Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jeff Root
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by geonuc
Some of the anecdotes I've read about how supposedly intelligent
people do dumb things are really evidence of other factors overriding
the person's innate intelligence.
|
A question: If those people are innately so intelligent, how come they
let such things override their intelligence? |
Because they are human. Computers are simple; humans are complex.
Humans use logic as a guide, but don't usually allow themselves to be
controlled by it. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jeff Root
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent
Not particularly intelligent humans, apparently.
|
If that was intended seriously, it went over my head. |
Of course it was serious. How else do you measure a person's
intelligence, other than by their success rate in dealing with
concrete problems? |
In that case, we have different and conflicting understandings of
what intelligence is, and you ignored everything I said about it after
the sentence you quoted. What I said was:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jeff Root
People rarely depend solely on intellect to decide their actions.
Reasoning is usually an adjunct to learned behaviors, habits, and
reflexes. Most of the activity of your brain is unconcious, taking
place without your being aware of it. And much of that activity
does not directly involve reasoning or intelligence.
|
People's success rate in dealing with concrete problems is
dependent on far, far more than intelligence. If you judge
intelligence solely on success rates in dealing with concrete
problems, then your estimation of intelligence will have no
relation to what intelligence actually is.
Unfortunately for me and my arguement, I do not have a good
definition of intelligence to throw back at you. The best I can
come up with is "the ability to discover meaningful connections
between seemingly unconnected pieces of information", but that
is not rigorous or clear. Another definition of intelligence which
might be more useful in this context is "the ability to reason
logically". That definition is terribly incomplete, though. Clearly,
intelligence has to do with the ability to learn and to process
information using reasoning. But that isn't a definition.
If you judge intelligence based only on success rate, then for you,
intelligence isn't distinguishable from experience, luck, or having
the right connections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent
If some people are extremely good at certain things, and have
high IQs, but then make a mess of their lives for emotional reasons,
then in some things they are not so intelligent. Because others are
perfectly capable of avoiding those traps they fall into -- i.e. others
are more intelligent than they in that respect.
|
You are not talking about intelligence here. You are talking about
a whole slew of abilities, inabilities, physical and mental conditions,
environmental and situational circumstances, and calling the result
"intelligence". You are equating the whole multitude of factors that
go into human decisionmaking with "intelligence".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jeff Root
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jeff Root
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent
this quote shows my problem with IQ and "intelligence". The moment
one speaks of such things, somebody always assumes they're innate,
meaning that they're encoded in one's genes. This has been repeatedly
disproven.
|
So intelligence appears by magic? Or what? Just because you and a
horse have different genes doesn't mean you are any more intelligent?
Everything else about me is determined by my genes. The number of
fingers I have; the paths the veins take down my arms; the pattern
of long, coarse hairs versus fine, short hairs on my face; the shapes
of my teeth; the proportions of my bones; the distribution of visual
receptors in my retinae; the number of axons in my spinal cord; the
chemical compounds that carry electrical signals through those axons.
Why is intelligence an exception -- maybe the sole exception -- to the
rule that the construction of my body is determined by my genes? |
That's simply not true. Not everything you are is in your genes. A lot
of it is environmental. IQ scores have been shown to be sensitive to
environmental factors, as well. |
I say that it is true.
Obviously environment affects both intelligence and IQ scores. If my
diet had insufficient protein, or fats, or vitamins, my brain would not
have all the materials required to build new synapses, or the tissues
which support and supply those synapses. If I had a constant high
fever, or viral disease, or high levels of lead or mercury, or inability to
get enough oxygen at the time my brain was growing, it would not be
able to grow correctly. All manner of things in the environment can
impair the ability of the brain to grow or function as well as it could
under ideal conditions. |
You've lost me. I say IQ is affected by environmental factors.
You say you disagree, and then proceed to say the same thing. Huh? |
I agree that IQ is affected by environmental factors. More
specifically, intelligence is affected by environmental factors, and
scores on IQ tests are affected by environmental factors. Some
environmental factors have their effects during brain growth; some
the year before an IQ test is taken; some the hour before the test,
some during the test. Lots of different environmental factors, of
many different kinds, that have many different effects.
I disagree that my intelligence is not coded in my genes. It is.
It does not come from environmental factors. Environmental factors
can only support or detract from what is coded in my genes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jeff Root
None of that takes anything away from the fact that my genes
define my brain's innate capabilities. If I have the capacity to learn,
it is because the mechanics and biochemistry required to learn is
defined in my genes.
|
IQ does not measure the innate part alone of your intelligence
(assuming that such a thing can even be objectively defined). |
Different IQ tests measure different things. An ideal IQ test would
measure a person's ability to reason, apart from his knowledge about
the world, his knowledge about IQ tests, his dislike for tests, or the
pain in his back. Ideal IQ tests do not exist. Better IQ tests than
currently exist will be developed. They will not be perfect either.
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis