Question of the Day, 04/14/2010 - Intelligence

[Deck Knight]

EDIT: We'll be having a format change soon. Expect two threads a week, one starting on Friday and going till Sunday, another starting Monday and going through Thursday.

Today's Question:

What traits do you believe indicate your intelligence? Are you "book smart" or "street smart?" Do you know people who have both "kinds" of intelligence? Do you believe there are any other kinds of intelligence?

Previous Questions
First Thread, Info
Second Thread
Third Thread
Fourth Thread
Thread 5
Thread 6
Thread 7

 

[Broth3r]

I'm a bit of a mix between both. I say this because I need both of them to survive, both in university and on my drug-ridden neighborhood.

Also, what happened with tangerine? Some explanation is required.

 

[rbygsc kid 251]

GREAT TOPIC.

First off, I believe that PERFECT intellegence comes with a 50/50 balance of "street" smarts and "book" smarts. Here is why.

If someone is 85/15 in favor of book smarts, he can potentially be exploited in many ways financially. Perhaps he/she does not know how to cook, so they have to eat out. Perhaps they do not know how to operate a lawn mower, or know how to FIX a lawn mower, so they either A) hire someone to do it for them or B) constantaly replace something that has the potental of being fixed (therefore wasting money). That is just one example. Fixing cars would be another.

If someone is 85/15 in favor of street smarts, then they will have a far easier time with a specilization (say mechanic, or landscaper, etc.), but if the economy were to BUST (like now), then they are screwed if they cannot find another job related towards their specilization. For example, if someone worked 25 years in Detroit, putting only the front right headlight on a car, when they lose their job, they will potentally be in huge trouble. They chose not to go to college (therefore, choosing not to go for book smarts), and they will find it far harder to get a job.

In general, I believe that book smarts are defined by people who love to read and can TELL you about it either through conversation, a test, or a paper of some kind.
In pokemon, this type of person is going to spend hours inside of the strategy pokedex reading and trying to figure out a strategy.

Those with street smarts skip the reading, and PUT THINGS INTO PRACTICE, such as fixing a car. Also, common sense is very much a "street" smart, and you wouldn't believe some of the people that I have met, that are so lacking in common sense. It's really not that common (common sense that is). In pokemon, this person may spend 10-15 minutes in the strategy pokedex, and will most likely just throw together a team and try to readjust as they go.

Both "street" and "book" smarts are very important, and a combination of both will make us great people, and pokemon players for that matter (well, maybe)

I believe that I am 70/30 in favor of book smarts. I have quite a bit of common sense (not the most), but I know hardly anything about cars. I can change my oil, change my flat tires, change an air filter, change broken bulbs, and actually drive well. While those things all seem simple and ACTUALLY ARE, I'm sure there are a vast amount of people (both guys and girls) who can do none of the things I just mentioned.

Finally, i believe there is an intellegence that only 1/100 people have and it doesn't really fit into street smarts or book smarts and that is FINANCIAL intellegence. Many people have no F***** clue of what they are doing with their money, and especially those that are living in a capitalist nation (like the U.S.) are so focused on getting the best stuff that they are either in debt or so stressed out over it (THEIR ENTIRE ADULT LIFE). I mention this because I believe that I actually have such sense (to some degree) and am in no way interested in the rat race, am in no way interested in debt, and am in no way interested in keeping up with the nicest stuff. That's right, I'm saying you can use flip phones! and CD players! (ah, gasp!). Also, how many people do you know that actually know how to save money? I don't know many, and you probably don't either. Perhaps they can't because of their bills. Well, get rid of some of the bills. Nobody needs cable, NOBODY. Nobody needs a car payment, NOBODY.

Sorry for the long post, I'm very pationate about said topic.

 

[Zystral]

I'll admit. I'm fully booksmart. I know little about 'streetsmart,' which is probably why I find it hard to make and friends and alienate myself from society.

Not saying I don't know how to conduct myself out in public, and that I don't have common sense, but almost always, when I think about something or make any choice/rational decision, logic will kick in first and I will completely analyse the whole situation and choose the best possible outcome based on the statistics alone.

I never like going in and doing something, generally I will rely on what I know and work around using that. Sure, it's not very efficient since there will be a lot of things I will end up being unable to do, but with my high ability in book-smarts, I can easily be in a situation where I can afford to have other services make up for my lack in ability elsewhere (that said I can cook and clean so lol).

 

[Ferrouswheel]

I'm book smart, with little to no street smarts. As in, I have very little common sense. I try to make sure that I don't do something completely stupid, but yeah...

Also, in response to rbygsc kid 251, I can cook, change my oil/fill my tires, do pool maintenance, and a number of other things, I still wouldn't say that I'm street smart. I'm smart enough to go and RTFM.

Also, I'm a decent investor, no where near as good as my father (I just tend to do exactly what he says), but ever since I was about 16, my dad had been telling me about the financial market. So, unlike the vast majority of college students, I know what stocks and bonds are, and what not.

Completely agree with your idea that most people waste their money, I spend most my extra money on books. I read too much. I do disagree with the car payment thing though, you might need a car, and for safety reasons want to get a new one, or you just can't put together enough money to buy an old one upfront.

 

[Parallel]

Like most intelligent people i know, i lack drastically in common sense and general awareness. Also, i ahve discovered intelligence means nothing if you don't revise enough..

Also, emotional intelligence exists. Theres even an EQ test about somewhere..

 

[cim]

I generally describe intelligence as one's ability to understand concepts and solve problems. Knowledge is described by facts and experiences, and anyone can be knowledgeable, but your intelligence is less controllable than that.

 

[rbygsc kid 251]

Completely agree with your idea that most people waste their money, I spend most my extra money on books. I read too much. I do disagree with the car payment thing though, you might need a car, and for safety reasons want to get a new one, or you just can't put together enough money to buy an old one upfront.

Well, that of course is a personal preference. If we get down even deeper into the subject, what do we as humans really need? Food, water, shelther, clothing, that's about it! Everything else is a want. We choose to up our standards (Of course, I have more than the 4 things I just mentioned).

For me, car safety comes in paying attention to the road, not texting while driving, not drinking while driving, and hopefully not talking on the phone either. If I were to hit a tree, it doesn't matter what car I'm driving, put simply I lose. If another car hits me, again if its at a high enough speed, it will not matter what I'm driving, I lose.

Also, the last part of your last sentence emphasises one of my points. Let's say I found a cheap car in the newspaper for 2,000 dollars (or even better a friend sold it to me). But I don't have 2,000 dollars. Well, the first thing I need to do is get a job and save money. Most people will say you need a car to get a job. This is only true in maybe 20 percent of cases. I'm sure everyone has a relative or friend that is more than willing to take you to work (My grandmother made the 6 mile round trip 4 days a week for the first 2.5 years that I worked). Even if they are not willing, you can use some of the money you make to pay for their gas, and you are still going to be very much ahead. Once you have saved up about 2,300 dollars start looking for that 2,000 dollar car. It may not be the best car, and it may not happen right away, but it will happen. Also, if possible walking is usually the cheapest alternative and the best one for your body (If you are walking an hour a day, there is no real need for any other exercise), and that is killing two birds with one stone. There are plenty of ways to rework situations such as these in your favor. The real kicker however, is that most people are NOT willing.

The above paragraph was relating to Financial Intellegence.

Something else that I wanted to point out that I forgot earlier.

In order to participate on the forums at Smogon, we all have to have some level of "book" intellegence, because our posts have to have a certain quality. So if anyone thinks they are lacking in "book" intellegence, don't sell yourself short.

 

[Maylene]

im jealous im quite street smart but logically i am not all that great,
but i find that in order to be intelligent you must be wise with your actions and the way you say things, only what is your true intelligence shown.

 

[pika]

disappointed that i seem to be the only one that lacks any shred of intelligence whatsoever. :( i should have guessed that pokemon forums are full of geniuses.

@financial intelligence: funny that you seem to define that as "saving". we have this piss-poor rock-bottom peanuts interest rate that's LOWER than the inflation rate, so by shoving our money in the bank you're actually losing money, rofl. more importantly than not being wasteful, you should learn how to use your money so you can afford to waste it. :D

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

About 60% book smarts and 40% charisma

Im good at math, but im terrible at grammar and writing; good with individual strangers, but not good with whole groups of people.

 

[AJers]

Don't be so worried, pika! I'm a dumbass, as well. :P

I'm one of those people that knows a little bit about a lot. I've yet to find anything that has interested me enough to dig in too deeply. I tip over to the "book-smart" area of intelligence, but I do have some "street-smarts"- when I chose to use them. Overall, I consider myself pretty well-rounded.

As far as "financial intelligence" goes, let's just say I'm getting BETTER about it. Haha, I was one of those young college students who came to college, got a few cards *coughs* and went buckwild with road trips, partying, and shopping. God, those were the days! However, I have under 1500 left to pay off for it (which, honestly, is next to nothing), and then I'm home-free.

My savings took a pretty heavy hit last year because I became the legal guardian for an elderly relative who lived in another state- all the traveling, rental cars, etc. that came along with attending doctors appointments and emergencies just slowly worked their way into my savings. *sighs* But, that will be my goal this year. And yes, shoving money into the bank is a bad idea, but having a small "nest egg" available to fall back on for emergencies is a good thing. In my opinion, it's a good idea to keep some of your assets liquid for the "just in case" scenarios that love to come up in ones life.

 

[rbygsc kid 251]

disappointed that i seem to be the only one that lacks any shred of intelligence whatsoever. :( i should have guessed that pokemon forums are full of geniuses.

@financial intelligence: funny that you seem to define that as "saving". we have this piss-poor rock-bottom peanuts interest rate that's LOWER than the inflation rate, so by shoving our money in the bank you're actually losing money, rofl. more importantly than not being wasteful, you should learn how to use your money so you can afford to waste it. :D

My bank account pays 4.44 percent interest on the first 25,000 dollars. Down the street there is a different bank (not a different branch of mine), that does about 4.1 percent interest and that is also on the first 25,000 dollars. So in short, if you have 25,000 dollars in both accounts you are making 2,000-2,200 dollars a year (or about 180/month)

What was that about piss-poor rock-bottom peanuts interest rate? Can you tell me of any stocks in which you can make 2,000 dollars a year GUARANTEED. Yes, no risk please.

Please, do not take my "saving" and put it out of context. Of course, I KNOW that you cannot possibly save save save save save until you have 2,000,000 dollars in your account, but you can save to where you have maybe 6-12 months of bills in your account. You know, in case you lose your job, in case you get hurt, etc. Ideally, i would say that 2-5 years worth of bills in your account is the way to go, but I bet you that over HALF of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and cannot do this. the whole point that I'm making is that many times people put their own damn selves in these shitholes. (I know there are exceptions.)

 

[pika]

of course you're right about having a nest egg, but i thought i should point out that there is more to "financial" intelligence that simply exhibiting a bit of self control and not spending so much on luxuries.

also, dumbasses unite! :D

edit:
@rbygsckid: my savings account pays 0.05%, and no that is not 5%. it's zero-point-zero-five fucking percent! welcome to hong kong!! ._. and that's already pretty good, considering some pay out 0.001%...

anyway i wasnt trying to say you were wrong, only trying to add to it. sorry if i misinterpreted you. i also didn't seem to clarify that by "we" i meant "we hong kongers with the less than 1% interest rate" although it really applies to anyone with a shitty interest rate too

Can you tell me of any stocks in which you can make 2,000 dollars a year GUARANTEED. Yes, no risk please.

no risk no return aye? ^^

 

[rbygsc kid 251]

No offense taken, most banks in the U.S. pay VERY low, but for some reason my bank (which is well off), decided to do this promotion which started in Jan 09. The bank down the street was brand new and decided to do it just to attract costumers. I think they started in April 09.

You do make a great point about my nest egg. Perhaps I lack financial intellegence and just have a lot of self control. That sounds pretty correct too. Where does self-control go? Is that street smarts? :)

 

[Lemmiwinks MkII]

Well, that of course is a personal preference. If we get down even deeper into the subject, what do we as humans really need? Food, water, shelther, clothing, that's about it! Everything else is a want. We choose to up our standards (Of course, I have more than the 4 things I just mentioned).

But the reason you feel that you need those things is because you really want to stay alive. If you were to argue that the standard of wanting to stay alive is a given, and therefore these means to this end are necessary, someone else could just turn round and say that the standard of wanting to live life to the full is a given, and therefore this, this and that are necessary means to this end for them. Any inherent need to keep living that you want to argue all goes back to 'purpose of life', which there was a recent thread about IIRC. Short answer though: no universal purpose for everyone.

In actuality, everything is a want in fundamental terms. Just saying.

 

[Objection]

Also, emotional intelligence exists.

Of which I have none.

In fact, the only time I have any intelligence is when I have plenty of time to think. Take the luxury of time away and I fall flat on my face. Suffice to say, I have virtually no street smarts - I can't even hold a semi-intelligent conversation. Luckily, when I do have plenty of time to think, I can be incredibly intelligent. Also, for some reason, I don't need much time to think when it comes to maths.

 

[mf]

intelligence is very much overrated. to elaborate i mean: it really doesnt matter how "clever" you are, in any way. what matters is to enjoy your life and have fun!

edit: ok jackals post was really good and i agree! although i wouldnt classify all those things as 'intelligence' as much as attributes or characteristics. they are kindof the things that define you as a person

 

[Berserker]

There are retards with below average intelligence (meaning they cannot learn properly), but I believe that with enough propaganda and motivation, most people can become educated through school/various other methods. After the 'knowledge' part, intelligence is pretty hard to measure. The definition of it seems to broad, meaning there are too many factors to keep in mind, but with puzzle solving speed/innovation aside, intelligence would be IMO how much, how fast, and how well a person can retain the knowledge and information he is GIVEN. If intelligence is measured with the retard below the scale because he/she cannot work with and understand the knowledge presented to him/her, then going up the scale would go by the same principles.

Intelligence is not, in the old cliche, a measure of success, nor is it a fancy supergenius dressed in a suit sorting out world domination. IMO it is merely a factor of how people do in life, like a vertical jump test to see how well a person can perform in basketball.

 

[Jackal]

There is much more to intelligence than book smarts and street smarts.

This is something I have thought a LOT about so I guess I will share.

The various types of intelligence I can think of are:

Factual - ability to retain factual information
Conceptual - ability to pick up on concepts quickly, basically the ability to learn
Logical - ability to connect things, ability to see patterns, generally "IQ" stuff here
Social - ability to interact with people, ability to be "cool" / fit in
Artistic - ability to comprehend music, art or drama (basically artistic ability)
Motor - ability to emulate physical actions, ability to make precise small movements
Forethought - ability to think in the long term/keep things in perspective/analyze risks of a situation
Manipulative - ability to use people / lie to people
Functional - ability to understand how things work and the causes of things
Emotional - ability to form a deep bond with another human
Communication - ability to speak with eloquence / understand language / express yourself

there might be one or two more, but this gives you the idea about how I feel about intelligence. I believe every single trait above is about 80% innate / how you were brought up in your early years, and that by the time you are old enough to understand this you can only really "improve" in any given category by about 20% by working at it.

Some of them tie nicely into others, and I would argue some are more important than others. But I believe that everyone is really high in at least a few of them and based on that it is pretty possible to find your own niche in life.

I also believe that if you are high on conceptual / logical, your abililty to "improve" in all the other areas is increased.

You could potentially rate yourself out of 10 in all of them and add them up to get some sort of makeshift "intelligence" number, but like I said I would weigh them all differently and it would be hard to unarbitrarily weigh them so I won't bother.

 

[ivar]

in terms of iq tests competence in one area usually means competence in other areas of intelligence (hence a general g). Obviously motor ability is not a factor, but things like logical and conceptual intelligence kinda fall under that iq umbrella.

i would say that book and street smarts is far too broad but nevertheless we can still intuit where we lie along that oversimplified spectrum and say something meaningful about ourselves.

im definitely street smarts. i do well in university but i wouldn't say its a product of my studiousness, nor am i a natural genius. i just find clever ways to manipulate the system and get the best possible grade with minimal work. for example, in tutorial i ask questions pertinent to a paper to my ta but i mask it as something else (he can't directly help with the paper): if he likes it it goes in my essay. i get a feel for my grader's personality; i examine the course structure and outlines the best line of attack. im a philosophy student (took a math and comp sci course though) and i've read one book and several pages from other books, out of 1000s of pages of reading material. that, to me, is street smarts.

 

[Luminary]

The idea of "book smarts vs. street smarts" seems a bit silly to me, used in serious discussion. You will get nowhere without the ability to apply your knowledge, and you will get nowhere without some knowledge to apply. They work hand in hand, and I also think that these intelligences work best in equal measure. Neither of them are completely inborn (certainly not book smarts). But I still don't think that having equal aptitude for each intelligence puts you at the top of the ladder. You can be 50:50, and your boss can be 50:50, but one of you can still be more intelligent.

While I think that intelligence is multi-faceted, I don't buy any single theory of multiple intelligences. A theory of multiple intelligences should simply be what I have said: intelligence is multi-faceted. Anything further (musical, spatial, etc.) is simply an exercise in categorization, and will evolve with the culture. Congratulations, your CULTURE evolved into SOCIETY! This goes for any multiple intelligence theory that is not entirely based on knowledge of the human brain, at least. So, hope for the distant future, I suppose.

I do not think that intelligence and success are the same (though they are related). Most people would agree, given the examples of celebrities. I don't think that intelligence necessarily needs to be practical. I would consider my friend more intelligent if he had an aptitude for Chess, even if it did not serve anyone's enjoyment. Useless intelligence is still intelligence, I think.

Intelligence is not the knowledge of facts, or aptitude in any one area. Rather, it is the potential for these things, demonstrated through existing knowledge and aptitude.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

Ignorance can be cured with knowledge, stupid is forever.


In addition to all the types of intelligence listed in Jackal's post, they can combine and overlap for different applications. I don't think that we are anywhere close to actually understanding the human mind.

Also, who thinks that Jackal's title was amusing in context of the thread?

 

[Paradox]

I watched a special - I think from BBC - in class a while ago that I think was called "Battle of the Brains" or something.
Anyways, the point was that they brought out a bunch of different 'kinds' of geniuses, and tested their intelligence (and I mean in the way that Jackals brought up, with a number of different catagories) in different ways. Notable guests were: a Quantum Physicist, a Chess Grandmaster, a Musical Prodigy, an "IQ Expert", and an uneducated and extremely successful painter.

They took a number of tests, including: an IQ test, a 'practical test' (coming up with as many uses for a pair of socks as you could and removing a cork from inside a wine bottle), an artistic test (everyone was given a limited time to make a painting, then they were shown on a public street and critiqued), an emotional test, and a 'Kinetic' test (similar to Jackal's 'Motor' catagory, they had to do certain activities while wearing goggles that inverted their vision).

These tests obviously had flaws, for example, the painter did terribly in her category as she usually spends a huge amount of time on each painting, and could find no inspiration in her limited time (and the painting that scored the best was terrible imo). Interesting results were that certain people did very well in multiple categories (the Physicist had the highest IQ score, and scored highest in a number of other areas) while others did terribly across the board (the Chess Master was at the bottom of the pack in most categories, and the musical prodigy apparently couldn't do much beyond playing music).

Anyways, its pretty ridiculous to relegate intelligence into only two categories. The formally accepted list of "Intelligences" is:

Logical - (I is good at the math!)
Linguistic - (Great writers, speakers)
Bodily-Kinesthetic - (Dancers, certain aspects of other athletes)
Spatial - (Architects, other aspects like shooting in basketball)
Musical - (I'd call this a skill rather than an intelligence, but affinity for rhythm, tone, pitch)
Interpersonal - (aspect one of "Emotional Intelligence", understand other's emotions well)
Intrapersonal - (aspect two of "Emotional Intelligence", understand their own emotions)

There's also Naturalist and Existentialist, but I don't really agree that they are legit. I also would personally add Jackal's "Factual" to the list.

I think musical could be replaced with a "Creative" Intelligence. Having a good sense of rhythm or perfect pitch is - to me - an ability, like those guys who can calculate enormous numbers in their heads (it doesn't actually indicate any Logical intelligence). Creative Intelligence is the ability to create something entirely new, as opposed to solving a problem.

Often two of these things can work together to make a deadly combination. An "Intrapersonal" and "Linguistic" genius would make an amazing poet, and Factual+Logical=100% on every test you ever write.

Well that was my incoherent ramble for the day! (I'm not very "Linguistic")

 

[Myzozoa]

I have come to believe that being intelligent is to some degree a choice. Many "smart" people I know have told me that they made a commitment to learning and bettering their reasoning powers at an early age, they read books and thought about things critically. They all admitted to being pushed to be "smart" to one degree or another by their parents. One of my friends who I consider to be very intelligent has told me that he believes that people who aren't intelligent currently can make themselves smarter by reading and actively thinking to themselves I will be smart, i will try harder to act as an intelligent person does. he believes that by striving for an (arguably impossible) ideal of what it is to be smart that people will reach a lesser form of that ideal and become more intelligent than they were previously. I don't know if that makes sense, but I think his view point is interesting.