But, given the risks, there comes a time when a lifestyle change is recommended. — Tom Storm

This is precisely the point I’m trying to make.

It all depends on what you value as 'good' from a risk assessment perspective. — Tom Storm

I’m not sure what you’re trying to communicate with this sentence but it strikes me as strange to say the least. Let’s substitute drug abuse with something else that you mentioned before, namely self harm, specifically it’s most extreme form which is suicide. Would you still say the same thing in that situation?

Some people aim to get high by using heroin but does the mere fact that you were aiming for that outcome make it good for you? — Average

"Good for you" is determined by the individual, if someone wants to burn out on drugs and die an early death, that may have been the best decision for said person at the given time and mindset he was in. I am no judge.

Does the mere fact that you disagree with other people make your opinion correct? — Average

Not at all, and maybe I just fail to see your point but I don't see how this is related to moral right and wrong as opposed to fact or fiction.

"Good for you" is determined by the individual — Jake Hen

Do you have a reason why you believe this? If you don't I have no reason to believe your claim.

Do you a reason why you believe this? — Average

Why should the belief of those around you determine what is good and bad for you? An individual is just that, an individual, who theoretically has the ability to ascertain what is beneficial to them. And what constitutes beneficial for said individual? Well it depends on what they value most in life, no? If a person values material pleasure over immaterial ones then the best thing for them would be to material wealth in any form they choose. I don't believe this to be true at all, I could deliver anecdotes and instances where this is not the case, but it still doesn't make their values any less valid. In a nutshell, good and bad are subjective to everyone, some gain their morals from the those around them and others form them from their own individual experiences.

In a nutshell, good and bad are subjective to everyone, some gain their morals from the those around them and others form them from their own individual experiences. — Jake Hen

I'm not interested in morality. I'm interested in intelligence.

If a person values material pleasure over immaterial ones then the best thing for them would be to material wealth in any form they choose. — Jake Hen

This is something I disagree with but it doesn't really seem like it's connected to the development of a definition of intelligence so I won't argue with you because it seems irrelevant. If you can explain to me why or how this is connected to defining intelligence then and only then will I provide you with my perspective on this subject. Please forgive me if I'm coming across as dismissive or pretentious because that is not my intention. I also realize that you disagree with this statement because you indicated as much.

Well it depends on what they value most in life, no? — Jake Hen

No it doesn't. I believe that what is good and bad for individuals can be determined objectively. Individuals can be mistaken. If someone believes that something is valuable that doesn't automatically mean that their belief is correct.

Please forgive me if I'm coming across as dismissive or pretentious because that is not my intention. — Average

No worries, i understand where you are coming from, perhaps we can discuss this another time.

No it doesn't. I believe that what is good and bad for individuals can be determined objectively. — Average

You make an interesting point.

I'm interested in intelligence. — Average

It seems like the surface level observation is that intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge and learn knowledge at a high level (google), but at what rate depends on those around said intelligent person. If everyone is considered intelligent, then theoretically no one is considered intelligent, because to what could they compare their intelligence to? Only those who perform at a higher level could potentially be considered intelligent.

It seems like the surface level observation is that intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge and learn knowledge at a high level — Jake Hen

Is this what you believe?

Is this what you believe? — Average

Yes, for now, I definitely don't have all the answers, this is the most rational thing I could come up with. An intelligent person is considered intelligent because they outperform their peers. Even someone who could be considered "Stupid" now, could be considered intelligent 100 years ago.

What do you think "high level" means exactly?

High level is considered above the average skill and learning rate of the general public. If someone considered themselves intelligent, but was not as skillful or efficient compared to the public, is he still intelligent?

Couldn't someone who was unable to apply knowledge or learn knowledge due to some twist of fate still be intelligent? For example someone who was imprisoned in a dark dungeon and was therefore unable to learn or apply knowledge at a "high level".

Couldn't someone who was unable to apply knowledge or learn knowledge due to some twist of fate still be intelligent? — Average

Hard to say, theoretically yes, but without intelligence on display, he couldn't be considered intelligent in my eyes, because considering someone as intelligent is a social title, as it is dependent on those around said intelligent person.

For example someone who was imprisoned in a dark dungeon and therefore unable to learn or apply knowledge at a "high level". — Average

Technically he is and isn't the most intelligent person in his surroundings, because in isolation, to whom does he compare his intelligence to? He is the intelligence standard.

theoretically yes — Jake Hen

According to your definition of intelligence he couldn't possibly be intelligent because intelligence is by definition "the ability to apply knowledge and learn knowledge at a high level" something he is unable to do.

It shouldn't even be theoretically possible.

considering someone as intelligent is a social title — Jake Hen

Do you mean that intelligence is similar to calling someone short or tall? In other words you're tall if you're taller than most people and you're short if you're shorter than most people?

According to your definition of intelligence he couldn't possible be intelligent because intelligence is by definition "the ability to apply knowledge and learn knowledge at a high level" something he is unable to do. — Average

Good point. To clarify, I use Google's definition.

An intelligent person is considered intelligent because they outperform their peers — Jake Hen

Well even if he is stunted mentally somehow, since he is isolated with no one to compare it to, he is the most intelligent person, however if another person joined him in his cell, who happens to know how to read and write (Lets consider that the previous person doesn't), cell mate 2 could be considered intelligent, since his companion is less able to apply and learn knowledge. Cell mate 2's ability is considered high level, since he performs at a higher level compared to cell mate 1.

An intelligent person is considered intelligent because they outperform their peers — Jake Hen

Without peers wouldn't intelligence be impossible according to this argument?

Well even if he is stunted mentally somehow, since he is isolated with no one to compare it to, he is the most intelligent person — Jake Hen

Isn't He also the dumbest person?

Do you mean that intelligence is similar to calling someone short or tall? In other words you're tall if your taller than most people and you're short if you're shorter than most people? — Average

Good point also, however i believe someone is considered tall if they are higher than the average height of their sex, for men I believe it is 5'9", and women 5'6"(I'm less knowledgeable about this height for obvious reasons). So since there is an average to compare it to, some one who is considered (male) 5'10" is considered tall, while someone who is of the same sex and is 5'6" could be considered short. However if someone who is 5'9"(average) is in the room surrounded by people who are 6' and taller, then they could be considered short.
While intelligence is a bit harder to measure, since most are intelligent in their own ways, it could potentially be compared to height in a way, however the most difficult question is how to accurately determine if someone is intelligent. It may not be definitively possible, IQ is one of the best bets we have and even it does not accurately describe someone's intelligence.

Without peers wouldn't intelligence be impossible according to this argument? Isn't He also the dumbest person? — Average

Yes, he is the most intelligent person but also the dumbest, and the standard to which to compare intelligence to. Its contradictory, but its all true, because to whom can he look to and say, "I can out perform them"? No one but himself the day before.

whom can he look to and say, "I can out perform them"? — Jake Hen

Why do you believe intelligence is connected to the ability to outperform others?

Why do you believe intelligence is connected to the ability to outperform others? — Average

Perhaps outperform isn't the best word to use in this situation, but by going off of google's definition(which is not the best way to go about it, I use it simply to argue from a standpoint), is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills at a high level. So if someone has performed at a high level of intelligence, compared to someone who is less intelligence, he has "outperformed" them. (I don't mean outperform literally, but simply as a means of describing someone who is performing at a higher level).

I use it simply to argue from a standpoint — Jake Hen

That strikes me as unnecessary.

Maybe it is, but I haven't come up with a better definition for intelligence myself, mainly because its elusive nature is entangled with an individual's performance and success. So google's definition appears to be a decent standard to start from in my eyes.

What do you think is the best way to generate definitions? Is it even a good idea to develop your own definitions? Should we accept the definitions we receive from others or should we try to formulate our own?

Great question, I myself don't have a definitive answer, but I believe that some words and concepts can't be explained in their entirety. It is wholly dependent on the topic at hand, such as abstract topics, where the definition is used to help understand the meaning of the word in a practical, everyday use. However, I believe some words have more meaning than the surface level definition. Such as intelligence, we have a practical definition provided by google, however its difficult to measure how intelligent someone is exactly, we just know that they could be considered intelligent.