb one and that frustrated me. Basically, as I grew up and became older, I realized my two brothers who scored off the charts in IQ tests had an intelligence that wasn't the same as mine. I'm able to best them in a lot of areas.. I scored like 118 on my IQ test or something. But they broke the test. I am not saying everyone is equal because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, it's because honestly.. It's not helpful to judge others intelligence really. I'm able to program and my little brother the INTP cannot.. My older brother the ENTP cannot. There are many different kinds of intelligence. I honestly don't believe with all the factors I can agree with the assumption that people aren't somewhat if not completely equal in advantage. Too many factors too many assumptions. The only area this evaluation helps in, honestly is my own self esteem.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I'm a skeptic so knowledge is hard to find around these parts.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

WhyShouldEye said:


> I would say that the current consensus on what is "intelligent" is partially a sham. [...] The desire to deeply understand information and all of the subjects surrounding that information is what I would consider the key to genius.


 That's not quite true. We can't develop what we don't have, or what's in conflict with stronger innate drives, whether it is the desire to understand or the ability to back it up. What a genius exactly do that others don't.. cannot be taught. The answer is : you're the answer, or you aren't. As _free will_ isn't something we're free to earn, only the wise can reach, define, develop, and recognize wisdom. Intelligence is the most complicated object known to intelligence and the premise of all science : the less you have, the less you know how to get more.


----------



## WhyShouldEye (Jun 12, 2015)

IDontThinkSo said:


> That's not quite true. We can't develop what we don't have, or what's in conflict with stronger innate drives, whether it is the desire to understand or the ability to back it up. What a genius exactly do that others don't.. cannot be taught. The answer is : you're the answer, or you aren't. As _free will_ isn't something we're free to earn, only the wise can reach, define, develop, and recognize wisdom. Intelligence is the most complicated object known to intelligence and the premise of all science : the less you have, the less you know how to get more.


I agree that genius is a complex phenomena, but I hold that the key to it is the desire to learn and understand a subject, or, if we use the broader definition of genius, to operate within one's field in a way that has never been done before.

A lazy person with an IQ of 200 won't get as much done as a driven person with an IQ of 100. The lazy person has the potential, but drive is the necessary ingredient to put that potential into action.

I also am not sure entirely what you mean by this:



> As _free will_ isn't something we're free to earn, only the wise can reach, define, develop, and recognize wisdom.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

AnalytiKathy said:


> Then we have the comments discounting the female experience of being treated as less intelligent and less humorous. Except in the case of disability, everyone is considered "intelligent" or "smart" these days. These terms aren't even really descriptive anymore. Again, this is some sort of PC response whereby society is going to call everyone intelligent so no one feels bad about themselves. So females aren't seen as unintelligent. Rather, the ones who are exceptional are not seen as such. But exceptional males are more likely to be seen for what they are.
> 
> And then you have the sheepish people who say they stood out as smart, but feel the overwhelming need to say they don't feel they are superior to anyone else, that intelligence doesn't matter, and that their less intelligent friends are the most brilliant ones. Talking about one's own experience as someone who is intelligent makes people very uncomfortable, maybe more than almost anything else except rich people, who often times claim they are middle class.


Intelligence is a more-or-less static talent, one among many. There is no need to be proud of it, as you haven't done anything to acquire it. Like it has been said before on this thread - it's more important what you do with it.

It makes more sense to be proud of your skills. Things that you had to work on to acquire. That can be something like the ability to remember the name of every president of your home country (Easy in my case - I'm German.) or something like having an understanding of many complex concepts.

You can be proud of how you developed your willpower. Someone with an emphatic talent may be proud of their ability to make others feel better about themselves. Someone with inherent charisma could be proud of their ability to make a group work together to accomplish more.

I'm a good knitter. My hands are very steady and my knitting gets really neat. I have a very good spatial awareness, so I can easily make my own patterns. I'm not proud of that. It's just something that _is._ I'm proud of how I manage to actually finish things - because that doesn't come naturally to me.

But being proud of your talents? That's just silly. Like being proud of your country. You didn't _do_ anything to be born that way. Talents just give you a starting point to develop skills. To semi-quote Dumbledore: 'It's our choices that define us, not our talents.'


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

WhyShouldEye said:


> I agree that genius is a complex phenomena, but I hold that the key to it is the desire to learn and understand a subject, or, if we use the broader definition of genius, to operate within one's field in a way that has never been done before.
> 
> A lazy person with an IQ of 200 won't get as much done as a driven person with an IQ of 100. The lazy person has the potential, but drive is the necessary ingredient to put that potential into action.
> 
> I also am not sure entirely what you mean by this:


I mean that genius is a vocation we're not free to embrace ; you can learn and teach about the right thing to desire, but not the right way to desire, especially since we're talking about desiring, defining, understanding intelligence itself. It's like desiring to see a color you never seen before. So many thinkers dream about being smarter and smarter whereas their mental behavior leads to a dead end.

The IQ measures an ability to think fast inside of the box... highest scores actually reveal someone's inability to think outside of the box.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

stultum said:


> You can be proud of how you developed your willpower. [...]
> 
> But being proud of your talents? That's just silly. [...] To semi-quote Dumbledore: 'It's our choices that define us, not our talents.'


Willpower is a talent and choices an illusion. Being mostly determined or self-determined is not a choice we can make, not everyone has the same power to change and question their own nature, so why being proud of such a talent, we did nothing to acquire it after all. There's no difference between what we do and what we are.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Willpower is a talent and choices are an illusion. Being mostly determined or self-determined is not a choice we can make, not everyone has the same power to change and question their own nature, so why being proud of such a talent, we did nothing to acquire it after all. There's no difference between what we do and what we are.


You can train your willpower though. That's what I mean. You have an inherent ability, and then you increase it. Change from thinking 'I have to do this' to 'I want to do this' one step at a time. You don't learn that at school, but you can learn to do it. 

Saying that everything either has to come naturally, or won't come at all, is simple defeatism that motivates people to stay stuck in the same routines. While everything has an upper limit, there's always room for improvement and if you use that room, _that's_ what you can be proud of.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

stultum said:


> You can train your willpower though. That's what I mean. You have an inherent ability, and then you increase it. Change from thinking 'I have to do this' to 'I want to do this' one step at a time. You don't learn that at school, but you can learn to do it.
> 
> Saying that everything either has to come naturally, or won't come at all, is simple defeatism that motivates people to stay stuck in the same routines. While everything has an upper limit, there's always room for improvement and if you use that room, _that's_ what you can be proud of.


Training is self-expression. Everything we do and we are is self-expression. The defeatists who feed on that truth are just expressing their low potential for self-determination and high potential for defeatism. What you think you can be proud of depends on how you represent and idealize yourself... I'm just proud of living.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Training is self-expression. Everything we do and we are is self-expression. The defeatists who feed on that truth are just expressing their low potential for self-determination and high potential for defeatism.


And me thinking that's fucking bullshit is self-expression too. Cheers.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Sorry if I hurt your feeble pride.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Sorry if I hurt your feeble pride.


Whomever you may have been talking to, it would be appropriate to quote what you are talking about, to not leave us guessing whose thoughts you are reading. :dry:


----------



## Ultr4 (Feb 11, 2015)

Intelligence is useless. I know very clever people spending theirs days smoking weed and doing nothing with their life, i can disccuss a lot of things with them, but their lack of knowledge and skill make them uninteresting whereas you know they are very sharp and clever.
Some other are really detail oriented, step by step people (I don't stay stupid), who looks not really clever, but these guys can have incredible skills and specialties. For instance, I prefer discussing with a very good technician, or a someone very implicated in art or history but who seem to lack of capacity to interconnect thing together or creating concepts (I'm defining intelligence like that), than with a very good executive, but imbued, or with no particular interest in life or specialties. 
Therefore I discuss with people regarding what I need. At work for instance, I can discuss with my assistant (INTJ) which is perfect to put in place new concept, fabrication or contractual politics, but when I need a precise advice, I go to other kind of people and I try to get from their skill and experience something usable. 
We just need to know what are the people good at, and expect from them what their able to do. Everybody can seem to be stupid, you just need to bring him in a specialty where he doesn't know anything. If he's a good talker, he can seem to be clever, that's all. Regarding this last point, I know some people (Rare in fact) who are excellent talker, using very easily concepts and complicated words or sentences, but that I consider stupids as they seems to be in difficulties each time I 'play their game and start talking as they do, but using concepts they don't manage well.

Judging people on intelligence is a mistake. People are interesting or not, without regard to their intelligence.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

stultum said:


> Whomever you may have been talking to, it would be appropriate to quote what you are talking about, to not leave us guessing whose thoughts you are reading. :dry:


Are you for real ?


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Are you for real ?


I'm not a bot if that is what you are implying.

It seems like you refer to me, but I am not hurt in the slightest. I find it a low blow to make a comment on how you are insulted without specifying who you are talking about. It's poor etiquette.

I thought we were having a discussion on what 'talents' are, and I made a joke on how, following your reasoning about how we can't control what talents and ideas we will develop, it is inevitable that I will think that that is bullshit, similar to how, when a criminal told the policeman that he couldn't help committing crimes, as it was in his nature, the policeman replied that it was in his nature to lock up criminals. I probably used too strong words though.

If we can't help what we think and do, there is no point in trying to convince other people of that, as they will either inevitably reach that conclusion themselves, or not.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

stultum said:


> I'm not a bot if that is what you are implying.


Enough with the red herrings. I can tell you overreacted and why.

You're not following my reasoning ; I don't deny you have some control, you can make some choices, the nature of self-control and choice are simply different from what you can expect : self-determination and flexibility. Will, _the ability to determine yourself rationally_, is a functional structure. It can't escape its internal causality. Free will would be an omnipotent power to choose and suffer the following restriction : The omnipotent can't be impotent, therefore it cannot exist. You're at best self-determined, and this.. is a natural talent. Your will can't escape determination.


----------



## AnalytiKathy (May 29, 2015)

^^Enough with the ad hominems
Nobody's going to win a nature vs nurture debate

Lack of pride is social butter; it makes people less envious of you. Anybody with good social skills would be wise to learn the art.


And I'm laughing at Ultr4's post above--That was such the perfect example of what I was saying on my last post [people claiming they know super smart people who are losers]


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Enough with the red herrings. I can tell you overreacted and why.
> 
> You're not following my reasoning ; I don't deny you have some control, you can make some choices, the nature of self-control and choice are simply different from what you can expect : self-determination and flexibility. Will, _the ability to determine yourself rationally_, is a functional structure. It can't escape its internal causality. Free will would be an omnipotent power to choose and suffer the following restriction : The omnipotent can't be impotent, therefore it cannot exist. You're at best self-determined, and this.. is a natural talent. Your will can't escape determination.


So we _do_ agree on one thing: We have the ability to choose to develop our potential in some things. Free will isn't absolute, but it does exist, and everyone has it in different measures.

(I can't read your mind. If you say that we don't control what we develop, I'm going to react to you as if you said that we don't control what we develop. And if you post an undirected derogatory comment, my left eyebrow will rise up in a very unimpressed way.)


----------



## Ultr4 (Feb 11, 2015)

AnalytiKathy said:


> ^^Enough with the ad hominems
> Nobody's going to win a nature vs nurture debate
> 
> Lack of pride is social butter; it makes people less envious of you. Anybody with good social skills would be wise to learn the art.
> ...


Lack of pride? 

Clever peoples need to fight against their incertitude. If not, they become nothing, or worse. At least uninteresting, or worse purely ignored.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

AnalytiKathy said:


> ^^Enough with the ad hominems
> Nobody's going to win a nature vs nurture debate


None of my ad hominems are fallacious. The nature/nurture question only keeps being debated by those who don't understand the answer. Naive optimists fighting against naive pessimists on a ground both don't understand : Nurture is simply an aspect of nature, to act is to be.



stultum said:


> So we _do_ agree on one thing: We have the ability to choose to develop our potential in some things. Free will isn't absolute, but it does exist, and everyone has it in different measures.


Therefore, it is a talent. Following your reasoning, it's not something to be proud of. You have a potential to develop your willpower which feeds on itself, improvement is an illusion, your willpower is just expressing its potential. If it develops, it was just bound to happen from the start. Willpower is the treasure of humanity, almost a miracle, no need to rely on bullshit logic to justify a preferential treatment.


----------



## Kalane (Oct 22, 2014)

Man, I totally can follow all this.. but geez. It's not always the right way to interrogate, you could just ask the person if they meant it this way.. instead of constantly pushing drastically exaggerated points in their face and trying to make them look stupid. I think everyone would benefit from this conversation if you could tone that part down. We're all students here, none of us are the final measure of this topic.. And no matter how well you make a point, this subject will still be open for debate.

Anyhow, probably going to take flak for saying that, don't care. I think you can improve your intelligence, I've seen it on a personal level with myself. Subjective information. I personally haven't seen much evidence that you cannot improve your intelligence and on a more instinctual level makes me question the original theory, that you're born with the intelligence that you start with. Why is that credible in the first place? I hate public opinion, and popular theory. I'd rather rely on my own observations. 

I may not be able to make such intricate arguments as an ENTP, but forgive my tongue in it's plainness and my partially thought out ideas. Even a part of a theory can be valuable even if it's wrong. It touches on the next bit of information to be examined. So, wrong or right? Intelligence, fixed? Who are we even listening to on the subject of things that are fixed? What's our credible source? Is it someone we should be listening to? Perhaps our own insecurities.. And anyone who says we -all- do not have bias in this situation is bullshitting us all. We all want to be intelligent, so, this topic has stakes in all of our self-esteems. Can we be certain we're not a victim of our own perspectives?


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Often the people who are most cocky and sure of their own abilities are those who cannot even present their own views with correct spelling and grammar. 

So I wouldn't worry about it. It takes a certain self-awareness to realise your own limitations. A simple person will see the world as a simple place, and be sure they have such a simple thing worked out fully.


----------



## Kalane (Oct 22, 2014)

I think it's possible we're all saying intelligence is fixed because we want to claim the land that we're in. It's scary to think that maybe it takes effort to become the most intelligent.. That we don't just get a card that says, you're smarter than most people, and that will never change.

That maybe we'd have to cope with our potential being in our own hands, instead of just being fated to be the way that you are.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Kalane said:


> I think it's possible we're all saying intelligence is fixed because we want to claim the land that we're in. It's scary to think that maybe it takes effort to become the most intelligent.. That we don't just get a card that says, you're smarter than most people, and that will never change.
> 
> That maybe we'd have to cope with our potential being in our own hands, instead of just being fated to be the way that you are.


Yeah, well...

How I see it is that while intelligence is something that you have, practice makes perfect on how it gets out. You might be very intelligent, but if you don't get any knowledge, no understanding beyond the fundamental, no _skills_ you will never get anywhere, like a seed that is never planted. If, on the other side, you aren't that intelligent, but work hard, you might never reach as far as others will, but still farther than anyone ever thought you would. Like a dandelion that manages to grow into a sunflower. Still not as big as the oak tree it is standing next to, but very impressive.


----------



## Kalane (Oct 22, 2014)

stultum said:


> Yeah, well...
> 
> How I see it is that while intelligence is something that you have, practice makes perfect on how it gets out. You might be very intelligent, but if you don't get any knowledge, no understanding beyond the fundamental, no _skills_ you will never get anywhere, like a seed that is never planted. If, on the other side, you aren't that intelligent, but work hard, you might never reach as far as others will, but still farther than anyone ever thought you would. Like a dandelion that manages to grow into a sunflower. Still not as big as the oak tree it is standing next to, but very impressive.


How do we know that though? The beginning part? That intelligence is fixed? And knowledge is a variable? This reminds me of the Prose Edda, where the fates in Norse Mythos would weave threads of either, coarse black string for common people, colored string for free men and women, and golden strings for nobles and kings. Based on the type of string you would be fortunate in your life or not.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Kalane said:


> I think it's possible we're all saying intelligence is fixed because we want to claim the land that we're in. It's scary to think that maybe it takes effort to become the most intelligent.. That we don't just get a card that says, you're smarter than most people, and that will never change.
> 
> That maybe we'd have to cope with our potential being in our own hands, instead of just being fated to be the way that you are.


It depends on how you define intelligence. Some people seem to see it as an applicable thing, i.e. if you learn more, you get "smarter" because your knowledge enables you to do smarter things. 

I tend to see it as what underpins learning fundamentally instead. 

By that definition, intelligence seems more or less fixed. Maybe we could tweak it a little bit with experience, but if it really was overtly flexible, we'd have been able to teach a dog quantum physics by now. Animals have very distinctive divides in their intelligence. Sometimes the differences are small, so it's hard to say which one is smarter in a sure way, sometimes the differences are huge and we can point it out easily. But it's clear that a particular species is associated with a particular range of intelligence, and that therefore intelligence is largely defined and limited to biology, and hence genetics. 

The differences between individual humans is much smaller and harder to quantify than, say, between a human and a worm, but I see no reason that, despite the more subtle nuanced differences, the general rule that biology defines intelligence should be scrapped here. 

Humans always like to think of themselves as special. We're inherently egotistic. Watch any show where humanity interacts with a more advanced fictional species, and, although that species is more developed than us, they always go away with a message of "well, humans may be primitive at the moment, but there's something special about them, some hidden potential that other species don't have". If we arbitrarily decide without explicit evidence that human intelligence is more fluid than that of other animals, it's just another manifestation of our hubris.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Kalane said:


> How do we know that though? The beginning part? That intelligence is fixed? And knowledge is a variable?


Well, knowledge are things that you acquire. Like, I didn't know how to speak English when I was 10, but I do now, to an extent. That's an improvement of my knowledge. Same goes for things like knowing things about folk tales, philosophical theories, and the members of the French national team. Research shows that IQ scores are pretty reliable to stay about the same throughout life, as long as they are adjusted for different ages. Intelligence seems to be pretty much fixed. Some people will never be able to understand difficult abstract concepts, just like some will never be able to sing in tune, or be a competitive speed-skater. Almost everyone will be able to improve these things with practice, but only those with talent will be really good at it. An intelligent person, a musically inclined person, or someone who is a natural at sports all have an inherent ability that gives them a decided edge over others at the things they are good at. They still need to practice lots to achieve greatness, but no kind of practice will help the untalented to reach their level if they actually go and practice.

Most of the people I know agree that a kid that seems intelligent usually turns out to be intelligent when they are an adult. What they do with it on the other hand...


----------



## Kalane (Oct 22, 2014)

dizzycactus said:


> By that definition, intelligence seems more or less fixed. Maybe we could tweak it a little bit with experience, but if it really was overtly flexible, we'd have been able to teach a dog quantum physics by now.


They don't need quantum physics, they're essentially able to survive parasitically off of us.. Which one of us is smarter? The one who gets totally taken care of for being cute? X3 Or the quantum physics majors? ;P (Just being jovial)

Good points, by the way.


----------



## Kalane (Oct 22, 2014)

My friend who is an ISTP is excellent with cars, they can take one apart and put it back together.. as the expression goes, blindfolded.. I have intelligence, and they have intelligence. But it would take me longer to learn motors ect. On the other hand, programming came naturally to me. We're both very intelligent.. So, intelligence, how can we say can be generally quantified? But, say I start to understand motors and spark-plugs, ect, and the next thing I do is work on planes, which if I had started on planes in the beginning I would be lost, but even though it was a totally different thing that I would be able to learn this faster because of my previous experience, which was in a small way related. Would I only be gaining knowledge or intelligence?


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Kalane said:


> My friend who is an ISTP is excellent with cars, they can take one apart and put it back together.. as the expression goes, blindfolded.. I have intelligence, and they have intelligence. But it would take me longer to learn motors ect. On the other hand, programming came naturally to me. We're both very intelligent.. So, intelligence, how can we say can be generally quantified? But, say I start to understand motors and spark-plugs, ect, and the next thing I do is work on planes, which if I had started on planes in the beginning I would be lost, but even though it was a totally different thing that I would be able to learn this faster because of my previous experience, which was in a small way related. Would I only be gaining knowledge or intelligence?


Knowledge.

Also, having certain preferences inside intelligence doesn't say anything about the general level of intelligence. It's like asking what is heavier, a kilo of lead or a kilo of feathers.


----------



## Kalane (Oct 22, 2014)

stultum said:


> Knowledge.
> 
> Also, having certain preferences inside intelligence doesn't say anything about the general level of intelligence. It's like asking what is heavier, a kilo of lead or a kilo of feathers.


Interesting. Ok, I think we're on the same page now. My apologies if I'm slow.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Kalane said:


> Interesting. Ok, I think we're on the same page now. My apologies if I'm slow.


You aren't slow. You just want to be sure you understand what I mean =).

Which is something a lot of people on this forum, including me, should work on. Developing a desire for understanding and doing away with that idea that we know what others mean.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Kalane said:


> My friend who is an ISTP is excellent with cars, they can take one apart and put it back together.. as the expression goes, blindfolded.. I have intelligence, and they have intelligence. But it would take me longer to learn motors ect. On the other hand, programming came naturally to me. We're both very intelligent.. So, intelligence, how can we say can be generally quantified? But, say I start to understand motors and spark-plugs, ect, and the next thing I do is work on planes, which if I had started on planes in the beginning I would be lost, but even though it was a totally different thing that I would be able to learn this faster because of my previous experience, which was in a small way related. Would I only be gaining knowledge or intelligence?


I would say you have less to learn, because several common principles and patterns have already been laid down, therefore if you learnt at the same pace as the other person, you'd still appear to have learnt faster. 

Although I wouldn't directly equate learning speed and intelligence. You can quickly jump to lots of assumptions and conclusions and get a working sense of a system quickly, but maybe someone else is going over everything in more detail and more carefully, taking longer to learn the whole thing. 

I think the S-N and T-F thing when it comes to intelligence can complicate things semantically. Types tend to be better at their main functions than other types, of course. To what extent do we call it intelligence? Personally, I think the best functioning idea of what consitutes intelligence is logic and pattern recognition, and then things like artistic ability or physical coordination I'd call "talent" instead. Maybe someone who is good with simulating physical systems in their head, but bad at abstraction I'd call "smart". But it's all rather academic and semantic, not too fundamental.


----------



## AnalytiKathy (May 29, 2015)

I guess when the topic of intelligence is broached, there is the inevitable discussion of will power and the application of hard work. And that's when we get the overused examples of lazy geniuses and hard working people of average intelligence. 

But I don't believe that the two factors (hard work vs. innate intelligence) should be regarded separately. I think that while both factors are somewhat under our own control, they are also just as much not under our control, and one affects the other quite considerably. 

When innate intelligence reaches the very high levels, the individual does not have to "force themselves" to work hard; the brain being qualitatively different is hungry for so much stimulation that the person is "driven" to learn and discover according to their passions. The person is controlled by their own brain's need for extreme levels of stimulation. 

People of a more average intelligence will have to use more "free will" to increase their understanding of things, but the degree to which they are able to do this is positively correlated to their intelligence. More intelligent people are both less impulsive and more likely to think and plan in the long term.

Many people who are considered lazy geniuses aren't geniuses at all or they probably have some sort of mental disorder that's holding them back. There is also the possibility that they don't have the outward signs of success that society values and so they are erroneously thought of as "lazy."


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Kalane said:


> Man, I totally can follow all this.. but geez. [...]


mmh you think so ?

Of course we improve our understanding, it's made of structures being built over time. However, this is just self-expression over time. If for example, this tragic perspective impedes permanently your will to improve your intelligence, your intelligence simply reached its natural peak of self-expression and it couldn't be otherwise since the universe we relate to is just ONE single self-determined structure. Anything that happens on the timeline is a necessity for the whole timeline to exist. Source : causality.



Kalane said:


> We all want to be intelligent, so, this topic has stakes in all of our self-esteems. Can we be certain we're not a victim of our own perspectives?


Can you be certain that I can't ? Well, I guess my answer is all about objective bias diversion.

For example, idealizing yourself as an intelligent being leads to protect that idea at the cost of your intelligence. The smarter you are, the more you conceptualize your _self_ instead of idealizing it ; this prevents you from taking pride in ideas and protecting their flawed mechanisms, since your ego then resides in the mechanisms themselves. Objective bias diversion FTW



IDontThinkSo said:


> Those who take pride in their intelligence tend to think that opposite personalities are less smart. The only cure is to be the smartest so that the bias is working properly.


----------



## Kalane (Oct 22, 2014)

Could you be more plain in your language? I want to enjoy what you mean.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

The more I'll explain the worse it will get, I'm afraid. I don't use any technical terminology, so feel free to take what I said literally.

Thus objective bias diversion => diverting non-objective mind functions to get similar intellectual results to that of a pure objective mind. (Vast topic)


----------



## qyune (Oct 30, 2014)

AnalytiKathy said:


> When innate intelligence reaches the very high levels, the individual does not have to "force themselves" to work hard; the brain being qualitatively different is hungry for so much stimulation that the person is "driven" to learn and discover according to their passions. The person is controlled by their own brain's need for extreme levels of stimulation.
> 
> People of a more average intelligence will have to use more "free will" to increase their understanding of things, but the degree to which they are able to do this is positively correlated to their intelligence. More intelligent people are both less impulsive and more likely to think and plan in the long term.


How do you know this? Where does the notion of the 'qualitative' differences of the innately intelligent brain vs. the average brain come from? Do you mean that innate intelligence and its consequences are biologically determined?


----------



## Ultr4 (Feb 11, 2015)

qyune said:


> How do you know this? Where does the notion of the 'qualitative' differences of the innately intelligent brain vs. the average brain come from? Do you mean that innate intelligence and its consequences are biologically determined?


biologically and then by the surroundings, parents, education, fammilly, etc. Yes.
Sometime a miracle happen, and then a genius appears in the middle of nothing, but most of the time, genius are not issued of poverty.


----------



## qyune (Oct 30, 2014)

TheVerb said:


> Not necessarily "subectivity of a word" more so the subjectivity of ideas.


If you say, "Intelligence is so subjective though," then

1. I don't think you've contributed much, because many others in this thread have already claimed this position
2. I don't find your position useful. In terms of "gaug[ing] when somebody is more intelligent than oneself" (@AnalytiKathy's original question), it doesn't help to say that "Intelligence is so subjective." While deconstructing the question could prove useful/insightful, in this case it seems like a pretty cheap argument. You can shed doubt on almost any argument by questioning the subjectivity of key terms.

When I read your initial comment, it made me think you disliked the content of the thread. Do you, @TheVerb, not think the content of this thread an interesting and valuable topic of discussion?



TheVerb said:


> Take two people debating capital punishment as an example. One is for it, and the other against it. Both have come to conclusions (hopefully) through logical deductions. However, they each think of the other as wrong


Depends why they disagree. If one finds it morally contemptible, but the other says, "Forget morality, capital punishment functions as deterrence measure," then I don't see that as a stalemate.

However, if one says, "I find capital punishment morally wrong because it punishes rather than rehabilitates," but the other says, "I find capital punishment morally right because people who commit crimes have sinned and we must punish them," then I'd say they do not agree on the definition of "morality."

*Note:* I don't agree with any of the stances outlined above.



TheVerb said:


> when you think someone is wrong it's unlikely that you would think of their argument as being "intelligent". Or even if you do, you at least think it's not the right position. Either way you think the other has a lesser argument then your own.


I think you can disagree with someone's argument, but still consider it polished, coherent, reasonable and equal to your own. I don't rank my own arguments above or below other people's arguments, I just defend my position. (You don't have to view it in terms of "right" and "wrong," you can just view it as "my position" vs. "not my position.") However, if I have made a mistake and misjudged the strength of my argument, I acknowledge it, move on, and adopt a more reasonable position.


----------



## TheVerb (Mar 4, 2015)

qyune said:


> If you say, "Intelligence is so subjective though," then
> 
> 1. I don't think you've contributed much, because many others in this thread have already claimed this position
> 2. I don't find your position useful. In terms of "gaug[ing] when somebody is more intelligent than oneself" (@AnalytiKathy's original question), it doesn't help to say that "Intelligence is so subjective." While deconstructing the question could prove useful/insightful, in this case it seems like a pretty cheap argument. You can shed doubt on almost any argument by questioning the subjectivity of key terms.
> ...



Just because many others have "claimed this position" does not make it any less valid of a stance. Also, I disagree with you. It does "help" to say intelligence is "subjective". If your basis of measuring someone elses intelligence is limited to your own preconcieved checklist then you are being closed minded. You simply can't compare every new person you meet to the same standard. If one were to keep this in mind they would most likely find themselves "assessing" or comparing themselves to others less. 

Also, you are making assumptions. I am not the type to give a long drawn out answer when I feel it unnecessary. I prefer to get to the point, which I feel my original post does. 

Good debate thus far, keep it going if you want. My argument feels a little weak right now to be honest.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

TheVerb said:


> Just because many others have "claimed this position" does not make it any less valid of a stance. Also, I disagree with you. It does "help" to say intelligence is "subjective". If your basis of measuring someone elses intelligence is limited to your own preconcieved checklist then you are being closed minded. You simply can't compare every new person you meet to the same standard. If one were to keep this in mind they would most likely find themselves "assessing" or comparing themselves to others less.
> 
> Also, you are making assumptions. I am not the type to give a long drawn out answer when I feel it unnecessary. I prefer to get to the point, which I feel my original post does.
> 
> Good debate thus far, keep it going if you want. My argument feels a little weak right now to be honest.


This seems to be a matter of differing opinion on what intelligence _is._ I know that quite a lot of people include lots of things in intelligence (like motoric intelligence for people who are nimble) that I wouldn't call intelligence. 

For me, intelligence is the skill that determines how quickly one understands concepts and ideas (to stay with sports: the more intelligent person will usually understand that the ball goes into the goal before the less intelligent person does.), this extend, in some ways, to the ability to come up with ideas and concepts from outside information and strategic insight. 

As you can see, those are very different things. Most people who think you can judge intelligence have a more limited view of what intelligence is, and they generally don't percieve it as an insult to consider someone else (or be considered) less intelligent than another person.

Just my ideas on this discussion. I'm not sure if @gyune subscribes to my ideas, but I think that their idea is something similar.


----------



## TheIsrafil (May 19, 2014)

I bother not, perched in the highest room of my ivory tower, scouring the heavens and the earths. As I watch day by day, hour by hour, musing their souls, with their own hopes, thoughts, and dreams walk by, laughing, crying, loving, living; all this, and at the end of the day, my thoughts size up to:

"Eh. 6/10"

"Eh. 6/10"


----------



## nova.story (Jul 12, 2015)

This seems controversial damn. From your first post, i'd say that different personalities value intelligence in different ways, so you would think an NT that had developed their brand of intelligence was smarter than an SF who developed their brand of intelligence. I'm sorry if this had already been said, but I'm going to sleep and if i don't get this out i would get distracted by something and forget. Peace.


----------



## qyune (Oct 30, 2014)

TheVerb said:


> Just because many others have "claimed this position" does not make it any less valid of a stance. Also, I disagree with you. It does "help" to say intelligence is "subjective". If your basis of measuring someone elses intelligence is limited to your own preconcieved checklist then you are being closed minded. You simply can't compare every new person you meet to the same standard. If one were to keep this in mind they would most likely find themselves "assessing" or comparing themselves to others less.


Hey @TheVerb, I agree on your stance's validity, just figure that if someone wants to contribute to a conversation, it benefits everyone to expand on existing points of view, rather than restating them.



TheVerb said:


> Also, you are making assumptions. I am not the type to give a long drawn out answer when I feel it unnecessary. I prefer to get to the point, which I feel my original post does.


Yeah, I figure you have to make assumptions, but _temporary_ assumptions.



TheVerb said:


> Good debate thus far, keep it going if you want. My argument feels a little weak right now to be honest.


I don't necessarily think you've made a weak argument, I just think it fits into a larger discussion on the nature of intelligence--I mean, you could say that everyone has their own subjective understandings of human qualities, but that doesn't mean there doesn't exist agreed-upon definitions of these qualities. I want to assess whether the agree-upon definition of intelligence stands up to analysis. What can we do to adjust it if it doesn't?


----------

