Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cthulhu]

The lack of it is defined in this topic. Intelligence is nothing compared to willingness to work for innovation and change.

Oh man, he's right.  We're all idiots.  The only thing we're allowed to discuss is how to change the world.  Man, we have a lot of irrelevant threads on this board.

[Jackrabbit]

I propose a new kind of cheeto. That should change the world.

[Vester]

Yeah? Thanks to the butterfly effect, my posting this just killed sixty-two people.

EDIT: By which I mean, sure, change is fine. Except when it causes hurricanes.

I don't like hurricanes.

[Jackrabbit]

OHMYGODIJUSTBREATHEDINDUCKINCOVER.

[Kagus]

Okay, Sordid, so what kind of person sees a hidden block of text and immediately -before reading anything else on the page- highlights it to figure out what it says?

Like I just did.

[Cthulhu]

I did that too.

[Zironic]

What I mean is, if you try to define intelligence, you'll find many people significant in history were not 150+ IQ Brainacs. However, People who desire to create positive change and innovation, such as, advances in scientific fields and research, or fighting for social or political change, are almost always considered intelligent. Thus, I am saying, people who innovate are people who see and want to solve problems via unknown methods or slightly adjusted ones, thinking outside of the box and going to into unknown territories. Many smart people can crunch numbers, tell you how to solve known problems, but would be dumb struck if you gave them something no one else has done previously.

[Jackrabbit]

There was this one time where a group of people were given the challenge (team building and all that) to get across a field. Beforehand they were wrapped in plasticine. Everyone around my group was talking about how they could hop or roll or do this and that.

We took of the plasticine. We won. Heh.

[Zironic]

There was this one time where a group of people were given the challenge (team building and all that) to get across a field. Beforehand they were wrapped in plasticine. Everyone around my group was talking about how they could hop or roll or do this and that.

We took of the plasticine. We won. Heh.

Simple solutions to seemingly complex problems? Split an atom! Impossible! Nope, Just surround a sphere of uranium with dynamite. Explosions made by explosions.

[JoshuaFH]

I don't really think this is a good topic. Heck, I fundamentally hate topics that try to put meaning onto ambiguous and vague ideas.

[Jackrabbit]

Your argument is invalid until you define what delicious really is. 2000 words, due on Monday, no excuses.

[Vester]

Discussion of ambiguities is a good avenue for pedantry, though.

[Jackrabbit]

Plus I just like seeing the brains in this forum come together.

[JoshuaFH]

Plus I just like seeing the brains in this forum smash into eachother with great force.

More accurate.

[Jude]

Intelligence can't be simplified down to one simple phrase or ability that sums things up. The reason there's so much bickering is because the mind, and intelligence, are composed of all manner of modules that do certain things and have certain functions, and those are going to vary in their effectiveness from person to person. There can't be a valid measurement of "intelligence" because all the things that make up intelligence don't necessarily correlate with each other. If you tried to define intelligence as "verbal, mathematical and spatial reasoning abilities" and then gave a test to me that measured that, your results would be a mess because I suck at math but I'm awesome at verbal and OK at spatial reasoning.

What this tells us is that any attempts to boil intelligence down to "g" or anything else simply and tidy, are doomed to fail. The "theory of multiple intelligences" is on the right track but doesn't go far enough, since there are certainly more than 8 mental modules, or even broad categories of mental modules.