4 ms·

Respectfully no, I don't think they are. They are talents. Your neighbor probably cannot not teach someone how to look at an equation and visualize a plot of it

by EPWN3D 2y ago

Respectfully no, I don't think they are. They are talents. Your neighbor probably cannot not teach someone how to look at an equation and visualize a plot of it. That's just a thing he can do. Bill Clinton probably cannot teach someone how to remember a rando's name after several years. That's just something he can do that makes him a uniquely talented politician. Intelligence is intended to be a metric, and that requires commonality. Mostly anyone can be taught to read, write, do basic math, recognize patterns in shapes, etc. That's why these things are used as indicators of intelligence. Saying that someone is more intelligent than everyone else because they possess a certain non-replicable talent undermines the entire endeavor.

threatofrain 2y ago
The idea of general intelligence arose out of correlation between test performances, and that there was a more "general" capability that people were tapping into to solve the plethora of different intelligence tests.
prerok 2y ago
I disagree. There is no qualifier in intelligence that would require the person to be able to transfer it to another person. In fact, I think the IQ as a metric is fundamentally flawed. IIRC it rose from detecting learning disabilities, like if you are 10 years old and still don't know that if I write 1, 2, 3 and you don't guess the next number is 4, then there is likely something wrong and your IQ is below average. So, they took that test and wrote new, more advanced questions, like 2, 3, 5, what's next? Could be 7 (primes) or could be 8 (Fibonacci). And the problem with that is that they really rely on what you are learning or not learning in school. The math example above might be passable but what about similes in literacy or what sides does this dodecahedron disassemble to. The former where somewhat taught in my school but not well and the latter... well, the children are supposed to experiment with shapes in their own time, apparently. I do agree with you that it's some metric, but it just measures how well the material in the IQ test is taught in schools, it does not measure a person's intelligence, which is IMHO an innate quality.
- EPWN3D 2y ago
  I'm not defending or critiquing IQ tests. I am saying that defining individual or quirky talents as "intelligence" is not useful. By saying, "You're not as politically intelligent as Bill Clinton because he can remember the name of someone he met in a crowd three decades ago", all you're saying is, "You're not Bill Clinton". Intelligence is a standard which is usually defined by your ability to make predictions about systems in various domains. Now if you said, "You're not as politically intelligent as Bill Clinton because he was able to understand that by positioning himself these ways on these issues, he'd win over a lot of voters without appearing self-contradictory or disingenuous," that's a much more defensible example of intelligence in a non-traditional sense.
genewitch 2y ago
It isn't unqiue, Dale Carnegie Jr talked about that sort of easy recollection of names and gave explanations of how people who did recall names a decade later do it.

by EPWN3D 2y ago

threatofrain 2y ago

The idea of general intelligence arose out of correlation between test performances, and that there was a more "general" capability that people were tapping into to solve the plethora of different intelligence tests.

prerok 2y ago

I disagree. There is no qualifier in intelligence that would require the person to be able to transfer it to another person. In fact, I think the IQ as a metric is fundamentally flawed. IIRC it rose from detecting learning disabilities, like if you are 10 years old and still don't know that if I write 1, 2, 3 and you don't guess the next number is 4, then there is likely something wrong and your IQ is below average. So, they took that test and wrote new, more advanced questions, like 2, 3, 5, what's next? Could be 7 (primes) or could be 8 (Fibonacci). And the problem with that is that they really rely on what you are learning or not learning in school. The math example above might be passable but what about similes in literacy or what sides does this dodecahedron disassemble to. The former where somewhat taught in my school but not well and the latter... well, the children are supposed to experiment with shapes in their own time, apparently. I do agree with you that it's some metric, but it just measures how well the material in the IQ test is taught in schools, it does not measure a person's intelligence, which is IMHO an innate quality.

EPWN3D 2y ago
I'm not defending or critiquing IQ tests. I am saying that defining individual or quirky talents as "intelligence" is not useful. By saying, "You're not as politically intelligent as Bill Clinton because he can remember the name of someone he met in a crowd three decades ago", all you're saying is, "You're not Bill Clinton". Intelligence is a standard which is usually defined by your ability to make predictions about systems in various domains. Now if you said, "You're not as politically intelligent as Bill Clinton because he was able to understand that by positioning himself these ways on these issues, he'd win over a lot of voters without appearing self-contradictory or disingenuous," that's a much more defensible example of intelligence in a non-traditional sense.

genewitch 2y ago

It isn't unqiue, Dale Carnegie Jr talked about that sort of easy recollection of names and gave explanations of how people who did recall names a decade later do it.