4 ms·

Yes, intelligence is more a multiplier of effects, rather than something useful in and of itself. You still need knowledge, skill, training, etc. Intelligence

by bena 2y ago

Yes, intelligence is more a multiplier of effects, rather than something useful in and of itself. You still need knowledge, skill, training, etc. Intelligence will allow you to acquire all of that more quickly and make better use of it, but intelligence without knowledge is useless. And just like taller people aren't better than shorter people, more intelligent people aren't better than less intelligent people. Nothing can make you a good person except your choices to do good things.

hirvi74 2y ago
> more intelligent people aren't better than less intelligent people. I completely agree with this, and I wish it was something that was a bit more emphasized. However, I do think there lies the dangers of intelligence research. In seems that so much of the world is catered towards the idea that more intelligence = better person. I suppose the notion is that more intelligence people can produce greater value, thus they are more important/beneficial to society? In society, we have "gifted" programs, "elite" universities, "knowledge" workers, etc.. I'm probably rambling and wording this all poorly, but I guess what I am trying to allude to is that society definitely ranks people's value by intelligence in overt and subtle ways. Don't you think most parents would rather have a child with average empathy with gifted intelligence than a child that with gifted empathy and average intelligence? (Tangent below) I was required to take a legitimate IQ test (WAIS-IV) for the purposes of diagnosing/confirming a disability when I was in college. I'm not kidding when I say this, but I wish I was able to remain ignorant of the composite and subtest scores. Sure, it told me somethings about myself, but at the same time, I felt like it was some kind of report describing what domains my aspirations and limitations in life should be confined to. To me, it seems like intelligence is not important to those that have a lot of it, and it's significant to those that lack it (whether they realize it or not).
- bena 2y ago
  Weirdly, I'd say exceptional skill/talent winds up fostering empathy rather than hindering it. When you have exceptional talent, you quickly learn not everyone is like you and that you need to understand their perspectives. Whereas if you're within the average range, you think everyone should be in the average range, so you can wind up overly frustrated with both those below it and those above it. People mistakenly believe that a proficiency in one area means a deficiency in others, like we're all given a set of stat points at birth we have to allocate. When the truth is some people are just generally proficient. There are people with higher intelligence and greater empathy. It's not a choice. And ironically, empathy is one of those things that is actually positively correlated with intelligence. Which kind of tracks as a component of intelligence is pattern recognition and empathy is a form of pattern recognition.

by bena 2y ago

hirvi74 2y ago

> more intelligent people aren't better than less intelligent people. I completely agree with this, and I wish it was something that was a bit more emphasized. However, I do think there lies the dangers of intelligence research. In seems that so much of the world is catered towards the idea that more intelligence = better person. I suppose the notion is that more intelligence people can produce greater value, thus they are more important/beneficial to society? In society, we have "gifted" programs, "elite" universities, "knowledge" workers, etc.. I'm probably rambling and wording this all poorly, but I guess what I am trying to allude to is that society definitely ranks people's value by intelligence in overt and subtle ways. Don't you think most parents would rather have a child with average empathy with gifted intelligence than a child that with gifted empathy and average intelligence? (Tangent below) I was required to take a legitimate IQ test (WAIS-IV) for the purposes of diagnosing/confirming a disability when I was in college. I'm not kidding when I say this, but I wish I was able to remain ignorant of the composite and subtest scores. Sure, it told me somethings about myself, but at the same time, I felt like it was some kind of report describing what domains my aspirations and limitations in life should be confined to. To me, it seems like intelligence is not important to those that have a lot of it, and it's significant to those that lack it (whether they realize it or not).

bena 2y ago
Weirdly, I'd say exceptional skill/talent winds up fostering empathy rather than hindering it. When you have exceptional talent, you quickly learn not everyone is like you and that you need to understand their perspectives. Whereas if you're within the average range, you think everyone should be in the average range, so you can wind up overly frustrated with both those below it and those above it. People mistakenly believe that a proficiency in one area means a deficiency in others, like we're all given a set of stat points at birth we have to allocate. When the truth is some people are just generally proficient. There are people with higher intelligence and greater empathy. It's not a choice. And ironically, empathy is one of those things that is actually positively correlated with intelligence. Which kind of tracks as a component of intelligence is pattern recognition and empathy is a form of pattern recognition.