death of intelligence, the rise of personnality

[WALKYRIA]

hi everybody, why do i have the constant feeling that the entity/concept of intelligence belongs to the past ?
I used to think of myself as fairly intelligent, becoz people around me didnt seem to think-qualitatively- as good as i did... then i went to med school and i realized that dumber(to my point of view) people understood faster than i did; nevertheless they where unable of high level conversations(philosophy, morality, ethics, neurosciences, history). Those people were labeled intelligent becoz they always topped their classes. I made it through med school with raw logic(trying to understand everything, all the logical interconnections between everything.... frustation came when i began to understand that there were many other ways to understand a concept aside from the logical understanding!), wich is the worst technique in memory related studies !

My med school mates were thus considered intelligent or maybe gifted but had 0 creativity, 0 lateral thinking, machines.


IQ test? working memory? spatial intelligence? all those tests try to catch the substance of intelligence... I wasnt sure about that, but MBTI made it sure about this fact : intelligence is relative(see einstein quote with fish climbing a tree). are INTP really intelligent? they visualise, they link things together... good, but what about studying unrelated subjects... ex: everything wich involves raw memory: medicine... they struggle.
I went in med school becoz i thought i could achieve whatever i wanted(i wanted a job with money, good future oportunity and multiple possibility to get laid and independant ), med school almost proved me wrong(even though the journey was enjoyable, full of learnings, insight, understandings, growth, maturity, bigger comfort zone... ).Just like my med mates couldnt understand philosophy, i couldnt accept medicine cursus approach easily.

MY thought here is that intelligence is a fake concept invented by society to divide the people; what exists though is different thinking abilities. MBTI and it functions is the best way to explain that; some type prefer to think, other types prefer to feel and other like to live/ experience. Different ways of thinking/learning, for only one type of pedagogy type, why is it that? I went to med schol to study the human body, brains, evrything, the beauty of this complex system... and what i actually learned were boring FACTS(*S*J style !) !


SO, in conclusion: do your think that people have (quantitatively) different intelligence or have qualitatively different inteligence? and aso the concept of raw intelligence (which is completely subjective and context dependent !)just as the concept of god is dying and fake... People have different brains, becoz brain has the ability to morphe, to change=neuroplasticity(i believe that this concept is the next best step-after concept of intelligence- for cognitive sciences) . If you learn a new language, your brain will be different. If you regularly do mental training-mental calculation, chess-, your brain will change. SO, why do we continue thinking that some people are less or more intelligent than others based on IQ? or working memory? people aren't more intelligent, just a different understanding and philosophy of something.
Do you think that a lawyer can be-intellectually- compared to a doctor? to a philosopher? to an engineer? to a high school drop out ? to university professor? Nope, all might be equally intelligent but the difference is their vision of the world, their personalities, their experience, the path they choose to follow. That's crazy !
Although, i agree with the fact that IQ/working memory is strongly correlated with school achievement... but again, it is becoz school is designed for certain kind of intelligences= linear SJ or similar learning style !

My guess is that cognitive tests have been invented by S types, to mesure Stype(fixed) abilities.

I also have the feeling that many INTP's here are still stuck in the intelligence issue; why don't u youg INTPs aknowledge that intelligence is a flawed concept(i was like that too)... please don't rely on your blurred vision of intelligence.




(sorry again for my english, 8th language.. u better use your N )
(Don't think i'm criticizing IQ tests becoz i might be bad at it , i actualy hit in the highly gifted range baby...but feel like retard in most situations so... really relative !)

 

[Cognisant]

Wow you know eight languages, which ones?

 

[Teohrn]

The concept of intelligence is very valid; both neuroscience and psychology is there to validate it as such. What I get is that you are against the misconceptions of intelligence rather than the concept of intelligence itself. In other words, I see this as a discussion about what should be defined as intelligence rather than intelligence.

Most school systems around the world are based on rote learning, i.e. memorization and regurgitation of "facts". (Although the further one ventures into the education systems, at least in the West, the less rote learning.) Rote isn't something I would associate with intelligence, much less so with the creative/productive kind of intelligence, e.g. what Einstein and Newton had as opposed to those who do great at trivia(lities). Rote learning -- and I think there are studies to prove my point -- is more about effort than intelligence itself.

You are on to something when you say that personality is a decisive factor. However, I would argue that you fail to connect the dots. The connection is that intelligence affects personality. Intelligent people generally behave in one way. They care more about the big picture than the small details. Focusing on the small details, while ignoring the big picture, is kind of like crawling through a city looking through a magnifying glass while trying to find out in which city you are. Not very efficient and not very clever. They think for themselves. They want understanding, as knowing without understanding is not actual knowledge, it only pretends to be.

Comparing different careers generally thought of as intellectual is falsely problematizing this. Those were only choices, after all. It does not imply that they were only good at being doctors, it means they took those choices, and likely so because that was what interested them. What if they had taken other career choices? Well, they probably would have succeeded in that too. What you are speaking of has more to do with interests and careers than intelligence. Thus you are attacking the problem from the wrong side.

And with that said, I did not even skim through what you wrote as I am in a hurry, which I think the content and structure of my post also points towards. I therefore apologize if I completely missed the point.

PS. Welcome from a probable INTJ.

 

[snafupants]

I'm more confounded by the human need to create ridiculous dichotomies - philosophy versus science, intelligence versus personality, and so forth. Really guys? There's no overlap?

 

[17pounder]

You are confusing sensing with intelligence. People who are sensors have the ability to learn things quite quickly for what they are, but have quite some problem coming up with new ideas. Even that in itself is hard to measure, as most new ideas are not new ideas. Someone who is intelligent can distinguish between levels of priority and therefore decide which ideas are better or worse. A sensor can do what he was told to do, and very well, but often cannot decide on new procedures.
Its not just black and white either, you might thing two people are the same intelligence, but one has years of experience and the other only a little theoritical experience, and yet both came to the same conclusion. Just because the end result is the same, does not mean the people are the same intelligence.

I have found that intelligence, is mostly related to how honest someone is with themselves. To be intelligent, a person must be able to admit something needs to be fixed in the first place, and that current rules are not effective.

 

[Teohrn]

I'm more confounded by the human need to create ridiculous dichotomies - philosophy versus science, intelligence versus personality, and so forth. Really guys? There's no overlap?

I feel this should have been pointed out earlier.

The OP should have rendered it something like multiple types of intelligence rather than making an attempt to separate one from the other.

I have found that intelligence, is mostly related to how honest someone is with themselves. To be intelligent, a person must be able to admit something needs to be fixed in the first place, and that current rules are not effective.

That does seem to fit in with the Dunning-Krueger effect. Metacognition is associated with higher intelligence.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Boooooriiing!

But no, seriously, what was the topic? Oh, right, intelligence. Intelligence is essentially just your ability to find patterns, and the speed with which you do so, building upon previously identified patterns in your mind's equation of the world. IE, it's how well you learn.

Which is not a fake thing, it's certainly real. What's fake is how important it is. What society wants is results. How smart you are may be a boon or a hindrance to your results, of course, but it's what you do that matters. Simply being smart doesn't land you a job or feed your kids. You need to use your intellect.

 

[joal0503]

Boooooriiing!

But no, seriously, what was the topic? Oh, right, intelligence. Intelligence is essentially just your ability to find patterns, and the speed with which you do so, building upon previously identified patterns in your mind's equation of the world. IE, it's how well you learn.

Which is not a fake thing, it's certainly real. What's fake is how important it is. What society wants is results. How smart you are may be a boon or a hindrance to your results, of course, but it's what you do that matters. Simply being smart doesn't land you a job or feed your kids. You need to use your intellect.

but doesnt american society seem to reward the dumbmasses, rather than the intellect? i have no idea how youd quantify this, but it does seem to be a popularly publicized theme.

 

[SpaceYeti]

but doesnt american society seem to reward the dumbmasses, rather than the intellect? i have no idea how youd quantify this, but it does seem to be a popularly publicized theme.

Oh? It's the dumb people who become rich doctors and lawyers and engineers and such? No, intelligence plays a small part, if any, in acquiring a job. It has more to do with education and relevant experience. In what sort of situation is being less intelligent rewarded?

 

[joal0503]

Oh? It's the dumb people who become rich doctors and lawyers and engineers and such? No, intelligence plays a small part, if any, in acquiring a job. It has more to do with education and relevant experience. In what sort of situation is being less intelligent rewarded?

No no no ...

celebrities, athletes, etc...

compared to lets say, educators...

doctors, lawyers, and engineers ... probably more of a social class issue of opportunity more than intelligence...just another 7am guess.

 

[SpaceYeti]

No no no ...

celebrities, athletes, etc...

compared to lets say, educators...

doctors, lawyers, and engineers ... probably more of a social class issue of opportunity more than intelligence...just another 7am guess.

Do you suppose celebrities and athlete's become famous because they might seem less intelligent? Did they get where they are now due to being unintelligent, or did people begin perceiving them as unintelligent after the fact?

Why would you presume educators are more intelligent than anyone else? More educated on certain topics, certainly, but actually more intelligent? I'm not sure that's the case.

I'd agree with you on the social class thing. People get jobs because they have an education and had an opportunity to prove themselves to someone who could give them a job. Getting an education does not require intelligence (though intelligence helps to get one), and that's all.

 

[joal0503]

Do you suppose celebrities and athlete's become famous because they might seem less intelligent? Did they get where they are now due to being unintelligent, or did people begin perceiving them as unintelligent after the fact?

HELL FUCKING NO. I mean there are exceptions of course, but no. The majority of 'successful' people touted around as celebs and athletes are not of the intelligence i would consider others (such as doctors, educators, lawyers) They become famous because they happen to possess a neurotic talent that our society has been conditioned to crave.


Why would you presume educators are more intelligent than anyone else? More educated on certain topics, certainly, but actually more intelligent? I'm not sure that's the case.

I ask the same thing about doctors, lawyers, and politicians, as I do with everyone really....they have the credentials of education, but just from personal relationships...its not the position itself that presumes intellect, its the proof of their work that matters. yea. But I now see how you question this idea....it makes sense because im doing the exact same thing (god ive been up for 40 hours forgive me for rambling)

I'd agree with you on the social class thing. People get jobs because they have an education and had an opportunity to prove themselves to someone who could give them a job. Getting an education does not require intelligence (though intelligence helps to get one), and that's all.

I feel like this is the underlying factor of this topic. its not intellect, or hell even good ol fashion hard work...its resources, opportunity, and who you know, influenced of course a great deal by social class.

sorry for the red color.

 

[SpaceYeti]

sorry for the red color.

It's okay. I mean, it's one of my pet peeves, but whatever.