Intelligence: Redux

[justinkick]

I've been thinking about intelligence again. In our last little discussion, we all seemed to agree that intelligence was, at its core, the ability to learn new concepts. What we disagreed on however, was how to measure this. I may have a solution

Comments

[thehopelesscaus]

everything is metaphor-based, honestly

[justinkick]

you said it for me max. "some people learn much more quickly through visualization, seeing a representation of the concept, while some people learn more quickly just hearing the idea." excuse me for being blunt, but isnt a visualization a metaphor? not in the literary sense, since it is not written down, but isnt a visual a symbol for something else? hence a visual is a metaphor. the same is true for for "people [who] learn more quickly just hearing the idea." words, and thus conversation, are metaphors. the point is all learning, save for a priori knowledge, is based on previous metaphors. thus, the more complicated the metaphor, or perhaps better put, the less simple the metaphor, the more intelligent the learner. i think

[thehopelesscaus]

i think we're saying the same things...any kind of conceptualisation of a any idea is a metaphor, be it physical, written, or communicated.

intelligence is not based on simply understanding one field; in order to to be intelligent, one must understand a great deal of information, and be able to apply it competently when necessary.
again, we are saying the same thing.
i'm not sure whether or not speed has anything to do with it. surely, learning more quickly gives one the upper hand, but if, at the end of life, both individuals have the same amount of knowledge, are they not equals?

[justinkick]

equals in their amount of knowledge, but knowing alot of stuff should not make you an intelligent person. someones ability to adapt to new situations and apply previous information and knowledge, along with an ability to master new situations must be their yardstick by which we measure intelligence.

[thehopelesscaus]

so, then, is one's intelligence based simply on this ability to adapt/apply information and master new skills, or the number of skills and applications they are able to use?

i mean, stephen hawking is pretty much only good at quantum physics. but is he still intelligent?

[justinkick]

using our definitions, the answer has to be no. because of his inability, whether conscious or uncscious, to assimilate new concepts, he cannot be considered intelligent. fuckin a! thats so wrong. intelligence is also the discovery of new concepts correct? yet another element that must be incorporated into the definition.

so intelligence is:
a. the ability to learn new concepts easily, quickly and without excess explination
b. the ability to translate these concepts and metaphors into simpler or more complex metaphors to suit their audience
c. the ability to find and form new knowledge (along with possibly the ability to inter and extrapolate(sp) new relationships within data)

i think that about sums it up.

[abnormalfreak]

first, nice call on that spelling of explanation spelling boy. second, i think you'd need to tack a d on there.

how about:

d. the ability to retain knowledge and abilities/skills effectively without excess review (e.g. a good memory).

it doesn't matter how fast you pick up on stuff if you don't remember it three minutes later.