# What are you thinking now



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

lotusgirl said:


> There are many conditions that really control our thinking
> There are also many scientific methods to manipulate people's ideas and direct them
> But in the end, *most of my ideas are from that particular person's concepts and beliefs* ‼


There might be a language issue since I don't understand the bolded. Do you mean to say that most of your ideas come from your own mind or are you saying that there's another person involved?


----------



## lotusgirl (May 7, 2021)

mia-me said:


> There might be a language issue since I don't understand the bolded. Do you mean to say that most of your ideas come from your own mind or are you saying that there's another person involved?


Yes, I am not English so I have some language problems


What I meant
Belief in something is what makes your way of thinking often, but where does this belief come from, and is there anyone who affects us?


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

lotusgirl said:


> Yes, I am not English so I have some language problems
> 
> 
> What I meant
> Belief in something is what makes your way of thinking often, but where does this belief come from, and is there anyone who affects us?


Not sure how any of this is relevant to synesthesia and abstract thought.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

@Nannerl
I guess I made it seem more personal than I had to, apologies.



> What is intelligence to you, then? If it's not the «ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills


It is, roughly speaking, the ability to collect and process information, see patterns and such, yes, no disagreement here. I may only add that any information amenable to the "laws of reason" lies in the domain of intelligence.



> There's not one type of knowledge and not one set of skills.


True.


> You can say solving puzzles and problem solving skills are important to measure intelligence, sure, but mental and physical coordination is important as well, and it's probably the first skill we try to develop since we're born.


I think you are mixing two different applications of "importance" here. The first case has very isolated use only in psychometrics. The second one is about practical relevance which is surely not fully determined by raw intelligence alone.


> You still need the brain for it and, for dancing, for example, you'll probably need to rely too in sensory and spatial memory (like those 3D images you are required to build on an IQ test but with your body and with a specific pulse/rhythm exterior to you);


If aptitude for dancing is connected to spatial processing, then IQ score could actually reflect that.

Even if it won't, you still need a brain for that, of course. Now, what will that implicate? That this is necessarily a new, distinct kind of cognitive faculties special-purposed to facilitate the development and use of dancing skills?
There is no evidence to suggest this hypothesis to my knowledge. On the contrary, a higher IQ level loosely correlates with increased fine motor skills and reaction speed (although neuroatypical developments somewhat ruin the consistency of this pattern).



> some people are genius in those areas alone.


I think it is better to treat "genius" as a concept meaning someone who created something "exceptional" and "valuable". It doesn't matter what qualities this certain someone has, including the level of raw intelligence. Maybe he was lucky, maybe he had extremely unique experiences that led him to the creation of this exceptional something.



> but simply because it's targeted as pseudoscientific... I mean, MBTI, enneagram... I still think it has a valid point.


We can try to find its use, like with everything, but that won't make it any more sound as a "theory", in my opinion. I don't see its central point as valid, it is mostly wishful thinking.



> about the world having more geniuses, I can question why so few?


Because geniuses, by definition, are exceptional. If everyone is genius, then no one is genius. If everyone is smart, then everyone is mediocre due to those qualities being "relative" by nature.



> According to a Western perspective that prioritizes efficiency in numerical areas, ok, but why? If my understanding is correct, I think this narrow view of what intelligence is was brought by positivism, and that's a pretty respectable perspective for efficient and material development, but not for the study of human beings.


You are using the same rhetorics that Gardner used, which is mostly based on a misunderstanding of what IQ is. Which is not about "being efficient as a calculator and at solving crossword puzzles" or some specific narrow skillset useful for "western materialistic businesses".



> Do you not think art is a valid skill? Or cooking? To be a great chef you need to be able to recall memories by smell, tastes, and textures, and then recreate the mixtures mentally before experiencing it, sometimes creating a complete new flavor, for example. Can that be measured with an IQ?


Those are skills. Skills are not intelligence. Intelligence is what produces for you these neural networks that translate into skills during learning. Think of "skills" as "software" and "intelligence" as "hardware".

You can try to guess the properties of hardware by observing how various applications run on it, but, unless these applications are "specialized" for doing benchmarks and know how to read the system data, you won't be able to make conclusive arguments about it.



> I think loneliness is pretty common for geniuses, or that's what it has been stated by many throughout history, unless they're in a stimulating place, as you say, that's what I've seen too from “brilliant” kids in specific institutions.


Exactly. As long as there is a sufficient amount of mental stimulation, it is easy to cope with this.
Any matter of metaphysical nature can be resolved in a subjectively meaningful way, I think. It may be a double-edged sword but eventually, mastery over it will emerge with maturation and practice.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

mia-me said:


> Has anyone else ever wondered if abstract thoughts are a functioning form of synesthesia?


I interpret synesthesia broadly as excessive propagation/"misfiring" of signals along "not intended" pathways. Abstract "non-linear" thinking involves communication between pathways as well, but, unlike with synesthesia, it serves some meaningful purpose instead of producing perceptual/cognitive distortions.
That is at least how they can be compared at the first glance imo, not sure if this one vaguely construed similarity is sufficient.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> I interpret synesthesia broadly as excessive propagation/"misfiring" of signals along "not intended" pathways. Abstract "non-linear" thinking involves communication between pathways as well, but, unlike with synesthesia, it serves some meaningful purpose instead of producing perceptual/cognitive distortions.
> That is at least how they can be compared at the first glance imo, not sure if this one vaguely construed similarity is sufficient.


While I understand your points, what if the two derive from the same source where the only difference is how the individual applies it? Consider a pragmatist and a creative.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

mia-me said:


> While I understand your points, what if the two derive from the same source where the only difference is how the individual applies it? Consider a pragmatist and a creative.


I think "functional" won't account for the inverse order of causation between both phenomena. In the first case, one "directs" phenomena with his "will" into the chosen application of his abilities, practical or not.
In the other, phenomena occur first without any consulting with our conscious intention, but it is still possible to find practical/creative applications for it.
They won't equate even when both applications will evaluate to the same category. 

Although synesthesia isn't limited to only pathways related to the processing of perception, which may lead to the emergence of abstract thoughts, even practically relevant ones, but that still would account only for a subset of them, which won't include "directed", conscious thinking.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> I think "functional" won't account for the inverse order of causation between both phenomena. In the first case, one "directs" phenomena with his "will" into the chosen application of his abilities, practical or not.
> In the other, phenomena occur first without any consulting with our conscious intention, but it is still possible to find practical/creative applications for it.
> They won't equate even when both applications will evaluate to the same category.
> 
> Although synesthesia isn't limited to only pathways related to the processing of perception, which may lead to the emergence of abstract thoughts, even practically relevant ones, but that still would account only for a subset of them, which won't include "directed", conscious thinking.


How much of abstraction is directed, conscious thinking? An example would be that if given an unknown object, do you consciously analyze its functionality and from there, decide its purpose? Or often enough, do you immediately know its purpose? In the latter situation, how much is conscious thought?


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

mia-me said:


> How much of abstraction is directed, conscious thinking? An example would be that if given an unknown object, do you consciously analyze its functionality and from there, decide its purpose? Or often enough, do you immediately know its purpose? In the latter situation, how much is conscious thought?


I need to sleep, won't reply anytime soon.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> I need to sleep, won't reply anytime soon.


Goodnight. Again.


----------



## Nannerl (Jan 6, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> That this is necessarily a new, distinct kind of cognitive faculties special-purposed to facilitate the development and use of dancing skills?


My first answer was a direct no, but I wanted to check if the measurements used by an IQ test could be neurologically limited and, according to a research (done by Adam Hampshire), it is. Basically they found that the test is usually based on three components of cognitive abilities: reasoning, short time memory and verbal skills. These components showed, through an fMRI of the participants, that each of them have a different neurological pattern, which means they're not really related, but rather contribute separately to intelligence. I'm saying all this because a) that's fascinating, sorry; but most importantly b) some people might have a more unbalanced contribution to their intelligence, would that mean they're not intelligent? Genuine question. 

If some people are brilliant solving puzzles, but they have a terrible memory, can they be considered dumb(er)? Or if someone has an almost perfect memory but is not good reasoning... ok, the latter makes me doubt because logic is not something I can give for trade, but for the rest, it might be challenging to measure intelligence accurately. Maybe you could simply say you need a high level of the three of them and I couldn't really argue that, I mean, if that's intelligence, ok, but it's still... missing something... well, whatever. 

The other thing could be attention. In my personal case, I've always considered that my short attention span makes me dumber, but I don't think that's the case for everyone with an attention issue or ADHD. Or could it? I mean, it surely can have an effect on an IQ _test_, but to actual intelligence? 


Allostasis said:


> Because geniuses, by definition, are exceptional. If everyone is genius, then no one is genius. If everyone is smart, then everyone is mediocre due to those qualities being "relative" by nature.











I definitely don't think everyone is a genius, but I do think there are different types and that maybe they don't all score 200 points on an IQ test. But yes, I think the definition of a genius itself can be ambiguous. 


Allostasis said:


> Skills are not intelligence. Intelligence is what produces for you these neural networks that translate into skills during learning. Think of "skills" as "software" and "intelligence" as "hardware".


That's interesting. Skills as the software... you're right, but there's still something. Taking the example I said above, I think a person with a great memory but with every other cognitive ability underdeveloped, is not intelligent because it's quite raw, you just collect data, you don't process it. What happens when you work that skill and nothing else? Like my past example with a talented chef. Mixing all kinds of components in your head is not raw, you need to have some “intelligence” already to have that skill, no?


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Nannerl said:


> That's interesting. Skills as the software... you're right, but there's still something. Taking the example I said above, I think a person with a great memory but with every other cognitive ability underdeveloped, is not intelligent because it's quite raw, you just collect data, you don't process it. What happens when you work that skill and nothing else? Like my past example with a talented chef. Mixing all kinds of components in your head is not raw, you need to have some “intelligence” already to have that skill, no?


It's not as if chefs can't be intelligent and skilled. Relative to the Raven Matrix IQ test, an intelligent chef will score above the median.


----------



## Nannerl (Jan 6, 2021)

mia-me said:


> It's not as if chefs can't be intelligent and skilled. Relative to the Raven Matrix IQ test, an intelligent chef will score above the median.


I was questioning the software/hardware analogy with the example of a case where someone (I said a chef to highlight the talent) might be pretty skilled in cooking (software, according to Allostasis) but doesn't score high in other cognitive abilities, thus, doesn't have a high IQ or intelligence, for this discussion (hardware). But I think a chef who's able to create such complex relations in his mind is doing more than just collecting data, is processing it and transforming it theoretically, that's his skill, and thus, the skill itself needed intelligence to be a skill, but then there are some other skills that don't need it, like having an eidetic memory...

So some skills show intelligence on their own, some don't. 

I don't know, I guess they're more interrelated (skill and intelligence). Maybe I took the example too literally because I'm just here, wondering what Remy's IQ might be. 








It's starting to not matter, anyway. Even if there is one type of intelligence that can only be measured by IQ, it's clear you don't need to be so intelligent to be... now I don't know what the word would be, skilled? (But I'm trying to rule that one out with the chef example) Smart? Is it the same? lol “Good at something”? 

If I sound confused, it's because I am. That could be resolved if we use the multiple intelligence theory, but since that's what we're trying to not do, I'll keep thinking.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Nannerl said:


> I was questioning the software/hardware analogy with the example of a case where someone (I said a chef to highlight the talent) might be pretty skilled in cooking (software, according to Allostasis) but doesn't score high in other cognitive abilities, thus, doesn't have a high IQ or intelligence, for this discussion (hardware). But I think a chef who's able to create such complex relations in his mind is doing more than just collecting data, is processing it and transforming it theoretically, that's his skill, and thus, the skill itself needed intelligence to be a skill, but then there are some other skills that don't need it, like having an eidetic memory...
> 
> So some skills show intelligence on their own, some don't.
> 
> ...


Brilliant chefs are in a class of their own since they can create unique dishes with oddball ingredients. The average chef has just learned their trade and are good enough for many. Intelligence vs skill.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

mia-me said:


> How much of abstraction is directed, conscious thinking? An example would be that if given an unknown object, do you consciously analyze its functionality and from there, decide its purpose? Or often enough, do you immediately know its purpose? In the latter situation, how much is conscious thought?





> How much of abstraction is directed, conscious thinking?


Only a subset of abstractions derived with the involvement of consciousness.


Directed conscious thinking can be compared to a steering wheel that enables direction of the ship along "meaningful" courses.
A high-level managing tool for orchestration of countless individual mechanisms and processes that unites them under one purpose.
But even if you let go of this wheel, the ship will keep on moving, leading you to places. Or nowhere. Depends on the weather and current surroundings.


With synesthesia or any generic abnormal functioning of the engines, we get an abnormal response of the ship to the steering, which means that we have to adapt to surroundings and the ship's responses.




> An example would be that if given an unknown object, do you consciously analyze its functionality and from there, decide its purpose? Or often enough, do you immediately know its purpose?


All of us probably do both, I think, simultaneously even.



> In the latter situation, how much is conscious thought?


Consciousness here plays mostly a perceiving role since thought is "given".





Nannerl said:


> My first answer was a direct no, but I wanted to check if the measurements used by an IQ test could be neurologically limited and, according to a research (done by Adam Hampshire), it is. Basically they found that the test is usually based on three components of cognitive abilities: reasoning, short time memory and verbal skills. These components showed, through an fMRI of the participants, that each of them have a different neurological pattern, which means they're not really related, but rather contribute separately to intelligence. I'm saying all this because a) that's fascinating, sorry; but most importantly b) some people might have a more unbalanced contribution to their intelligence, would that mean they're not intelligent? Genuine question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


@Nannerl


> reasoning, short time memory and verbal skills. These components showed, through an fMRI of the participants, that each of them have a different neurological pattern, which means they're not really related, but rather contribute separately to intelligence.


G factor is composed out of many components, namely :



> The broad abilities recognized by the model are fluid intelligence (Gf), crystallized intelligence (Gc), general memory and learning (Gy), broad visual perception (Gv), broad auditory perception (Gu), broad retrieval ability (Gr), broad cognitive speediness (Gs), and processing speed (Gt).


This effectively means that people with the same IQ probably have different cognitive profiles, as we lose its structures during compression to a singular numbers.



> b) some people might have a more unbalanced contribution to their intelligence, would that mean they're not intelligent?


It will depend on what specifically we are inquiring, but If their total score is average, they are either unbalanced or have average scores (but still intelligent, just with unequal distribution of strengths)


A low total score with high variance among its components is typically a translation of some sort of disability onto test scores, like stroke that does localized damage.




> If some people are brilliant solving puzzles, but they have a terrible memory, can they be considered dumb(er)? Or if someone has an almost perfect memory but is not good reasoning...


Solving puzzles involves more "g-loaded" processing on average than just memory retrieval, so, probably "no" for the first case.


In the second case, conversely, yes, it wouldn't be terribly useful in practice to consider such person as "smart" if we are judging his general intelligence.




> Maybe you could simply say you need a high level of the three of them and I couldn't really argue that, I mean, if that's intelligence, ok, but it's still... missing something... well, whatever.


Consider how g factor unfolds, it is a bit more complicated than just three things.

What it is missing depends on what you are trying to find in the end.

As I said, intelligence is just one of the predictors that contribute to accomplishing things, only a relatively small subset of "conventionally successful" people are profoundly gifted in the cognitive department.



> In my personal case, I've always considered that my short attention span makes me dumber, but I don't think that's the case for everyone with an attention issue or ADHD. Or could it? I mean, it surely can have an effect on an IQ _test_, but to actual intelligence?


ADHD / attention issues / anxiety / numerous other things may affect IQ tests, but not in an intended way, resulting in a error. Those who take medication for ADHD report higher scores, so, yes, attention issues don't always allow predictions for the actual intelligence. It just makes hardware less available for conscious "functional" use.

Unless it is a flaw in hardware architecture that can't be compensated.



> What happens when you work that skill and nothing else? Like my past example with a talented chef. Mixing all kinds of components in your head is not raw, you need to have some “intelligence” already to have that skill, no?


Another analogy:
Raw intelligence can be compared to a "car", while skills are cities, routes, objects that you pick up on the road.
The person in question can have a slow car, little mobility, needs a lot of fuel, the engine doesn't always start from the first try.
But it still can reach lots of cool places with enough patience and determination etc.

A more cognitively developed person will, therefore, represent a quantitatively better vehicle (if we directly take each score and amplify it). It will drive faster and can reach the same milestones in shorter timeframes. Depends on the driver.

Analogy (and the IQ itself) somewhat breaks when we start to consider people at 150-160+ levels. Most tests aren't hard enough to meaningfully differentiate among them since tests are developed for the average population.

It is no longer a car. Or even a racing car.

It is an airplane that reaches things in hours that normally require weeks or even months for usual vehicles, resulting not only in a non-linear, qualitative increase in performance but even allows you to cross the sea, which is just fundamentally impossible for any car, no matter how long pedal is pushed or how much fuel was loaded into it.

And then there are spaceships..

But at the end of the day, there is a use for each type of transportation which provides its own kind of challenges and experiences.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

I wish I was better at expressing exactly what I meen.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

My "empathic" android phone alarm doesn't get that I'm having a footbath and can't reach the phone 😒🙄


----------



## lotusgirl (May 7, 2021)

Electra said:


> My "empathic" android phone alarm doesn't get that I'm having a footbath and can't reach the phone 😒🙄


I guess the phone wants you to understand something too


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

lotusgirl said:


> I guess the phone wants you to understand something too


😄


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Maybe next time I should try to call Alexa to shut it off 
Edit: that didn't work because she didn't repond 😔
Also I have to push a button to make her respond it seems.
But that is kinda good because I don't want her to suddenly answer me in public like google maps yesterday 😳😬


----------

