[hi5yourface]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Are you trying to FLIRT with me again!? Y'all have probably noticed that she chases me around this place! To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I'm much too stupid for the subterfuge you suggest... whatever THAT means... *eyes shift rapidly back and forth*

Subterfuge in the centrifuge...separate for maximum potential...

[JC22]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Are you trying to FLIRT with me again!? Y'all have probably noticed that she chases me around this place!

INTJF. A place to find your one true love.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Antares]

	Originally Posted by Moxiie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Then there's the various types of intelligence - musical, emotional, creative etc. Western (and some Asian) cultures place an inordinate amount of importance on what they call the "rational/scientific" intelligences. If someone cannot add 1+1 but can sit down at a piano and create something beautiful, they are intelligent to me.

Multiple intelligences basically has no support, unless you're a savant. There are savant artists who are shit at everything else, but they're rare. In fact savant artists tend not to be the greatest artists of our time, and most truly exceptional people are polymaths to some extent. The easiest example would be Leonardo, but little do people know, painter Wassily Kandinsky is a good cellist, and Sergei Prokofiev defeated Capablanca in a chess game. Nietzsche, aside from being a philosopher, shows great sensitivity to the arts, and Mahler devoured philosophical tracts in his spare time. I don't the many talents of great scientists but I'm sure you can find them within the 90th percentile on most "metrics" in multiple intelligences.

In fact studies have found that the cognitive intelligences, out of multiple intelligences, correlate with g. I have never met good musicians (and I mean actually good ones. Musically expressive and technically impressive) who cannot add 1+1, to use your expression for an ineptitude in math. Every one of them I know are at least decent and above average in all "multiple intelligences". But I have met plenty of middling and mediocre musicians who are shit at math. It is true that some people are more adept at math than they are at music, but in my experience a very intelligent musician is probably better at math than an average person whose mathematical prowess is better than his musical prowess.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Are you trying to FLIRT with me again!? Y'all have probably noticed that she chases me around this place!

As is belief in divinity, as is belief in this statement. Ni`s false positives strike again.

[sommers71]

Intelligent people claim their own intelligence. Stupid is as stupid does. I think stupid sounds more fun.

[JC22]

	Originally Posted by sommers71 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Stupid is as stupid does.

Another reference to Forrest Gump!

But what does this all mean?!?!



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[TheStranger]

Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Multiple intelligences basically has no support, unless you're a savant. There are savant artists who are shit at everything else, but they're rare. In fact savant artists tend not to be the greatest artists of our time, and most truly exceptional people are polymaths to some extent. The easiest example would be Leonardo, but little do people know, painter Wassily Kandinsky is a good cellist, and Sergei Prokofiev defeated Capablanca in a chess game. Nietzsche, aside from being a philosopher, shows great sensitivity to the arts, and Mahler devoured philosophical tracts in his spare time. I don't the many talents of great scientists but I'm sure you can find them within the 90th percentile on most "metrics" in multiple intelligences. In fact studies have found that the cognitive intelligences, out of multiple intelligences, correlate with g. I have never met good musicians (and I mean actually good ones. Musically expressive and technically impressive) who cannot add 1+1, to use your expression for an ineptitude in math. Every one of them I know are at least decent and above average in all "multiple intelligences". But I have met plenty of middling and mediocre musicians who are shit at math. It is true that some people are more adept at math than they are at music, but in my experience a very intelligent musician is probably better at math than an average person whose mathematical prowess is better than his musical prowess.

Flynn made an important point in one of his books, he stated that having general intelligence allowed one to lead a more well-rounded life. General intelligence seems more important to me than a narrow talent that quite possibly suffers from a lack of well-roundedness.

[sommers71]

IDK, it's may be better to be underestimated then overestimated. If I overestimate a short jump and land soundly I'll be surprised. If I underestimate a large jump and land unsoundly I'll be surprised.

[Distance]

Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Multiple intelligences basically has no support, unless you're a savant. There are savant artists who are shit at everything else, but they're rare. In fact savant artists tend not to be the greatest artists of our time, and most truly exceptional people are polymaths to some extent. The easiest example would be Leonardo, but little do people know, painter Wassily Kandinsky is a good cellist, and Sergei Prokofiev defeated Capablanca in a chess game. Nietzsche, aside from being a philosopher, shows great sensitivity to the arts, and Mahler devoured philosophical tracts in his spare time. I don't the many talents of great scientists but I'm sure you can find them within the 90th percentile on most "metrics" in multiple intelligences. In fact studies have found that the cognitive intelligences, out of multiple intelligences, correlate with g. I have never met good musicians (and I mean actually good ones. Musically expressive and technically impressive) who cannot add 1+1, to use your expression for an ineptitude in math. Every one of them I know are at least decent and above average in all "multiple intelligences". But I have met plenty of middling and mediocre musicians who are shit at math. It is true that some people are more adept at math than they are at music, but in my experience a very intelligent musician is probably better at math than an average person whose mathematical prowess is better than his musical prowess.

Notice how math is your litmus test? Any reason why?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Shadizar]

Originally Posted by Samia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not true. Just like some people are stupid. Again, that's not true. Why do people feel the need the measure other people's intelligence? What makes some people think they can measure other people's intelligence? This usually comes from people who think they are smart. You can't measure intelligence or stupidity objectively, so why do people think they can? I can't stand it when people call other people stupid. It's thrown about so casually. Would you be annoyed if someone called you stupid? Why?

The other day, I was hanging out - and drinking - with my buddy as he was building a fence for his neighbor; good looking woman by the way. Her new man is a cop, and he was out doing his cop thing in another town for another week or so - I can't be bothered to keep track of the details. Another neighbor comes over, the wife of a guy who utterly despises the woman's ex, the kindest thing he has to say is "the guy is a waste of flesh"; and the two of them are sitting on in the - soon to be - deck gate. Well the ex shows up and drops off his daughter, beer in hand; this guy reeks
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
; I won't go so far as to say he wasn't intelligent, but I'm fucking surprised the guy can function with the time delay on his brain processor; he does... that's the best way to describe it, he... does; just slightly lacking in the impulse control department. You gotta watch what you say to this tool, because he'll follow through on anything that could be deemed "fun", and there's no stopping him when he thinks something could be "fun". Do I feel bad or superior calling this guy stupid? No, neither; the guy is fucking stupid.

[TheStranger]

I forget what Schopenhauer specifically said about the Intellect (though it is said that Hegel was the philosopher of the Intellect, and Schopenhauer, the will). It was something to the effect that intelligence was typically subservient to the will, and that higher manifestations of intellect occurred when the will was suppressed, allowing for disinterested observations.

It makes me wonder how many different ways there are to express the same thing (or attempted conception).

[The Dan Keizer]

I think I am intelligent in a lot of ways and I am stupid in a lot of ways, I assume everybody else is that way as well.

[Chameleon]

According to an IQ test: I am an average person+ a retarded person. So I guess I never now which one will show. I call people ignorant, I am ignorant for calling people ignorant, and that's philosophy
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Haumea]

	Notice how math is your litmus test? Any reason why?

I know you're joshing her, but certain math subtests (such as Arithmetic - basically verbal problem solving/working memory test and Figure Weights - nonverbal problem solving test) are highly g-loaded, so she's basically right. I don't know that, e.g. solving Calculus problems has a high ceiling, but it certainly has an above average floor.

I suspect that basic g is what matters though, and you can reshape your brain through practice to improve your weaknesses. Most people really don't bother though, 'cause math is for nerds and stuff.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Thinktress]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No. Unless you're talking about 70 vs 100 vs 120 there is no difference. I highly doubt the variability in presidential candidates is that high, however, so it is useless. There are studies that suggest the best leaders tend to have IQs around 125 not 150 or 170. There isn't some linear relationship as you seem to be suggesting. Unless you're joking....

^
Unfortunately, I have to agree with this. High IQ does NOT necessarily correlate with high success in life.

[KeithP]

Once had a friend tell someone else I'm so smart I'm stupid.

I took it as a compliment.

Why? It's the best type of smart. If I assume I know everything, I'm just going to break shit and try to fix things after. If I assume I know nothing, I proceed with caution and attempt to do things properly the first time.

Maybe you don't need to go that route all the time. But I truly believe an intelligent person needs to be humble. It involves ditching a lot of ego.

[TheStranger]

What was it Orson Scott Card wrote? "You're so smart and so stupid at the same time it takes my breath away". I didn't really care for the way he wrote that, but it seems obvious extreme strengths and weaknesses can occur simultaneously in the same mind.

[Deliberator]

If you can't objectively quantify intelligence then would you question the existence of people who are mentally retarded?

[Daes]

I call actions, not people, stupid. An action is generally stupid when it wasn't thought out far enough to see it wouldn't work.

For example, selling your only car for gas money is pretty stupid.

[bales33]

Originally Posted by Samia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not true. Just like some people are stupid. Again, that's not true. Why do people feel the need the measure other people's intelligence? What makes some people think they can measure other people's intelligence? This usually comes from people who think they are smart. You can't measure intelligence or stupidity objectively, so why do people think they can? I can't stand it when people call other people stupid. It's thrown about so casually. Would you be annoyed if someone called you stupid? Why?

It's all subjective if you ask me. When we judge another's intelligence were simply using a opinion of what intelligence means to us to make an assumption about a person's overall intelligence or their intelligence in a given subject. In that sense it will always be a flawed assumption. Since a change in priorities or interests could explain this lack of intelligence more times then not and even if it doesn't it's a hard thing to prove even with the best modern technology. One might even say it's impossible with modern technology, has I do until I see evidence of this amazing technology.

But regardless has a human being with an individual mind I couldn't stop judging people has "stupid" if I wanted to. Because much like any creature with a complex thought process I have thing's I value, thing's I hate, and a lot of thing's I could less about. So when I find someone who lacks a basic understanding of what I value in it's simplest form then to me at least they are stupid. It can't be tested nor may it be true in your world but that's just it. This isn't your world or at least not to me. This world is mine because the perceptions that make it what it is are always mine. But it's not just me that creates a world of their perceptions but I have started rambling and in my world when someone starts rambling they should probably save the rest for another time. So yea, that's it.

[ScottH]

(to the OP, without reading any of the thread)

The answer is self evident. Most of us have met people who are obviously cognitively inferior to ones self. We may choose to describe them as "stupid," and if you can shed the negative connotations, it is as clear as can be.

I had a conversation with a friend years ago about I.Q., and he pointed out something that seemed so obvious I was embarrassed not to have noticed it on my own: it is easy to tell when someone is significantly less intelligent than you, but very difficult to tell when they are much smarter.

The idea of objective "human capacity" measurement is an old one, as is the argument that it can't be done accurately. Physical strength can be so vague: who can lift he most? Who can lift the most 100 times? Who can push the most with their legs? It's very vague, nonetheless you will have no trouble picking one of the best body-guards from a pool of 10. So it is with I.Q. It's pretty easy to recognize when people miss things that seem obvious to you.

"Stupid" works, but I can relate to your dislike of the term.

[TheStranger]

More and more, I am convinced that working memory allows for higher levels of reason (for the most part). It has been said that one could extrapolate a full IQ score based off of a working memory subtest score, with about 80% accuracy.

While I don't want to distill the concept of intelligence down to working memory, it seems to be a heavy determinant of general mental functioning.

[sunitaishot]

Originally Posted by EnsconcedDeity To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

People like to feel superior and make others feel inferior in an attempt to mask their insecurity. I agree, there is no way to objectively determine who is and isn't intelligent. However you can differentiate the level of intellectual ability between two people if you put them through a series of tests(of course those tests are subjective upon the individual and even then it isn't full proof because of external factors). The only way intelligence can be acknowledged in someone is if there is mental inferiority displayed by another person in comparison.

I think sometimes people use the "relative intelligence" argument to be PC.

Intelligence is a virtue, whilst stupidity is not. I don't see why it's "wrong" to take pride in one's intelligence.