Think of This !
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Aha, I like your first paragraph, it's kinda cute!
As for your second paragraph?
Well, I think you might have to explain your thought process here, you state you completed your degree in physics, cool, no problem so far ....
And then you state I am some sorta p8nt deity...so far so good ....
I am sorta flummoxed as to your default position is now the smartest person on the forum ...... is it because you believe your first paragraph has somehow rebutted or clarified further, something I'd contended???
What has also intrigued me is I suppose philosophical in that when these great scientists ponder and then consequently discover new concepts such as universal gravitation or quantum theory, is there any recourse during their thought processes to their native language or is it all abstract and mathematical????
Good post mate, I agree with everything here; thank gawd you put that bong downI like to work in metaphors/pictures, I have a visual mind
Communication and intelligence require each other, it's hard to know of the good parts of either without the other. For example, hugely 'intelligence' autistic people have amazing skills, yet most struggle to get this across due to an inability to relate socially, thus using the numerous communication mediums.
I do believe though that communication can be manipulated to give a sense of intelligence, especially by charismatic people. But true 'genius' tends to take some time for concepts to be transferred. Look at Nietzsche; very intelligent, almost prophetic, but yet found it difficult socially or getting on with people and had to pay personally for most of his books to be published.
That all depends on which angle you look at mathematics from.......as a way just to explain it, or as a way to solve it. We all agree that maths is problem solving in its simplest form. To have that 'eureka moment' is only the first step. Question is, can that step be classed as purely scientific, or is it something else? Is it a combination of science, common sense, understanding, all rolled into one brilliant thought? However, to then rationalise, explain, solve and prove it......all down to the numbers.
The quote in my previous post (still not sure who said it - anyone enlighten me?!) is quite apt when you think of my point above. Most science works on ever decreasing circles of discovery. The great thinkers in history show that they can step back to look at the bigger picture, and that picture is the world live in, and an explanation for it. We as humans are always drawn back to this why, and the biggest question on anyone’s lips is why we are here and how we got here.
All of your great thinkers also point towards this Pete as well. No one here has yet mentioned Edison, (although didn't he steal that idea from Telsa?) Bell, or Fleming? Why? Is it because their inventions aren't really necessary to life......sure they aid society in ways we can't imagine now, but we did without them for long enough, didn't we? Great minds you'll all agree, but we all really want to know the answer to the big question. That's why the physicists get all the glory.....they have the best questions
The quote in my previous post (still not sure who said it - anyone enlighten me?!) is quite apt when you think of my point above. Most science works on ever decreasing circles of discovery. The great thinkers in history show that they can step back to look at the bigger picture, and that picture is the world live in, and an explanation for it. We as humans are always drawn back to this why, and the biggest question on anyone’s lips is why we are here and how we got here.
All of your great thinkers also point towards this Pete as well. No one here has yet mentioned Edison, (although didn't he steal that idea from Telsa?) Bell, or Fleming? Why? Is it because their inventions aren't really necessary to life......sure they aid society in ways we can't imagine now, but we did without them for long enough, didn't we? Great minds you'll all agree, but we all really want to know the answer to the big question. That's why the physicists get all the glory.....they have the best questions
Just wanted to add this in as Robbo's initial post was primarily about proving intelligence through text/words. This lad uses none of this. Whether he is intelligent....
(Excuse the link, I'm not 'intelligent' enough to know how to embed it on here)
(Excuse the link, I'm not 'intelligent' enough to know how to embed it on here
)
Intelligence can take on many mediums though as we look throughout the world. There are areas of the world where education as we know it are non-existant to the people of the region, but that does not diminish their resourcefulness, nor their ability to solve problems that present themselves to them.
The question you set Pete is 'limited' to the region of what we would consider the developed world, where communication is more formal, and education is provided, but a good grasp of this language does require a certain level of intelligence. But there will always be exeptions to this, and those exceptions will always stand out from the rest to highlight this.
The question you set Pete is 'limited' to the region of what we would consider the developed world, where communication is more formal, and education is provided, but a good grasp of this language does require a certain level of intelligence. But there will always be exeptions to this, and those exceptions will always stand out from the rest to highlight this.
Hi Rory, I had to read your post a couple of times to try and work out where you were coming from coz it seemed like you were just stating the obvious here.
It took a couple of read throughs for me to conclude that stating the obvious was exactly what you were doing mate.
Even after acknowledging some areas of the world are relatively uneducated, it has no impact whatsoever on the question being posed.
You say my question is limited and your reasoning for this is merely acknowledging some people are not as educated as others ........ And ????
The exceptions you identify are absolutely, 100% academic here and have zero relevance to the question posed.
I'm sorry if I have misread your post mate but that's what it seems like to me.
I will make it short and sweet and there is obviously exceptions, from my experience the well educated are textbook and not very street wise / wise to the world. They think 2D and to the level they have been educated.
There are of coarse exceptions and some of these people are 'gifted'. There is also believe it of not thickos who are equally gifted then some.
The use of english has never been a major thing to my, i would type as i would speak (without the colourful language on a public forum).
I am not clever or gifted and would never class myself as so otherwise i would turn water into wine or design a bomb or something out of a paperclip and just call an end to the whole lot until another planet evolves life that can maybe take care of itself without the destruction of everything else that inhabits it.
Personally i think the use of english is way way overated and maths is the universal language. I am good at neither and like i said in a previous post, as thick as a castle wall.
I would however aplord someone who uses any language to help someone else who maybe less fortunate but i would say the same about everything and anything, speaking, writing, acting upon etc.
If intelligence means i get a swell head then i wont bother trying to become educated i will leave that to evolution after all think about these little alien creatures with large heads big eyes, skinny little fingers and all the rest. They will come one day whether it be from evolution or by a little spaceship
There are of coarse exceptions and some of these people are 'gifted'. There is also believe it of not thickos who are equally gifted then some.
The use of english has never been a major thing to my, i would type as i would speak (without the colourful language on a public forum).
I am not clever or gifted and would never class myself as so otherwise i would turn water into wine or design a bomb or something out of a paperclip and just call an end to the whole lot until another planet evolves life that can maybe take care of itself without the destruction of everything else that inhabits it.
Personally i think the use of english is way way overated and maths is the universal language. I am good at neither and like i said in a previous post, as thick as a castle wall.
I would however aplord someone who uses any language to help someone else who maybe less fortunate but i would say the same about everything and anything, speaking, writing, acting upon etc.
If intelligence means i get a swell head then i wont bother trying to become educated i will leave that to evolution after all think about these little alien creatures with large heads big eyes, skinny little fingers and all the rest. They will come one day whether it be from evolution or by a little spaceship
Yep dull day on the market yesterday and was purely making a statement to the question posed, but it is subjective so an 'answer' to the question is not necessarily availabe in my opinion. But after a good nights sleep I will move further with my thoughts on it.
To look at your question in the raw, you ask can we determine someones intelligence by disecting their use of language, well generally, yes. In my line of work, you do meet some very articulate people, but if they have hoodwinked their employer with grandiose language papering over the cracks in their actual abilities, they are soon found out. But this can only be done after a period of time, when we finally draw our conclusions about someone with a proper analysis of their input or contributions to subjects.
On the reverse side of this, it can be abundantly clear in a short space of time that sometimes, a great brain is not backed up by communicative skills. But we look at the results in front of us when we interact with those people and we know quite quickly.
But then we have to look at the part of your question, what do we class as intelligence, the ability to debate? Mathematical genius? Or do we have to accept that intelligence is a very broad term that has no singular definition?
Frankly, yes we do, as people do excel in different areas, a general level of intelligence of a broad number of subjects can be measured to some degree, but it will never be a true reflection of the individual.
In conclusion, your question has no definitive answer, but we can say yes, language is no hiding place for the intellectually challanged, a look at politicians generally will prove this point in the real world!
How you speak/write/spell has nothing to do with intelligence in my opinion.
I consider myself to be fairly intelligent, but i have to think carefully when writing letters etc, to ensure it reads correctly.
Unfortunately, i don't do this when speaking and my accent takes over (yorkshire) and probably sound quite stupid sometimes.
Another side to all of this to look at. Skill.
Take myself for example, back in the day i served my time as a Machinist/CNC Engineer. I learnt a skill in that area, but also learnt some pretty technical stuff. But only in the specific area of engineering i worked in.
Would that be classed as intelligence or just a skill?
I consider myself to be fairly intelligent, but i have to think carefully when writing letters etc, to ensure it reads correctly.
Unfortunately, i don't do this when speaking and my accent takes over (yorkshire) and probably sound quite stupid sometimes.
Another side to all of this to look at. Skill.
Take myself for example, back in the day i served my time as a Machinist/CNC Engineer. I learnt a skill in that area, but also learnt some pretty technical stuff. But only in the specific area of engineering i worked in.
Would that be classed as intelligence or just a skill?