What's new
By:

Am I racist?

LazyD said:
I consider intelligence as more monolololithic than you believe it to be. A lot of what you discuss above I'd probably call knowledge. Personally, I characterize the rate at which someone can obtain and retain knowledge to be a more accurate assessment of their intelligence.
Click to expand...

you're rate at picking up musical instruments and learning them > mine


my rate at picking up, and understanding math most likely > yours (never got below 90% in any math mark since the 5th grade-- i've gotten only A+s in my college math courses).

Who's smarter?
 
dalamon said:
So rate > possession of knowledge in your eyes? Is possession of knowledge not intelligence in any way-- in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Yes, in most cases I consider the ability to learn as intelligence more so than a sum of what one has learned.
 
LazyD said:
Yes, in most cases I consider the ability to learn as intelligence more so than a sum of what one has learned.
Click to expand...

but mathematically, there will be an inherent point (if we assume that possession of knowledge accounts for SOME measure of intelligence-- just not as much, proportionately speaking, as rate) where a person who knows more is smarter than a person who can learn quick-- but has spent an entire life in solitude, and hasn't used his gifts. Who is smarter?
 
dalamon said:
you're rate at picking up musical instruments and learning them > mine


my rate at picking up, and understanding math most likely > yours (never got below 90% in any math mark since the 5th grade-- i've gotten only A+s in my college math courses).

Who's smarter?
Click to expand...

I have studied music extensively and it seems you have studied math plenty so those really aren't good examples. I'm not sure if there is really an accurate way to determine who is more intelligent by my definition. It would need to be measured via something that is an entirely blank slate to each of us, which is theoretically impossible. Some of the existing knowledge we have would play a part in everything whatever we did, no matter how obscure.

And I'm smarter
 
dalamon said:
but mathematically, there will be an inherent point (if we assume that possession of knowledge accounts for SOME measure of intelligence-- just not as much, proportionately speaking, as rate) where a person who knows more is smarter than a person who can learn quick-- but has spent an entire life in solitude, and hasn't used his gifts. Who is smarter?
Click to expand...

The smarter guy - the one who knows more stuff.

I don't view the words smart and intelligent as having the same meaning. That's really all it comes down to. I just have a uncommon definition for the word intelligence.
 
LazyD said:
I have studied music extensively and it seems you have studied math plenty so those really aren't good examples. I'm not sure if there is really an accurate way to determine who is more intelligent by my definition. It would need to be measured via something that is an entirely blank slate to each of us, which is theoretically impossible. Some of the existing knowledge we have would play a part in everything whatever we did, no matter how obscure.

And I'm smarter
Click to expand...

I just think the rate at which we learned something from a blank slate would depend on the thing we were learning. Maybe you'd be better at painting, while I'd be better at debating. Maybe you'd be better at learning how to be a pass-first PG, while I'd be better at coaching. Y'know, it all depends I think.
 
dalamon said:
I just think the rate at which we learned something from a blank slate would depend on the thing we were learning. Maybe you'd be better at painting, while I'd be better at debating. Maybe you'd be better at learning how to be a pass-first PG, while I'd be better at coaching. Y'know, it all depends I think.
Click to expand...

That's why it'd be impossible for us to test such a thing. Our previous knowledge doesn't allow for that.
 
LazyD said:
That's why it'd be impossible for us to test such a thing. Our previous knowledge doesn't allow for that.
Click to expand...

even it it were possible. I'm suggesting that the rates would differ based on the thing we were doing-- and I don't think it's because of previous knowledge. It could well be biological.
 
A great example is the kid with autism who can recite an entire documentary word-for-word.

Yes, he/she realllyyyy suffers with social communication. But the dude can ****ing recite an entire documentary after watching it once-- are we really to consider him dumber than us? Well in one way, yes. In another way, no.
 
dalamon said:
even it it were possible. I'm suggesting that the rates would differ based on the thing we were doing-- and I don't think it's because of previous knowledge. It could well be biological.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think any differences that were present - biological or otherwise - would be part of the measure of said intelligence.

That could be, though. Do you have some examples?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top