3 ms·

Being dumb doesn't feel like having a bad memory, or thinking slower, or not being able to multitask. It feels like looking at a square peg and a grid of shape-

Being dumb doesn't feel like having a bad memory, or thinking slower, or not being able to multitask. It feels like looking at a square peg and a grid of shape-holes, and not (quickly) realizing that "shape" is a relevant property that the holes differ by, such that you should select a hole based on the shape of the peg. ...they'd solve problems in entirely different ways, out of necessity for not recognizing patterns as easily. And then you can reflect that intuition to understand what it would be like to be more intelligent than you are: someone who would also solve problems in different ways, for seeing their structure more easily... Let me unpack this a bit; it annoys me to end that every person depending on his/her coterie ( think technology coteries, humanities coteries, political/legal coteries etc) seems to nourish his/her own definition of what intelligence is and how - if at all - it can be measured and quantified on a nice linear scale. Surely we all agree that such a definition and quantification is useful. I hope that is not up to debate. Only the most hyper egalitarians, insisting on the absolute equality of social statuses of all humans, would refute the utility of such quantification. For instance, most learned, secular and urbane people do not think twice before frowning on religious zealots. Their views and outlook of the world seem like they belong in the stone-age. Whatever their scriptures say or hold, a religious devotee has to suspend the most basic premises of logic and reason to be able to subscribe utterly risible notions of how one ought to conduct his or her life based on preposterous doctrines. In essence they almost invariably have to belong to a lower order of intelligence (if you set aside the atypical cases of candidates who are esteemed scholars, scientists and technologists, who are nevertheless fervently religious, of whom we can be sure there are more than a handful). Surely we should be able to define - using certain parameters whatever those are - and quantify this "lower order of intelligence" in an objective manner. After all we just cannot describe their quantum of intelligence through purely the notions - as moronic those notions might be - they subscribe to. There has to be an objective assessment. Since such a quantification is useful - for purposes of classification or otherwise - what then is the most current (more or less universal) consensus on the measure of intelligence? Obversely, when defining stupidity, is there no single measure that more or less captures "the congenital lack of capacity for reasoning"? [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidity#Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidity#Definition

derefr 13y ago
Rather than a personal definition, I really was, in my comment, defining intelligence according to the (narrow, not-all-encompassing) definition used by people who create tests of IQ or "g". IQ is tautologically defined as "the number output by IQ tests." And what an IQ test, tests, is your ability to recognize and exploit novel patterns, generalized across different domains (word problems, pictures, music), under time pressure. So as far as someone having a high IQ is correlated to the common-sense perception of them being "intelligent", and as far as a low IQ is correlated to a common-sense perception of them being "stupid", then those two properties, in their common-sense usage, have something to do with pattern-recognition. But I think, in your comment, what you're doing is conflating intelligence with rationality. Raw intelligence doesn't help you to notice when you have an ingrained-but-senseless belief (thus predicting precisely your "candidates who are esteemed scholars, scientists and technologists, who are nevertheless fervently religious".) One of the primary properties of modern religion is its non-falsifiability -- it makes no predictions about your everyday experience you could keep track of to form a sense of "how it's doing." Because of this, a religion can sit comfortably in your mind alongside everything else you "know", and no piece of evidence you run into will ever rub up against it and wear it away. Noticing that you have beliefs that aren't causally attached to the rest of your experience is a skill which you have to learn explicitly. This set of skills (instrumental rationality) together are a multiplier for the productive output of your intelligence, but they don't make you any more or less intelligent. Really intelligent people might come up with these skills on their own, as meta-patterns that seem to hold between pattern in different disciplines, but most anyone can learn to be more instrumentally rational by being trained in these skills by someone else. You can't learn to be more intelligent. (Though good sleep, exercise, and stimulant drugs all seem to help... at least according to IQ tests.)
- wozniacki 13y ago
  I will try to not appear as though I am convinced that these differences between "instrumental rationality" and intelligence - in the context of the current discussion - are specious. Actually I find your delineation, quite satisfying an explanation. However it begs one to ask what good is an impoverished measure of intelligence (IQ) that only computes your ability to recognize and exploit novel patterns, generalized across different domains (word problems, pictures, music), under time pressure if it doesn't so much as envelope the simple ability of a person to observe and verify that certain beliefs he or she holds subscribes to aren't causally attached to the rest of his or her experience Isn't that simple enough a mental exercise? Indeed, isn't that also a similarly intelligent exercise that constitutes the ability to recognize consistent patterns of denials and refusals in one's unremitting adherence to a religious faith? What good is to ascribe intelligence (as in high IQ) to a person if the measure of intelligence is so narrowly defined? I am left wanting for an explanation as to why the large majority of experts would concoct such an useless gauge of intelligence. For the sake of pedagogy, instrumental rationality, I am certain, is a very fulfilling piece of terminology. I am also quite certain it is composed of attributes that are not necessarily equivalent to those of intelligence. However if instrumental rationality is a skill than is not bestowed to you at birth unlike intelligence (from what I derive from your You can't learn to be more intelligent line) then what - in its thinnest scope - does intelligence constitute ? Although I am not all that perturbed by it, this jargon of instrumental rationality and its neat separation from intelligence seems to have been contrived by theologians in a divinity school somewhere so as to not hurt the sentiments of the religious devotees. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if also the various contrivances of intelligence - spatial, kinesthetic, rhythmic, linguistic, naturalistic, existential, mathematical, intrapersonal and interpersonal - are also more inventions of convenience than clearly circumscribed goods or measurable quantities.

derefr 13y ago

Rather than a personal definition, I really was, in my comment, defining intelligence according to the (narrow, not-all-encompassing) definition used by people who create tests of IQ or "g". IQ is tautologically defined as "the number output by IQ tests." And what an IQ test, tests, is your ability to recognize and exploit novel patterns, generalized across different domains (word problems, pictures, music), under time pressure. So as far as someone having a high IQ is correlated to the common-sense perception of them being "intelligent", and as far as a low IQ is correlated to a common-sense perception of them being "stupid", then those two properties, in their common-sense usage, have something to do with pattern-recognition. But I think, in your comment, what you're doing is conflating intelligence with rationality. Raw intelligence doesn't help you to notice when you have an ingrained-but-senseless belief (thus predicting precisely your "candidates who are esteemed scholars, scientists and technologists, who are nevertheless fervently religious".) One of the primary properties of modern religion is its non-falsifiability -- it makes no predictions about your everyday experience you could keep track of to form a sense of "how it's doing." Because of this, a religion can sit comfortably in your mind alongside everything else you "know", and no piece of evidence you run into will ever rub up against it and wear it away. Noticing that you have beliefs that aren't causally attached to the rest of your experience is a skill which you have to learn explicitly. This set of skills (instrumental rationality) together are a multiplier for the productive output of your intelligence, but they don't make you any more or less intelligent. Really intelligent people might come up with these skills on their own, as meta-patterns that seem to hold between pattern in different disciplines, but most anyone can learn to be more instrumentally rational by being trained in these skills by someone else. You can't learn to be more intelligent. (Though good sleep, exercise, and stimulant drugs all seem to help... at least according to IQ tests.)

wozniacki 13y ago
I will try to not appear as though I am convinced that these differences between "instrumental rationality" and intelligence - in the context of the current discussion - are specious. Actually I find your delineation, quite satisfying an explanation. However it begs one to ask what good is an impoverished measure of intelligence (IQ) that only computes your ability to recognize and exploit novel patterns, generalized across different domains (word problems, pictures, music), under time pressure if it doesn't so much as envelope the simple ability of a person to observe and verify that certain beliefs he or she holds subscribes to aren't causally attached to the rest of his or her experience Isn't that simple enough a mental exercise? Indeed, isn't that also a similarly intelligent exercise that constitutes the ability to recognize consistent patterns of denials and refusals in one's unremitting adherence to a religious faith? What good is to ascribe intelligence (as in high IQ) to a person if the measure of intelligence is so narrowly defined? I am left wanting for an explanation as to why the large majority of experts would concoct such an useless gauge of intelligence. For the sake of pedagogy, instrumental rationality, I am certain, is a very fulfilling piece of terminology. I am also quite certain it is composed of attributes that are not necessarily equivalent to those of intelligence. However if instrumental rationality is a skill than is not bestowed to you at birth unlike intelligence (from what I derive from your You can't learn to be more intelligent line) then what - in its thinnest scope - does intelligence constitute ? Although I am not all that perturbed by it, this jargon of instrumental rationality and its neat separation from intelligence seems to have been contrived by theologians in a divinity school somewhere so as to not hurt the sentiments of the religious devotees. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if also the various contrivances of intelligence - spatial, kinesthetic, rhythmic, linguistic, naturalistic, existential, mathematical, intrapersonal and interpersonal - are also more inventions of convenience than clearly circumscribed goods or measurable quantities.