How would you prove your intelligence without the practises you study, IQ tests, or what you know?
Printable View
How would you prove your intelligence without the practises you study, IQ tests, or what you know?
By not acting like a fool in front of everybody, for one. Why do you "want to show your intelligence" anyways? Becuase most people determine their intelligence of you based on what you know, but this is only because either they think that the more you know the more intelligent you are (which is knowledge, not intelligence), or they assume that the more you know the better you are at learning. It's mostly just about confidence and such. You can't fool really fool someone to make them think you are intelligent. You can act stupid if you are intelligent, but not the other way around (for the most part).
IQ test don't really shows someone's intelligence, they just somewhat point out the range. However, you can train by making a bunch of other IQ tests before actually taking one. Does that really make you a few points more smarter?
Intelligence isn't a determined measurable thing, like weight or temperature.
Reality is a pretty average test for intelligence, by the way.
Actually training your brain with excercises like that does make you smarter...Quote:
Does that really make you a few points more smarter? [/b]
'Smarter'? Seriously, If I would do an IQ test right now, I would get a certain score. If I would now practice 5 hours on IQ-tests, then did an official one, I would score higher. Just because I master the lame questions they use on IQ-test doesn't mean I actually got a few points of IQ smarter. If you believe that, you have a bit to much faith in tests that test something (intelligence) that doesn't have a single value, yet the tests give a single-value-result.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohmaN
As you're putting it you merely train your skills in solving those type of questions, which has nothing to do with intelligence, it's rather adaption, as you say.Quote:
'Smarter'? Seriously, If I would do an IQ test right now, I would get a certain score. If I would now practice 5 hours on IQ-tests, then did an official one, I would score higher. Just because I master the lame questions they use on IQ-test doesn't mean I actually got a few points of IQ smarter. If you believe that, you have a bit to much faith in tests that test something (intelligence) that doesn't have a single value, yet the tests give a single-value-result.[/b]
If you practice a lot though you're training your ability to think logically. If you believe your intelligence are only genetic you should think again. It is true that you can become smarter by exercising your brain with logical challenges. I also agree that IQ-test isn't a very good way to measure intelligence. There are many different intelligences in the brain. I read a book that touched the subject, "The Speed Reading Book" by Tony Buzan and I think he said that you can "divide" the brain into eight different (I think it was eight) intelligences (language, logical, musical, artistic etc.).
Survive <div align="right">ravishly</div> :wink:
So then how can you be sure a person's intelligence is really what you think it is? How can you be sure that the person who you think is mediocre is actually more intelligent than you and so one who you veiw as being more intelligent than you only has mediocre intelligence?
'Quote:
Originally Posted by mkauf84
A lot of today's intelligence is based on trivial knowledge. I good memory makes you look very smart to most people.
When the memory is put to test sometimes the tire cannot be change literally.
This is perceived in our most natural cultures.
When put to the test, via science, education and the like it weeds out the weak.
DISCLAIMER: The IQ tests you take online are not real or accurate in any way shape or form. Actual IQ tests are administered by professionals (the WISC and the WAIS are the 2 most widely used).
IQ tests are intended to identify people in need of help (ie. remedial studies, etc), they are not intended to rank and differentiate otherwise capable people.
Thank you for pointing that out.Quote:
Originally Posted by bradybaker
This is an issue that has been overlooked. As a result everyone has an IQ over 100.
What if you failed one of those. :tongue:
Memory is NOT intelligence Memory is NOT intelligence Memory is NOT intelligence Memory is NOT intelligence Memory is NOT intelligence Memory is NOT intelligence Memory is NOT intelligence
Why is it so difficult for my question to be answered?
Because its so difficult to define "intelligence"Quote:
Originally Posted by mkauf84
Is an intelligent person supposed to be good at Art? Math? English? Science?
What constitutes intelligence?
Personally, I think that everyone can do those equally. The differnces come in when we tackle the problem differntly. Everyone can add 5 apples plus 5 apples to get 10 apples at about the same speed. Exept of course, those of us that have developed mental shortcuts to become faster. I think intelligence is simply mesured by the way we think.
But really, you can't put a number on intelligence. It'd be like saying "I have a coolness factor of exactly 3523.75." NO. Doesn't work.
Than how do you know what you're doing that you think is intelligent is actually intelligent?
Real life results.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkauf84
But people are so narcissitic than even when there are bad results; they still believe themselves to be intelligent.
Well then they're stupid.
It's why I wonder. Am I really as intelligent I think I am or am blinded from my mistakes?
mkauf84... I don't know whether you are trying to be deep, or are just extremely naive, but the answer to your question should be painfully obvious to anyone above the age of 12 who has both feet planted firmly in reality.
You can't confine how intelligent you are to a number. You also can't really rank your intelligence in comparison with other people. Period. For reasons stated and restated endlessly by other people in this topic.
There really isn't much room for debate.
Owie.Quote:
Originally Posted by naikou
I still think the rubicks cube is the answer, lol. Those cubes are smart, man :bigteeth:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BohmaN
Intelligence test aren't linked directly to intelligence. : )
One might divide the brain into 8 different kind of intelligences, but not like there are 'really' 8 different kinds of intelligence, it are just 8 things that are easy to label.Quote:
If you practice a lot though you're training your ability to think logically. If you believe your intelligence are only genetic you should think again. It is true that you can become smarter by exercising your brain with logical challenges. I also agree that IQ-test isn't a very good way to measure intelligence. There are many different intelligences in the brain. I read a book that touched the subject, "The Speed Reading Book" by Tony Buzan and I think he said that you can "divide" the brain into eight different (I think it was eight) intelligences (language, logical, musical, artistic etc.).
[/b]
My point thoughtout all this basically is just that the brain is so complicated and diverse it is extremely hard if not impossible to give a good indication of it's capabilities. For instance, the best 100-question IQ test mankind could make wouldn't 'work' perfectly. 'Intelligence' is a made-up term, and so is any form of classification of something that just came to be trough evolution. It sounds all 'ohhhh you don't know anything for sure' blabla, but I really do think the brain is harder to measure and categorize then for instance putting animals in groups of mammals and shit. Evoltuion doesn't have 4 categories of life on earth (animals, plants, bacteria, fungi) like you (I) learn in school. Mankind just categorizes and labels everything.
Conclusion of the conclusion: IQ test give indication, but are FAR from a great, reliable proof of someones capabilities.
-
EDIT: Mkauf does has somewhat of a point. Everyone, or at least A LOT of people think they are smarter then they are. It is a natural phenomenon to be optimistic. For instance, if you ask people what the chance is they will get cancer, or their neighbor will, most people will say they are less likely to get cancer, for no reason at all. People think to good of themselves all the time, It can't hurt.
However I don't believe Mkauf is as smart as he thinks he is : ) - Probably I am trying to look smarter then I am, but that isn't so hard, so I am still an incredible genius, of course... right? Right guys, right? ;)
I just think that people sould question there own intelligence. Don't you?
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkauf84
I think people should strive to become more intelligent.
But we are not all created equal.
There are so many levels of intelligence that putting a definitive label on what in intelligent and what is not, would be vary difficult.
Intelligence is (like so many other things) relative.
If you are in a room full of "dumb" people, anything "not dumb" that you do, can be labelled as "intelligent", however, do, or say, the same thing in a room full of geniuses, and they will likely have better, more efficient or comprehensive ways of doing or saying the same thing you did, thus rendering your "intelligence" as....not so much.
It's like asking yourself "how do I know if I'm strong or not?" I don't think there is really any objective answer. You will always be more or less intelligent than someone else, depending on the situation or subject.
Intelligence to me is how quickly one grasps a situation, or how quickly one picks up knowledge. One who can analyze a problem step-by-step in order to solve it. Witty, I guess is another word for my definition of intelligent. Witty and quick. But never so quick that it leads to impulsiveness... blind impulsiveness is one of the key things I hate about those whom I don't see as 'intelligent.'
There's no real way to measure it or show it off... I guess it shows the more you use quick-witted resolve to come up with a solution to something with little or no help. Knowledgeablility is a good trait in an intelligent person, too, as is wisdom. But neither of those define intelligibility directly. They're just auxiliary in comparison to the big picture in regards to intellect.