|Questions for Today
||[Aug. 6th, 2007|03:10 pm]
1. What is intelligence?
2. Are you intelligent?
I think intelligence takes a number of different forms (and this is all my opinion on the subject). There's the traditional sort of knowledge based intelligence--the sort that IQ tests score for etc. There's emotional intelligence--the ability to know yourself and others and interact appropriately. And then common sense or street smarts. We all have combinations of this in varying degrees, and with a lack of balance anywhere we can come across as "unintelligent" in certain ways.
I'm pretty traditionally intelligent and have common sense, but while I'm pretty good at dealing with my own emotions, I am complete shit at dealing with other people appropriately (in my opinion)--so lack intelligence on that score.
That is a great answer. I was hoping from a person like yourself to get some mention of creativity as a form of intelligence though, since you use so much of that.
Well, I would lump that in with the traditional intelligence actually--there can be people who are really intellgent when it comes to technical things and are creative in that regard. I think creativity is absolutely key to great technical discoveries as much as it is to great artistic achievements. They're both parts of traditional intelligence.
I'm intelligent enough to reckon I don't want to know how relatively intelligent I'm not. :)
1. The ability to adapt to and extract a positive outcome to the current situation.
2. I would like to think so.;)
While I can't accept a definition which would make Mike Tyson more intelligent than Stephen Hawking in most situations, it's a thought provoking and origional one.
I think that most people would agree that most situations don't require violence. Most of Mike Tyson's outcomes have been negative which has created his current situation. Stephen Hawking on the other hand has excelled through some rather remarkable situations. The key is the positive outcome.
To me, intelligence is the ability to learn, reason, and solve problems using data. While that isn't a complete definition, I think it is a reasonable start.
I am of average intelligence with above average ambition and effort. So I would say, no, I'm not especially intelligent, but because I make above average effort, I have above average results.
I'm educated and well-read. I think that is very different from being intelligent. How would a person realistically seperate those things? I wonder how much intelligence is inaccurately measured do to the lack of common vocabulary between groups of people socially?
I give these kinds of thoughts plenty of space to roam around in my mind, especially when I'm thinking about how to interview correctly and ethically. It's a tough problem.
Among interesting things learned was the 1983 Howard Gardner proposal on the 7 types of intelligence: lingustic, logical-mathemetical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and musical.
On his scale, I'm very intelligent despite my unimpressive math skills.
1. For me, the correct combination of smart and clever, wherein smart = ability to obtain and retain data and clever = ability to interpret data usefully.
2. Depends on which minute you ask me. :) I find that my combination of clever and smart shifts back and forth all the time.