Agreed.The latter two. Knowledge is not correlated with intelligence.
Computing speed while hyperfocusing could be a considerable factor of intelligence. However, if someone has an attention disorder (such as I), and are not able to focus, it should not be taken as mark against his/her intelligence.Agreed.
My def.: Intelligence is a measure of the efficiency or application of one's culminated knowledge to solve through a problem or accomplished a predetermined goal.
Here's another simple definition put forth by someone: "The ability to act purposefully and rationally with respect to the external world."
Psychosmurf also had it right when regarding multiple intelligences as alternate forms of problem solving.
Though, I often wonder when calculating intelligence, if computing speed should be a variable. After all, people have different concentration levels, or disorders that may make them predisposed to distractions and yet are rational. Should these variables be independent of a person's intelligence?
I think there are more aspects to intelligence than just problem solving. Intuition, I believe, is another one and emotional intelligence should be factored in when calculating a person's net intelligence. And that's just a few out of many.
hmm... Well, whether it does or does not depends on which definition of intelligence you're using.In regards to disabilities, when one has a disability in one area they often grow stronger in another, in which case, it would not effect net intelligence.
We also have tons of single celled organisms in our bodies working for and against us at all times. :happy:One thing I'd like to clarify. If emotional intelligence, verbal intelligence, spatial intelligence, etc. are all used to define intelligence, then we still won't know what intelligence is. Ex: If it was our task to define glorks, and if I said that green glorks, blue glorks, and red glorks are all a part of "glorks", then that still leaves "glorks" undefined.
What this shows is that if intelligence manifests itself in such a variety of ways, then it should be a very fundamental mental process. Perhaps even a neurological one that can be studied. :mellow:
Watch this video --------> (starts at 2:05)YouTube - The Origin of Intelligence
(For those of you that are curious, glorks are simply dorks that glow. So green glorks are glroks that are into alternative energy and Green Peace, blue glroks are sad glorks, and the Red Glorks are a very obscure high school football team.)
I have often wondered if I have asperger's. I'd be pissed if anyone looked down on me for it or deemed me less intelligent because of it. We all have cructhes. It is a matter of whether or not we can overcome the obsticall regardless.hmm... Well, whether it does or does not depends on which definition of intelligence you're using.
People with certain disabilities actually have exceptional IQ's because of the disability alone, thereby increasing their net intelligence. Asperger's Syndrome is a good example of that.
If you had Asperger's, then you should have been diagnosed with it by now. Although it's the highest functioning form of Autism, it's still fairly obvious when someone has it and at young ages when they suffer in school. Despite social challenges, they are bright; they just don't get that respect because they're seen as abnormal.I have often wondered if I have asperger's. I'd be pissed if anyone looked down on me for it or deemed me less intelligent because of it. We all have cructhes. It is a matter of whether or not we can overcome the obsticall regardless.
Mindless accumulation of trivia has hardly anything to do with intelligence, imo. Surely, it's a social and cultural thing to view knowledgeable people as "smart," but it's just an artificial convention. Mostly, I view the accumulation of knowledge as more reliant on memory, rather than actual use of one's more serious mental abilities. Most people can accumulate knowledge if they wanted to, and I suppose it's that most people do not that we suppose that people who do are somehow brilliant, which I don't think is the case at all.
Use of reasoning is a staple aspect of intelligence, imo. Of all of the various ways of looking at intelligence, it is the use of reasoning which is most crucial, and most important. We tend to notice that those individuals which we would seem to think are capable of utilizing their environment optimally, or strategizing optimally, or devising a better instrument to achieve their goals tend to utilize reasoning skills far more greatly than those who do not. For instance, if we stick people in a situation which requires analytical reasoning, like some sort of maze or gauntlet, we would expect the more intelligent persons to figure their way out of the contraption or situation faster, and with more finesse, than those who are less intelligent.Many a man fails to become a thinker only because his memory is too good. -- Nietzsche