3 ms·

> I say it merely requires foundational knowledge, which can indeed be taught and studied. That is what you learn during your education, you can be a fresh jun

> I say it merely requires foundational knowledge, which can indeed be taught and studied. That is what you learn during your education, you can be a fresh junior with much better foundational knowledge than an average expert. Experts have experience in the field which is extremely important, but it solves different kinds of problems they aren't better at everything than a person with good fundamentals and a good mind. > Intelligence in this concept is simply a measure of experience. The ability to apply knowledge is intelligence. Smart people can do more with the same knowledge than dumb people. That is why you see so many say their education was pointless, they never figured out how to apply all that knowledge. Such people are still experts, but there are many kinds of problems that they aren't good at solving.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
>you can be a fresh junior with much better foundational knowledge than an average expert. you can. I wouldn't bet on it unless you had exceptional education from other experts AND were extremely self-motivated to keep pushing yourself. Companies spend millions trying to find such students to mixed results, after all. It's not an easy source to find. May not even be worth finding unless you already have billions in capital. >The ability to apply knowledge is intelligence. If so, it goes against the sentiment that intelligence is innate. your ability to apply knowledge is a product of your experiences and how/if you can connect them to new concepts. All of that is a product of learning and time. that's what makes teachers such an important aspect to this "intelligence". A good teacher helps to connect these pathways so knowledge is stored. But traditional education does not allow for teachers to tailor to everyone's own mental map or experiences. Traditionally "intelligent" people in this case just happen to be people compatible with traditional teaching. (there is also internal self-motivation to learn and practice. But I don't think we disagree that persistence is mechanical practice orthogonal to "intelligence")

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>you can be a fresh junior with much better foundational knowledge than an average expert. you can. I wouldn't bet on it unless you had exceptional education from other experts AND were extremely self-motivated to keep pushing yourself. Companies spend millions trying to find such students to mixed results, after all. It's not an easy source to find. May not even be worth finding unless you already have billions in capital. >The ability to apply knowledge is intelligence. If so, it goes against the sentiment that intelligence is innate. your ability to apply knowledge is a product of your experiences and how/if you can connect them to new concepts. All of that is a product of learning and time. that's what makes teachers such an important aspect to this "intelligence". A good teacher helps to connect these pathways so knowledge is stored. But traditional education does not allow for teachers to tailor to everyone's own mental map or experiences. Traditionally "intelligent" people in this case just happen to be people compatible with traditional teaching. (there is also internal self-motivation to learn and practice. But I don't think we disagree that persistence is mechanical practice orthogonal to "intelligence")