Intelligence

[dr froyd]

i know people who are not exceptional in pure abstract problem-solving (they're good but not exceptional), but who absorb information about real-life practical things extremely well.

i also know people who are PhDs in math - they are very good at well-defined abstract problems. However they can struggle immensely when it comes to connecting the dots in a bigger picture - even if that picture remains in the abstract domain. Then there are those who are simply incapable of connecting the dots whatsoever once they deal with translating real-life problems into abstract ones.

then there are people who are kinda smart overall but lack the wisdom to avoid applying reductionist approaches to everything, and lack a certain epistemic humility that is needed when applying reasoning in the real world.

what is intelligence in the end? it's whatever metric you apply in any given circumstances. My metric is very simple: it's your ability to convert brain activity to real-life results.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

what is intelligence in the end? it's whatever metric you apply in any given circumstances. My metric is very simple: it's your ability to convert brain activity to real-life results.

RICH = SMART

POOR = DUMB

 

[dr froyd]

what is intelligence in the end? it's whatever metric you apply in any given circumstances. My metric is very simple: it's your ability to convert brain activity to real-life results.

RICH = SMART

POOR = DUMB

someone once asked thales of miletus - a philosopher who spent his days lying on his back looking at stars - "if you're so smart why aren't you rich". Thales proceeded to use his scientific knowledge to predict the weather and rented olive presses to gain from an abnormally large harvest, and made a fortune.

that is smart

 

[fractalwalrus]

what is intelligence in the end? it's whatever metric you apply in any given circumstances. My metric is very simple: it's your ability to convert brain activity to real-life results.

RICH = SMART

POOR = DUMB

someone once asked thales of miletus - a philosopher who spent his days lying on his back looking at stars - "if you're so smart why aren't you rich". Thales proceeded to use his scientific knowledge to predict the weather and rented olive presses to gain from an abnormally large harvest, and made a fortune.

that is smart

So smart = more work?

 

[fluffy]

what is intelligence in the end? it's whatever metric you apply in any given circumstances. My metric is very simple: it's your ability to convert brain activity to real-life results.

Whatever you can put your mind to.

 

[fluffy]

So smart = more work?

Some things require more work because you cannot carry out the best option available.

Smart = finding the best option faster, not disregarding the fact that this is a general thing to do

 

[fluffy]

Building a UFO may require a paradym shift.

Best option is not obvious?

 

[dr froyd]

So smart = more work?

im actually making the fairly obvious point that if there's any purpose to measuring intelligence, surely it is because intelligence can be used for something. Otherwise, what are we even measuring. I simply - personally - view intelligence in a very broad way, because doing complicated stuff in the real world often requires a broad set of skills.

 

[fractalwalrus]

So smart = more work?

im actually making the fairly obvious point that if there's any purpose to measuring intelligence, surely it is because intelligence can be used for something. Otherwise, what are we even measuring. I simply - personally - view intelligence in a very broad way, because doing complicated stuff in the real world often requires a broad set of skills.

Alright, then I obviously missed it.

 

[scorpiomover]

There are unconventional methods of problem-solving. One could spend a lot of time figuring out cold fusion or a solution to the Poincare conjecture, or they could just seduce the people who know how to do it.

That only works for problems that have already been solved.

I don't think IQ tests measure seduction and charisma, but those things seem to solve problems from the perspectives of certain people.

They're short-term strategies

When you do it, other people see how they can do it without much effort. So then lots of other people also seduce the people who know how to do it, because that's easier, and then the seducers now have to compete with a million other seducers, and the chances of them getting the answer become 1 in a million.

Plus, once it becomes clear that someone's ideas are being stolen by seducers, putting the effort in to solve those problems is no longer a good idea, because they put in lots of effort but don't gain anything from it. Then no-one gets the idea, because no-one is putting in the effort to actually come up with the idea in the first place.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

So smart = more work?

im actually making the fairly obvious point that if there's any purpose to measuring intelligence, surely it is because intelligence can be used for something. Otherwise, what are we even measuring. I simply - personally - view intelligence in a very broad way, because doing complicated stuff in the real world often requires a broad set of skills.

Russian mathematician rejects $1 million prize

A Russian mathematician is rejecting a $1 million prize for solving one of the most challenging problems because he considers it unfair.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[fractalwalrus]

That only works for problems that have already been solved.

Does knowing the methods for solving an equation count that equation as solved if one has not actually sat down and employed those methods?

Plus, once it becomes clear that someone's ideas are being stolen by seducers, putting the effort in to solve those problems is no longer a good idea, because they put in lots of effort but don't gain anything from it.

Well, I'd call employment a form of seduction.

 

[fluffy]

With what problems can be solved, there must be a reason some brains are better at it than others.

A brain is better if it can see more patterns and can combine patterns in thinking.

Brains can specialize yet there is a rate to this.

I noticed that mechanical people have photographic memory.

 

[dr froyd]

So smart = more work?

im actually making the fairly obvious point that if there's any purpose to measuring intelligence, surely it is because intelligence can be used for something. Otherwise, what are we even measuring. I simply - personally - view intelligence in a very broad way, because doing complicated stuff in the real world often requires a broad set of skills.

Russian mathematician rejects $1 million prize

A Russian mathematician is rejecting a $1 million prize for solving one of the most challenging problems because he considers it unfair.

www.nbcnews.com

is this evidence that he is smart or that he is dumb?

 

[fluffy]

So smart = more work?

im actually making the fairly obvious point that if there's any purpose to measuring intelligence, surely it is because intelligence can be used for something. Otherwise, what are we even measuring. I simply - personally - view intelligence in a very broad way, because doing complicated stuff in the real world often requires a broad set of skills.

Russian mathematician rejects $1 million prize

A Russian mathematician is rejecting a $1 million prize for solving one of the most challenging problems because he considers it unfair.

www.nbcnews.com

is this evidence that he is smart or that he is dumb?

Ethical?

 

[Hadoblado]

My boy froyd with the wisdom.

Intelligence is the reliable efficacy of goal-directed computation.

So yes, rich = smart, if your goal is to become rich, while controlling for other factors like initial conditions and complications.

This is one of the things people here struggle with more than others, because they're so invested in ideas of their own potential they can't accept definitions that would categorise them as unintelligent.

If you haven't achieved anything within your means that you want to do you're not some misunderstood genius, you're first among retards.

 

[fluffy]

My boy froyd with the wisdom.

Intelligence is the reliable efficacy of goal-directed computation.

So yes, rich = smart, if your goal is to become rich, while controlling for other factors like initial conditions and complications.

This is one of the things people here struggle with more than others, because they're so invested in ideas of their own potential they can't accept definitions that would categorise them as unintelligent.

If you haven't achieved anything within your means that you want to do you're not some misunderstood genius, you're first among retards.

@dr froyd was good at putting it simple.

There is a way to achieve something if you can think how.

Money may not be a main goal it can be a sub goal.

@fractalwalrus brought up the instantiation of visual spatial working memory. What I think iron man can do in his head. Much of what I think of is invisible to me. My mind is not like a simulator, quite the opposite.

From within my means I can do something but not much, my brother makes lots of mechanical things in Minecraft. I was more interested in how they got such a system to function in the first place. The graph that saved all the boxes and the physics.

I don't care how smart I am. All I want to know is the mechanisms behind thinking. It would be nice if I was higher in intelligence because that would help me understand faster but at the rate I am at so far it was enough. It is not clear on every detail but I have a frame to put it in. That is, what algorithms may be required.

 

[fluffy]

i know people who are not exceptional in pure abstract problem-solving (they're good but not exceptional), but who absorb information about real-life practical things extremely well.

I don't discount that practicality is a good thing. I wish I could be more mechanical, to work with objects along with ideas. It would make things easier to implement. Sadly I have no simulator in my head.

One thing I get now is that intelligence requires an asymmetrical process. Everyone is good at something and the reason is what happens when a person tries something new in relation to what they already know. A certain direction of the attention, thought, motion of the body, in self reinforcement. This can be wide or narrow. Deep or shallow. Forward or backward. Depending on the task.

The connecting of the dots might take longer to figure out. At a level pace we go at we do not want racing thought to ocure. Therefore it would be necessary for a good evaluator to exist.

Rote learning is something I did poorly on. This made me slow at making decisions. Parallelism is required to add.

Introversion gave me bad eyesight.

A balance between inside and outside then.

The regulation @EndogenousRebel talked of

 

[ZenRaiden]

Intellect runs on two things, direct experience and theory models that extrapolate idea about how the world works.

If you lack direct experience no amount of theory modeling will be grounded in reality.

This is basic INTP problem we all INTPs struggle with.

We sometimes confuse our theory with direct experience, because we are good at theory.

But missing the basic map of reality means missing reality altogether.

Its kind of like how dumb people can solve things so simply sometimes, and smart people overthink things and over-complicate things and end up nowhere.

I kind of had this issue since I was a young kid, because it was easy for me to think in abstract, but hard to ground things in reality.

There are 3 types of thinking, detail, day to day, and abstract conceptual.

If you spend most time in detail oriented reality, but neglect day to day baseline reality you will get a lot of detail fine granular intellectual stuff done, but completely miss how it relates to real world application, hence the typical professor that knows everything, but cannot tell you have it can be useful.

Then there is day to day reality where you examine the people their motives, the doorknobs, the stairs and buildings and vehicles and trees and grass, these people are the smartest, but they cannot achieve much in realm of concepts, vice versa if they lack details they skip anything remotely more sophisticated.

If you are conceptual, you get big ideas, and you see how all the dots connect and you see it all like endless stream of webs and realities among realities and you can create new concepts, but without day to day reality it never has any real traction to what is real, it might as well be trash. If these people don't pay attention to details they are missing a massive amount of data too.

So basically all knowledge at the end of day has to be grounded in something.

I feel like aristoteles was one of the smartest greeks, but everything he said was always grounded in reality. If you take a guy like plato he lived in conceptual world mostly, and if you take guys like socrates they would manipulate details of things until your head spins.

The fact is tho, the more grounded in mid tier day to day reality all this detailed and conceptual stuff is the more traction it has.

If knowledge has no traction with real world, it gets you nowhere.

So Tony Star was genius, because he was not sitting and thinking. He took what he knew conceptually and applied it. He took the details to town and fashioned a machine that was perfectly able to blast him out of a cave.
Eventually that meant 3 dif realities were used in harmony.

Most people are in mid tier day to day reality. Some people manage the so called detail reality, and some are even creative conceptual, some people can be all three.

But if you are in one reality you cannot be focusing on other reality.

This is key because if you divide your attention over day period you should spend most time in day to day reality to get the furthest.

If you spend your time in detail reality you will miss the forest and the journey through the forest.

IF you spend most time in day to day, but neglect others you journey through forest, but you never analyze or synthesize so you end up mediocre.

So generally speaking INTPs are best to train their mind to pay attention to day to day reality, because Si makes them think in detail, and Ne makes them think in concepts, but their actual experience is nonexistent.

Which leads to warping of reality to a holographic projection of the mind.

Our minds are powerful, but they are not powerful enough to replace reality.

Reality is too vast and too rich for our tiny monkey brains.

So in order for INTPs to get out of their concept minds Ne and their Si minds they have to start doing day to day tasks as often as possible or they will miss reality and start thinking that their brains are reality.

So they start thinking this tiny stream of conscious thinking is real, but it really is not real. Its just stream of jumbled incomprehensible soup of associations with fragments of logic and intellectualized rational.


Eventually the brain just eats it self.

 

[fluffy]

I pulled weeds today. My yard is a mess. Need to clean more tomorrow.

In school they had me do bussy work all the time because I was "smart". I used to play video games and read books and make models. But I ran out of things to do so that was when I came to abstraction and I was not good at it. But there was an existential question I had, what good is anything I do.

I once heard that many details about the brain exist. The amygdala may be segmented into 50 different parts and connected to lots of other areas. This is 4% or so the complexity known about. And that was when I was in highschool looking at an old book I could not understand at the time with even greater details all illustrated.

I believe if I had the book now I would understand what was going on in it. I think that the way my thinking works I had no context for it. Nothing else I could use within my schema to assimilate it.

When looking at many technical things I find myself in the same situation. I don't understand how it works so I try and piece together what I know because no one can tell me anything about it. I like looking at drawings I don't understand. I doodle small figures about what they make me think of -

It's not holographic. Infact I sometimes forgetting what I was doing as I cannot think anything else I lose track of the dots.

In infinity war the vision has a brain cell holographic projection. I wondered a lot about what that meant as the orange connections might link up or form new projections for thought as it is the mind stone after all. My conclusion was there needs to be a growth process that crystalizes well maintaining a core node and plastic flexibilities.

But that is theoretical as it is just a stone, it needs a body and the human brain works completely different with fixed structures. I only came to my idea because I thought it may look cool as an animation of a thought process and I was unfamiliar with what connectivity brains actually have.

Today I can see how it might be possible to combine a fixed structures with ever expanding nodes and links. Yet I need to study the hippocampus more and relate that to the body's function in all this via self reinforcement learning. To do so I will need books on it and some new programming tools that were recently developed. That means I need money but I can get that by working for it.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

The fact is tho, the more grounded in mid tier day to day reality all this detailed and conceptual stuff is the more traction it has.

bingo

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Intelligence is the reliable efficacy of goal-directed computation.

 

[sushi]

what is intelligence in the end? it's whatever metric you apply in any given circumstances. My metric is very simple: it's your ability to convert brain activity to real-life results.

RICH = SMART

POOR = DUMB

if that were so mr beast and logan paul would have 200 IQ

they just found a niche they are good at, marketing to stupid people

 

[Hadoblado]

Intelligence is the reliable efficacy of goal-directed computation.

Sorry dude but this takes you two seconds to link and one hour for me to watch - I don't have that sort of time, and even if I did, I'm more interested in your thoughts than a video.

 

[Hadoblado]

what is intelligence in the end? it's whatever metric you apply in any given circumstances. My metric is very simple: it's your ability to convert brain activity to real-life results.

RICH = SMART

POOR = DUMB

if that were so mr beast and logan paul would have 200 IQ

they just found a niche they are good at, marketing to stupid people

No. IQ != intelligence. It's just a measure of the ability to meet pre-defined goals (mostly puzzles), that are correlated with other outcomes.

Both of these people are smart, but also likely had good starting conditions and some decent amount of luck along the way.

 

[fluffy]

IQ fits a log bell curve, once people go above a certain IQ then measurement becomes schetchy because no one can create difficult puzzles that can be normed on a population of high level individuals. There just are not enough of them to make the comparisons.

Once this boundary is crossed other methods are needed such as testing at younger ages and brain scans.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I pulled weeds today. My yard is a mess. Need to clean more tomorrow.

Cool. Do you actually enjoy this activity?

 

[fluffy]

I pulled weeds today. My yard is a mess. Need to clean more tomorrow.

Cool. Do you actually enjoy this activity?

It can be fun when other things in life are not causing stress. I like having a clean environment but with other people around I get distracted and I keep to my side of the place. It's not fun to have to repeat cleaning what I am not responsible for but it makes me feel discomfort seeing it everywhere.

 

[fluffy]

I haven't been doing activities that keep my mind out of thinking mode for a long time. I constantly think. Yet recently I am slowing down. I've reached a midpoint in life where I don't have many objectives in need of critical attention. Only that I can calm down more I was in crisis mode all the time and sort of became addicted to it. People can be addicted to stress hormones as a way of coping with life. To avoid other feelings as well.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I haven't been doing activities that keep my mind out of thinking mode for a long time. I constantly think. Yet recently I am slowing down. I've reached a midpoint in life where I don't have many objectives in need of critical attention. Only that I can calm down more I was in crisis mode all the time and sort of became addicted to it. People can be addicted to stress hormones as a way of coping with life. To avoid other feelings as well.

Wow thats good to know. I can see that stress is addictive.

 

[Puffy]

what is intelligence in the end? it's whatever metric you apply in any given circumstances. My metric is very simple: it's your ability to convert brain activity to real-life results.

RICH = SMART

POOR = DUMB

if that were so mr beast and logan paul would have 200 IQ

they just found a niche they are good at, marketing to stupid people

No. IQ != intelligence. It's just a measure of the ability to meet pre-defined goals (mostly puzzles), that are correlated with other outcomes.

Both of these people are smart, but also likely had good starting conditions and some decent amount of luck along the way.

They're both probably narcissists as well tbh or at least have lower levels of empathy than most people. They seem to be okay with doing lots of unethical things in order to succeed and get ahead. Is it intelligent to do those things if it results in success?

I overall agree with the general vibe of what you're saying though. Book smarts and being able to write clever sounding posts on the internet doesn't amount to much if there's no tangible real-world output.

I think that can include more interpersonal things like managing conflict in relationships etc, if someone is higher in emotional intelligence for example.

 

[fluffy]

It is called "manipulation". Which is unethical but can still be measured as a form of social intelligence. What is not really understandable to most people is that when you have it you don't know what empathy truly is and this hides part of human experience from you. As any blind spot it makes such a person delusional in their self evaluation of abilities. They will be confused by peoples actions that are not narcissistic and whoever can see through them. That they can't manipulate. Adjacently it will make them reflect on there actions, give them a sense of pause and causation. They may realize what they are doing is wrong and stop. Soul searching as it is called.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Sorry dude but this takes you two seconds to link and one hour for me to watch - I don't have that sort of time, and even if I did, I'm more interested in your thoughts than a video.

what do you think is the best "goal" ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Adjacently it will make them reflect on there actions,

seems unlikely

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

likely had good starting conditions and some decent amount of luck along the way.

this is true no matter how intelligent you happen to be

 

[fluffy]

Adjacently it will make them reflect on there actions,

seems unlikely

It would need to be a humbling experience one has never experienced before for them.

 

[fractalwalrus]

My boy froyd with the wisdom.

Intelligence is the reliable efficacy of goal-directed computation.

So yes, rich = smart, if your goal is to become rich, while controlling for other factors like initial conditions and complications.

This is one of the things people here struggle with more than others, because they're so invested in ideas of their own potential they can't accept definitions that would categorise them as unintelligent.

If you haven't achieved anything within your means that you want to do you're not some misunderstood genius, you're first among retards.

Problem solving, basically. I said this, but I knew full well you all would have to come to this conclusion yourselves, and from people you agree with ideologically.

 

[fractalwalrus]

My boy froyd with the wisdom.

Intelligence is the reliable efficacy of goal-directed computation.

So yes, rich = smart, if your goal is to become rich, while controlling for other factors like initial conditions and complications.

This is one of the things people here struggle with more than others, because they're so invested in ideas of their own potential they can't accept definitions that would categorise them as unintelligent.

If you haven't achieved anything within your means that you want to do you're not some misunderstood genius, you're first among retards.

@dr froyd was good at putting it simple.

There is a way to achieve something if you can think how.

Money may not be a main goal it can be a sub goal.

@fractalwalrus brought up the instantiation of visual spatial working memory. What I think iron man can do in his head. Much of what I think of is invisible to me. My mind is not like a simulator, quite the opposite.

From within my means I can do something but not much, my brother makes lots of mechanical things in Minecraft. I was more interested in how they got such a system to function in the first place. The graph that saved all the boxes and the physics.

I don't care how smart I am. All I want to know is the mechanisms behind thinking. It would be nice if I was higher in intelligence because that would help me understand faster but at the rate I am at so far it was enough. It is not clear on every detail but I have a frame to put it in. That is, what algorithms may be required.

The common thread in all of these "intelligences": the ability to do something that one has set out to do. Methods may vary, results will be more revelatory. If multiple methods yield same results, then which method does so most efficiently?

 

[Hadoblado]

what is intelligence in the end? it's whatever metric you apply in any given circumstances. My metric is very simple: it's your ability to convert brain activity to real-life results.

RICH = SMART

POOR = DUMB

if that were so mr beast and logan paul would have 200 IQ

they just found a niche they are good at, marketing to stupid people

No. IQ != intelligence. It's just a measure of the ability to meet pre-defined goals (mostly puzzles), that are correlated with other outcomes.

Both of these people are smart, but also likely had good starting conditions and some decent amount of luck along the way.

They're both probably narcissists as well tbh or at least have lower levels of empathy than most people. They seem to be okay with doing lots of unethical things in order to succeed and get ahead. Is it intelligent to do those things if it results in success?

I overall agree with the general vibe of what you're saying though. Book smarts and being able to write clever sounding posts on the internet doesn't amount to much if there's no tangible real-world output.

I think that can include more interpersonal things like managing conflict in relationships etc, if someone is higher in emotional intelligence for example.

Dark triad traits are personality, so will play a component role in the meta-intelligent domain of choosing goals. You're right though, they will also help determine how someone goes about pursuing those goals.

The difference is, a narcissistic person will be narcissistic whether or not it's contextually appropriate. They're not choosing to define their interpersonal life by short-term strategies, they just do it and when it works it works.

They didn't choose the strategy, therefore it's not the result of computation, therefore it's not intelligence. They're just lucky that the current environment rewards their inclinations.

 

[Hadoblado]

Sorry dude but this takes you two seconds to link and one hour for me to watch - I don't have that sort of time, and even if I did, I'm more interested in your thoughts than a video.

what do you think is the best "goal" ?

Some goals are better than others, but there is no best goal. There are just the goals you have.

My boy froyd with the wisdom.

Intelligence is the reliable efficacy of goal-directed computation.

So yes, rich = smart, if your goal is to become rich, while controlling for other factors like initial conditions and complications.

This is one of the things people here struggle with more than others, because they're so invested in ideas of their own potential they can't accept definitions that would categorise them as unintelligent.

If you haven't achieved anything within your means that you want to do you're not some misunderstood genius, you're first among retards.

Problem solving, basically. I said this, but I knew full well you all would have to come to this conclusion yourselves, and from people you agree with ideologically.

Errr...

I've studied psychology and I've had my ideas surrounding intelligence for a while. This isn't a new revelation.

Also froyd and I are ideologically opposed. He's a kooky ass conservative and I'm a bleeding heart liberal. I just try to give credit where it's due.

 

[fluffy]

Meta-strategies sounds interesting.

To problem solve one needs to compute alternatives and what can be learned.

Like playing a game. Ones goals need to include practice and thinking ahead. How much one is willing to invest in each alternate route. Cost benefits analysis.

Part of this is process of elimination.

Exploration vs exploitation.

Of course the dependence is on utilization of proper memory and perception structures to guide actions.

 

[Puffy]

what is intelligence in the end? it's whatever metric you apply in any given circumstances. My metric is very simple: it's your ability to convert brain activity to real-life results.

RICH = SMART

POOR = DUMB

if that were so mr beast and logan paul would have 200 IQ

they just found a niche they are good at, marketing to stupid people

No. IQ != intelligence. It's just a measure of the ability to meet pre-defined goals (mostly puzzles), that are correlated with other outcomes.

Both of these people are smart, but also likely had good starting conditions and some decent amount of luck along the way.

They're both probably narcissists as well tbh or at least have lower levels of empathy than most people. They seem to be okay with doing lots of unethical things in order to succeed and get ahead. Is it intelligent to do those things if it results in success?

I overall agree with the general vibe of what you're saying though. Book smarts and being able to write clever sounding posts on the internet doesn't amount to much if there's no tangible real-world output.

I think that can include more interpersonal things like managing conflict in relationships etc, if someone is higher in emotional intelligence for example.

Dark triad traits are personality, so will play a component role in the meta-intelligent domain of choosing goals. You're right though, they will also help determine how someone goes about pursuing those goals.

The difference is, a narcissistic person will be narcissistic whether or not it's contextually appropriate. They're not choosing to define their interpersonal life by short-term strategies, they just do it and when it works it works.

They didn't choose the strategy, therefore it's not the result of computation, therefore it's not intelligence. They're just lucky that the current environment rewards their inclinations.

I don't think I necessarily disagree with you, I'm more asking an open question if your understanding of intelligence is that it's independent of or doesn't have a relationship to morality or ethics? Are intelligent people more likely to be ethical or not for example?

 

[Hadoblado]

Ah sorry, I missed that completely.

I don't know much about the relationship between intelligence and moral character. A recent metanalysis does show that none of the dark triad are positively correlated with IQ despite tropes about Machiavellian manipulators : https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1614-0001/a000352

I would comfortably assume that no meaningful relationship exists between innate intelligence and morality/ethics until shown evidence otherwise. That's not to say that there is no relationship, just that it's so complicated it's going to average out to peanuts.

That said, for people like you mentioned, you're taking a very specific sample of wildly successful people. They're going to be smarter on average.

Edit: Oh - developmental limitations will likely hit people in the moral reasoning. e.g. Kohlberg models morality as a type of development and people don't always end up at the highest levels. How this computes to being measured IRL though is another question. In my experience (and extremely judgmental worldview) most people are a bit retarded when it comes to moral reasoning, but are what I would call good people give or take. They might not be able to explain their reasoning, but they generally gravitate to reasonable answers through feels or limited justification. TBH the least ethical people I know are the ones who think they know something about morality others don't. It's the flock who should lead the shepherd.

 

[fluffy]

I think that a person who would be confused by empathy would be psychopic. To them getting what you want does have a degree of deficit in theory of mind. Why would a person care is the conflict. Normally people care but what they care about is mysterious to them. So then when such behavior happens where they would do something different they don't recognize the reason. All they notice is that people operate under some rules and not others and they can use this for there goals.

 

[fluffy]

People that don't care depending on intelligence levels can do bad things. They know right from wrong but don't feel bad doing wrong things. This is what I was told is an immoral person.

People only act against their morality if they have no other choice otherwise guilt keeps them from doing bad things. They don't want to be a bad person.

 

[fluffy]

I think the emphasis placed emotional intelligence as a separate thing from IQ is a valid question. After some consideration I see that IQ is static and EQ is dynamic. Perceptually we can observe emotions as they play out. Not that emotions are just facial features but that behavior is connected to internal feelings. It is motion detection and prediction of there source. IQ can be high but some cannot connect others behavior to the internal states they have. Even if they care about that person. That is the limitations of IQ. Static recognition of shapes, holding sequences and fast word reading is not the same as a continuous flow in the real external world.

Having dynamic intelligence can be emensly useful in breaking problems into sub problems because of timing. Time allows priority and that requires hierarchy attention.

Planning for whatever you need with the computation you have shows what is and is not accessible, a bounded dynamic rationality. Given this what then becomes necessary to do is map a structure that can increase its adaptive range. Using prior knowledge to see what it can do.