3 ms·
"There's no such thing as "raw" intelligence." Well, that's sure a bold statement. I suppose in order to have this discussion, we'd have to agree on a definiti
by chasebank 5y ago
"There's no such thing as "raw" intelligence."
Well, that's sure a bold statement. I suppose in order to have this discussion, we'd have to agree on a definition of intelligence. For me, it's one's intellectual capacity to learn. Emotionally, physically, mathematically, etc. I'd argue that there is absolutely a thing of "raw intelligence". If we have mentally handicapped and Stephen Hawking, there must be a standard bell curve of intelligence in-between.
- thioordc 5y agoYea but if you are a megamind in math that doesn’t mean you are a Shakespeare level writer. Intelligence isn’t general it’s specific
- Auracle 5y agoYou’re very much going against the scientific consensus with that statement. General intelligence is exactly what IQ tests measure.
- thioordc 5y agoI mean I don’t really need any studies. Was Einstein as good of as a writer as Shakespeare? Nope! Although I’m sure he was generally “smart” his main focus of intelligence was physics. However, after re-reading my comment I was a little unclear. When I said: “Intelligence isn’t general it’s specific“ I should have said: “My (And I think others as well) definition of intelligence is how well educated you are in a specific subject. I would never ask someone how smart they are (not useful) but I could ask if they are good at calculus (intelligence in math)”