This is why IQ isn't a great measurement of intelligence. I think all types of intelligence correlate in some ways, but IQ, at best, measures one's potential to solve math problems. And math and physics only challenge one's ability to solve problems within a given set of rules. Life is more dynamic than that.
Agreed. At least, I agree for memory. I think of memory as a tooI. Some people can remember a lot and that gives them access to many tooIs, some very specific to very specific problems. You can use it for that but is that inteIIigence? Nahh. You're just using what somebody else thought up.
That being said, it is very useful if you have a bunch of crap you can use. It allows for broader problem solving, as you have access to more tooIs. With a little creativity, you can use what you know to figure out something you don't know.
memory is like how big one's hard drive is, but not their processor. of course in most people, the capacities of each correlate in ways a computer's does not. learning/understanding advanced mathematical rules is more than memory, i would say. but again, it's solving a given problem within a given a set of rules. everything is laid out in front of you.
this is weird because i was thinking about what intelligence was a few weeks ago. one of the things i came up with was being able to see and find a solution to a problem/goal that was unknown/unidentified previously, like a revolutionary invention, creation, or charting a unique life path to reach your goals.
For learning and understanding the maths, sure. But using mathematics is certainly a lot more complex, and at this point, mathematicians are actually trying to circumvent the rules as it were to arrive at different truths, in ways. Also, I do think there's a difference between knowing and understanding.
But yeah. That's the difference between most "medicaI professionaIs" and ppI like Robert W Malone. As the old adage goes, the wise man knows how little he knows. But the smart man uses what he knows to figure out what he doesn't.
I see it like a waII. Most people walk past thinking nothing of it. These are most of your typical medicaI professionaIs. Whatever is beyond it doesn't matter because they don't bother trying to have a look see. They have places to be and see it as a waste of time. How can they even look if it's too tall?
Then, there are people who are curious, or the ppI who really move technology along. They see there's no ladd er in sight. That's no problem, though. They make one. They see what's over the waII and realize they can save 1hr on their walk and go tell everybody.
But, as persuasive as they make their argument, most people call it ridiculous. If it were so, it'd be on the map they argue and, even if by some chance they're right, it's not like they can easily get over it. Even after making a fIight of s tairs for them to cIimb, they get mocked. Why would they bother cIimbing that if there's a walkway right here?
And that's the difference between a graduate and a thinker.
yea, curiosity is definitely a facet of intelligence. i would also say most medical professionals pursued it due to security, money, prestige, family expectations, etc. and their curiosity ended at the prescribed treatment from their database search. before the internet, they had to at least know enough that their encyclopedia searches didn't take too much time. that's what they're doing when they say "i'll be right back." after learning of your symptoms. most doctors today are basically mechanics working from a manual.
I do agree it's important. The issue I have with discussing it as a model is simply that it's a definition that defines itself. It's like saying wisdom is being wise. PpI model inteIIigence very specifically around criteria that they choose and ascribe a certain value to it. Thing is, basically any cognitive test you design will pretty much always follow a normal distribution. How relevant it is is entirely up to the person ascribing its value's discretion.
That being said, I definitely do agree that memory is pretty important. I guess what I was just trying to say was simply that memory alone isn't much without the ability to innovate. Like I said, it's like tooIs. You have more, you have more to work with. Makes innovating a lot easier.
This is why IQ isn't a great measurement of intelligence. I think all types of intelligence correlate in some ways, but IQ, at best, measures one's potential to solve math problems. And math and physics only challenge one's ability to solve problems within a given set of rules. Life is more dynamic than that.
Agreed. At least, I agree for memory. I think of memory as a tooI. Some people can remember a lot and that gives them access to many tooIs, some very specific to very specific problems. You can use it for that but is that inteIIigence? Nahh. You're just using what somebody else thought up.
That being said, it is very useful if you have a bunch of crap you can use. It allows for broader problem solving, as you have access to more tooIs. With a little creativity, you can use what you know to figure out something you don't know.
memory is like how big one's hard drive is, but not their processor. of course in most people, the capacities of each correlate in ways a computer's does not. learning/understanding advanced mathematical rules is more than memory, i would say. but again, it's solving a given problem within a given a set of rules. everything is laid out in front of you.
this is weird because i was thinking about what intelligence was a few weeks ago. one of the things i came up with was being able to see and find a solution to a problem/goal that was unknown/unidentified previously, like a revolutionary invention, creation, or charting a unique life path to reach your goals.
For learning and understanding the maths, sure. But using mathematics is certainly a lot more complex, and at this point, mathematicians are actually trying to circumvent the rules as it were to arrive at different truths, in ways. Also, I do think there's a difference between knowing and understanding.
But yeah. That's the difference between most "medicaI professionaIs" and ppI like Robert W Malone. As the old adage goes, the wise man knows how little he knows. But the smart man uses what he knows to figure out what he doesn't.
I see it like a waII. Most people walk past thinking nothing of it. These are most of your typical medicaI professionaIs. Whatever is beyond it doesn't matter because they don't bother trying to have a look see. They have places to be and see it as a waste of time. How can they even look if it's too tall?
Then, there are people who are curious, or the ppI who really move technology along. They see there's no ladd er in sight. That's no problem, though. They make one. They see what's over the waII and realize they can save 1hr on their walk and go tell everybody.
But, as persuasive as they make their argument, most people call it ridiculous. If it were so, it'd be on the map they argue and, even if by some chance they're right, it's not like they can easily get over it. Even after making a fIight of s tairs for them to cIimb, they get mocked. Why would they bother cIimbing that if there's a walkway right here?
And that's the difference between a graduate and a thinker.
yea, curiosity is definitely a facet of intelligence. i would also say most medical professionals pursued it due to security, money, prestige, family expectations, etc. and their curiosity ended at the prescribed treatment from their database search. before the internet, they had to at least know enough that their encyclopedia searches didn't take too much time. that's what they're doing when they say "i'll be right back." after learning of your symptoms. most doctors today are basically mechanics working from a manual.
I do agree it's important. The issue I have with discussing it as a model is simply that it's a definition that defines itself. It's like saying wisdom is being wise. PpI model inteIIigence very specifically around criteria that they choose and ascribe a certain value to it. Thing is, basically any cognitive test you design will pretty much always follow a normal distribution. How relevant it is is entirely up to the person ascribing its value's discretion.
That being said, I definitely do agree that memory is pretty important. I guess what I was just trying to say was simply that memory alone isn't much without the ability to innovate. Like I said, it's like tooIs. You have more, you have more to work with. Makes innovating a lot easier.