IQ (moved subtopic)

Yes. We can just look at poker darling Harlabob as the perfect example of an autistic ****** that is widely regarded as a genius

From what I know of him, saying he "fails at everything else" is a bit of a stretch. Dude seems to be crushing life by all accounts.

So I mean, yeah, if you're really really good at something that is brain-related, and even average at everything else, I have no issue calling you a genius. However, if you can memorise an 8 deck shoe but can't wipe your own ass or change a light bulb, then that label probably doesn't apply.

Some people here really try to push this narrative of "IQ tests are meaningless"?
If you take that stance let me ask you a simple question: imagine your life depended on someone solving a math problem or stringing a bunch of sentences in the most elegant way, who would you take to do the job: someone on the bottom left of the bell curve or someone on the bottom right? Assume both individuals are morally sane and will try their best.

It's annoying how the internet has trained everyone to think that anyone with a weird, obsessive interest is autistic.

Are people saying meaningless?

But just to address your absurd hypothetical;

imagine your life depended on someone painting something that looked so real >50% of people could be fooled it was a photograph at a passing glance

Would you rather have someone who scored on the bottom left of an IQ bell cure or the bottom right?

Assuming the only information given is that we have 2 randomly chosen people who are an equal number of standard deviations from the mean in opposite directions, I'd pick the smarter (or, "bottom right", if you prefer) person to do literally anything, including painting a picture. Why, is there some evidence to suggest that people who score extremely low on IQ tests are better at painting?

I think there is probably some evidence that those who *choose*, say, artistry or sports as a career path generally perform more poorly in STEM-related areas, and therefore IQ tests, but that is far from the same thing. You have the directionality of the causal link the wrong way round. It doesn't mean that a randomly chosen person with a 70 IQ is more likely to be a gifted painter than a randomly chosen person with a 140 IQ. It means that a randomly chosen painter is more likely to have a 70 IQ than a 140 IQ.

I would assume there is minimal to no correlation between how we measure IQ and painting skills

I don't think anyone has argued this.

I don't get the point of your hypothetical then.

Levy: "Our IQ tests aren't meaningless, if you needed someone to perform a math problem to save your life you would seek out someone who scored well on an IQ test"

Coordi: "Nobody is saying IQ tests are meaningless, just that they aren't measuring a comprehensive intelligence. Here is a hypothetical that highlights that point"

So, I think your point is that artistic ability is a "measure of comprehensive intelligence". I don't think your hypothetical makes it clear that's what you mean. I also strongly disagree that artistic ability is a measure of intelligence, "comprehensive" or otherwise. Intelligence doesn't mean "being good at something". It means being good at a specific thing.

all ability is a specific intelligence that rolls up into comprehensive intelligence.

"Intelligence doesn't mean "being good at something". It means being good at a specific thing."

Is this a mistype? My assumption from this statement is that you want computational ability to mean something and all other abilities to mean nothing which is a foundational issue I have with IQ tests

No, it's a foundational issue you have with how "intelligence" is defined. Like my mom, who likes to say dumb **** about my handyman step dad like "he is smart with his hands", you want "intelligence" to mean generally any ability. You literally said as much above. You might want it to mean that, but that's not what it means. We already have a term for "generally any ability" - it's "ability".

Ain't it the other way around? I think of "intelligent" people as those who are sort of good at solving problems in general, whereas a dumb person might be dumb overall but a have an area or two where they excel.

Brother, you are prescribing intelligence to mean "IQ Test results" and that isn't what intelligence means

"Solving problems" is a specific skill, as long as you keep it to problems requiring analytical reasoning and don't start throwing in "painting a picture" or "kicking a football as far as you can" as "problems to solve". Do you think being good at painting forms part of being "intelligent"?

I think a good compromise regarding who deserves to be called a genius could be exemplified by someone who not only is good at math and puzzles and games but also scored very high on the test that determines National Merit Scholars. Or alternatively, someone who is smart in math and logic and is also a champion at Jeopardy. Or if too young to engage in either endeavor someone who was the child of two such people if such a union somehow existed.

No, you are trying a bit too hard to redefine "intelligence" so it means something other than IQ test results.

There is nothing there about all abilities rolling up into a general intelligence. You are misusing the word.

There's arguably a fair amount of analytical reasoning that goes into composition, style, subject matter, etc. I'm not an expert, but I think you need a sort of intelligence to produce Guernica.

Fair enough. But if that's the case I'd position it as "being intelligent helps you become a good painter", not "being a good painter means you're intelligent". Same as "being intelligent helps you be a good mathematician" or "being intelligent helps you be a good chess player" and not vice versa.

The bottom line is that I strongly disagree with the view that "intelligence" is a term that encompasses all ability. That's simply not what that word means, and seems to be a transparent attempt to abuse language and perception so as to avoid having to consider people who we like and are good at something, absolutely anything, "stupid" (or "unintelligent", if you're being diplomatic).

The words you posted as the definition of intelligence is quite literally saying exactly what I'm saying and you are trying to say it isn't so I dunno who is actually trying really hard here.

The statement "Painting doesn't require learning, reasoning, or understanding or relative aptitude for relationships" is a wild one and completely false

Is your stance that ability isn't a culmination of learning, reasoning, and understanding?

Depends on the ability.

Ability to kick a football accurately or run fast? No.

Ability to paint (or act, or dance)? Maybe, depends on which aspect of the ability. Specifically, the cerebral aspects of those abilities require intelligence, the physical aspects do not. That is not to say that they do not require other talents. It's just that those talents are not called "intelligence".

Ability to play chess well? Yes.

I feel like learning is generally absent from IQ tests and they mostly focus on reasoning and relationships. I also feel its in a very limited and academic manner

So there is no learning, reasoning, and understanding involved in bending a penalty kick like a boomerang?

Like, I probably wouldn't consider Ronaldo a genius but he can accurately predict trajectory in real time and smash his head into the ball at the perfect time and that is clearly indicative of a deep intelligence at some level