I myself don't have a definitive answer — Jake Hen

lol

It's funny because definitive is definitely related to definition etymologically.

If this really is the case then just substitute heroin for alcohol. — Average

Then you've missed my point about the functionality of drug use.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to communicate with this sentence but it strikes me as strange to say the least. — Average

It's not in the least strange, it's just that you aren't following. People use heroin (or whatever problematic behaviour you wish to include in your example) for the benefits it brings - which may be assessed by the person as being more useful to them than the potential harms.

you aren't following. — Tom Storm

I apologize. Your argument is a subtle one but I would appreciate it if you could explain to me how your argument is connected to a definition of intelligence or even how it is useful when attempting to understand the nature or essence of intelligence. If you cannot provide me with this kind of clarification then your argument will seem somewhat irrelevant even if it is sound.

you've missed my point about the functionality of drug use. — Tom Storm

I'm not interested in debating the functionality of drug use so I'll yield to you on this subject

No need for an apology - we're just shooting the breeze. I don't think it is subtle. It was directly addressing your point about harm. I think the problem with identifying risk taking behaviour is that it is often undertaken because it meets some other important goals. These might be ontological in nature and help people to survive.

I'm not interested in debating the functionality of drug use so I'll yield to you on this subject — Average

It's not a debating point. This functionality goes to the heart of your argument about harm. You just replaced heroin with alcohol precisely because you failed to see the broader point.

Anyway I think I'm done here. Maybe we can chat about theory things later. Take care.

you failed to see the broader point. — Tom Storm

I wish you would have made that broader point explicit. That way it would be difficult to miss and It would be easier for me to understand. I hope you take care too because I really do appreciate you and your contribution to this discussion.

I guess nobody is interested in this conversation.

Do you think you're any closer to an answer to your question?

Yes. I think I might’ve found the answer.

Good. :up:

Here's what separates genius from intelligence:

Upon being told mulgere hircum (milk a male goat), the intelligent one exclaims "male goats don't produce milk!" and begins to laugh hysterically. A genius, on the other hand, quitely fetches a pail and proceeds to milk the male goat. :grin:

Jesus Christ people these days are a bunch of babies getting all worked up over someone saying "mental midget" what are you people 4yrs old? Grow up you say worse things before lunch on a daily basis. And it's not your job to defend people with disabilities in general as a whole. Take The Captain planet suit off and stop being a narcissist and move along with a real conversation for the love of god

Do you have anything to say about intelligence? I'd love to hear your perspective.

I see Intelligence as a man made category and not actually a real "thing" in the world , I see it as a chunk of something and that something is the actual real "thing" in question,
But I will still answer your question.

I see intelligence as a potential, kind of like head room on an amplifier, an amplifier has more head room at 8ohms then at 1 because at 1ohm the internals are at their max out put and so if a spike occurs it will generally be translated as distortion because there's no more hit room whereas at 8 ohms you might be running it at Max but when a spike occurs that potential is still there so it can for a split second handle it

Likewise intelligence is the capability to handle increase in performance not necessarily the increases itself but the potential to increase.

I don't know anything about amplifiers to be honest so your simile isn't something I can understand but I'd like to ask you a question. Would you agree with me when I say that intelligence and ignorance are opposites? Isn't it true that intelligence is the opposite of ignorance?

No

why do you disagree?

Ignoranc (being another semantic that doesn't actually exist)

Implies a lack of knowledge in a specific area which is not the same as my definition of intelligence which is a potential more than anything.

By same thing I mean opposite

In terms of scientific research/studies and psychology IQ tests effectively measure something we are not quite sure about called the g-factor. This basically represents an ability to ‘do well’ at numerous tasks. If one is good at one task then one is likely to be good at others. This vague correspondence - that can show consistently enough across various areas of cognitive ability - is referred to as the g-factor. IQ tests kind of measure this, but they are not exactly definitive and IQ tests were originally made to identify mental retardation in order to identify and help out struggling students.

In terms of standard IQ tests they are not particular good at measuring at the extreme because that isn’t what they were made for.

It is probably best to regard the g-factor as something like a physical limb. Meaning in an analogous sense ‘intelligence’ is but one of many limbs of human beings and having one strong limb does not necessarily mean you have a more capable human being in any regard … but as ‘g’ effectively measures a cognitive ability to achieve across all cognitive dimensions (in terms of dealing with novel situations and complex problems) it is certainly useful to say the least!

In physiological terms there is a relationship between reaction time and intelligence, as well as general good physical health. Creativity is also something that is difficult to factor into the whole ‘g’ area but they do - on the surface - seem to have more than a tenuous association.

There are various other real world factors involved in cognitive ability too. For instance, some people perform better in relaxed situations whereas a degree of stress helps others do better. Such subtle effects make a hard cast means of measurement/analysis difficult.

thank you for sharing that information. It’s fascinating stuff.

Ignoranc (being another semantic that doesn't actually exist) — MAYAEL

If Intelligence and ignorance don’t actually exist wouldn’t that mean that there are no intelligent or ignorant people?

no your grouping them up as if they do exist and then throwing them away with the semantic word. If they don't exist then you can throw away the word and the human characteristic will still be their.

Is all these words are fundamentally is just a explanation of how a person interacts with the world (to be broadly put)

But these are just words we have made up inorder to explain something that not only already exists but can be explained with different words all together or not even explained at all

They are just social constructs

Kind of like how the philosophers that everyone seems to hold up as the men of great wisdom so highly and seem to quote non stop were at one point in time looked at as crazy and often times killed because of their opinion and yet a few hundred years later they are treated as the keepers of wisdom

And so you might call someone intelligent today but in 200yrs most likely they will be a moronic fool.

lol

And so you might call someone intelligent today but in 200yrs most likely they will be a moronic fool. — MAYAEL

Are you trying to imply that it’s completely subjective?

Not necessarily . The point that I'm trying to make is that "intelligent " is being given more power then it really deserves, I think people are misunderstanding what that word really is and in doing so they are holding it to a higher point then it actually exists at.

For example "the new kid at work learns fast and is pretty sharp "
now you can easily go in and add that you think that he's really intelligent but that word is just a fad word it can easily be thrown away or replaced and it not effect the physical world one but because it isn't the "thing" itself. But because we treat it as such this then deforms are thinking process therefore creating a misunderstanding of certain situations or things that otherwise would not have been difficult to comprehend and or handle and or wouldn't be a situation at all but because of the distortion that is infact what happens.

that word is just a fad word it can easily be thrown away or replaced and it not effect the physical world one but because it isn't the "thing" itself. — MAYAEL

Why do you believe this?

Because it isn't a actual "thing"