Okay.....here it is. Intelligence is the ability to apply logical reasoning to a single domain. So....most people will fall into the realm of being of average intelligence because they can master a signal domain. Those who, on the other hand, can master several domains are those who are regarded as being above average in intelligence. Those who can apply logical reasoning within (1) dramatically different vocabularies, and (2) also with a high level of degree of precision and success, are those who are above in average intelligence.
A good example, though I am sure he would disagree, would be Wendell - physics....software and hardware.
Another would be your car mechanic who can also write post-graduate level English papers.
The fact that you can't see why you believe the crap you do amazes me.
Please tell me about the frontal lobe and all the experience you have had with the testing of the human brain.
@_hill You mentioned that people would call you racist for an idea like the one you shared. I would not use that term but for all intended purpose here: Did you ever think you just might be a "racist"? Maybe? Think about it.
If you are wrong about the idea that people of African decent are naturally less intellectually capable than people like yourself, you just might be a "racist".
To answer your question: I read every single post before I contributed to the thread.
So my view on intelligence is slanted towards being useful in IT.
In IT, when constantly around computers and digital systems, it is clear they are vastly more intelligent and more capable, in most ways that actually matter, by large margins of any intelligence that has come before. Yet, they are actually stupid to the point of absurdity at the same time. Why? What is missing?
Creativity.
Computers are literal, 100% literal, completely unable to create a new solution to a problem never encountered, especially when also asked to consider extraneous factors. Every little thing has to be literally programmed in. A 99% match to a similar problem encountered before or programmed in can mean the program will crash due to a 1% mis-match because that case was not explicitly handled (a missing semi-colon).
I tend to think of intelligence in terms of creativity. Because:
What are computers good for? Everything except new creative processes. What are humans good for? Their creativity in telling computers what to do.
Note: the technology for using computers for existing creative processes through neural networks and machine learning techniques is still in its infancy. Computers and humans are sharing that space currently. And yes, Computerized General Intelligence is happening now and will make humans increasingly obsolete in the following decades as we understand and implement generalize machine learning. Currently, it is still very application specific.
the brain is actually still developing until your mid 20s. I think i read 24ish? Obviously it isn't uniform for everyone.
I think intelligence is kind of a catch all term for several different things. Kind of like how love is used for many different things that are somewhat related, but don't mean the same thing. Loving your child is different from Loving your lover which is also different from loving your best friend or loving your parent.
I like the concept of the brain being a muscle that you need to work it to get it to function well. I think Intelligence is most often used to describe someone that excels in a specific field of thought. No one cares how long it took Stephen Hawking to develop his understanding of the Universe, he's a genius because of it regardless. If your brain is well exercised in a specific area, you're intelligent in that area.
Intelligence can also be used in context of lack of intelligence for someone that is incapable of excelling at something either through lack of drive or a handicap. Or someone that seems quick to excel at something new, could be considered intelligent.
Intelligence or lack of intelligence can also refer to someone that is open minded and eager to learn new perspectives or closed minded. Someone incapable of understanding other people's views is sometimes considered dumb.
Intelligence can also refer more to that someone's work is appreciated. If we take Einstein for example. After he developed his theory for relativity, it could of been proven wrong. Its not like he is intelligent, so it couldn't be wrong. He came up with a radical theory, and it turns out that the tests afterwards tended to favor his theory, so people strongly valued his theory so his name is synonymous with genius even though his brain is no more capable than if his theory was wrong, in which case, he probably would of been considered fairly average in intelligence or maybe just above average. You could also say an artist or a baker is a genius or idiot depending on what you think of their work.
First of all, you're doing exactly what someone who is not listening would do. Calling me racist. I'm just stating what is facts, and if you think they are racist maybe you have a deeper personal issue to look into.
Second you assume that i think i am better than an African person and in turn assume I am not myself of African descent.
Lastly, genetics plays a massive role in IQ levels. How is it insane to say the Australian aborigines who hadn't even reached the level of the wheel by the time we had guns, who's average IQ is lower than 80, anywhere near the level of Eastern Asians or Jews who have an average of at least 110?
Phrenology is the study of the skull and brain and has been around for hundreds of years and the correlation between structure of the brain and skull relating to IQ is very apparent.
I assume nothing, I only develop the very idea you promoted in a subjective manner as if I were the one making the claim.
I would state that genetic make up was not the cause for the lack of comparable economical development between regions up to the modern industrial era, geography was the driving factor.
Has no one called you out on your bullshit here before? Has this level of ignorance you are touting as fact gone unchallenged?
Ok geography. Africa is one of th most resource rich continents if not the most in the world. Why is it so far behind than Japan which is just an island?
Africa and the Middle East are war torn because the west forced borders that made sense to them instead of paying attention to the culture of the inhabitants. This did not happen to Japan.
obviously there are many factors that influence intelligence. There can be retarded individuals of any race. There can be geniuses of any race. To focus on race when talking about intelligence is like focusing on race when talking about the chances someone is guilty of a crime. Yes, there are statistics that indicate certain races are more or less likely to commit a crime, but if asked about what makes someone a criminal, focusing on race is racist. When talking about what makes someone intelligent, focusing on race is just as racist.
I had the opportunity to hang out with some relatives this past week. I have a cousin in elementary school, and one night I helped her correct a mathematics packet that she had to turn back in the following morning. She's doing multiplication and division, basic times tables stuff. My cousin struggles with it like kids her age often do (I certainly did) but mental math isn't a strong point for her.
From what I've been told, she's taken general intelligence tests from doctors, etc, in which she scored incredibly high. In general conversations you can tell that she is indeed very smart. However, the disparity between those tests and her performance in school points to a learning disorder. Possibly slight dyslexia among one or two others, since she still has issues reading, and differentiating between 'b' and 'd'.
I'm someone who reckons that apart from severely debilitating mental disorders like Downs or severe brain damage, the vast majority of people are capable of impressive levels of intelligence relative to what is currently considered average, if only most people would apply themselves to the best of their abilities, learning in the way that suits them - the way people learn varies wildly. From watching how my cousin works on math problems, I think once she memorizes her tables and gets division down to pat, she'll be able to do more complicated math problems very very quickly. It may even be better if she also learns her powers of 2 (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, etc, I don't know if that's what the name is) It's just a matter of figuring out how she can most effectively learn.
This wasn't really going anywhere, and I'm not a teacher or a psychologist so I don't know anything, it's just that I saw this thread, and happened to see something interesting while I was away that I could add.
I've nothing in this as I've no opinion on if your correct or anyone else is correct. But like another thread that lacked facts by many people (the electric car one) you actually have to provide data.
You might be 100% correct on everything you say, but if you can't provide scientifically based information and data to back it up, its just opinion.
This is the same for most of the posts in this thread. A bunch of them are based on loosely logical ideas and thought, where/if there has been outright statements of fact, there's no data to back it up because it wasn't provided, therefor its not fact.
I don't remember the name of the book, but i know a couple people recommended one that made the argument that talent is a myth and doesn't exist. That everyone that has ever been absurdly good at anything was so, solely because of meaningful practice. I would think for that to be the case, natural intelligence would have to be the same. That people aren't born smarter than others, but that the amount of practice and the quality of the practice determines how good you are at something. Obviously there are extremes, like if you are 3 ft tall you'll never compete in the NBA. Or if you are born with a servere mental disability, its going to hinder your ability to become too good at anything. I don't think I completely agree with the premise, but I do think people tend to completely overrate natural gift and underrate the effect of study and practice, probably because they don't want to admit that the only reason why they aren't good at something is that they didn't put the work needed to become good at it.
^This, people are certainly wired differently and have different affinities for different things, but there's no such thing as someone who is "just good" at something. Most things take years of practice and study.
