How one type of intelligence correlates with the individual's intelligence in other fronts

[RaBind]

I had a discussion about the topic with my siblings and I argued for:

1) High intelligence and specialization in one area is likely to bleed and seem into other areas of the individual's life. The general ideas and skills picked up from their area of expertise allow/aid them to become a more well-rounded individual.
Therefore this is actually the more common example of how one type of intelligence correlates/affects the individual's other different types of intelligence.
Such examples can be pervasive however because they aren't striking as they don't go against our expectations. I.e. The professors who aren't oddballs aren't the most memorable ones. Even if cases of such individuals are unmemorable, and therefore favored against by anecdotal evidence which is they type that's going to be most alluring to use in such a subject, the numbers if such statistics existed would be in my favor.

They argued for:

2) High intelligence and specialization in one area is likely to bleed and seem into other areas of the individual's life, however there are going to be areas that are so alien/foreign that the individual's High intelligence and specialization will become a burden and get in the way of growth in such areas. Because of this it is more likely that there are going to be more instances where people with a High intelligence and specialization in one area will have areas where they are intellectually weaker than most. Almost all anecdotal evidence and the existence of the stereotypes of people supports this.

For clarification I should say that the argument was about which type of individual is more common, all of us agreed that both types exist.

 

[Turnevies]

I think it depends on how you define an 'intelligence front'. Good analytical skills for example can be applied to a broad variety of fields. But on the other hand, getting used to super-abstract problems doesn't really help to fix a flat tire, I think.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

okay im just going to ignore the word intelligence here, because it complicates and is not necessarily mutually inclusive with specialization(?).
i think we should first make a distinction between a)specialization in the traditionally accepted academic sense and b)truly delving deeper into a certain area of study and letting extracurricular knowledge you've accumulated undulate unto your perception of the subject, factoring more dimensions into your understanding of it
you were arguing b and they were arguing a...i guess?
i mean...if that's the case, then youre not even argueing using the same benchmark
anyway...people of the (b) variety are not common imo, if that's the extent of your question. i might have more to add later but i gtg now

 

[Hadoblado]

The degree to which a specialisation can be generalised is equal to the degree that problems within that area of specialisation are generalised. Maybe.

So if you're specialised in maths, match can basically be used to solve all sorts of shit. It's highly generalisable because it's a means of abstracting all of reality.

Being specialised in physics is also pretty good. It'll probably help you change a tire.

Being specialised in quantum physics however? Past the math part, you're not going to reap any benefit from that extra specialisation, while it comes at the cost of opportunity. I'd put my money on a less specialised mathematician having a more generalisable aptitude.

In terms of intelligence though, high IQs are correlated with social normativity and adaptability. High IQs are less likely to be esoteric personalities. It's only when intelligence is paired with some sort of disorder or extremity when you get the seeming contradiction of the superscientist unable to make themselves a cup of coffee. I would point to attention here. If you've got attentional issues that help you specialise (focusing on your ideas at the expense of disengagement with everything else), you're then going to have difficulty switching gears when it's appropriate, and make yourself look the intelligent fool.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I'd agree that there's a correlation that highly skilled and smart also excel or do well in other areas, but I'd disagree it's due to the pursuing of their mastery or interests, it has more to do with their mental capacity and constructive experiences in the past.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I'd agree that there's a correlation that highly skilled and smart also excel or do well in other areas, but I'd disagree it's due to the pursuing of their mastery or interests, it has more to do with their mental capacity and constructive experiences in the past.

Yes but I think that those two components are part of social intelligence, and that its social intelligence is what really allows one to capitalize on resources gained from one's field and specialized intelligence, especially through networking.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Something, let's call it EQ or social intelligence. Some capacity that still hasn't been properly isolated or understood by the sciences and so it leaves us using popular psychological terminology.

It's rather obvious and common sense to say that some have high 'general-something' and do well overall and some have poor general but high specific-something and do well as specialists but show gaps everywhere else.