Intelligence

[Zeta]

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

Which is what most people are. I never said it was impossible, just that it was hard. There are a lot of inexperienced writers/readers out there. The same goes for experienced as well. Though many people on forums are just your "average" writer who learns and uses only what they learn in basic English class. I know I am not among the experienced class of writers

I agree with Sciros. The comparison wasn't made in his post. Siren, your reading between the lines part is what gets me. Had he been clear enough in the first place, we wouldn't have had to read between the lines. Which is what I have been saying. Be clear to begin with by having a firm grasp on ones language to get his/her point across without someone misinterpreting it.

Since all this has been said, you have to realize that he is going to come back into the post saying that what Siren/Drix brought up is what he actually meant.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Adahn didn't really make a comparison though.[/quote]

[quote name='Adahn]if anything, it makes them [b]more[/b'] intelligent[/quote]

[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=more][u]Definition of "more"[/u][/url]

That's not a comparison?

[quote]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.[/quote]

I didn't differentiate between anything. I merely provided the actual terms used. He made the distinction between two different types of intelligence. If he hadn't, there would have been no comparison made, and there was a comparison made.

[quote]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.[/QUOTE]

There's very, very little inference and absolutely no speculation here. What I'm saying is fact. Adahn was making a distinction between two different types of intelligence, comparing them, but simply just not using the specific terminology, the specific terminology that I subsequently provided when everyone was blatantly misinterpreting his point. What is there in my posts to argue with?

Zeta, considering that I pinpointed the precise sentence/excerpt where Adahn explicitly states his point, and clearly draws a comparison between two clearly different types of intelligence, how is he not being clear? lol And I'm not even talking from the perspective of an experienced writer/reader, either. The part I quoted, the part that everyone could have read, is incredibly easy to understand, even from a laymen's point of view.

[Delta]

[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=1]
[quote name='Zeta'] 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]
DISCLAIMER: If you find my post incoherent, here is an explanation: I usually score high in Spatial Intelligence but am a dunce in Verbal Intelligence. I find making fake blood from potassium thiocyanide or constructing auxiliary views of 3-dimensional objects easier than (what you consider as) the simple task of placing commas.
Hail Siren for bringing up the multiple intelligences theory!

[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.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
But the ability of the writer to create mental images which will further, hooom... "flower" his works depends very much on spatial intelligence. Let's see... Here I present a painter who?s known for his god-like manipulation of oils and tints. Some would say that the outcome of his works depends on his skill in painting; still others would say that it is his eye for beauty that brings soul to his creations.

Which side is right?

Without his skill in painting, he could not paint (um, I'm very sure I need to rephrase that..). Without his eye for beauty, he could not see what is goodly-looking and fair. Analogous to verbal and spatial intelligences, respectively. One without the other produces a lacking painting. Members need some level of the different intelligences to provide a good post. A good grasp of a language just means that you score high in verbal intelligence; it says little of the other intelligences.

[quote name='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]
Yes, somehow there's a failure of communication between the thread starter and the members who replied. It?s no one?s fault. We may have taken it from different points of view brought about by our different backgrounds. Oh, English isn?t my first language; if I posted in my native tongue, I doubt it?ll make any sense to most members. XD

[quote name='Drix D?Zanth'] 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]
*hoots and applauds for 15 minutes*

Intelligence, for me, sets the amount of time it takes for us to understand ideas. I believe that the reason why we are not able to grasp some concepts is because our intelligences in different subjects are set at different levels. I do not expect the greatest nuclear physicist to be capable of satisfactorily analyzing ?The Cask of Amontillado? for a college English teacher. XD

Intelligence doesn?t measure your desire for truth and knowledge. It measures what you already have: your strengths. Intelligence results in intelligible posts but wisdom produces good ones.
[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[James]

[color=#707875]Erm, I don't really want to get into the broader debate here, but I did want to contribute one point.

I tend to agree that knowledge does not equate to intelligence. You can posess much knowledge (and regurgitate that information), without either understanding it or being able to analyze it.

I think that The Matrix is actually a good example when it comes to discussing intelligence. I was talking to my mother about it the other day (we have a lot of Matrix-related discussions) and I said to her that when I talk to people about the films, they often say that Reloaded was their least favourite, but that Revolutions was slightly better and the original Matrix was the best.

I think this is because the first film holds your hand all the way through. It forms conclusions and it satisfies the audience, without requiring too much thought or analysis.

Reloaded is the complete opposite -- it throws dozens upon dozens of concepts and tidbits of information at the audience, but makes very little attempt to hold the audience's hand and clearly resolve these issues. There are only two real "resolutions" in the story -- The Merovingian and The Architect. What each one says is incredibly important. The Merovingian's discussion in the restaurant actually explains the underlying deception of the prophecy [i]well before[/i] the Architect appears. But nobody picks that up.

I said to my mother that this was my greatest frustration -- not so much that these films aren't appreciated, but more that nobody makes any effort to understand them.

I believe that what I've said about these films can also relate to many other kinds of media, or really any situation in life. If an answer is not immediately apparent -- if something leaves you confused -- you can either bury your head in the sand and say "that was awful, it made no sense", or you can attempt to investigate and reason things out.

I think that reasoning things out, and making an attempt to work your way through the clues, is a sign of intelligence.

However, I think you can be intelligent (ie: you can have the ability to do these things), but still not make the effort to actually go out there and expand your understanding.

I would say, in that context, that understanding and knowledge are not necessarily the same thing. But I do agree that the ability to seek knowledge is more important than the ability to simply hold or retain knowledge (which is really what my post is about, in a longwinded fashion).[/color]

[Zeta]

Which brings me back to my entire basis for my posts. Had he been clear and concise in the beginning, this problem would never have arisen. Had he had a firmer grasp on the language, he would have been able to present his views to us in an easy to read and understand fashion. I am not trying to sound rude, but from the way I look at that, he isn't intelligent in this sense. He may have purposefully worded it that way or he may not have. But from the way he worded it, I figure he doesn't have as strong a grasp on the language that would allow others to understand his posts. Which means he isn't as intelligent as lets say you Siren who was able to understand what he meant, obviously because of your higher amount of knowledge concerning this subject. Had he been clear in the first place, this would have never been misunderstood.

[QUOTE]DISCLAIMER: If you find my post incoherent, here is an explanation: I usually score high in Spatial Intelligence but am a dunce in Verbal Intelligence. I find making fake blood from potassium thiocyanide or constructing auxiliary views of 3-dimensional objects easier than (what you consider as) the simple task of placing commas.[/QUOTE]

Adding a period is a hard task nowadays? Coming from someone who may have been unfortunate to get a decent education I can understand, but from someone who knows lots about chemistry (I'm assuming you are talking about it, I did horrible in that class)? How do you get others to repeat your work? How can you read what others have written to perform your own tasks? It all comes back to the language skills one has to make it possible for one to repeat an experiment. I never said that there weren't other forms of intelligence. But from the way I see it, it all boils down to your language. Without a grasp on it strong enough to get you through what you need, you really can't do anything. How can one expected to be a chemist if they don't write down their procedure in a clear and concise manner?

[QUOTE]I would say, in that context, that understanding and knowledge are not necessarily the same thing. But I do agree that the ability to seek knowledge is more important than the ability to simply hold or retain knowledge (which is really what my post is about, in a longwinded fashion).[/QUOTE]

Isn't an understanding of the English language basically that though? Without a grip on that, all that you learn is pointless to you. You will have no need for it since you won't understand it. The English/whatever language makes it possible for one to be intelligent. Without it you just have a jumbled pile of facts. When you can understand what it means by using whichever language you speak/prefer you can move onto other things.

I am still amazed with what eternity said. My physics and chemistry teachers have pounded into your brains to be good in English so as to allow others to read and understand our procedure, not having to read between the lines as Siren said. I thought that one would be able to place commas or periods in a physics/chemistry class. It is essential. Without them you have no clue what to actually do. It could say put two grams of whatever into the beaker stirring with the water mixture while adding grams of another thing. Now I don't know about you, but a step in a procedure like that would freak me out. I would have no clue what to do. Had it read "put two grams into the beaker, stirring it in the water mixture. Then add another two grams of whatever." That would be a clear and concise procedure. That I could follow the other way I could not.

Your language is an essential part to being intelligent. In AP US History last year my teacher was "up in our grill" about writing essays that will answer the question, and not just regurgitate what we know. Had we not known the language it would be a mess of just thoughts, run-on sentences, and fragments. Of course that would be the case only if we could actually read the language. How is one able to get a decent job without a grasp of their language? They will have to create a resume, talk to customers and everything that a language is needed for. How can you be intelligent in any way without a grasp of your language? Everything requires language.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Let's not decide for him, though, fellas. You're treating this as if it's "case closed" before the thread starter himself gets a chance to add anything. Siren, "more intelligent" is not a comparison of intelligences in the context you borrowed that expression from. Return it, lol. As for this support in favor of multiple intelligences, well you're not necessarily arguing against anyone in this thread. Adahn though seemed to speak about intelligence in its general sense, but basing its level on something very specific. That is what invited opposition.
So, again, until Adahn tells us that he was making a distinction between aspects of intelligence (which would actually conflict with the "more intelligent" expression if you think about it), there's no reason to futher discuss this.

[Delta]

[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=1]
But then we'll have nothing to talk about, won't we? *giggles*

I've a question: Are knowledge and intelligence related? If, for example, it is said that person A is more knowledgeable in a field than person B, does it mean that person A is more intelligent?

Love and Peace!
[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]Siren, "more intelligent" is not a comparison of intelligences in the context you borrowed that expression from. Return it, lol. As for this support in favor of multiple intelligences, well you're not necessarily arguing against anyone in this thread. Adahn though seemed to speak about intelligence in its general sense, but basing its level on something very specific. That is what invited opposition.

So, again, until Adahn tells us that he was making a distinction between aspects of intelligence (which would actually conflict with the "more intelligent" expression if you think about it), there's no reason to futher discuss this.[/quote]

Why do I get the feeling that you've ignored my previous posts? I'm going to repeat what I've said previously:

[quote=Siren]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:

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

[quote name='Adahn']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]

Now, if you've studied Educational Psych, Educational Theory, Multiple Intelligence, etc, on any basic level, you will see a remarkable similarity between what Adahn said above, and what Emotional Intelligence relates to. Furthermore, because he used "more intelligent" when discussing those two different types of intelligence (they [i]are[/i] different types, Sciros, regardless of what you want to believe here), he was comparing intelligences in the context I "borrowed [the] expression from."

To deny it further is denying the facts.

And it's not that I'm arguing against anyone here; I'm just correcting a mass misinterpretation.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Lol, whatever. Unless he was talking about multiple intelligences (which you fit his post to, not the other way around mind you), which he hasn't confirmed, you are just making assumptions. Either he was saying what you are, or he was saying something very questionable, yes. But don't give him the benefit of the doubt just yet.

[Sara]

[color=#ff6600]The veiled insults can stop right now, please. Please, let's keep this friendly...or at least polite. -Lore[/color]

[size=1]Siren, love, a gentle reminder that the [i]vast[/i] majority of the board has [i]not[/i] "studied Educational Psych, Educational Theory, Multiple Intelligence, etc, on any basic level." ...and they don't necessarily want (or need) a lecture. [/size]

[quote name='Adahn]I am proposing that there is more significance to the word ["intelligence"'] than most people can understand, and that it is worth investigating.[/quote] [size=1]Okay. I just wanted to quote that. It seems like a decent summary of the topic at hand, and I think I need that to keep myself on track, here.[/size]

[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. 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]

[size=1][b] If a person [u]does not have a perfect grasp on what is[/u] commonly recognized as [u]necessary to present thoughts and ideas[/u], does that make that person or that person's posts unintelligent? I think that, if anything, [u]it makes them more intelligent[/u].[/b]

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

I've underlined the points here that caught my attention.

To me, it seems that you are saying that being [b]unable to present one's ideas makes a person more intelligent than one who can effectively communicate.[/b] I really don't understand where you're coming from here. I can see how you'd say it [i]doesn't[/i] make a person [i]less[/i] intelligent, but...more?

Siren, you say that he's comparing different types of intelligence. I understand some of what you're saying, but I don't understand how you're getting all this from his post. He doesn't say anything about different kinds of intelligence--he claims that intelligence has nothing to do with a grasp of language, not that one [i]kind [/i]of intelligence outweighs another.[/size]

[quote name='Siren']This right here is focusing on Emotional Intelligence, or Interpersonal/Intrapersonal Intelligence, the interest and desire to interact, to discuss, to connect with people.[/quote][size=1]...Connecting with people while being unable to effectively communicate?

This is the part that really bothers me: "They will suffer the hardships of being misunderstood...to get their ideas across." If you're being misunderstood--no matter how intelligent (by [i]any[/i] definition) you are, you [i]are not getting your ideas across.[/i]

I think... *frowns* I'm not trying to say that ability to communicate ideas equates intelligence, exactly. But I think being able to do that is extremely important, and if no one understands you, no else one is gaining anything. [/size]

[quote=Drix]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 easier and I happen to possess the knowledge. I don?t think intelligence is an attribute endowed equally.
[/quote][size=1]*nods* Okay, followed. I also read your Plato/Socrates comparison, and I'm still working on how to word my response to that.

And if no one minds, I'd like the answers to my questions to be effectively communicated...however that may reflect the intelligences involved. ^_~[/size]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Lore']Siren, love, a gentle reminder that the vast majority of the board has not "studied Educational Psych, Educational Theory, Multiple Intelligence, etc, on any basic level." ...and they don't necessarily want (or need) a lecture.[/quote]

I know this, Sara, but sometimes, people need to be educated about the particulars of a topic. Otherwise, they're not going to be able to talk about it with any reasonable depth or accuracy, similar to No Child Left Behind, eh?

Okay, you had asked a few questions regarding some things here. My source here is the following:

[url=http://www.users.muohio.edu/shermalw/mi_gardnernew98.html][u]Definitions and analysis of Multiple Intelligence[/u][/url]

[quote]Siren, you say that he's comparing different types of intelligence. I understand some of what you're saying, but I don't understand how you're getting all this from his post. He doesn't say anything about different kinds of intelligence--he claims that intelligence has nothing to do with a grasp of language, not that one kind of intelligence outweighs another.[/quote]

Yes, I'm saying he's comparing and discussing different types of intelligence. I'd like to call our attention to the following:

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

Now, while his comparison of "more intelligent" may be a bit off (though, we may see later that it's actually not so skewed), he is making a distinction between two different types of intelligence. We read the first paragraph there, where he talks about someone who does not have a perfect grasp on "conventional" methods of communication. This deals with interaction. The person Adahn is describing isn't quite "with it" when it comes to talking/interacting with people. To put it in a nutshell, these people lack social skills.

These "social skills" are also known as Emotional Intelligences, a sub-division of which is Inter-personal Intelligence, which is "the capacity to understand and interact effectively with others."

Inter-personal Intelligence, however, is only one out of approximately 8 different Intelligences. Let's examine Adahn's second paragraph there, where he talks about the person's thirst for knowledge, and the drive:

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

This "desire to know" is an interesting idea, because it does not relate to anything regarding Inter-personal Intelligence. If we look at the Inter-personal Intelligence qualities, there is no mention made of any driving motivation to seek a greater knowledge. The Inter-personal Intelligence is External, as it were. It deals with those around the individual.

The Internal Emotional Intelligence is [i]Intra[/u]-personal Intelligence, the characteristics of which are heavily, heavily focused on self-reflection, metacognition, and deep emotional/intellectual/cognitive processes. This is the "desire to know" that Adahn was talking about. It's a drive--a thirst--for knowledge, and last year, when I was heavily involved in this Intra-personal development, most here can attest to the fact that I seemed very, very "out there."

But even though I was acting like I had gone crazy, gone off the deep end, as it were, I was actually bettering myself, and enhancing my knowledge and understanding of my self. And after I had trained myself further in the Intra-personal Intelligence, I was better off, because I better understood myself, and how I worked. Then, I was able to assist others in this. Actually, just this past Fall, in fact, I met with a classmate once a week to help her better cope with stress.

So, it (Intra-personal Intelligence, what Adahn was describing) appears to be a useful tool when it comes to improving lives, and those who study Metacognition and the various other functions of that particular discipline of Multiple Intelligence do improve themselves, which could be likened to becoming "more" intelligent than those around them.

Now, I'd like to briefly (because it's getting to be 4 am) talk about Verbal/Linguistic Intelligence, which "consists of the ability to think in words and to use language to express and appreciate complex meanings."

I think V/L Intelligence can be applied to both types of Emotional Intelligence, actually, but there is a slight difference in the application.

If you look at those various authors listed under V/L Intelligence, you'll notice there's a fairly wide range of styles, from Dr. Seuss to Franz Kafka, to James Joyce, E.E. Cummings, Poe, even Tolkien.

Though I may anger some LOTR fans here, Seuss fans, and Poe fans, those authors' ideas are relatively simple and easily accessible when compared to the likes of Joyce, Kafka, and Cummings. I don't think one can say that The Cat In The Hat is on the same level of complexity of say, Finnegan's Wake or Ulysses.

This distinction is where the differences between Inter-personal and Intra-personal Intelligences are important.

It's not unreasonable to say that Seuss or Tolkien is much more Inter-personal, while Joyce and Cummings adhere more to Intra-personal Intelligences.

I look at it this way: you can give Cat In The Hat to a 4th grader and they'll read it themselves for the most part. You give that same 4th grader a copy of Finnegan's Wake, and they'll freak. Same goes for something by Socrates. Socrates was put on trial for saying something others couldn't understand, yet he didn't back down. From what I've heard, he was actually pretty indignant when he was on trial, insulting the jury and so forth. It's not that his ideas were bunk, either; they're actually very astute observations about the nature of society and so forth, and are still pretty relevant today.

I'm going to say two more things, then I'm off to bed.

One...sometimes, the world just isn't ready for something. Usually, that something is a higher level of thinking. You can see this throughout history, and see it in this thread, actually. Some people just aren't ready for certain types of Philosophy and approaches to the world. This isn't a bad thing, necessarily, but it is unfortunate. I think that's where Adahn's comments are coming from, actually: some people are just ahead of everyone else, but their ideas get minimized because they don't know how to express them appropriately (the Inter-personal Intelligence).

Two...an example I'd use for the duality of the Inter-personal vs Intra-personal is...a "Yes-Man" versus Socrates.

I hope I answered your questions? :)

[Adahn]

Ok, then. I'm faced with many comments, and I have ten minutes before I need to go to class, so I'll try to make this quick. My original post was based on the discovery that I equated all intelligence with verbal intelligence. Suddenly realizing this and feeling wrong about it, I tried to express myself here. I would like to thank Siren, especially, for showing me the theory of multiple intelligences. It is essentially what I was looking for, and on more than one occasion I've found myself partially describing theories I'd never heard of, but existed nonetheless. I'd like to thank everyone who came to my defense (I was getting hurt!), because it has renewed my faith in the goodness of Otakuboards. I would be happy to reply further, and don't want this thread to die. When I have more time, I'll try and defend myself against those who haven't been contradicted by Siren, who is very obviously (at least to me) the most knowledgeable person on the topic. I think I will reply to my own post and nitpick every sentence, because when I'm trying to discover new truths, I tend not to write anything insignificant. Following that, or even during, Drix's suggestion that a debate be spawned over genetics' relation to intelligence would prove an interesting topic. But, don't wait up for me, what I will attempt to do with my own post may prove difficult and time-consuming. I'd also like to thank all those who heartily disagreed with me, as it causes me to think about what I was trying to say initially, and allows me to question what my own thoughts, beliefs, and opinions are on the topic at hand.

[Delta]

[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=1]
[QUOTE=Zeta]Adding a period is a hard task nowadays? Coming from someone who may have been unfortunate to get a decent education I can understand, but from someone who knows lots about chemistry (I'm assuming you are talking about it, I did horrible in that class)? How do you get others to repeat your work? How can you read what others have written to perform your own tasks? It all comes back to the language skills one has to make it possible for one to repeat an experiment. I never said that there weren't other forms of intelligence. But from the way I see it, it all boils down to your language. Without a grasp on it strong enough to get you through what you need, you really can't do anything. How can one expected to be a chemist if they don't write down their procedure in a clear and concise manner?
...How can you be intelligent in any way without a grasp of your language? Everything requires language[/Quote]

Point taken. I think I've misunderstood your post. I am pretty flattered that you take me as someone good in chemistry but am still having trouble with commas. Perhaps the IQ tests lied. Perhaps the only thing I'm having trouble with is deciding where to place punctuation marks. How do I get others to repeat my work? Simple:
1) through demonstration or
2) I just let my lab partner/secretary write the procedures down. Consider me lucky to have such a goodly lab partner

They featured a boy genius in Discovery Channel who, before reaching the age of 10, had a measured IQ of 268 (or some 200+ number)! He got straight A's in his subjects (read: college courses). Only thing is that he finds it difficult converse with spoken word. He has to first write his replies/speech and then read it. It's not that he has poor interpersonal skills, it's just that his brain can't properly string together words for speech. Still, his written works sound like they have been written by some brilliant college professor.

We're complete opposites, I think.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Here?s my question to the forum: do you think intelligence and genetics are directly linked? Related in any way?[/quote]
[QUOTE]In 1955, Albert Einstein's brain was preserved for research. Three scientific papers have been published examining the features of Einstein's brain. Albert Einstein's brain differed to normal men's brain in that his brain had more glial cells per neuron that might indicate that neurons in Einstein's brain had an increased "metabolic need"-- they needed and used more energy. Einstein's brain weighed only 1,230 grams, which is less than the average adult male brain (about 1,400 grams). The thickness of Einstein's cerebral cortex was thinner. However, the density of neurons in Einstein's brain was greater. In other words, Einstein was able to pack more neurons in a given area of cortex.

The most recent study concerning Einstein's brain was published in the British medical journal The Lancet, on June 19, 1999. They found that a portion of the brain that governs mathematical abilities and spatial reasoning -- 2 key ingredients to the sort of thinking Einstein did best -- was 15% wider than average allowing better connection between its cells, which could have allowed them to work together more efficiently.[/QUOTE]
[RIGHT][URL=http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JacquelineLing.shtml][SIZE=2]-Jacqueline Ling[/SIZE][/URL][/RIGHT]

After reading that, I would have to answer "probably". Hey, Biology people, is it right to say that if it's related to the body's anatomy then it could be linked to genetics (either a mutation or just good genes)?
[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Adahn]

Here's my critique.

[QUOTE=Adahn]
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.[/QUOTE]

I am a very, very impressionable person. I was raised intellectually by my teachers and peers, who very much respected good verbality and dialogue, and stressed perfection in those disciplines to the extent that I judged others by those skills alone.

[QUOTE=Adahn]
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.
[/QUOTE]

This was the most difficult part for me to explain, and seemed to cause the most confusion, so I'll attempt to clear it up. To me, intelligence cannot be found in books, and is not something someone can seek actively only for the purpose of being intelligent. To me, intelligence is to seek knowledge not in the works of other, but through the processes of one's own mind. This seeking must be driven not by the desire for intelligence or knowledge, but an insatiable hunger for truth. Intelligence can only be gained internally, not taken from the minds of others. When someone comes across a theory he's never heard of, but has been well-developed, does that make it any less of a discovery? There are those that don't hunger for truth, and they coast through their lives accepting what they are told and die without truly having lived. I simply cannot live my life being fed by others. Intelligence is picking up your own spoon and feeding yourself. Other people may be eating the same food, but it's your hand that's cramming it into your face, not theirs.

[QUOTE=Adahn]
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.[/QUOTE]

This is merely another an expansion on my own fault that up until yesterday after chemistry class had dominated my perception of others, and myself. I am saying that I, personally, connected imperfect grammar with a lack of intelligence. The bit about practicality emphasizes my earlier point that real truth cannot be found outside the complexities of one's own mind.

[QUOTE=Adahn]
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.[/QUOTE]

This essentially means that I've thought of people as intelligent only because of their mastery over the language. This is why I hate politicians. Their art is language, and they use this art so craftily that most people are impressed by their words, though they show a complete lack of meaning and intelligence. (vents angrily at politicians, shaking his fist)

[QUOTE=Adahn]
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?[/QUOTE]

This is me egging people on, plain and simple. I love competition more than I can describe. (tries to describe) (fails)

[QUOTE=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. 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 is the sensitive area of my post. I can't help but think that if any of you people were in a fight, you'd kick your opponents square in the nuts, because that is how this feels. This ties into what I didn't explain well enough earlier; that a hunger for truth which overwhelms all obstacles is a sign of what I've come to see as intelligence, but I think I have a new idea.

[QUOTE=Adahn]
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.[/QUOTE]

This is me asking to get kicked in the nuts some more (puts some ice on).

[QUOTE=Adahn]
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.[/QUOTE]

This is just personal stuff, no need to explain anything.

Anyways, through my critique, I've come up with a new idea. Is there a word for what I describe, an insatiable hunger for truth that can only be satisfied by contemplation of one's own mind? Perhaps intelligence was only the closest word to what I was trying to describe. If there isn't a word, I propose that we invent a new one. It should also fall under the category of "virtues", because it seems a very good thing to me. Anyway, my original post was basically a critique of my own misconceptions, and your replies refuted my critique, so, thanks for supporting me? (gets confused). Feel free to critique my critique, which will cause me to critique this critique of my original critique. (stops talking for fear of giving himself a headache)

[Drix D'Zanth]

Please make this the last time I need to post on this:
[quote name='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]

*sigh* You don?t get it? no one is any less intelligent based on his ability to use language. He?s just less able to USE his intelligence. You don?t become smarter upon talking, or reading a book.. your intelligence just permits a permeation of that knowledge! Get it now?


[QUOTE=Zeta]
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]

Sure, language is important to share ideas. But the ideas, as long as someone has a grasp on them, conceptually DO NOT REQUIRE A LANGUAGE! Granted, you can?t share them and the community will never learn of your genius.


[QUOTE=Zeta]
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]

That?s why college admissions and standardized tests can be ********. I?ve got a real life example: my dad. My dad worked in a factory for a couple years because he didn?t do so well in high school. He hated his high school. He was so ill prepared for college that he didn?t bother applying. Today my dad?s an Orthopedic Surgeon. He?s had over a decade of high-quality schooling. Why? Did he suddenly become intelligent within those two years? No, but he did grow up. He did realize his potential. That potential IS intelligence. No amount of doctorates is going to prove to me that you are so much more intelligent than any factory worker. It?s all about [i]application[/i] of one?s intelligence that matters. Now? I?m not saying that ANYONE can become a genius or surgeon. I?m just saying their possibilities aren?t limited to their current professions.

Consider this.. you get the nuclear physicist and factory worker on a show of jeopardy and the three categories are ?Beer-induced slang, equipment euphemisms,? and ?specifics of the mill-press?; what does that tell anyone about their intelligence?

[QUOTE=Zeta]
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. [/QUOTE]

? Zeta the only failure was yours to observe his opinions objectively enough to comprehend them.

[QUOTE=Zeta]
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. [/QUOTE]

Maybe it means two people are just not quite intelligent enough to review his points? I said earlier? if 50 people don?t understand quanta mechanics and 1 does, does that make quantum mechanics any less intelligent or effective? Perhaps? but it doesn?t mean quantum mechanics should be dumbed-down so everyone could understand it.


Thanks for continuing the discussion concerning genetics, though!Applauds to eternity, Siren, Sciros, Sara, and James for actually regarding this discussion with some sort of useful imput!

I do belive genetics and intelligence are related when referring to raw capability, and nerve function. If you think about it, a single neuron has a dramatic impact on the entire way processes in the brain are handled. As for the mass of Einstein's brain; I would be concerned to see if his death has anything to do with a decreased brain mass. Was the solution his brain was preserved in (probably an ethanol fermeyldahide) decreasing the water-weight usually associated with brain tissue? I would adress that.

I wonder on the note of photographic memories. My best friend has a photographic memory, and raw inteliigence I've never seen before in anyone I've ever known. Sure, I could bend my rhetroic and fluxuate my voice to appear more human in a debate, but he would pwn me on the points if I didn't know what I was talking about. He will always be smarter than me, and I have to work a lot harder if I want to "keep up " with him. Luckily I know I'm smart enough to achieve my wanted career, and he knows he is also intelligent enough to do practically anything.

Are anomolies such as photographic memory, and unexplained genius hereditary or a matter of genetic manipulation during meiosis? Anyone have thoughts? How bout you, Erik?

[Adahn]

Ok now, here's what I think of genetics and intelligence. My sister and I are remarkably similar. She has the same problems I had when I was her age, thought the same things, gets the same grades, has the same kind of friends, won the same spelling bees, sees herself the same way, and is basically a female me 6 years ago. We both happen to share a photographic memory and a need to understand the importance of our existence. When I talk to her, I feel like I'm talking to myself (yes, it does freak me out, seeing as she's 12). My brother, on the other hand, is completely unlike us in every way. Neither of us are extremely similar to either one of our parents in any way. The combination of my mother's and father's genes have spawned what we are, and basing my conclusion off of the similarities between Alix (my sister) and myself, I must say that genetics has a tremendous role in the determination of intelligence. (thinks of his creepy little sister, who demands to be called "Melix") She also trusts me more than anyone, loves me dearly, and will tell me things she wouldn't even consider telling anyone else. (loves his little Melix) It's sort of like having a mini-me, except for obvious physiological differences. Lastly, I assert that everything I've told you is true, and if you saw the way we talk to each other, it would creep you out because the words come from the same heart and mind. Meh, I'm done.

[Zeta]

I wasn't looking at it in a way or being outside these forums, or any forums for that matter, as I stated above. He specifically talked about two of his friends who had posts that no longer post here because they do not have a grasp on their language. As I said in one of my other posts, if someone comes onto these forums with less than a decent knowledge of their language they are branded as "n00bs" who aren't intelligent. They are then possibly banned, or allowed to stay and improve. My whole basis for my argument was on this idea of someone coming into these or any forums with rules such as here going "hi, Im n3w hear, wut do u do 2 post?" I've seen it countless times where people such as that are branded as stupid and are banned as a result; not saying it has happened here, I am not sure.

I openly admitted to not fully understanding his original post. Now that he has clarified it up in one of his, I no longer have that problem. Had he done that in the first place, I wouldn't have even started on this.

[QUOTE]*sigh* You don?t get it? no one is any less intelligent based on his ability to use language. He?s just less able to USE his intelligence. You don?t become smarter upon talking, or reading a book.. your intelligence just permits a permeation of that knowledge! Get it now?[/QUOTE]

Without reading/writing how will you even be aware of ideas? How will you even know what you are thinking without a language to define certain things that describe what you are feeling? You are smiling. Without a grasp on the word happy, joyous, whichever word it may be, you won't know that you are either of them. You will then be able to decipher what it is you are feeling, and apply the word happy to it.

How do you not become smarter by reading a book or speaking? Without them, reading at least, you will know nothing. You don't come out of your mom?s womb with an all-knowing brain. You have to read/do/whatever to get the things into your mind, which then enables you to get smarter. I am horrible at math, plain horrible. Someone who knows how to do the math problems is obviously smarter than me. How do they get smarter than me? They read the books, practice the problems. How do they understand what is being said? The know their language. They know what the words being used mean. Without a grasp on their language, they wouldn't be able to do this.



[QUOTE]Sure, language is important to share ideas. But the idea, as long as someone has a grasp on them, conceptually DO NOT REQUIRE A LANGUAGE! Granted, you can?t share them and the community will never learn of your genius.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. What is the point of having so many ideas if you have no way of communicating it? You aren't a genius until you can write it down and show people what you think. They will never know what you are thinking, so it won't even matter that you have the idea in n the first place. Without the ability to write/speak your ideas in a concise way for others to understand you are not a genius, or anything close. I believe it was you who brought up Socrates? Had Plato not had a grasp on the language and written down what Socrates was thinking/doing, we would never even know how smart he truly was. But obviously he had a grasp, even if it was a small one, on the language so as to share his ideas with Plato, who in turn used his grasp of the language to record them. Everything falls back to your language.

[QUOTE]That?s why college admissions and standardized tests can be ********. I?ve got a real life example: my dad. My dad worked in a factory for a couple years because he didn?t do so well in high school. He hated his high school. He was so ill prepared for college that he didn?t bother applying. Today my dad?s an Orthopedic Surgeon. He?s had over a decade of high-quality schooling. Why? Did he suddenly become intelligent within those two years? No, but he did grow up. He did realize his potential. That potential IS intelligence. No amount of doctorates is going to prove to me that you are so much more intelligent than any factory worker. It?s all about application of one?s intelligence that matters. Now? I?m not saying that ANYONE can become a genius or surgeon. I?m just saying their possibilities aren?t limited to their current professions.[/QUOTE]

So then everyone is intelligent? I don't find that to be the case. Why didn't he do well in high school? Again, he went back to school so he could better his life. The fact that he went back doesn't make him any more/less intelligent than say my father. If he didn't have a grasp on the language, he wouldn't be able to pass the classes. You have to write/speak in order to pass classes. He has to understand what the terms mean being used in his profession. How does he learn them? By understanding his English.

[QUOTE]Consider this. you get the nuclear physicist and factory worker on a show of jeopardy and the three categories are ?Beer-induced slang, equipment euphemisms,? and ?specifics of the mill-press?; what does that tell anyone about their intelligence?[/QUOTE]

How do you find out what those things mean? You understand your language and are able to define what they are. You can define them, and are then able to identify which machine/whatever they are by what you have read and been taught. A physicist will know things such as nuclear fission and fusion. Again, he knows this because he understands his language and his able to identify the differences between them both. Ultimately they both come back down to your language, just different "sections" of their language, their professions terms if you get what I mean?

No matter how you look at it, everything comes back down to having a grasp on your language, even outside of these boards. Language is used in EVERYTHING. Without an understanding of the specific terms in you profession how can you possible work there? You need to know what it is your are looking and how and how it works. How do you find out? You read manuals, experiments, etc. After reading these things you can then go and look to see if what you are looking at follows what you just read. Without an understanding of your language you won't know what the heck is going on, what the thing is, etc. It all comes down to language. You can have intelligence in different "strong points." But it all comes down to if you understand your language.

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]The dictionary definition of intelligence is "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge."

You can be intelligent without having any amount of schooling, but, in an age where any one with a computer ought to have easy access to free education, being able to use a language effectively is a sign of intelligence.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Delta]

[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=1]
[quote name='Zeta']Without a grasp on the word happy, joyous, whichever word it may be, you won't know that you are either of them. You will then be able to decipher what it is you are feeling, and apply the word happy to it. [/quote]
True but... Ever had a feeling you can never put into words and can only express through gestures? People will still know what you're implying but until you can find a word which can effectively define that feeling, you will continue to express it and communicate that feeling with gestures.

I heard a lecture once about words being meaningless if they don't bring up or clearly refer to the idea/object they represent.

Is everyone intelligent? Most probably. Our brains are made in the same way with minimal variations. It's just that not everyone does well in school. Heck, they could equal professional futbol players in skill and still not pass Trigonometry.

About the mass of Einstein's brain: I think they got that figure correctly. Researchers (especially the ones assigned to study Einstein's brain) would rarely miss/overlook such an error in brain-weighing or whatever you may call it.

[URL=http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=i&p=9]Etymology of "Intelligence"[/URL]

Love and Peace!
[/SIZE][/COLOR]