What makes someone "intelligent?"

Page 3 of 4 [ 49 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,088
Location: Massachusetts

17 Dec 2011, 9:11 am

I perceive someone as intellegent if:
They admit when they are wrong, and if thdy don't know something if it is relevant to admit that.
They explain why they are making statements rather than just making claims.
They can make correct logical connections between ideas rather than falling to common fallacies.

1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

17 Dec 2011, 9:40 am

wen u dun talk liek dis yo.

Oh, and when you use words over 2 syllables, or even use the word syllable. Or have knowledge about the things you're talking about.

Mdyar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 May 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,516

17 Dec 2011, 10:12 am

Verdandi wrote:

I don't mean IQ scores. I mean: What is it about people that causes others to perceive them as having or lacking intelligence?

The 'relative' strenght or weakness that another has in relation to your yourself, causes this perceptive intelligence relativety.

Say someone clever at math, is erudite, or shows induction/deduction prowess in life, seem to be some aspects or property of perceived "intelligence," that many observe.

To me, it this ability to adapt to one's environment, to navigate any water, to traverse any challenge..... and there are these folks out there, though rare.

Usually you'll get a normal run in most areas with a few strenghts.

XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

17 Dec 2011, 10:38 am

What causes a person to be perceived as "intelligent?"

My view:

1. Excuse my cynicism, but I've found that most people will perceive other people as "intelligent" if they share the same opinions, beliefs, and skills as themselves. When describing, "intelligence," most people will choose the characteristics that most closely resemble their own profile of cognitive abilities.

I've learned this the hard way. "Intelligence" interests me from a philosophical and socio-cultural perspective, but I've found it very difficult to discuss what constitutes "intelligence" with others because individuals can become very offended if you question their version of "intelligence." It's a "personal identity" thing. It's almost like when I try to talk about the concept of gender; people act like you're attacking their sense of self.

2. Culture plays a large role in what is commonly taken for "intelligence." In the U.S., anything related to the ability to make lots of money is generally considered a form of "intelligence," and people with lots of money (or "success") are considered to be "intelligent."

For instance, IQ tests are meant to predict how well one does in the U.S. school system. How well someone does in school often has a direct impact on how well they do in the job market because people with advanced degrees generally have better access to jobs than people without.

As for what I think of "intelligence," I've found that "intelligence (or "gifted")" is entirely too subjective a term for me to put much stock in. It's comparable to words like "love" or "beauty." I have very little use for vague, general concepts that don't convey immediate information. I feel similarly towards "geniuses." A "genius" is a person who has contributed to the advancement of human knowledge in the fields of art, science, business, ect. and has helped elevate human civilization to the next level. If you have not accomplished this, you are not a "genius."

Personally, I evaluate others based on whether they possess a specific set of skills and abilities as they relate to the current situation. People with skills and abilities relevant to the current situation are useful. Those who do not posses skills and abilities relevant to the current situation are not useful, but they may become useful in a different situation. I care not a whit if said person is "intelligent," only if they are currently useful. I don't bother with notions of a "general intelligence." It's simply not relevant.

In conclusion, XFilesGeek sees humanity as:

People = useful or not useful.

People =/= "intelligent" or not "intelligent."

Take gentle care.

_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)

XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

17 Dec 2011, 11:18 am

pensieve wrote:

Usually the brain has a balance of skills and in neurological disorders such as autism we have skills in maybe one or two areas but we'll have expertise in usually just one which makes us highly skilled at it but poor in other areas. I'm yet to see a mathematician who is also a creative artist or vice versa.

Even gifted people won't be good at everything in such a high skilled way.

You've never heard of Leonardo DaVinci?

I can think of many people who are skilled in both art and science. Honestly, I really don't understand why people think an "art brain" is incompatible with a "science brain."

Thank Zog for scientists who write good science fiction.

Daryl_Blonder
Velociraptor

Joined: 26 Dec 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 473
Location: Salem, CT

17 Dec 2011, 5:09 pm

The biggest, most important criteria, in my book, is the ability to learn from mistakes.

****************************************************************************************************

Check out "Problem Child," my memoir of life with autism.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

17 Dec 2011, 7:55 pm

The ability to know when you don't know something...

Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,777
Location: USA

18 Dec 2011, 11:35 am

What is intelligience? The ability to learn and slove problems. Since there is different types of information, different ways of learning, and different types of problems there is different types of intelligence.

People appearing intelligent is mainly based stereotypes. Since most Autists share both traits of the stereotypical genius and the stereotypical mentally challenged individual they can be interpreted either way.

_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html

dianthus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,138

18 Dec 2011, 1:09 pm

I view intelligence as the ability to look past the surface of things and perceive more deeply, thinking beyond common assumptions.

But I guess most people probably view someone as intelligent when they make those common assumptions, while a person who takes times to think things over is perceived as "slow".

MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

18 Dec 2011, 2:42 pm

I view intelligence as the ability AND willingness to learn.

If you lack the ability, but have the willingness, you are not stupid, but may be ignorant of many things. You probably have a disability.

If you have the ability, but lack the willingness to learn, you are stupid.

If you lack the willingness, you are stupid, even if you also lack the ability. (Even if you can't, you should at least want to, or wish you could.)

If you try to learn from your mistakes, you have intelligence.

If you are willing, but not able to learn, you may lack intelligence, but are not stupid.

Lack of intelligence does not necessarily equal stupid. Ignorance is not the same as stupid. Ignorance not the same as lack of intelligence.

Ignorant people, if they possess intelligence, can overcome their ignorance.

Stupid people are doomed to ignorance.

A LOT of stupid people have fantastic social skills.

Some intelligent people have no social skills at all.

Stupid is not the same thing as stoopid.

You can be intelligent and stoopid.

You can not be intelligent and stupid.

Don't be stupid.

_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

18 Dec 2011, 3:52 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:

Yes. You caught me doing that in a recent thread when I labeled squirrels as being more intelligent than turkeys. You said this was my own bias to favor one type of problem-solving ability over another and that each species is equipped to solve the problems relevent to that species. And it's true. I look at a squirrel figuring out when it's safe to cross the road and he does the exact same thing I do whereas the turkey walks right in so I label the squirrel more intelligent, because he makes the same road-crossing decisions that I do. So that's my bias to say that solving a problem the same way I do equals intelligence.

OJani
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,505
Location: Hungary

18 Dec 2011, 4:58 pm

dianthus wrote:

Insightful. I'd rather be "slow".

animalcrackers
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,207
Location: Somewhere

18 Dec 2011, 5:45 pm

Verdandi wrote:

What is it about people that causes others to perceive them as having or lacking intelligence?

When I first thought about your question, I thought (sorry for the awkward phrasing here):

If Person A has knowledge or skills that Person B doesn't have (and perceives as "difficult"), Person B will think Person A is intelligent--and vice versa for Person B (about person A).

I think this (^) is part of what Mdyar was saying here (?):

Mdyar wrote:

The 'relative' strenght or weakness that another has in relation to your yourself, causes this perceptive intelligence relativety.

After reading everybody's posts, I've started thinking that the perception of intelligence is way more complex than I had ever considered....one of those multifaceted things that depends on cultural values, individual values, and circumstance. (i.e. What kinds of knowledge, skills, behaviors, and abilities are promoted or perceived as "valuable" and for what reasons?)

Recently, I'd been trying to define "intelligence" for myself in a way that would apply to both IQ tests and to the real world ... All I could understand was that "intelligence" seemed to refer to a relative measure of how effectively someone can apply or demonstrate previously acquired knowledge and already-developed skills:

1) IQ tests seem measure specific skills, and to use a person's level of skill in a limited number of tasks to describe something much more general about their thinking and cognitive abilities (something that includes problem solving, ability to learn, etc.)...

This approach seems to based upon the assumptions that if you can't apply/demonstrate knowledge and skill in a limited number of tasks, in a very particular (and artificially constructed) setting, you must be:

a) Incapable of learning the prerequisite knowledge;
b) Incapable of developing the prerequisite skills; and
c) Incapable of learning other things, and developing other skills.

2) Outside of IQ testing, it seems that most people (laypeople and professionals alike) who call someone "intelligent" don't usually see the process involved when that someone acquires the knowledge or develops the skills that, when applied/demonstrated, make that someone seem "intelligent"; People just see someone fail or succeed at applying or demonstrating knowledge/skills, and make assumptions (which may or may not be accurate) about that person's curiosity, logic, and general cognitive abilities based on what they see.

_________________
"Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving." -- Terry Pratchett, A Hat Full of Sky

Love transcends all.

pensieve
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,204
Location: Sydney, Australia

18 Dec 2011, 6:07 pm

OJani wrote:

pensieve wrote:

OJani wrote:

I have read the whole thread, and I still don't have an idea. Someone said something sometime along with the lines "The simple most important factor that makes one a real genius is the ability to know when one makes progress with anything she/he preoccupied with." At least, it may apply to a row of scientist/inventors, Einstein, Franklin, Kepler, Newton, Marconi all suspected. It's clear that according to my view I also don't share the common definitions of intelligence, though I think having high intelligence in the sense of common definitions (all what was alluded to in the above posts) can be a huge advantage in everyday life. Nevertheless, there are several dimensions of intelligence and, for most people, you have to have an even profile in order to be successful.

I'm kind of critical of geniuses. I think it's a label society puts on people with an abnormal level of intelligence in a subject that can benefit the society greatly. And I don't think a genius can be as experienced in every type of skill which kind of makes the label redundant. Usually the brain has a balance of skills and in neurological disorders such as autism we have skills in maybe one or two areas but we'll have expertise in usually just one which makes us highly skilled at it but poor in other areas. I'm yet to see a mathematician who is also a creative artist or vice versa.
Even gifted people won't be good at everything in such a high skilled way.

I tried to get better at maths and physics but but deep down I'm an artist. If I focus on that I can excel rather than pine about not being able to take the workload to handle a first year course in physics. I'll still pine though.

I'm afraid you are inferring from my words that I'm all for pressing kids and students to be geniuses (or perform well beyond their limits), which I'm not. I'm aware that uneven IQ is characteristic of autistic people and this is why I wrote that a more even IQ would be better for living an everyday life easier. Unusual people, however, often have uneven IQs (that is, high in a narrow area and low or average at everywhere else). These people are often unacknowledged by the society due to several reasons ("half-geniuses"). They never become famous, their work eludes the attention of scientific/artistic circles. They not fit in the flow of society, their work may suffer from their unproductivity due to several factors, such as depression, anxiety, executive dysfunction, attention deficit and many other co-morbids that often come along with ASD (though I wouldn't narrow the scope only to ASD people).

As for maths vs. arts, I'm the opposite. I'm good at maths and weak at arts. However, I try to get a little better at arts, just to explore things that might be interesting and possibly make my horizon wider. So, it's quite natural and understandable that you pine for maths/physics courses...

What I'm really trying to tell is that an individual with any kind of talent and preoccupation with something that can be potentially interesting for other people (business, arts, science, anything) should feel an internal drive, one that's not only urges them to accomplish more (this, only in itself, can drive people insane), but serve as a sort of compass, guiding their efforts. A "genius" is rather a metaphor in this sense. Obviously, many of the talented people (in fact, many of us, I'd include myself in this group) are not capable of high achievements after all. My answer to it is this: That's fine. Look at what you can do (instead of what you can't), praise what you've achieved, be enthusiastic about it. And, if it turns out that you've bitten more than you can chew, well, that happens to everyone... Go with the next best.

In practice, this often means working on areas (IQ-wise: average or below average subscales) where we are NOT really good. It helps with the detrimental unevenness of our "IQ". I, for one, practicing this language (English) despite my definite weakness at languages in general. I also plan to practice more of the stuff I've learned from autism-related books. At the same time, I try to maintain my strengths, too (computer programming, databases, business software, economics, accountancy). I hope everyone finds someone and/or something in their life that helps them with all this stuff to live a more fulfilling and better life.

I wasn't inferring anything. I was going off on a ranty tangent.

XFilesGeek wrote:

pensieve wrote:

Course of heard of him.

Oh wow, one person out of billions who have lived.

Warning: experiencing massive ODD today. I don't care about anyone or anyone's feelings or about reading posts properly or explaining myself properly or empathising. You have been warned.

_________________
My band photography blog - http://lostthroughthelens.wordpress.com/
My personal blog - http://helptheywantmetosocialise.wordpress.com/

SuperTrouper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,117

18 Dec 2011, 7:19 pm

People often judge me not to be very intelligent. I'm not sure if it's my body language, expressions, or my limited verbal ability. I wish I could type all the time, so people could see the real me.

nat4200
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: BANNED

18 Dec 2011, 8:01 pm

Redacted

Last edited by nat4200 on 19 Apr 2012, 5:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Page 3 of 4 [ 49 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

What makes someone "intelligent?" Post Reply New Topic

What makes someone "intelligent?"