I don't believe in Intelligence and here's why

[JonnyBGood]

I'm pretty sure that was actually noticed. I'm pretty sure I was discussing the ability to learn as "intelligence". I am not so sure about everyone else but then again i don't read other people's posts I just hammer random keys and somehow what I type comes out grammatically coherent.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'm pretty sure that was actually noticed. I'm pretty sure I was discussing the ability to learn as "intelligence".

I'm pretty sure she's talking about the syntax of the "code".

[JonnyBGood]

Oh right. Sorry for not being a computer geek guys

[s|k]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I don't believe in s|k and here's why
Stuff..

Generated by Kant Generator Pro

Fixed ;\

[JonnyBGood]

I think all of us knew I didn't actually type that out myself man.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I'm pretty sure she's talking about the syntax of the "code".

Exactly. As written it is a statement that intelligence is the opposite of knowledge.

On the plus side, it's a great opportunity for someone to use the word "persnickety", a word that I feel is undervalued in our modern society.

[Structural Integrity]

Originally Posted by Gayle29uk

Frankly I'm disgusted with all the geeks who failed to notice the mistake in the basis for the original quote...

I did, but I didn't feel like pushing my superior intelligence onto Mark.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think all of us knew I didn't actually type that out myself man.

Admittedly, I actually read the whole thing first.

[Structural Integrity]

Originally Posted by s|k

Admittedly, I actually read the whole thing first.

+10 interweb point for Jonny.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by s|k

Admittedly, I actually read the whole thing first.

Why?

[Structural Integrity]

Originally Posted by Flavius

cause he doesn't believe in intelligence lolly roffle

heh heh... clearly he wasn't intelligent enough...

[JonnyBGood]

This thread has been top-notch for the simple fact that s|k took offence to me calling him an idiot (or person of sub-normal intelligence if you will) right after he denied the existence of intelligence. Who says that one-liners can't work on many levels?

[hyfe]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This thread has been top-notch for the simple fact that s|k took offence to me calling him an idiot (or person of sub-normal intelligence if you will) right after he denied the existence of intelligence. Who says that one-liners can't work on many levels?

You should have pointed it out earlier, would have saved you alot of pointless dicussion.

Best point *ever*.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This thread has been top-notch for the simple fact that s|k took offence to me calling him an idiot (or person of sub-normal intelligence if you will) right after he denied the existence of intelligence. Who says that one-liners can't work on many levels?

I took offence to the malice.

[JonnyBGood]

What malice?

And yeah right.

[NEWSBOT3]

this thread makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

plus it's great to know there are people in the world way way more stupid than i will ever be.

[s|k]

Can we rename this thread to "s|k vs. GD" ?

[hyfe]

s|k, if you're going to make a case for culture relativism, don't try defending the stupid stuff they say =)

There is a reason why that fad died out (atleast over here)

[s|k]

Originally Posted by hyfe

s|k, if you're going to make a case for culture relativism, don't try defending the stupid stuff they say =)

There is a reason why that fad died out (atleast over here)

I have trouble differentiating which stuff is stupid. ;|

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by Flavius

It's ok. Sarina won't marry you now, but I'm sure MM will.

She believes in marriage even less than S|K believes in intelligence.

Although in a much more rational way.

[hyfe]

Originally Posted by s|k

I have trouble differentiating which stuff is stupid. ;|

Me too, hence me not trying to discuss it .. That stuff really screws up your head.

I remember after my first few exposures to it, by people I now consider crazy, I was quite taken in with it, as they were new thoughts for me. Every attempt I ever made at writing anything from a relativistic stand-point turned into incoherent drivel though.

The people here are defending intelligence defend it as 'ability to learn', which is a definition I think most people pretty much agrees on. It's pretty hard to argue against this, since there undoubtedly is a general difference in peoples ability learn various subjects.

However, that is quite far from the general usage of the word in newspapers, magazines and daily speach. There it seems to be laden with cultural bias, implicit connotations and generally is just a shit word. I think most of the critisism against usage of the word 'intellect' and rating thereof is aimed at the stupid people who misuse the word, aswell as other parts of humaniora academics.

On the other hand, I think the more rational, straight-headed technically inclined people you find here have quite a more pedantic relationship with words (explicit rather than implicit meanings) than who the cultural relativist proponents where targetting with their writings. In this light, I think the views you expressed there might be 'less relevant' here than alot of other fora;

[Nodrog]

"I dont believe in intelligence" is nonsensical. That intelligence cant be defined in a rigorous scientific manner doesnt change the fact that the word is used perfectly well in day to day life. When someone tells me that a person is intelligent, some information is communicated. It is a bit vague and different people will normally judge intelligence by different standards, but you can normally get some kind of indication what is meant. If I say 'my friend is intelligent' you will be able to get an indication of what to expect, in the same way as if I say 'my friend is goodlooking'. Obviously there isnt ever going to be a meaningful scientific definition of the everyday notions of intelligence or attractiveness, but this doesnt mean the words dont work or that the concepts dont exist.

Maybe you can say "I dont think intelligence is necessarily a good thing", but saying it doesnt exist is simply false.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by idimmu

surely if there is no such thing as intelligence, then everything anyone says is quantifiably right and wrong at the same time and just as intelligent or clever as everything else

This doesn't really make that much sense but I'll agree with idi as my mummy said it's bad of me to bully fat people so much :)))

[hyfe]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

"I dont believe in intelligence" is nonsensical. That intelligence cant be defined in a rigorous scientific manner doesnt change the fact that the word is used perfectly well in day to day life. When someone tells me that a person is intelligent, some information is communicated. It is a bit vague and different people will normally judge intelligence by different standards, but you can normally get some kind of indication what is meant

When people say 'he's smart' they generally mean 'he has accumulated quite alot of knowledge' or 'he says stuff that makes sense'. Neither of those measurements necesarilly co-incide with what we consider to intelligence to be; 'ability to learn', So sure, information is passed, but that's because we just misused the word. The information passed did not have anything to do with what most people consider the word to actually mean.

Change the definition of the word, or pull a 'words mean what we want them to mean'-stunt and you have point though.

. If I say 'my friend is intelligent' you will be able to get an indication of what to expect, in the same way as if I say 'my friend is goodlooking'. Obviously there isnt ever going to be a meaningful scientific definition of the everyday notions of intelligence or attractiveness, but this doesnt mean the words dont work or that the concepts dont exist.

Intelligence in the manner of 'has alot of knowledge' works yeah. It really isn't intelligence though.

Maybe you can say "I dont think intelligence is necessarily a good thing", but saying it doesnt exist is simply false.

Fine.. a longer version;

'Intelligence, as a measurement of one's ability to learn, is a term so influenced by situation, motivation, difference of personality, situation and difference of perspective, that one might just aswell say it doesnt exist'

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by hyfe

When people say 'he's smart' they generally mean 'he has accumulated quite alot of knowledge' or 'he says stuff that makes sense'. Neither of those measurements necesarilly co-incide with what we consider to intelligence to be; 'ability to learn'

Who is "we"?

Nodrog is quite correct imho. Intelligence can mean different things (which is why it often isn't a very useful scientific concept but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist). "Intelligence" in every day language could refer to someone with a lot of knowledge but it could also apply to someone who is very mentally quick or someone who learns new things quickly.

Trying to narrow intelligence down to just "ability to learn" seems silly. It's a far richer attribute than that. But as I said in the other thread, SJ Gould makes this point countless times while still remaining diametrically opposed to a "IQ".

[JonnyBGood]

If disease is relative how come I can't make my mouth ulcer stop hurting

I'm trying to understand how my cultural biases affect my view on it's purpose and why it's perfectly entitled to exist but for the life of me I just can't

[Jennifer]

I'm not going to waste my time arguing in this thread. Of course intelligence exists.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by hyfe

what we consider to intelligence to be; 'ability to learn',t'

This is not how the word intelligence is generally used. When was the last time you heard someone say their friend was intelligent, meaning (primarilly) that he learns things quickly?

When people use the word 'intelligent', I would say they are generally referring to the quantity of 'relevant' knowledge that a person possesses (what classes as relevant here will be somewhat subjective; a scientifically inclined person might call someone intelligent if they are good at maths or know string theory, whereas someone else might consider allround survival skills/'street smarts' to be most important etc), as well as a good thinking/problem solving skills (again subjective), There's also the way a person presents themself in terms of their ability to discuss things well, and general 'common sense' (ability to handle yourself and 'cope' well in certain situations without falling to pieces) and so on.

I use the word subjective loosely here, since there will generally be some degree of consensus. I would suspect that more often than not, most people will agree that someone is intelligent, even though they wont be able to state the criteria they used to make this judgement. And people will often recognise the judgement of others as being valid even if they use different criteria themselves, by saying things like "Well I'd say that is a different kind of intelligence" and so on.