Liberals Vs. Conservatives

Because we are not talking in absolutes it is not necessary to have a formal definition of "Intelligence" to be able to assess it comparatively as long as the limitations of those measurements are accepted. Intelligence is general mental capability so it covers everything that the mind is capable of, therefore it is not limited just to abstract thought but can cover anything that the brain processes that is not an automated response.

A few things I find to be possible indications of intelligence;

-- Reason; That willingness to push the brain a bit past itself and look for the information, that will surely be there, to come to an answer that may close to accurate.
-- Independent Thinking; One of the most challenging, dangerous and socially unacceptable activities, not just thinking for yourself but also thinking like no one else.
-- Curiosity; The internal aspect is great but the external is just as important, remaining interested in things maintains a connection to the world and what is being learned by others.

Of course none of these qualities belong only to one kind of person or politic, which is why I don't think one's views indicate smart or dumb.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: How would you define intelligence?

How would you define strength?

How would you define intelligence?

Dean wrote: The brain isn't a muscle. Memory and fact regurgitation isn't intelligence. Education does not increase intelligence. College is a fixed time period, after that the opportunities for exercising the mind diminish rapidly. Knowledge accrued in college is lost if it isn't used or refreshed. People in mundane work find ways to keep themselves mentally occupied. Someone on a 60 hour week still has 66 waking hours to mentally occupy themselves. Einstein was a patent clerk, Philip Glass was a taxi driver, etc. etc.

*shrug* Fine. I think you can become more intelligent by exercising the mind. You don't. It's rather a moot point since there is no hard and fast definition of intelligence anyway. If we follow the logic of the OP (which I don't, but for the sake of argument) someone practiced at solving abstract problems would likely do better on an IQ test than someone unused to that sort of work.

The brain isn't a muscle. Memory and fact regurgitation isn't intelligence. Education does not increase intelligence. College is a fixed time period, after that the opportunities for exercising the mind diminish rapidly. Knowledge accrued in college is lost if it isn't used or refreshed. People in mundane work find ways to keep themselves mentally occupied. Someone on a 60 hour week still has 66 waking hours to mentally occupy themselves. Einstein was a patent clerk, Philip Glass was a taxi driver, etc. etc.

oh I thought you were stating a fact, there is almost always exceptions and I doubt just because someone may be working a minimum wage job there is fewer opportunities to exercise their brain, a lot of the stuff in college courses is of little value and I believe may actually clutter up the brain

^maybe, maybe not

thellama73 wrote: HolyMoly wrote: thellama73 wrote: All generalizations are wrong.  Except for that one, of course. Especially that one. On a related note, I like using the word "hyperbole" around people who don't know what it means, invariably prompting this exchange: "What's hyperbole?" "It's THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD!"

I like pronouncing it hyper-bowl - it makes me giggle.

HolyMoly wrote: thellama73 wrote: All generalizations are wrong.  Except for that one, of course.

Especially that one.

On a related note, I like using the word "hyperbole" around people who don't know what it means, invariably prompting this exchange:
"What's hyperbole?"
"It's THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD!"


Edited by thellama73 - August 01 2012 at 15:19