Originally posted by lioyankRBHill and blindfaith may have inherited a high degree of intelligence for all we know. However, there's a difference between having the capacity to think and having the desire to use it. People's natural inclination is to be intellectually lazy and jump to the first conclusion that comes into their head, so one of the principal goals of education (and one which is often missed by teachers trying to cram kids for exams, or ensure that they pick up all the relevant doctrine) is to get people into the habit of thinking for themselves.
Seriously. I look at these forums sometimes, and wonder about how little knowledge I have compared to some of the people in these forums. Then I encounter posts by RBHill and BlindFaith, and I am baffled. What determines whether someone will be smarter than others? Is it their ambition to learn? Reading as much as they can about a subject? Is it something ...[text shortened]... udy? I'd also appreciate an explanation for whatever your answers may be. Thank you in advance.
I reckon there's some natural variation in all aspects of intelligence (which is a bit of a vague concept - a person can be naturally gifted in one kind of thinking but weak in another). But like muscle strength, most people will not reach their potential; so how good you are at some mental task is to a large extent a function of how often you do it. If you work as a spokesperson, your verbal skills will improve, and if you solve puzzles in your spare time, you'll get better at the kind of analytical reasoning required.
The interplay between knowledge and intelligence is interesting: they're separate things, but i) if you do something a lot you'll tend to pick up both knowledge and intellectual skill in the area, ii) knowledge can often cover for intelligence and vice versa (eg you know how to answer a standard maths question so you don't need to think about it, or you don't know directly about some event, but you are able to infer it by observing those around you) and if you have both, that's even better. The pro and con of trying to increase your intellectual skills rather than your knowledge is that intellectual skills are generally much more widely applicable, but specialist knowledge can be picked up much more easily than the skill to go with it.
Originally posted by yevgenipYes, I think you got your point across, my apologies for the facetious jab at your spelling.
Eventhough, I think I got my point across...
I think we first need to define what we mean by smart...
Intelligence?
n 1: the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience 2: a unit responsible for gathering and interpreting information about an enemy 3: secret information about an enemy (or potential enemy) 4: new information about specific and timely events 5: the operation of gathering information about an enemy
Cleverness?
n 1: the power of creative imagination 2: intelligence as manifested in being quick and witty 3: the property of being ingenious.
Smart?
adj 1: showing mental alertness and calculation and resourcefulness 2: elegant and stylish 3: characterized by quickness and ease in learning 4: improperly forward or bold 5: marked by smartness in dress and manners
n : a kind of pain such as that caused by a wound or a burn or a sore
v : be the source of pain
Source of definitions: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
So, as I was saying, FISH have played an important part in the development and growth of our brains, mostly because of fatty acids that are found in the fishies!
A Whopper of a Tale By: Hara Estroff Marano
It's hailed as the most important finding in psychiatry in the last 40 years. Yet the information is as old as mankind.
Compelling evidence is amassing that regularly eating a class of fats widely found in fish and seafood is effective in preventing and even treating depression. The fats, so-called omega-3 fatty acids, turn out to be critical components of nerve cells and are available solely from what we eat.
Omega-3 fats also appear to have been integral parts of the diets of our prehistoric ancestors. Although the amount of omega-3s in the food supply has radically dropped in the past hundred years, eons of evolution have custom-crafted our brains and bodies to depend on them for basic biochemical maneuvers.
It's taking some very sophisticated science to highlight just what functions omega-3s serve for modern man. Ongoing research indicates that they are key to the smooth operation of arteries and hearts, and abet blood flow. A lack of omega-3s may help explain why depression and heart disease tend to occur together. Omega-3s also keep the immune system from overreacting.
But their most significant role may be in the brain. There are two principal omega-3s, DHA, or docosahexaenoic acid, and EPA, or eicosapentaenoic acid, and scientists now know that DHA spurs the development of the infant brain and visual system. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration has approved DHA for incorporation into infant formulas in the U.S.
Source: Psychology Today http://cms.psychologytoday.com
Etc... etc... fish have played an important part in the evolution of our brains:
Seafood Boosted Brains of Early Humans-Study
Erik Trinkaus and his colleagues at Washington University in St. Louis analyzed the bones of Neanderthals who lived 28,000 to 130,000 years ago in Europe. The results suggest that Neanderthals ate mostly red meat from the larger animals that roamed Europe at that time.
In contrast, the bones of early modern humans found in Britain, Russia, and the Czech Republic (dated 20,000 to 28,000 years ago), showed that fish and seafood accounted for 10 - 50% of their dietary protein.
"The apparently broader dietary spectrum of the early human economy may have rendered humans more resilient to natural pressures and the increasingly packed social environments of Late Pleistocene Europe," the researchers said.
Stephen Cunnane, a professor of nutrition at the University of Toronto called the study "an important finding" that supports a theory that DHA from seafood boosted the brain power of early humans. "You don't need a big brain to collect mussels and clams, but living on them gives you the excess energy and nutrients that can be directed toward brain growth," he said.
Source: The Franklin Institute Online www.fi.edu
So, eating fish is very good for you. My personal opinion is that some people are smarter than others based on their own self perception that they are smart, and what is expected of them will define that self perception. If you really think you're stupid, by and large, you will be stupid. So, the best way to become clever is to delude yourself into believing that you already are, and eat fish.
Originally posted by flyUnityNot always is this the case though. For example yourself.
One thing I have learned is that there are some ppl who appear dum, but are actually smarter then the rest of us, its not a good idea to judge them, Blah, My mom used to keep mentally retarded kids, and you would be suprised how smart some of em are, this one was a fabalous Chess player, and I know another one who would watch football games all day on TV, a ...[text shortened]... t seen him in a while,
If one lack in one area then they gain in another, enough said,
bai
Savants are well documented but rare. For every person of lower intelligence with rainman math abilities or photo-like drawing skills there are hundreds without them.
Also predicting 8 superbowls in a row isn't genius. Assuming each team has a 50% chance of winning that's only 1 in 256. Unlikely but not impossible.
Originally posted by XanthosNZIt would be genius for a retarted person, with downsyndrome,
Not always is this the case though. For example yourself.
Savants are well documented but rare. For every person of lower intelligence with rainman math abilities or photo-like drawing skills there are hundreds without them.
Also predicting 8 superbowls in a row isn't genius. Assuming each team has a 50% chance of winning that's only 1 in 256. Unlikely but not impossible.
Q: Why does God seem to bless some people even when they don't have anything to do with Him? Some of the most prosperous people I know aren't religious, but that hasn't kept them from being very successful. — K.F.
A: Dear K.F.,
Have you ever asked yourself what success is in the eyes of God? We often say a person is successful if they have wealth or power—and that is understandable. But God doesn't define success the way we do, and His definition is different from ours.
Success in God's eyes has to do with our character and with our faithfulness to what God wants us to do. Jesus wasn't successful in a material sense, nor was He socially or politically powerful—not at all. And yet in God's eyes He was absolutely successful, because "He was faithful to the one who appointed him" (Hebrews 3:2). God sent Him into the world to save us from our sins by His death on the cross, and He was successful because He did exactly what God sent Him to do.
You see, a person may be very successful in the eyes of the world and yet be a failure in God's eyes. This is why material success isn't necessarily a sign of God's blessing. Yes, sometimes it is; God does call some people to positions of wealth or influence. But often it is only a sign of a person's selfish determination or even greed.
What is your goal in life? Is it to achieve success in the eyes of others—or is it to please God? Some day this life will be over, which is why Jesus said, "Store up for yourselves treasures in heaven" (Matthew 6:20). Begin this today by putting Christ first in your life.
Originally posted by flyUnitynot really-anyone can choose one out of two teams. and the correct term is "severir and complex learning difficulties", which goes without saying with downsyndrome...
It would be genius for a retarted person, with downsyndrome,
also-there's aspergers syndrome, 'tis autism but the person has exceptional communication and logical thinking skills. would you call a person with aspergers "intelligent"?
Originally posted by AcolyteThe best post in this thread so far.
RBHill and blindfaith may have inherited a high degree of intelligence for all we know. However, there's a difference between having the capacity to think and having the desire to use it. People's natural inclination is to be intellectually lazy and jump to the first conclusion that comes into their head, so one of the principal goals of education (and o ...[text shortened]... icable, but specialist knowledge can be picked up much more easily than the skill to go with it.
intelligence, intellect, brilliance or whatever have nothing to do with the subject person - it has everything to do with how they are perceived and appreciated (and talked about) by OTHER people. If you push the 'right' 'psychological buttons' in people they will respond accordingly.
then there are the myriad self promotion ploys ('propaganda) that some people are expert at and that our societies perpetuate through common discourses - politicians etc 'feed' discourses into society very astutely.
When someone says something about someone AUTOMATICALLY, that is a result of common discourses....logically how can we ever comment on Bush as a person when his persona is only MEDIAted to us?
some of the so called geniuses we have had the non-pleasure to find out about lately to do with American Intelligence bureaus seem so inept and dumb (to put it bluntly) yet they were promoted as super intelligent...blahblahs...from Harvard that we can safely put our trust in, and the 'tag' of brilliance stuck.....
i'ntelligence' is varied and variable depending on time and place
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou are correct. No one has been able to duplicate the so-called
That study's been discredited I believe.
Mozart effect after the one study that claimed a connection between
Mozart's double keyboard sonatas (I think...) and increased aptitude
for learning.
I still play it for my toddler, though. Can't hurt 😉
Nemesio
Well I have one thing, I play chess on the internet, ICC, Chess.net and Yahoo and I have this philosophy, a higher rated player having a certain responsibility to teach a lower rated player some of what the higher player knows, maybe not write a book but point out some of the glaring errors tactical and strategic. What I have found from personal experience is the lower rated players ( they go from about 1000 to 3000 points) don't seem interested in learning. I try to start
a conversation steering them into analysis and only one in ten will have the attention span to listen, for the most part losing it if it takes more than 30 seconds. So I gather they just want to play the game
on a low level and don't care if they learn or not. That seems to be
one indicator of intelligence or lack thereof.