How are you able to tell when someone is smart? What do they do? Say? What is it that separates them from others? Is individualism related to intelligence?
Discernment —– They are able to sort things out in their mind and consider not to fly-off-the-handle and get outraged at every little thing. They chose not to over react. They know that something that offends them is their own choice to be offended. They could choose not to be offended, to let it go and not react.
@ladybarbara Going by this definition, would Trump be considered intelligent?
I am not sure about your definition. To me, it speaks to one type of intelligence. I consider someone who is non- reactionary to be working towards emotional intelligence. I would add that being non-reactionary does not mean not setting boundaries with others.
@Scarlett I trust in President Trumps discernment completely. So far, he has been winning and even though the left gets angry about his ways of going about things, he gets his point across to the other leaders that are being difficult and not doing their fair share. I am very happy with our President’s discernment in handling situations and putting AMERICA FIRST. I am glad to know that we have a leader that will not sit back, smile, and nod to the unfair unbalance of costs to Americans, while other countries pay nothing. It is time that we have a strong leader with big balls enough to push and fight for America.
There is a difference between these three: intelligence, “smarts,” and sentience.
Intelligence is simply the ability to learn
Smarts is the application of said knowledge in a field
sentience is knowing you’re an individual
@Jear77
“Learning” would have to include not just rote, subjective and scientific learning. Because we already we already have machines that can do, handle, and correlate this far quicker and more effectively than us if “programmed” properly.
What you call smarts is more like the classic definition “wisdom”: the effective application of “learning” to not just “known unknowns”, but “unknown unknowns” (which ties into a lot of the “faith” and “afterlife” discussions we have)
What you call sentience (an older concept dealing just with subjective experience) expands out into what is sometimes called meta-consciousness. We are conscious of ourselves subjectively, objectively (if we choose!), temporally, experientially, phenomenologically (if we choose), psychologically (if we choose), culturally (if we choose), archetypically (well, you get it), perhaps spiritually . . . and God only knows in what other ways.
@griz did i discount machine intelligence? I knew these things before you brought them up. Keep in mind that machines can’t do anything with information without proper programming
A more difficult question than it first seemed!
Book-smarts doesn’t predicate intelligence; though intelligence does tend to acquire a lot of book-smarts.
It’s linked to adaptive problem-solving — but is the adaptation simply having a large array of “flowcharts” for the “known unknowns” or actual creative process that enables one to deal with the “unknown unknowns” — to truly be able to think outside of the box.
But it remains there are a lot of low-intelligence people who can put on a good show; and a lot of high-intelligence people who put on a very poor show.
Our best criteria is something akin to classic IQ tests — which measure intelligence as an endemic character trait.
And as unfair as this is, this tends to be a luck-of-the-draw genetic lottery. Although two high-intelligence parents do have a higher than average chance of producing high-intelligence children. (With the inverse also being true — so it’s good to know the kind of person one is falling into bed with! Which in itself, could be a good indicator of intelligence?).
Intelligent people tend to be more self-sufficient (one definition of individualistic). But intelligent people can still fall victim to mind-numbing and even toxic ideologies. There have been a large sector of various nations’ intelligencia who have endorsed and supported some very malignant regimes like Marxism and Fascism. Their intelligence enabled them to more effectively find and disseminate the sophistries necessary to maintain them and “sell them” to the masses.
And there are people who don’t seem particularly gifted in trait-intelligence . . . who are some of the most stubborn and self-sufficient cusses out there.
So there’s no clear mandate, or determining equation. Humans are . . . delightfully and annoyingly resistant to rote classification!
Trait-intelligence is the single largest factor in a person being successful in most if not all of the little games in the meta-game of Life they choose to attach meaning to.
Though intelligence can spin negative quite easily if other aspects of the personality are not properly managed.
Have you noticed that most of the “evil villain” types . . . are “evil masterminds/scientists/geniuses”?
@griz I dont know if what you say about intelligent people being self sufficient is exactly true. I have heard stories of world renowned mathematicians not being capable of making a grilled cheese sandwich.
@Scarlett
Remember I was citing tendencies.
Someone with blistering intelligence in a specific field who is unable to take basic care of themselves is certainly an anomaly existing on the very tail of the distribution curve.
(Perhaps raising the question of whether “giftedness” is the same as intelligence?)
Consider that general intelligence (incorporating problem-solving, wisdom, an internal storehouse of knowledge, the ability to abstract) tends to produce people who can more easily adapt to challenge and change.
And in the absence of it, one has to rely on dogmatic approach and keeping things within the realm of what is already known. This CAN appear very self-sufficient.
But throw a few “unknown unknowns” into the equation and self-sufficiency crumbles.
Knowledge by its self is just archived information.
Knowledge with the application of action is the mechanical processing of the information.
In your left hand, you hold 4.2 pounds of enriched uranium, in your right hand you also hold 4.2 pounds of enriched uranium, assuming you can hold this without being killed. Now you bring the two hands together and hold the 8.4 pounds of enriched uranium together until it reacts to “critical mass”, the resulting reaction is a violent explosion.
Now let us assume that you bring those elements together in a more controlled reaction with a buffering material between them and a cooling medium to displace heat. You can produce steam to operate a turbine to generate electricity. Granted this example is highly simplified for demonstrative purposes.
The application of knowledge into an actionable process for a controlled outcome…is intelligence.
11 responses to “What are the criterion for intelligence?”
Discernment —– They are able to sort things out in their mind and consider not to fly-off-the-handle and get outraged at every little thing. They chose not to over react. They know that something that offends them is their own choice to be offended. They could choose not to be offended, to let it go and not react.
@ladybarbara Going by this definition, would Trump be considered intelligent?
I am not sure about your definition. To me, it speaks to one type of intelligence. I consider someone who is non- reactionary to be working towards emotional intelligence. I would add that being non-reactionary does not mean not setting boundaries with others.
@Scarlett I trust in President Trumps discernment completely. So far, he has been winning and even though the left gets angry about his ways of going about things, he gets his point across to the other leaders that are being difficult and not doing their fair share. I am very happy with our President’s discernment in handling situations and putting AMERICA FIRST. I am glad to know that we have a leader that will not sit back, smile, and nod to the unfair unbalance of costs to Americans, while other countries pay nothing. It is time that we have a strong leader with big balls enough to push and fight for America.
There is a difference between these three: intelligence, “smarts,” and sentience.
Intelligence is simply the ability to learn
Smarts is the application of said knowledge in a field
sentience is knowing you’re an individual
@Jear77
“Learning” would have to include not just rote, subjective and scientific learning. Because we already we already have machines that can do, handle, and correlate this far quicker and more effectively than us if “programmed” properly.
What you call smarts is more like the classic definition “wisdom”: the effective application of “learning” to not just “known unknowns”, but “unknown unknowns” (which ties into a lot of the “faith” and “afterlife” discussions we have)
What you call sentience (an older concept dealing just with subjective experience) expands out into what is sometimes called meta-consciousness. We are conscious of ourselves subjectively, objectively (if we choose!), temporally, experientially, phenomenologically (if we choose), psychologically (if we choose), culturally (if we choose), archetypically (well, you get it), perhaps spiritually . . . and God only knows in what other ways.
@griz did i discount machine intelligence? I knew these things before you brought them up. Keep in mind that machines can’t do anything with information without proper programming
A more difficult question than it first seemed!
Book-smarts doesn’t predicate intelligence; though intelligence does tend to acquire a lot of book-smarts.
It’s linked to adaptive problem-solving — but is the adaptation simply having a large array of “flowcharts” for the “known unknowns” or actual creative process that enables one to deal with the “unknown unknowns” — to truly be able to think outside of the box.
But it remains there are a lot of low-intelligence people who can put on a good show; and a lot of high-intelligence people who put on a very poor show.
Our best criteria is something akin to classic IQ tests — which measure intelligence as an endemic character trait.
And as unfair as this is, this tends to be a luck-of-the-draw genetic lottery. Although two high-intelligence parents do have a higher than average chance of producing high-intelligence children. (With the inverse also being true — so it’s good to know the kind of person one is falling into bed with! Which in itself, could be a good indicator of intelligence?).
Intelligent people tend to be more self-sufficient (one definition of individualistic). But intelligent people can still fall victim to mind-numbing and even toxic ideologies. There have been a large sector of various nations’ intelligencia who have endorsed and supported some very malignant regimes like Marxism and Fascism. Their intelligence enabled them to more effectively find and disseminate the sophistries necessary to maintain them and “sell them” to the masses.
And there are people who don’t seem particularly gifted in trait-intelligence . . . who are some of the most stubborn and self-sufficient cusses out there.
So there’s no clear mandate, or determining equation. Humans are . . . delightfully and annoyingly resistant to rote classification!
Trait-intelligence is the single largest factor in a person being successful in most if not all of the little games in the meta-game of Life they choose to attach meaning to.
Though intelligence can spin negative quite easily if other aspects of the personality are not properly managed.
Have you noticed that most of the “evil villain” types . . . are “evil masterminds/scientists/geniuses”?
@griz I dont know if what you say about intelligent people being self sufficient is exactly true. I have heard stories of world renowned mathematicians not being capable of making a grilled cheese sandwich.
@Scarlett
Remember I was citing tendencies.
Someone with blistering intelligence in a specific field who is unable to take basic care of themselves is certainly an anomaly existing on the very tail of the distribution curve.
(Perhaps raising the question of whether “giftedness” is the same as intelligence?)
Consider that general intelligence (incorporating problem-solving, wisdom, an internal storehouse of knowledge, the ability to abstract) tends to produce people who can more easily adapt to challenge and change.
And in the absence of it, one has to rely on dogmatic approach and keeping things within the realm of what is already known. This CAN appear very self-sufficient.
But throw a few “unknown unknowns” into the equation and self-sufficiency crumbles.
The ability to solve tough problems, and come to the correct decision quickly.
Hence IQ tests being about problems and administered within time constraints.
Highly subjective…
Knowledge by its self is just archived information.
Knowledge with the application of action is the mechanical processing of the information.
In your left hand, you hold 4.2 pounds of enriched uranium, in your right hand you also hold 4.2 pounds of enriched uranium, assuming you can hold this without being killed. Now you bring the two hands together and hold the 8.4 pounds of enriched uranium together until it reacts to “critical mass”, the resulting reaction is a violent explosion.
Now let us assume that you bring those elements together in a more controlled reaction with a buffering material between them and a cooling medium to displace heat. You can produce steam to operate a turbine to generate electricity. Granted this example is highly simplified for demonstrative purposes.
The application of knowledge into an actionable process for a controlled outcome…is intelligence.