• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

"Intelligence"

By how much they can bullshit me into thinking they're intelligent.

I have no idea what the proper definition of intelligence is,but I'd have to agree that it is relative.If I was being compared to a elephant,then I hope that I would be viewed as intelligent.However,put me next to a person from Mensa and I'd appear not so intelligent.

But again,how are we gauging it?I know plenty of people that are articulate, cultured and appear quite smart but couldn't change a light bulb.On the other hand,I've worked with blokes who can't spell 'tyre' but could rebuild the car with their eyes closed.
 
Last edited:
evilcalvin said:
By how much they can bullshit me into thinking they're intelligent.

I have no idea what the proper definition of intelligence is,but I'd have to agree that it is relative.If I was being compared to a elephant,then I hope that I would be viewed as intelligent.However,put me next to a person from Mensa and I'd appear not so intelligent.

But again,how are we gauging it?I know plenty of people that are articulate, cultured and appear quite smart but couldn't change a light bulb.On the other hand,I've worked with blokes who can't spell 'tyre' but could rebuild the car with their eyes closed.
Click to expand...

Yep. This is what I was getting at in my first post.

I wonder whether the balanced individuals (who can change a lightbulb while being articulate) get as much acknowledgment for their intelligence...
 
I don't think it is possible to measure intelligence, nor can it be taught. It is the ability to grasp conscepts quickly and easily and learn from them in order to grow. And you can relate that to anything you like really.

All people are intelligent, in their own unique way.

People who gauge intelligence simply on an academic scale are missing out on a lot, imo.
 
trancegirle said:
I don't think it is possible to measure intelligence, nor can it be taught. It is the ability to grasp conscepts quickly and easily and learn from them in order to grow. And you can relate that to anything you like really.
Click to expand...

Do you really measure weight, either? You can observe an objects affect on a pair of scales and take a measurement. Kind of like observing a persons affect on a test and taking a measurement. Bad analogy I guess, since we are more complex than that.

But I agree.

Intelligence is in the eye of the beholder, and I knows it when I sees it. ;)
 
^^^Totally.Thats what I mean by the 'how much they can bullshit me into thinking they are' statement
 
evilcalvin, your statement makes a lot more sense suddenly. :)

As for IQ tests:

I think they measure a persons ability to do IQ tests. ;)
 
That statement just sounded wrong to me, does doing well in school and going to university make you more intelligent does it?
Click to expand...

Well, if we were to gauge intelligence by the doing well in school and going to a good University, then let me put this out there...

The president of the United States of America, George W. Bush, went to BOTH Harvard and Yale. These are the two most prestigous colleges/Universites in the entire world. Only the best of the best in the entire world make it into these schools.

So, by this equation: the smartest people are the ones that went to College/University. This would would make George W. Bush one of the smartest men alive since he went to the two best colleges in the world. Now, we all know that is not true, because, of course, he is a bumbling fucking idiot.

So, this right here disproves the stated theory shown above.
 
^ yeh, you have a minor point but one person/example is not enough to make a reasonable conclusion, learnt that in high school science ;)

I would suggest Bush did not attain very good results at those 2 universities and then you can say well Einstein did below average at school and err yeh you get the point.

results at high school and university I agree are by no means a foolproof intelligence criteria but, I would argue a profound academic career involving research and phds such as Einstein and Stephen Hawkings are. There is a difference to being excellent academically on a scale of further study research and pushing the boundaries of knowledge (ie developing knowledge rather than learning it) in certain disciplines than just getting great high school and uni results.

There is a difference between knowledge and intelligence
 
trancegirle said:
I don't think it is possible to measure intelligence, nor can it be taught. It is the ability to grasp conscepts quickly and easily and learn from them in order to grow. And you can relate that to anything you like really.
Click to expand...

Exactly what i was trying to explain to doppelganger.
 
trancegirle said:
All people are intelligent, in their own unique way.
Click to expand...

Um....I totally disagree with this. I think most people have talents/skills, and I certainly agree that you shouldn't only measure intelligence on an academic scale, but this does not necessarily equate with everyone is intelligent. In fact I think in saying this it invalidates the true intelligence of some people and gives some people waaaaaay too much credit. Fact: some people are stupid! That is ok - I'm not saying they cannot offer anything to society, but brains are not their forte!

I think phrases like this reflect everything that is wrong with our too tolerant school system (awards for participation aka failing, or "passing from the other end", qualitative scales rather than quantitative and other euphemistic bullshit.)

offtopic

I fully support vocational education and working with people's strengths and weaknesses but the fact of the matter is you need a standard (as much as possible) scale to assess school kids on, which qualitative results just do not offer. Seeing the latest results of our national literacy tests really cemented this for me.

/offtopic
 
^ il change that from all to most ;)

I believe everyone has the ability to grasp certain concepts with ease, whether they choose to use this ability is another thing all together.

I certainly do not believe "intelligent" people should be put on a pedastool. Because the concept is so varied.
 
I went to university with enough small-minded creeps to know that education alone does not make you intelligent.

Personally I think one of the biggest indicators of intelligence is a good sense of humour. Do they get jokes? Can they make jokes? How original and clever are they when they are being funny? If you look at any intelligent person you know I think you'll find they also have a very good sense of humour.
 
TALLY said:
This would would make George W. Bush one of the smartest men alive since he went to the two best colleges in the world. Now, we all know that is not true, because, of course, he is a bumbling fucking idiot.

So, this right here disproves the stated theory shown above.
Click to expand...


He did get elected into the most powerful position in your country..... twice. This despite a lifetime of idiocy.

Mind you it may be judged against the sliding scale of American intelligence though....... ;)
 
I was watching some worthless lifestyle program last sunday night that boasted Bush's IQ as being 129, so I set about confirming this.

Given the general level of doubt over anything released by the US about their persons of authority, I am unwilling to stand by these so called 'facts' 100%, however I will put them out there

According to his Yale transcript, George Walker Bush's SAT score was 1206 (566 Verbal, 640 Math).

This website offers an SAT to IQ conversion chart that equates Bush's scores to infact be and IQ of 129

Evidently Bill Clinton's IQ was 137 and JFK was 119

As a side note, Schwarzenegger = 135, Dolph Lundgren = 160 and Shakira was 140

I guess this useless info may support what a lot of you have been saying with regards to any positive correlation between traditional measures of intelligence and the actual practice of the same
 
Beatlebot said:
I went to university with enough small-minded creeps to know that education alone does not make you intelligent.
Click to expand...

I don't know that anyone said this.

I said that intelligent people, or at least people who are seeking to expand their knowledge (people who value intelligence, whether for its own sake or to earn money from qualifications, etc) should be more likely to be intelligent.

It's kind of like saying, oh I bet there will be a lot of people who like cars at that motor show on the weekend. Sure, you could dispute that and say that there will be a few wives that got dragged along who don't like cars, and there might even be a few people there who just pretend to like cars to fit in, but for the most part, you would think that the event would attract car lovers.

BeatleBot said:
Personally I think one of the biggest indicators of intelligence is a good sense of humour. Do they get jokes? Can they make jokes? How original and clever are they when they are being funny? If you look at any intelligent person you know I think you'll find they also have a very good sense of humour.
Click to expand...

And to keep with the running theme of discussion:

Everyone has a different sense of humour. ;)

Sense of Humour and Creativity

This article was a bit of an interesting read. I like their theory as to why the act of getting or creating humour is a creative process. I don't know if I really liked the examples they used (of Einstein and the Physicist). I mean, I'm not saying those two people weren't funny, it's just that, the examples they give don't seem to point to them being particularly more funny than any other person. It seems like they're saying "oh look, those two guys are really smart and they have a sense of humour, I bet you didn't know that nerdy smart people could be funny."
 
This entire debate is going to be limited to what any one particular posters concept of intelligence is and how they choose to measure that, whether it be purely for academic reasons, purely from common sense or a combination of the two. I think thats what trancegirl as getting at with the OP.

Reading various posts though has made me think about Paul Erdös, who is largely considered to be the most prolific mathematician of modern times and often discussed in the same breath as Leonhard Euler.

He wrote or co-authored 1,475 academic papers and was at the fore of mathematical concepts as diverse as Combinatorics, Classical Analysis, Graph Theory and Probability Theory. He won the Wolf Prize and was in constant demand by the worlds most prestigous universities and biggest companies. Erdös worked on mathematical concepts 19 hours as day and died at age 83 from a heart attack whilst discussing math theory with a colleage.

Yet he was addicted to amphetamines, could not drive, gave away the majority of his money and was largely unable to conduct himself within public settings. His level of common sense was well below average and some may consider these traits to be somewhat unintelligent. One particular story from his biography states how he boarded at the home of a colleague. When the colleague awoke in the morning he found a blood red substance all over the floor in a trail from the kitchen to the room Erdös was staying.

Erdös had taken a carton of tomato juice from the refridgerator and after not knowing how to open a carton chose to stab a whole in it with knife.

Some may consider Erdös a genius, whilst others may consider him a crazy man with no common sense or rational thought.
 
Last edited:
Interesting stuff eggman.

I think he sounds like a genius. A genius to me is someone of exceptional intellect, who was unique, and innovative (snatched from wikipedia).

A genius is a person of great intelligence, who shows an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work. Geniuses always show strong individuality and imagination, and are not only intelligent, but unique and innovative. The term may also be applied to someone who is a polymath, such as Goethe or da Vinci, but a polymath is generally considered a well-rounded genius, gifted in many areas, e.g. math, physics, art, poetry, etc. Einstein, for instance, was a genius in physics, but not necessarily in other areas such as art or literature.
Click to expand...

Notice that last part. Einstein was a genius in physics, but maybe not at literature or art.

That mathematician you mentioned may not have had common sense, but common sense is just that, common. ;)
 
The clearest indicator of intelligence is how fucked up and depressed a person is.

See: Ernest Hemingway, Thomas Chatterton, Nietzsche, Hunter S. Thompson, Virginia Woolf, Marlon Brando, Sylvia Plath, Sam Peckinpah, William Blake, Tennessee Williams, Eugene O'Neill, Vincent van Gogh, Paul Hogan, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top