I think you’re getting intelligence mixed up with ability or competence. I don’t think intelligence has anything to do with what can be learned, I think its just a genetic capacity to find a way round general situations that pose problems - problem solving. This is where IQ tests go wrong - they test skills that can be improved with learning: you can get better at IQ tests the more you do and they test things like maths skills and english skills. Its very difficult to measure something like intelligence without applying it to learned subjects that you can get better at and thats where I think IQ tests fall over.
I do think they measure intelligence quite adequately though - its quite obvious that some with an IQ of 50 is less intelligent than someone with and IQ of 150. Unless of course the test takers were either too old, too young, visually impared or whatever. Its only minor discrepancies in results that might be inconclusive.
I’ve already done a thread on what I think intelligence is defined by and I’m sure they could be improved but don’t look at me for suggestions
Brad,
I already explained this to you Brad. You demeaned me because you spoke of me to someone else without addressing me and made judgement about what I can or can’t tell the difference between. You are guilty of a Scare Crow Fallacy for the reason that you came up with a definition of ‘independence’ for ME before I even explained what it is to me, and then argued against it, concluding with ‘if that’s independence I want nothing to do with it’. More importantly, never did you ask about any of these. Philosophical discourse requires you to ask when you are not sure about something, and even when you are sure you should explain what you have come away with as an understanding so that the person explaining can see whether you truly understood them or not. You do not go to others telling them what another can or can’t tell the difference between when you really have no way of knowing whether they can or can’t tell the difference, and you do not assume but ask.
When I said:
I meant it in the sense that I only follow what I believe I should be following and I don’t let the titles ‘tradition’, ‘social custom’, ‘expectation’, influence my decision process. That isn’t to mean that none of my actions have anything to do with tradition, social custom, or expectation. It just means that those actions that are in line with tradition, social custom, and expectation are in line because I have chosen them to be, instead of being coerced by them. Too many people act according to traditions, customs, and expectations and don’t know why. They haven’t chosen to act by them, they act by them because they know no other way and simply give in to them and hence are coerced by them.
Therefore, when I said:
…it is because I believe acting in the way you have is low. This is in reference to what I said previously about unwritten principles. Many people follow the unwritten principle that if you are going to say something about another persons knowledge or belief, you better be ready to back it up with a quote they actually said, if not, then you should consult the person first before misconstruing what they have said before.
Also, you don’t come out with fallacious statements that are lies about what the person said, for example, Brad stated:
Which is not what I said at all. You pulled this right out of your ass (as the saying goes). The only thing that is correct in the above quote is that I keep telling you not to assume.
–Sorry, I wasn’t talking to you. I was talking about a statement you made. There is a difference, no?
I didn’t ask for clarification.
–But I wasn’t talking about you or your ideas or your character, I was talking about what you wrote. Don’t things like ‘apparently’ and ‘either’ it means . . . or . . ." imply anything? But what cracks me up is that, as far as I can tell, Aphelion did ask for clarification and you didn’t clarify. I see no need to patronize you.
Your entire argument seems to consist of saying that I don’t know what you know (in the sense that I’m not in your mind). I agree, but the difference is I don’t care. I’ll deal with what you write, not what you know. Is that clear?
I don’t know what to say about these things. You’re offended. Sorry, that you’re offended but I did nothing wrong. I dealt with what you wrote.
The three or four other objections are slightly more interesting:
The original statement in question. My interpretations still stand. If you want to clarify, please do so.
Idealism. My complaint has to do with your reference to matter as if that explained anything regarding idealism. Again, to make this absolutely clear to you, I am not writing about you or what you know, I am responding to what you wrote. I am not assuming anything about your character, your IQ, your hair color, or your sex life. I am looking at what you wrote, reading it, interpreting it, and responding to it. If you wrote it incorrectly, that’s not my fault. If I misinterpreted it, then show me where I went wrong, but it is useless to continually, interminably tell that I don’t know what you think. But I tell you what, I’ll start a thread on idealism and you can tell me what I write is full of shit.
Independence. Please address all complaints to my thread in the rants section. That part was never directed at you solely, it was addressed to a number of people, some of who responded there. I have addressed your complaint already. Take a look at Kurt Weber’s pizza example and my response to it.
The conditions of thought. This in reference to your last section (Don’t assume.). What is necessary in order to conceptualize anything? To think about anything? How is it possible? Does it happen magically? Or do certain entities, processes have to be in place before we can actually discuss things like concepts, statements, propositions, utterances etc. By thought, I do not mean everything that goes on in the brain/mind, I mean how is it possible to think a concept in such a way that it can be understood by someone else?
But enough is enough. If you still wish to defend your integrity, your intelligence, your weight, or your mother, please do so. I won’t respond to that further.
You weren’t just talking about a statement I made, you were talking about what I meant or didn’t mean with the statement, you also talked about what I obviously couldn’t tell the difference between. How many times do we have to go over this? You keep hiding from the truth. After I tell you about it the first time you come out with absurdities like
once I show you how absurd that is, you come out with asking me how you ever did wrong, even though I spent two long posts explaining that very thing.
Brad stated:
If that’s true then none of us have ever had to argue or feel that someone was talking about us or our ideas or our character - it’s only our words that they were talking about. There is more to these words than just words, there is meaning, ideas, emotion, and character behind them. You were talking about me, which is fine, but not when you talk about me to another person while not addressing me. When you say something like…
…then you ARE talking about me and not simply my words.
Brad stated:
Yes they do, but not when they are used as a sly way to come and say something about someone without having to ask them and to just go on and assume while making remarks about what they said. Furthermore, explain to me how it is that it appears that I don’t know the difference between Kantian and Berkleyian idealism? Why is it these two philosophers of all philosophers that have spoken on the topic of idealism were your choosing? YOu see, this is the very reason for by explaining to Aphelion the difference between reading my words for what they are instead of categorizing them into other broader streams of thought that do not necessarily follow, yet one naively assumes them to be the same.
You say that this is silly and that…
??? The only thing he actually came out and asked me was
, to which I DID ANSWER…
You see, the great thing about message boards is that there is no hiding, for you or for me. So if you are right, then show me where Aphelion asked for clarification and I didn’t give it to him. Even though there is no hiding, there are sly tactics used in which one says something about one person to another without addressing them - which makes the chances of the person being talked about to come by and find him/herself being talked about slim. But not nil, which is a risk they take, and apparently took.
Brad stated:
Things just keep seeming and appearing to you in the way that is most convenient, coincidence isn’t it. Yes, part of my argument is that you don’t know what I know, this is pertinent information cause if you truly believed it then you wouldn’t hesitate to ask me questions about things that I said that you weren’t sure about - yet you didn’t which tells me that you don’t think there are things I know of that you don’t. This has nothing to do with you being inside my mind, it has to do with egoism and pretenciousness many hold in the way that if they don’t understand something someone else said the first time, then it must be them who doesn’t know what they are talking about, and it couldn’t be that you just didn’t understand. The fact that you don’t care has been only too evident from the start. Lastly, no your last statement is not clear because you ARE NOT dealing with just my words, and you are not asking me about what I know, instead you are assuming and guessing at what I do and don’t know…which is silly cause I’m right here for you to question and for me to answer.
Brad stated:
I’m not sure whether you are being sarcastic or literal here. But I have covered this with Aphelion. Your quite right, my reference to matter doesn’t explain anything regarding idealism because it isn’t suppose to.
Brad stated:
Really? It wasn’t directed at me solely? That is to mean it was directed at me, just not only me, but more people. Your explanations and your writings do not bind together well. Look at what you actually said…
…your last statement is about Aphelions intuition in reference to my post being correct, then you write a statement starting with ‘but’ which is to mean it is still connected in some way to the previous statement and you mention that if that is independent thought you want nothing to do with it. Nowhere do you make mention of anyone else in your entire post. You should really clarify to start and then people wouldn’t get the wrong idea - especially this far into the posts.
In your 4th point it sounds to me like you are trying to be smart and instead of coming out and saying “we all need assumptions in order to communicate” you beat around the bush about assuming being needed within all our conceptual frameworks in order to communicate together. How extreme and literal you get right when it appears you are just about to comprehend the point. Ofcourse we need assumptions, but assumptions are wicked things, and it is for this reason that we must be so careful about assuming prematurely. If I remember correctly I went into detail about assumptions being needed at some level, but what we need to worry about, and what you are guilty of, is assuming prematurely. You really don’t read my whole posts do you?
Brad stated:
There are often times when I really am not sure who it is you are speaking with or replying to, this is one of them. I am not defending my integrity, nor my intelligence, nor my weight, nor my mother, all I am doing is explaining to you why I didn’t like you speaking to Aphelion behind my back and making claim as to what it appears I know or don’t know, when you could have simply asked. It’s as though you were trying to bait me into responding, I don’t like games Brad, so next time just be honest and open, don’t assume and ask me to clarify anything it is you would like me to clarify - you should know as most posters here do that I am only too happy to elucidate upon anything that someone asks me. But apparently you are tired of someone defending someone’s integrity, intelligence, weight, and their mother, so if you must go, then go.
Not really, it should be obvious to most people that there is a staggering difference between those who have an IQ of 66 or below{retarded}, 67-100{average}, and 100+.
The focus of course should be on the gap between those in the 50-80 region compared to those in the 100+ region…whereas I doubt having an IQ of 160 greatly benefits someone over another who has an IQ of 120, it should be obvious that those who have low IQ’s should have no place in rational decision making, as by definition they’ve been disqualified.
Yep…and your genes define the maximum potential for your intelligence, but without proper knowledge and the conditions necessary for both physiological/psychological developement, it would seem that having been born with superior intellectual apparatus is useless, and I do believe that brain developement leading to a measurably high IQ score is conditional upon both physiological needs and usage.
Plus I think what’s being asked is what role does IQ{a reductionistic quantifing technique} play in shaping wisdom,… wisdom generally defined as putting your intelligence to best use.
I have to agree with him. I think you have to think more about how someone thinks about situations rather then how much they study. I think anyone can study for 4 or 5 hours a night and have a very nice GPA. I could, i just like reading crazy ideas and stuff much more then other mundane stuff i will never use.
Before I make my statement. IQ tests are made by men (i.e. people choose who is smart or not).
I think people have equally capabilities with their minds (except those who have physical disorders).
So why are people more “intelligent” than others? In the proces of learning to learn people will “forget” lessons and not implement control operations if they think, eventually these people who never learned to learn will be called dumb (i.e. they make too many mistakes if they think).
However intelligent people can handle information much more securer and controllable. In the process of thinking they make little faults and some none. With the results of those thoughts they can take the next step to continue eloborating those thoughts with new/old information (connection seeking). If this is done very efficiently you can achieve remarkable results (Einstein).
So people are not neccesarily stupid but just don’t know how to use their brain. The chances that a kid from thrid grade is less intelligent than an university graduate is far more bigger. For the simple reason the graduate has more experience on using the brain with complex variables. Some humans can achieve these skills at a very young age (talents).
Which could led to more intelligible people know how to make better use of there brain, or to make there use more efficient. But what is efficiency? Since we really can not be sure of anything maybe intelligence is just an elusive ego factor?
I think it is an ego factor, that’s all. Stupid people don’t exist because what ever they do makes sense to them just not to you so you call them stupid. If its not an ego factor then Hadj could be right. Its not who knows more but who knows how to make use of there brain more so then others.
When you say, “Its not who knows more but who knows how to make use of there brain more so then others,” that’s wisdom, not intelligence. The person is wise. I know that very intelligent people can be very stupid because they may be intelligent but not wise. As for intelligence, I agree with the following that the level of dopamine in your brain determines how intelligent you are.
“A general theory is proposed that attributes the origins of human intelligence to an expansion of dopaminergic systems in human cognition. Dopamine is postulated to be the key neurotransmitter regulating six predominantly left-hemispheric cognitive skills critical to human language and thought: motor planning, working memory, cognitive flexibility, abstract reasoning, temporal analysis/sequencing, and generativity.”
“It is entirely possible that it is not the size, but rather the structure of the brain that determines how intelligent a species is. Fred H. Previc feels that dopamine plays a key role in the evolution of intelligence in hominid species (299).”
