Intelligence

[Adahn]

On rare occasions I have found myself thinking, and on rarer occasions I have come up with an idea. This particular idea has to do with intelligence. I've come to decide that school, while being able to offer a small amount of information as to how a student's mind works, is not an institution that recognizes intelligence. I came to this conclusion as my own personal definition of intelligence changed. Intelligence is one's ability and desire to understand difficult ideas or concepts. This leads one to question what intelligence isn't. Intelligence isn't how good a grasp one has on the English Language, or one's understanding of what it is practical to know. From what I see in most people, the opposite is true. We praise people for their ability with a language, while those we praise hide their lack of intelligence behind flowery words. I am not saying, however, that the two areas of ability cannot mix. Intelligence and a way with words can provide not only beauty, but depth. It is for this reason that I yield to my competitive nature and ask the people what makes someone's post intelligent? If a person does not have a perfect grasp on what is commonly recognized as necessary to present thoughts and ideas, does that make that person or that person's posts unintelligent? I think that, if anything, it makes them more intelligent. Their desire to know is so great that they will suffer the hardships of being misunderstood or pointed out as less than perfectly literate to get their ideas across for their own benefit, and the benefit of others. I would like to know what the rest of you think, and ask that replies be only intelligent, or deep, even if it is difficult to make them beautiful.

This is in honor of two people I know who's birthdays are on this day (both at one point were on OB). One did his best to present his ideas in a way that others could understand him, despite his inability to use perfect grammar. The other was ostracized because of her poetic nature, choosing to present her ideas as they came to her, difficult as they were for others to understand. They are both people who epitomize my definition of intelligence, and I am saddened that they no longer feel they can express themselves here.

[Zeta]

Well in my mind, the English language is in itself very important to be intelligent. Just to clarify, when I say English, I a country's native language, just using English because it is what I use.

If you do not have a strong grasp, or a decent grasp, on your native language there isn't a way for one to be understood. It won't matter that they went out looking for knowledge, because without a grasp on the language another person cannot help him/her. It is just like going on a trip to a country that doesn't speak your native language. You are there with a "something/something" dictionary to help you translate words. Not only does it get you frustrated, but it gets the other person a little flustered if it goes on long enough. So when you look back on it, all you really need is a grasp on your native language. Without it you can't understand what you are searching for, nor can anyone help you searh for it.

[QUOTE]I think that, if anything, it makes them more intelligent. Their desire to know is so great that they will suffer the hardships of being misunderstood or pointed out as less than perfectly literate to get their ideas across for their own benefit, and the benefit of others.[/QUOTE]

I don't see that as intelligence. I see that as seeking knowledge, both of which are different in my book at least But they obviously aren't able to reach the knowledge they want. Why can't they? They can't because they won't be able to understand what they are looking at, and no one will be able to help them. Again, it all comes down to having a good and tight grasp on one's native language. Once they have that, they can just fly basically.

Now that I look back on my post, I see that my examples are to the extreme of not knowing basically anything of the language. Granted not knowing where to put commas all the time, or when to use a colon or semi colon won't make that much of a difference in your search for knowledge.

[AzureWolf]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]You know, for someone who is trying to argue the lack of importance language has, you certainly are taking a great deal of time trifling with words.

What I think you are trying to say is that intelligence, as everyone sees it, is not what true intelligence is, which is essentially a pointless argument for defining words. Zeta pretty much hit the nail on the head with this one.

If not that, then you are trying to say that intelligence, at least what most people see it as, is not the most important thing a person can contribute/express. Now, here's something worth arguing about, heh.

Whatever the case, I'll take a page from Cool Hand Luke, "What we've gots here, is a failure to moonicate."[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Adahn]

I should have clarified. When I spoke of not having a perfect grasp on the language, I meant in terms of spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc. One can have a very large vocabulary and not be able to spell half of it. You make some good points, and I apologize for not making myself clear. If one pursues knowledge of abstract concepts, one will find oneself with a very large, complex vocabulary indeed. It is those who have these kinds of vocabularies, but don't have the best mechanics that I am speaking of. I do appreciate having my posts picked apart, so please, continue. It helps me to understand better what I was trying to say in the first place, and also to expand on concepts already presented, or even to form new ones through thought and discussion.

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]I do believe it was PrincessGoneral who was saying, the other day, that any one who can't read or write their native tongue and do the most preliminary of mathematics by the age of 12 ought to be shot...

Basically, as I see it, if you want to fit into the label THE BOARD uses to define intelligence, you have to be

1) an elitest bastard
2) entirely unwilling to do any amount of work
3) aware of your shortcomings and allow the slightest of them to take large bites out of your self esteem.

Oh yeah, and another criterion they value is "Prefers the company of adults."

Hope that clears some things up.

EDIT:

[Quote]I should have clarified. When I spoke of not having a perfect grasp on the language, I meant in terms of spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc. One can have a very large vocabulary and not be able to spell half of it. You make some good points, and I apologize for not making myself clear. If one pursues knowledge of abstract concepts, one will find oneself with a very large, complex vocabulary indeed. It is those who have these kinds of vocabularies, but don't have the best mechanics that I am speaking of. I do appreciate having my posts picked apart, so please, continue. It helps me to understand better what I was trying to say in the first place, and also to expand on concepts already presented, or even to form new ones through thought and discussion.[/Quote]

Did you know that the first Russian revolution was innitiated by the printmakers of St Petersburg demanding they be paid the same amount per punctuation mark as per letter?

Now tell me again that punctuation is irrelevant.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]You know, for someone who is trying to argue the lack of importance language has, you certainly are taking a great deal of time trifling with words.
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

I find myself accused of trifling with words, when I am symbolically supporting my argument that intelligence and craftiness can be used together to produce something beautiful and deep. (I feel like I'm repeating myself...)

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]
What I think you are trying to say is that intelligence, as everyone sees it, is not what true intelligence is, which is essentially a pointless argument for defining words. Zeta pretty much hit the nail on the head with this one.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]


I am not making a pointless argument over the definition of words. I am proposing that there is more significance to the word than most people can understand, and that it is worth investigating.

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]
If not that, then you are trying to say that intelligence, at least what most people see it as, is not the most important thing a person can contribute/express. Now, here's something worth arguing about, heh.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]


I fail to understand , perhaps you can clarify what made you think this?

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]
Whatever the case, I'll take a page from Cool Hand Luke, "What we've gots here, is a failure to moonicate."[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

Perhaps it is not my communication skills that have failed, but rather your ability to comprehend what it is I'm trying to say.

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]You seem to be arguing that some n00b posting while victim to a case of "lamer condition" (Who's banner was that in a while ago?) is actually brighter than the rest of us.

And you missed a whole lot of paragraph breaks in your first thread, too, btw, so I'd get off the poor old man's back about poor moonication skills. (He's senile, anyway, so those are bound to go pretty quick, mind you.)

THE BOARD tries to tell us that there are different kinds of "Smarts" (ie: "body" smarts, "writing" smarts, "self" smarts...), but intelligence is basically your IQ number.

Your bit about how "seeking intelligence" is actually greater intelligence is like saying that having a positive attitude makes you smart.
It just doesn't work that way.

Often wanting to gain knowledge and working very hard can make up for a lack of "god-given" intelligence, but the fact remains that some people can determine that those cans really ought to have labels in less than five seconds by the time they're eight years old and some can't.

This has nothing to do with what language you speak; it's just how easily one can detect that something is wrong with the picture they're seeing.

"_______ recognition is intelligence."

"Pattern recognition is ____________."

Now fill in the blanks.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Your bit about how "seeking intelligence" is actually greater intelligence is like saying that having a positive attitude makes you smart.
It just doesn't work that way.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

This merits a response. There are those who can live their lives understanding what they are told to understand. They believe what they are told to believe. It is not one's search for intelligence that shows greater intelligence, but rather a hunger, a desire, for truth and wisdom beyond what is conventionally taught. You have to ask yourself, do you fall into this category? If you do, I have yet to see it.

[Zeta]

Intelligence is completely different from what you are saying it is. Intelligence is how you use what you learn. How you manipulate your courses knowledge to suit your needs. It is how well you can understand others, create things to better man kind. Heck, intelligence is even in war time. You have to be intelligent to create a good plan, there is nothing deep about that, heh. Creativeness does come into play there yes, but it is ulimately knowing the geography of the place, weather, etc.. All those things is knowledge which you have come across in your life, which is in turn intelligence. Which you wouldn't understand any of it if you didn't have a grasp on your language.

Intelligence is the result of the knowledge that you seek out. Again I repeat, with a grasp on the language, you cannot be intelligent. It is a given fact. If someone can't understand you, how can what you are saying be deep? Without a grasp of the language to convey to the reader or whomever, they can't see if what you are saying is deep.

I do not have that well of grammer. But I have a decent grasp on what I do know to convey my point clearly so that others can read and understand it. If I didn't have the grasp that I do have, everyone here would see me as unintelligent. Why? Because they can't understand me. How do you make them understand you? Get a grasp on the language. When you have that you are intelligent. The grasp of your language leads you to so many other possibilites where your "deeper" meaning has no significance.

Let me ask you this. Is a nuclear physicist intelligent? They use "big fluffy" words.

[Adahn]

[quote name='Zeta']Is a nuclear physicist intelligent?[/quote]

Now, I'm generally not a mean person, but this is the only thing worth replying to. Simply put, you can't judge someone by their job, no matter how prestigious it is. However, someone who can understand and manipulate the theories of nuclear physics, and use them to advance the field and broaden humanity's knowledge on how our natural world works would probably fit into my idea of intelligence. So, my answer is yes, I suppose...

[Zeta]

Yes. And answer me this. Without a grasp of their language, would they have a clue in what they were doing? No they would not. So yes, you do need to have a good grasp on your language. Which as I get from your posts, you are saying is irrelevant.

If I went to a job interview and handed in a resume with spelling mistakes galore and crap such as "yo dude, what up? Dis is 1337." Do you think they would higher me at all? Let alone take another look at the resume? Now if you handed in a resume with clear, concise statements, words that are not used in everyplace such as "said" etc. you have a much higher chance of getting the job.

[Adahn]

[quote name='Zeta']Yes. And answer me this. Without a grasp of their language, would they have a clue in what they were doing? No they would not. So yes, you do need to have a good grasp on your language. Which as I get from your posts, you are saying is irrelevant.[/quote]

You're only saying that becuase it showed up in an earlier post, and I clarified myself. I tried to be nice, but I suggest you stop posting, as you have nothing to say that's worth being heard.

[Zeta]

On the contrary, I am answering your question, which I am entitled to do.

And I suggest you re-read my posts. I never said one needs a perfect grasp on their language. But again, look at it from a common sense view. If you have sentences with spelling mistakes galore, no periods at all, it is obvious you do not have a grasp on the language. Periods and spelling are some of the most common things you should be able to get right. How often to teens use the long, scientific words outside of research paper? I know I for one won't write out a word that is eleven letters long when another word that means the same thing is only five. You seem to be missing my points. Maybe I am unintelligent. Or maybe it is the other way around. Maybe you do not have a grasp on the English language.

To get to this deeper meaning thing of yours, you have to first understand what you are saying/reading. Without that ability, there is no deeper meaning. And to understand it, you have to have a grasp on the language.

Please, I am not being rude to you. I don't appreciate you being rude to me. You asked a question, I am giving you my views. I have every right to.

[Brasil]

I'm getting that Adahn is saying there's more than one type of intelligence. I find it amusing how everyone seems to be attempting to refute that. That's the general gist of the replies.

[url=http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/intell1.htm][u]Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligence[/u][/url]

It's a long-standing Educational Psychology idea, and it makes a lot of sense if people were willing to open their minds to it.

[Zeta]

He didn't make that clear enough in his post then. Which in essence comes back to my point. He didn't explain himself well enough so that others and myself can fully understand what he was trying to say. But my replies stick by what I was able to grasp from what I could understand in his post.

But again, keep in mind, that that is just a theory. There may be supporting evidence, but until it is a proven fact it isn't 100% true. I am not saying that it isn't true, but I am also saying that we can't take it as being 100% true.

If he had been much clearer in his post, I would have been able to see more than what I was seeing. From what he said I was able to ascertain that he was saying that you don't have to have a grasp on a language to be intelligent. How hard is it to add a period or a comma? He then said that things people say may have a deeper meaning to what they say, but also have poor grammatical skills. But without an understanding of the language, one cannot write "deeply", which then means someone reading it cannot understand it.

[Godelsensei]

[quote name='Adahn']This merits a response. There are those who can live their lives understanding what they are told to understand. They believe what they are told to believe. It is not one's search for intelligence that shows greater intelligence, but rather a hunger, a desire, for truth and wisdom beyond what is conventionally taught. You have to ask yourself, do you fall into this category? If you do, I have yet to see it.[/quote]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]That would be curiosity.

They're different things, though often related.

And in one of my posts I basically said I didn't buy what THE BOARD told me, so your little insult at the end is kind of pointless.

On a message board, you can't see some one's "body smarts" or "music smarts" or "art smarts" or other things of that nature.

If you catch some one's "emotion" or "self smarts" it's through their grasp of the language.

For our purposes, some one who can't post coherently isn't intelligent if they are trying to convey a message in their native tongue.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[AzureWolf]

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]On a message board, you can't see some one's "body smarts" or "music smarts" or "art smarts" or other things of that nature.

If you catch some one's "emotion" or "self smarts" it's through their grasp of the language.

For our purposes, some one who can't post coherently isn't intelligent if they are trying to convey a message in their native tongue.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Yeah, that's a very good point to point out, haha. This place is a message board: you are currently limited to expressing yourself with words. Therefore, either it's not your friends' place to post here or they have to adapt to the "unimportance" of language. I don't get how you say you welcome arguments, but then tell someone to stop talking either...

It's things like this, and responses you have made that don't help your argument. You talk about the concept of language, but then you assume that something like my post is discrete and not continuous. You'll have to look at the entire post to make sense of it, instead of assuming each paragraph can stand on its own.

Siren, he's referring to ambition or the drive to have intelligence (or [i]something[/i] *shrugs*). He never says there are other equally viable means to express one's intelligence (or be intelligent - or whatever he's trying to say).

I'll say it again, you weren't coherent, since you now see three different people with three different ideas of what you said. It doesn't matter if we are misunderstanding or you are being incoherent: there's a failure to communicate and statistics point more of the fault on your side.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Drix D'Zanth]

You guys turned an honest idea into a pretentious ego-fest. I wouldn't burninate so regularly, as Adahn is more than capable in my stead. But for the sake of a potentially rewarding discussion:

[quote name='Zeta']Intelligence is completely different from what you are saying it is. Intelligence is how you use what you learn. How you manipulate your courses knowledge to suit your needs. It is how well you can understand others, create things to better man kind. Heck, intelligence is even in war time. You have to be intelligent to create a good plan, there is nothing deep about that, heh. Creativeness does come into play there yes, but it is ulimately knowing the geography of the place, weather, etc.. All those things is knowledge which you have come across in your life, which is in turn intelligence. Which you wouldn't understand any of it if you didn't have a grasp on your language. [/quote]

How you manipulate your [i]courses[/i] knowledge to suit your needs? Intelligence is understanding? Creativity? I would argue that these are products of intelligence. What?s with the wartime comment? Are you inferring that people suddenly get stupid when it comes to conflict?

[QUOTE=Zeta]
Intelligence is the result of the knowledge that you seek out. Again I repeat, with a grasp on the language, you cannot be intelligent. It is a given fact. If someone can't understand you, how can what you are saying be deep? Without a grasp of the language to convey to the reader or whomever, they can't see if what you are saying is deep. [/QUOTE]

You?re right, without language, utilizing your intelligence is impossible. Greeks delved deep into mathematics, Romans into architecture, and Phoenicians into mercantile. They were all utilizing different languages, but they all shared the attribute of intelligence. It?s not about how other?s perceive your message as deep so much as it is a matter of self-perception. Because Descarte?s philosophy flying over your comprehension make him any less effective, or any less ?deep??

[QUOTE=Zeta]
I do not have that well of grammer. But I have a decent grasp on what I do know to convey my point clearly so that others can read and understand it. If I didn't have the grasp that I do have, everyone here would see me as unintelligent. Why? Because they can't understand me. How do you make them understand you? Get a grasp on the language. When you have that you are intelligent. The grasp of your language leads you to so many other possibilites where your "deeper" meaning has no significance. [/QUOTE]

Any idiot can read a thesaurus. No idiot can understand the nature of truth.

[QUOTE=Zeta]
Let me ask you this. Is a nuclear physicist intelligent? They use "big fluffy" words.[/QUOTE]

A nuclear physicist isn?t any more intelligent than a factory worker as far as I?m concerned. One isn?t born a PhD, but one is born smart.



[quote name='Zeta']He didn't make that clear enough in his post then. Which in essence comes back to my point. He didn't explain himself well enough so that others and myself can fully understand what he was trying to say. But my replies stick by what I was able to grasp from what I could understand in his post. [/quote]

I don?t think so Zeta. You spent a paragraph describing intelligence as being useless if no one can understand the ideas you present, and then you abase Adahn for your own misunderstandings? I didn?t have any trouble understanding what he was trying to say, I didn?t need to nitpick.

[QUOTE=Zeta]
But again, keep in mind, that that is just a theory. There may be supporting evidence, but until it is a proven fact it isn't 100% true. I am not saying that it isn't true, but I am also saying that we can't take it as being 100% true. [/QUOTE]

? So theorize, and allow the intellectuals their forum. Don?t oppose or support for the purposes of proving anything. Doesn?t sound like that was the intention in the first place.

[QUOTE=Zeta]
If he had been much clearer in his post, I would have been able to see more than what I was seeing. From what he said I was able to ascertain that he was saying that you don't have to have a grasp on a language to be intelligent. How hard is it to add a period or a comma? He then said that things people say may have a deeper meaning to what they say, but also have poor grammatical skills. But without an understanding of the language, one cannot write "deeply", which then means someone reading it cannot understand it.[/QUOTE]

Language isn?t a means to measure one?s intelligence, but his means to communicate it. That?s what I gathered. His first post seemed clear enough to me.. gosh? maybe he should dumb it down a little next time.

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]That would be curiosity.

They're different things, though often related.

And in one of my posts I basically said I didn't buy what THE BOARD told me, so your little insult at the end is kind of pointless. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I wish you guys would have approached each other?s opinions objectively rather than trying to tear each other apart for an ego trip. I don?t think what Adahn describes is as simple as curiosity. I believe the acquisition of one?s discoveries constitutes to a portion of intelligence.

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]
On a message board, you can't see some one's "body smarts" or "music smarts" or "art smarts" or other things of that nature.
If you catch some one's "emotion" or "self smarts" it's through their grasp of the language. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Like I said earlier, I?m more impressed with a well-thought simple-worded post than thesaurus-drenched piffle. It?s not the language that will win the day, it?s the wisdom.

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]
For our purposes, some one who can't post coherently isn't intelligent if they are trying to convey a message in their native tongue.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

This is a nice response to your earlier ?anyone who is illiterate should be shot, etc?. (I?m not taking this literally, please don?t misunderstand) Did you know Socrates was illiterate? Why do you think all of his dialogues were recorded by Plato? Does this make him any less intelligent than a literate Athenian? Nay, I?d say he was the WISEST man in Athens (and the world, if you count the Oracle at Delphi). His language was sufficient to convey his ideas, but his ideas were not born of his ability to communicate them. They were created from raw intelligence and wisdom. Socrates probably wouldn?t be able to post on this message board, but I would assert that he is far more intelligent than you or I are.

[quote name='AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Yeah, that's a very good point to point out, haha. This place is a message board: you are currently limited to expressing yourself with words. Therefore, either it's not your friends' place to post here or they have to adapt to the "unimportance" of language. I don't get how you say you welcome arguments, but then tell someone to stop talking either... .[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]

Since when did this become a discussion about message board intelligence? Last I checked, it was discussing the nature of intelligence (period).

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]
Siren, he's referring to ambition or the drive to have intelligence (or [i]something[/i] *shrugs*). He never says there are other equally viable means to express one's intelligence (or be intelligent - or whatever he's trying to say). [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

?Sounds like you are the one confused about post content and contiguity, Azure.

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]
I'll say it again, you weren't coherent, since you now see three different people with three different ideas of what you said. It doesn't matter if we are misunderstanding or you are being incoherent: there's a failure to communicate and statistics point more of the fault on your side.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

At fault of what, our own interpretations of his point? Don?t you get it? The interpretations we draw shouldn?t be placed upon a true/false basis, but should be examined and understood. There?s not much debating ideas if we oppose the interpretation we draw from Adahn?s initial point. Cede to your own limitations in this case and read before typing.

Here?s how I see intelligence. I don?t see it as a simple IQ, or an ability to communicate. I don?t see intelligence as the ability to articulate, or to memorize. I see intelligence as a root. Intelligence is what drives curiosity in some aspect, it?s what materializes ideas from nonexistence. I think language is a gateway that allows intelligence to be shared and nothing more. The ?fluffy word? idea is nothing more than an accommodation of that communication. I say ?behemoth? instead of ?very very very very big? because it?s [i]easier[/i] and I happen to possess the knowledge. I don?t think intelligence is an attribute endowed equally.

Here?s my question to the forum: do you think intelligence and genetics are directly linked? Related in any way?

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Heh, this looks like "my kind" of thread. So, what's the issue? Whether a tendency to try to learn is a sign of intelligence? Whether you're not intelligent if you don't have a good enough grasp on your native tongue to communicate with others?

I don't know, there's a lot of personal definitions involved here. A desire to learn isn't so much a sign of intelligence as it is a sign of a desire to be intelligent, right? Then again, it's hard to be clear on what "intelligence" really means. Adahn, give us your own, [i]concrete[/i] definition of intelligence before you try to comment on it too much. Everything you argue to us relies on a mutual agreement on the definition of intelligence.

And the language issue... well, again, being bad with languages and not being intelligent are two different things, assuming you don't define "intelligent" to be "good at verbal and written communication." ...I'm not sure how much there is to say here that hasn't already been said.

Siren is right about their being different aspects of intelligence, or different "kinds" of intelligence, whatever words you want to use. But Adahn wasn't trying to convince us of that at all, it appears.

EDIT: I posted the above before reading Drix's stuff. Anyway, his question is whether genetics and intelligence are linked. Well, sure, if you define intelligence at least in part by:
having a large mental capacity
being able to detect complex patterns in the environment
etc. (other stuff of that nature)

There's a lot of natural ability that goes into being able to learn complex (or many) things, communicate them, etc. So, yeah, intelligence is related to genetics (even if you view it strictly as "book smarts" which is what some people do).

[Zeta]

My attacks on his language are due to his post in saying that language isn't needed to be intelligent. My entire argument is based on that. He never said anything about any other languages. Read his post. He certainly wasn't talking about the language of mathematics. He was talking about the English/whatever language his friends speak due to his words of being able to express themselves, using periods, grammar, etc.

[QUOTE]How you manipulate your courses knowledge to suit your needs? Intelligence is understanding? Creativity? I would argue that these are products of intelligence. What?s with the wartime comment? Are you inferring that people suddenly get stupid when it comes to conflict?[/QUOTE]

Without a grasp of whatever language one speaks, you cannot do that. That is the point I was trying to make. Again, he said that language isn't needed to be intelligent. Going on that, you wouldn't be able to do anything. Where on Earth did you get that I was saying we get stupid in times of conflict? I was saying that intelligence is used in wartime. Without a grasp of the language to begin with, you won?t be able to read a map. You won?t be able to understand what geographical terms mean. Things like that. You dig? That doesn?t mean we are stupid. But it means that without those qualities of being able to understand your language you can?t do that. It was just an example. I could have said anything in its place, it was just the first thing that popped into my head.

If you can't read, you can't do math problems. How will you know how 2 is spelled? Or pronounced? How will you know how to describe your findings to future generations? You have to have a grasp on your language to do anything.



[QUOTE]A nuclear physicist isn?t any more intelligent than a factory worker as far as I?m concerned. One isn?t born a PhD, but one is born smart.[/QUOTE]

You put a physicist up to a factory worker, which is smarter? Throughout all the years of seeking knowledge through reading and practicing, they have become intelligent. Without the ability to understand the language, neither of them would be where they are. In a lot of cases, why does one become a factory work? Because they didn't do well i n school perhaps? Possibly because they didn't grasp their language to pass English/language class. Or possibly they failed to pass a mathematics class because of the word problems? The given number problems aren't what you see in real life. You see things you have to read and language is needed for that.

[QUOTE]I don?t think so Zeta. You spent a paragraph describing intelligence as being useless if no one can understand the ideas you present, and then you abase Adahn for your own misunderstandings? I didn?t have any trouble understanding what he was trying to say; I didn?t need to nitpick.[/QUOTE]

I said it is useless if one doesn?t know have a grasp on their language. Why did I misunderstand his topic? Because he wasn't clear enough for me. He failed to lay out his views in a concise manner. I am not trying to say he is stupid or anything, because he isn't. He came up with a good topic, but could have been clearer. Had he said what Siren said he believes he is talking about from the get go, I wouldn't have even shown my face in here. From what I was able to understand from his post, was that he was talking about the language that you speak and write to communicate with others, in mediums such as books, posts, etc. He never even once mentioned any other type of language. How was I to know he even had an inkling that there are other languages unless he was clear enough, which he wasn't.

[QUOTE]Language isn?t a means to measure one?s intelligence, but his means to communicate it. That?s what I gathered. His first post seemed clear enough to me.. gosh? maybe he should dumb it down a little next time.[/QUOTE]

If you are fully aware, or have a nice, firm grasp on the knowledge how can you communicate with people? You have to understand it to use it. Again my entire series of posts here is based on what he presented. Which was that language (he even said earlier it concerned things such as periods, grammatical errors, etc.) is what he was talking about.

Obviously if two people out of the whole (not including the poster) were able to grasp what he meant, means that it wasn't clear enough. He never even [i]mentions[/i] any other type of language. He was talking about the English/whatever language you speak type of language, clearly given by his talking about periods, grammatical things, etc.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Adahn']If a person does not have a perfect grasp on what is commonly recognized as necessary to present thoughts and ideas, does that make that person or that person's posts unintelligent? I think that, if anything, it makes them more intelligent.[/quote]

Call me crazy, but I don't see how anyone doesn't realize what Adahn is saying here. He's talking about various types of intelligence. His first focus is on a deficient Verbal Intelligence, but through a drive to learn, to interact, etc, that person develops another intelligence:

[quote]Their desire to know is so great that they will suffer the hardships of being misunderstood or pointed out as less than perfectly literate to get their ideas across for their own benefit, and the benefit of others.[/quote]

This right here is focusing on Emotional Intelligence, or Interpersonal/Intrapersonal Intelligence, the interest and desire to interact, to discuss, to connect with people.

All it takes is some reading between the lines, and some good ole fashioned reading comprehension. Adahn's been talking about Multiple Intelligence the entire time, lol.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Seeing as he desribes this emotional intelligence as "more intelligent" than verbal intelligence, without actually stating that he's making the comparison between two different kinds of intelligence (Siren you DID perhaps infer too much; Adahn hasn't confirmed your statements), I don't think his point is that there's different kinds of intelligence. From his post it is more reasonable to infer that he has his own definition of the general term, a definition not many others here share.

[Zeta]

But again, in my mind he wasn't clear enough to get his post out to everyone. Others and myself failed to see that. Which means he could have been a little bit clearer about what he was talking about. Which is what I have been heading towards with my posts.

[QUOTE]If a person does not have a perfect grasp on what is commonly recognized as necessary to present thoughts and ideas, does that make that person or that person's posts unintelligent? I think that, if anything, it makes them more intelligent.[/QUOTE]

Without the means to express ones intelligence, language, how are we to know you are intelligent? Language is in essence all that it boils down to. Without knowing what something means, or how to use a certain word, others won't be able to tell that you are intelligent. That it what my whole argument over the language was for. Without it you aren't able to show your intelligence to others. He was saying that it basically has to relevance at all. If he didn't mean that, he obviously wasn't clear enough in presenting his ideas. Two of you that are able to get it, doesn't mean he was clear enough for the whole. This is exactly as I was getting at. Besides, he was talking about posts.[b]does that make that person or that person's posts unintelligent?[/b] Posts are writing. It is hard to explain emotion in just words. So when one says posts, I think about reading and writing. Not the language of mathematics.

Now that I look back on it, I myself may have not been clear enough. I readily admitted to not being perfect in my language skills, but I have a decent grasp on it. My views may have possibly not been clear enough though. The sentence talking about posts is what leads my entire argument. If you don't have a grasp on the language you are writing/speaking, there is no way for someone sitting on a computer in his/her room to tell if one is intelligent or not. If you mispell words that are very easy to spell, or grammatical mistakes that are obvious such as periods, we tend to believe this person isn't intelligent.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Seeing as he desribes this emotional intelligence as "more intelligent" than verbal intelligence, without actually stating that he's making the comparison between two different kinds of intelligence (Siren you DID perhaps infer too much; Adahn hasn't confirmed your statements), I don't think his point is that there's different kinds of intelligence. From his post it is more reasonable to infer that he has his own definition of the general term, a definition not many others here share.[/quote]

My dear Sciros, his evaluation and appraisal of the use of Emotional Intelligence is irrelevant to the fact that he is discussing Multiple Intelligence. From the moment he places one type above the other, he's using the Multiple Intelligence theory. He may not have realized precisely what it was, but his focus was the exact same as the Multiple Intelligence focus: that there is more than one type of intelligence.

If he didn't believe there to be more than one type, and thus not subscribing to Multiple Intelligence, he would not have been able to make the comparison, because he would have seen no distinction between the two, objectively or subjectively.

[quote name='Zeta']Posts are writing. It is hard to explain emotion in just words.[/quote]

Zeta, I'd advise you to re-think that, lol. I'm not even going to bring in entire Literary Canons that would break that claim of yours, instead, I'm simply going to refer you to things like Kill Adam, various pieces in OB Anthology from Shinmaru, Lady A, Arcadia, myself, Lore, etc.

Explaining emotion in just words isn't hard. It's only daunting to those inexperienced writers/readers.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=Siren]My dear Sciros, his evaluation and appraisal of the use of Emotional Intelligence is irrelevant to the fact that he is discussing Multiple Intelligence. From the moment he places one type above the other, he's using the Multiple Intelligence theory. He may not have realized precisely what it was, but his focus was the exact same as the Multiple Intelligence focus: that there is more than one type of intelligence.

If he didn't believe there to be more than one type, and thus not subscribing to Multiple Intelligence, he would not have been able to make the comparison, because he would have seen no distinction between the two, objectively or subjectively.[/QUOTE]
Adahn didn't really make a comparison though. You're the one who differentiated between kinds of intelligence for him. His post did not imply multiple intelligence. He simply said that someone who seeks knowledge can be more intelligent than someone who possesses knowledge. Really, that's all he said. I'd like to see him confirm your interpretation before this is discussed any further. You cannot convince me with inference and speculation in this case.