wow i bet this thread is gonna be so deep dude lol xD
it's my understanding that intelligence is usually associated with someone's capacity for learning, which seems reasonable to me.there's intelligence, which is your ability to learn, retain, and apply information with critical thinking skills. and then, there's learnedness- i'm sure there's a better word for that, but i think you know what i mean. Bobby B might have the same capacity for intelligence as Susie Q, but Bobby B has only read Animal Farm- Susie Q has read both Animal Farm and 1984. Does that necessarily mean that Bobby B is any less intelligent than Susie Q? No, Susie Q just has more learnednessthat exposition didn't really lead anywhere substantive, i think, but the important thing is that intelligence is your capacity to learn and apply information, rather than the sum total of your knowledge.
Knowledge is owning information. Intelligence is your ability to employ it.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 08, 2015, 07:06:42 PMKnowledge is owning information. Intelligence is your ability to employ it.What is the difference between genius and intelligence, if there is one?
Quote from: Epsira on January 08, 2015, 07:12:53 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on January 08, 2015, 07:06:42 PMKnowledge is owning information. Intelligence is your ability to employ it.What is the difference between genius and intelligence, if there is one?I don't have a decent answer to that.
So there's a difference between knowledge and intelligence. How does education support intelligence as it exists? Knowledge?
Quote from: Azumarill on January 08, 2015, 07:00:00 PMit's my understanding that intelligence is usually associated with someone's capacity for learning, which seems reasonable to me.there's intelligence, which is your ability to learn, retain, and apply information with critical thinking skills. and then, there's learnedness- i'm sure there's a better word for that, but i think you know what i mean. Bobby B might have the same capacity for intelligence as Susie Q, but Bobby B has only read Animal Farm- Susie Q has read both Animal Farm and 1984. Does that necessarily mean that Bobby B is any less intelligent than Susie Q? No, Susie Q just has more learnednessthat exposition didn't really lead anywhere substantive, i think, but the important thing is that intelligence is your capacity to learn and apply information, rather than the sum total of your knowledge.So there's a difference between knowledge and intelligence. How does education support intelligence as it exists? Knowledge?
You'd have a better answer than a lot of people, I'd be willing to say pretty safely.Does it involve high amount of drive and vision?
are geniuses naturally endowed with a special understanding of logical or numerical reasoning?
Quote from: Epsira on January 08, 2015, 07:07:57 PMSo there's a difference between knowledge and intelligence. How does education support intelligence as it exists? Knowledge? By providing knowledge at a level in which in compatible with a person's intelligence. That why a one-size-fits-all approach is stupid, because not everybody learns at the same rate or in the same way.And to what I understand, genius would be the proper application of intelligence and knowledge to excel in a field.
Quote from: Prime Meridia on January 08, 2015, 07:17:09 PMQuote from: Epsira on January 08, 2015, 07:07:57 PMSo there's a difference between knowledge and intelligence. How does education support intelligence as it exists? Knowledge? By providing knowledge at a level in which in compatible with a person's intelligence. That why a one-size-fits-all approach is stupid, because not everybody learns at the same rate or in the same way.And to what I understand, genius would be the proper application of intelligence and knowledge to excel in a field.And is excelling a societal or self label? I guess I should ask which is more important in defining yourself as a genius, do you think?I agree, a one size fits all approach is idiotic, because it fails to account for individual difference. What about standardized tests? Why are they necessary if they approach intelligence by appealing to standards?
Quote from: Azumarill on January 08, 2015, 07:22:32 PMare geniuses naturally endowed with a special understanding of logical or numerical reasoning?That's why I'd wager it's genetic. The objective basis of logic and, by extension, mathematics makes it much easier to identify potential geniuses in--say--a physicists' department than an artists' department. I think we're hesitant to even regard people like da Vinci as "artistic geniuses", purely on the basis that we're talking about something aesthetic; da Vinci seems to be a genius because he's a polymath more than anything (which is, of course, a valid enough reason). I'd argue that our very conception of the idea of a "genius" gives us a bias towards looking among people with this mathematical bent. Calling somebody a "genius" carries a level of objective superiority or adeptness, which seems difficult to justify in things like literature or art--especially in our day and age.
Quote from: Epsira on January 08, 2015, 07:30:10 PMQuote from: Prime Meridia on January 08, 2015, 07:17:09 PMQuote from: Epsira on January 08, 2015, 07:07:57 PMSo there's a difference between knowledge and intelligence. How does education support intelligence as it exists? Knowledge? By providing knowledge at a level in which in compatible with a person's intelligence. That why a one-size-fits-all approach is stupid, because not everybody learns at the same rate or in the same way.And to what I understand, genius would be the proper application of intelligence and knowledge to excel in a field.And is excelling a societal or self label? I guess I should ask which is more important in defining yourself as a genius, do you think?I agree, a one size fits all approach is idiotic, because it fails to account for individual difference. What about standardized tests? Why are they necessary if they approach intelligence by appealing to standards? I would define "excelling in a field" as performing at a high level (e.g. someone performing in the 98th percentile of their field would be high performance). I wouldn't define it too strictly, because since intelligence itself isn't a fixed point neither can genius. It would have to be a spectrum of highest performance levels.Standardized testing is also idiotic. All it does it promote memorization vs understanding, or knowing the answer vs knowing why it's the answer. And since understanding lasts longer than strict, short-term memorization, it follows that standardized testing is a failure on two accounts: measuring knowledge learned and providing a solid foundation to further build on. The only best replacement would be to establish an early baseline of intelligence, provide education that fits the results, and monitor progress by providing benchmarks (of which are compared to the individuals previous scores, not at a state or national level) over the rest of the term to further tweak or improve the education of the such said person.
Quote from: Prime Meridia on January 08, 2015, 08:07:10 PMQuote from: Epsira on January 08, 2015, 07:30:10 PMQuote from: Prime Meridia on January 08, 2015, 07:17:09 PMQuote from: Epsira on January 08, 2015, 07:07:57 PMSo there's a difference between knowledge and intelligence. How does education support intelligence as it exists? Knowledge? By providing knowledge at a level in which in compatible with a person's intelligence. That why a one-size-fits-all approach is stupid, because not everybody learns at the same rate or in the same way.And to what I understand, genius would be the proper application of intelligence and knowledge to excel in a field.And is excelling a societal or self label? I guess I should ask which is more important in defining yourself as a genius, do you think?I agree, a one size fits all approach is idiotic, because it fails to account for individual difference. What about standardized tests? Why are they necessary if they approach intelligence by appealing to standards? I would define "excelling in a field" as performing at a high level (e.g. someone performing in the 98th percentile of their field would be high performance). I wouldn't define it too strictly, because since intelligence itself isn't a fixed point neither can genius. It would have to be a spectrum of highest performance levels.Standardized testing is also idiotic. All it does it promote memorization vs understanding, or knowing the answer vs knowing why it's the answer. And since understanding lasts longer than strict, short-term memorization, it follows that standardized testing is a failure on two accounts: measuring knowledge learned and providing a solid foundation to further build on. The only best replacement would be to establish an early baseline of intelligence, provide education that fits the results, and monitor progress by providing benchmarks (of which are compared to the individuals previous scores, not at a state or national level) over the rest of the term to further tweak or improve the education of the such said person.Is there really such thing as intelligence predestination? It seems like a lot of people hold a belief that individuals have set learning potentials, and if it isn't realized early that correlates to less overall intelligence.
What do you think Intelligence is?
