In your own words, please.
bonus question: how much is it defined by culture, if at all?
I'm most interested in what people have to say if they're trying to define it as objectively as possible.
Expertise.
It's the ability to see past the surface of things and make genuine connections, although preferred areas of application/ease differ (people's behavior/demeanor, emotional states, abstract systems of logic, business strategies, social structures, what have you.)
In sum, it's a kind of "sharpness of mind" that's not type related. And the person can be spacey, etc, and still have this.
Intelligence (INT): Intelligence is similar to IQ, but also includes mnemonic ability, reasoning and learning ability outside those measured by the written word. Intelligence dictates the number of languages a character can learn, and it influences the number of spells a preparation-based arcane spellcaster (like a Wizard) may cast per day, and the effectiveness of said spells. It also affects how many skill points a character gains per level, the Appraise, Craft, Decipher Script, Disable Device, Forgery, Knowledge, Search, and Spellcraft skills, and bardic knowledge checks.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
aggregate competence over the areas that are relevant.
The more intelligence relevant things you are competent at, the more intelligent you are.
Last edited by Trevor; 01-18-2012 at 12:25 AM.
It's not as succinct as it sounds. Expertise could be in any realm of thought, as I could list thousands of areas others wouldn't even think of where intelligence could manifest, and it would be difficult to reason. Expertise is the knowledge which lends to the ability, whether it's intuitive or learned. I think the general term intelligence lends to the pretense potential, where as my idea of intelligence is based more as what understanding is already there within the mind. So my definition covers the widest range of thought.
Last edited by 717495; 01-18-2012 at 12:42 AM.
Ah, this is where you have the uninformed definition of expertise. I think it gets read as general knowledge, but has more to do with all areas of understanding.Originally Posted by octo
fwiw i completely agree.
i was asked to define intelligence earlier today and my answer was roughly "the ability to reason well and have original thoughts" and i was told that this was subjective which made me curious how other people would describe it, especially if they were aiming to be objective.
Just my point:
expertise = expert skill or knowledge in a particular field (this includes the whole gamut), where one form of intelligence is "'the ability' to adapt to new situations" as Tak points out; the next form of intelligence is "'the ability' to think logically" and "analyse and solve problems in a variety of novel situations independent of acquired knowledge" as octo points out, and so on.
As Abbie points out via dictionary "intelligence n capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc." This to me originates in various forms of expertise.
That's my take.
Reason and intelligence is subjective and contradictory, which is probably why you were told such.
After experiencing considerable temporary fluctuations of my intelligence through an extensive period of time as a result of a variety of factors. I have come to realize that intelligence is merely the ability to quickly form accurate perceptions and judgments of the world around you. The rate of speed and accuracy indicates the level of intelligence. Culture primarily affects which types of intelligence will be developed and how they will be used, but they will have a negligible impact on the level of one's general intelligence.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Maybe we could derive an empirical definition of such kind -> intelligence = expertise / amount of time spent learning the subject/skill. It has a nice hyperbolic distribution which would fit with a normal distribution of intelligence over the reference population.
I don't really care that much about crystallized intelligence either, even though they have a tendency to be highly correlated in people who managed to obtain some education.I personally have far less respect for crystallised than fluid intelligence, possibly because my memory is like a sieve. I think my age is also a factor.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I prefer this type. It's probably most of what is meant by expertise in a human brain, when someone 'knows what to do but doesn't know what that is objectively.' There is so much we know but don't know what it is objectively. My favorite is generally intuitive expertise/talents, which is a larger stem from this. However I hardly care about anything to do with how quick someone is to come up with reason, there's always something deeper and more significant.
I like expertise, but maybe it should be redefined as the potential to acquire expertise.
Intelligence is a mask. It tries to categorize and balance what cannot really be categorized and balanced. That's why intelligence is always at odds with eroticism, with just being a human, a human that's flawed and ugly. Deaf and dumb people are so hot, glue sniffers who don't think about the world so much and just want to enjoy other people, are tired of all the ego bickering.
It's also emotionally dishonest. People hate to admit that there are things that get under their skin, they want to be tough. Being emotionally honest about something makes you vulnerable in the eyes of others. But you're just fronting, even if the only person you're fooling is yourself.
Like I'm doing it again. I want to say 'but then again emotional syrup isn't a virtue either.' I want to mediate. I want to have everything balanced and cool and calm and collective. But there's an animal inside of me who wants to have sex and wants to hate and wants to snap the neck of my enemies. I'm an artist but I don't want equanimity. I want the artists to actually win. DIE BUSINESSMEN DIE!
I think intelligence is something that appeals to your logical mind and emotion, empowering you. I dont think intelligence has much to do with an impressive IQ as it does with listening to yourself.
the engagement of the inner & outer world
If you consider storing facts and observations without processing them a form of intelligence, I not only feel bad for you but I feel it's wrong in all kinds of ways.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
"Having the ability to learn, adapt to change, or meaningfully interpret what permutations of information suggest" <- rough definition.
I didn't necessarily mean intelligence itself is subjective, I meant how it's interpreted (or something like that) is subjective. The 'intelligence' one has is dependent on the intelligence people around him have. Take the IQ for instance (mostly BS pattern recognition in my opinion, but it is a decent example): You can get a number on it, whether it be 80 or 100 or 140, but you don't know what that number means unless you compare it to the numbers that other people got. So while the number itself is objective in the sense that it is a quantitative value that defines how well one does in 'x' area(s), having only your number alone doesn't tell you what that number means.
I like the definition that Ashton posited, it is perhaps a more succinct way to put what I am trying to say.
Intelligence is so multifaceted that I can't find any way to quantitatively measure it in all its forms in any person, animal, plant, etc., and weigh the bulks of any of those against the bulks of any other. As for me, I don't know if I process as much as I consume, devour, take in; from there, everything sorts itself out somehow and it all works. Anyhow, here goes:
intelligence - a measure, for any given object, equal to the distance between said object and non-sentience
good luck on finding a way to measure though...
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
You can't measure it "all". I.Q measures only one "side" of intelligence.
Meow, cluck, moo.
Don't mind the double post, but forgot to add when I said that is measures just one "side" of intelligence. In English it means that I.Q measures an organism's observable characteristics or traits such as its morphology, development, phenology, behaviour, etc.
Damn Opera.
Hence... the edit button.
You know what, I think I like this topic; it allows me to share an insight I forgot I had.
There's no such thing as intelligence. The kid who is a musical mastermind at age 13? He probably studied it since 3 and had his parents shove it down his throat. That kid who aced all the tests in your math class? He probably already knew the material or had a damn good idea walking into that class.
I honestly think that the concept of intelligence aims to create the feeling of impotence in an 'other' group of people, and to artificially strengthen the egos of its users. You guys will have a million different definitions, and every one will conform to the one presenting it, or, if they have been pressured into a different definition from one who would proclaim himself superior and them the 'other', they will guiltily present a definition that conflicts with their behavior (or incorporates both).
It's as illogical to place logic on a pedestal and call it worthy of worship and merit (hidden in the word intelligence) as it is race, hobbies, whatever. It's just one more way of justifying and complimenting one school of thought while downplaying and even condemning others. I would embrace an environment where they are all welcome and worthy of merit in their own right, not shunned as invaluable.
Whatever, maybe I'm full of shit - I just really don't like to use the word to describe myself, anyone or anything.
I like this definition, I'd only also add having formed all those perceptions ability to construct intentional action with those same levels of high accuracy as somehow I don't think that just passively absorbing information is enough to classify as intelligence
Haha. You're so funny and intelligent I almost laughed. There are times I can't edit when running Opera. Smells like a spawn of Gamma to me.
this is intelligence:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
