Intelligence -- Council of The Grey

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:47:47 09/02/00 Sat
Author: Mariah
Subject: Intelligence
In reply to: avalanche 's message, "Re: IQ" on 08:32:27 09/02/00 Sat

Well, it's also possible that a more intelligent person sees more depth into things, and thus sees things in a more complex way. Both possibilities seem about equally possible.

Quantum Theory is far more complex than Newtonian science, and both can be used to define the world... But, of the two Quantum Theory explains more so must be the more 'intelligent' of the two systems (but by whose definition?).

You would say that the Newtonian system was the more 'intelligent' system.

And, maybe the answer is more like 'Well, you don't use Quantum Mechanics when you're trying to determine how fast your car is moving."

So, the real answer might be 'The person who sees the world in a Newtonian way has their uses, and the person who sees the world in a Quantum Mechanical way has their uses.

Both are intelligent, and it is difficult to determine which the 'more intelligent' of the two would be. For, one is needed when you speak of a ball dropping, and the other is needed when you speak of electrons and tiny phenomenon.

In the same way, a person who has no basis of math at all has their uses and all three can be intelligent. I know a person just exactly like you're describing, no underlying basis of math at all - but the person is just extraordinary and I would say that person is the most 'intelligent' person I ever have known in my life.

See, the problem with science is it can only tell you about a large group of things. It can only speak of repeatable events. Since each person is completely unique to their own universe, they can't fit into an equation.

> your method was the most complex one to use,
> however, one must wonder if using the most complex
> method is in fact the most intelligent method to use,
> i would say no. One must always first try the most
> simple method, if that method doesn't work, then
> proceed to a more complex method, if the simple method
> DOES work, then there is no need to go to the extra
> effort of the more complex method because the simple
> method works just as well (even better considering
> there isn't any effort neccesary as with the complex
> method)
>
> >
> > But, what if the two completely different ways of
> > deriving the 'correct' answer both took intelligence
> > but one of the answers was a wrong answer relative to
> > the IQ test?
> >
> > Do you think there might be a way of looking at this
> > number sequence that might be even more creative than
> > both of our methods were, but be the technically
> > 'wrong' answer?
> >
> > Wouldn't that mean the person coming up with the
> > method had shown incredible intelligence - coming up
> > with a relationship between the numbers that was far
> > more creative than the one the writer intended?
> >
> > Would that make the person who got the wrong answer
> > stupid, or even more intelligent than the writer of
> > the problem?
> >
> > (Oh, and here's your lolipop...)
>
>
> this is calculated in with modern IQ tests, in
> modern IQ tests, there usually are multiple correct
> answers, and they are studied by people who DON'T just
> tick off the answers without actually looking at them,
> modern (not all of them obviously) iq tests are also
> not just based on mathematical understanding, and
> modern IQ tests quite accurately unravel a person's
> intelligence.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Intelligence -- avalanche, 10:11:00 09/02/00 Sat