IQ (moved subtopic)

It certainly takes some sort of very rare talent to be that good. Whatever that talent is, I wouldn't be calling it "intelligence". I ninja edited my post after you had already quoted it saying pretty much as much.

calculating trajectory in real time is a talent but calculating trajectory on an IQ test is intelligence I guess

It's practice and muscle memory. He is not calculating anything. "Calculating" means you could give him all the input variables for an arbitrary kick and he could tell you the exact trajectory of the ball.

But you knew that.

I recall about 50 years ago trying to explain to my mother that a robot playing table tennis wouldn't be using trigonometry.

It wouldn't? How would it calculate distance?

Not necessarily

You can increase your IQ score by practicing for an IQ test so is practice a form of intelligence? Does practicing lead to more intelligence?

It might do that as well

D2 didn't pick me up on that at teh time

It's quite possible that as well as other benefits in getting in good score, that actual intelligence does improve through brain use. (or deterioriates through lack of it)

"Practice" doesn't make you any more intelligent than it makes you better at football. Practicing at football makes you better at football. Practicing at being intelligent may well make you more intelligent.

I'm going to generously assume you're arguing in good faith, but taking the word "practice" on its own when it was obviously meant that it was specifically practicing at football could very well be construed as bad faith argumentation tactics.

It seems pretty clear that your position is that "intelligence" comprises pretty much any ability. Just like Luciom and his use of "leftism", you're welcome to your own definitions, but that's not how most other people use that word.

I assume we all agree that neural implant type technology will be able to improve intelligence.

Here is my definitions of math intelligence using a super simple question and answer.

The idea that you can tell if a number of several digits is divisible by three by adding up the digits and seeing if that sum is divisible by three.

Most of the millions of people who know this trick and memorize it have displayed zero smartness.

Those who were told why it works and quickly understand the explanation are semi smart.

Those who are told the tick without explanation, go on to contemplate it and quickly realize why it works are smart.

Those who are only told that there is a trick and quickly deduce what that trick is, are very smart.

I think that this is a good example even if it forces some people to reevaluate their "rankings".

I think you want this narrow academic definition of IQ because in that paradigm you have a really high IQ. Great, me too! I was chess prodigy and scored really high on standardized tests and IQ tests and whatever.

I think that the opinions that practicing for an IQ test making you more intelligent and practicing to become one of the greatest soccer players of all time isn't intelligence are mutually exclusive.

You seem to want to hold one form of learning, reasoning, and understanding over others and I think thats pretty objectively wrong. Art is combining a learned understanding into relational composition to define truth. Is that not the definition of intelligence? Handwaving the greatest athletes of all time as simple muscle memory is completely wild to me.

Yes, that is the foundation of the argument against IQ tests and why this thread exists but is certainly not a universal truth just because you think it is

Nobody uses IQ for anything. Nobody I work with talks about IQ, nobody I went to school with talks about IQ, none of my friends talk about IQ, I didn't have to list IQ on my resume or make sure my IQ score is current. Its a pretty meaningless measure outside of generally being a vehicle for racism

No, it's not the definition of intelligence. You are welcome to the opinion that art is more valuable than maths, or whatever other hierarchy you want to construct of the subjective worth of art, chess, football or whatever else in your personal value system, but you can't re-define common words to do it, and you can't try and sneak your values in to supplant everyone else's by saying "well, everyone seems to think that intelligence is at the top, so rather than trying to persuade them otherwise I'll just come up with my own definition of the thing they seem to value most and try and get them to adopt that instead".

JFC dude, being good at sports does not require intelligence. Some of the best sportspeople in the world are dumb as a box of rocks. This is not controversial.

You clearly don't like the idea that some people are measurably smarter than others. That's fine, but stop trying to couch it in some pseudo-intellectual rationale. You just find the idea itself distasteful, at least if you like or sympathise with the dumber person/group. I doubt you have a problem calling Trump stupid, for example. But if it were your kindly uncle who is objectively just as dumb, you would be finding something like "he's not stupid, he can play a mean round of golf, gotta be pretty smart to calculate the trajectory of that ball" or whatever.

Nobody is saying that unintelligent people are bad people. Or that they are talentless people. Or that they don't add value to society in other ways. They're just... unintelligent.

Your definition of intelligence is so broad as to be useless, since not a single person in the world is unintelligent under your criteria - it's just a question of finding in which specific way someone is intelligent.

I guess you've never heard an artist or a musician described as a genius?

I dunno man, you seem to have a pretty bad faith stance on this and you accused me of bad faith

Intelligence isn't a term exclusive to academics

The first type of intelligence refers to things that have objectively correct or better solutions. Intelligent people are quicker to learn or understand those solutions, quicker to invent new ones, and better at making decisions involving those subjects.

The second type has its advantages as well. BUT HERE IS THE PROBLEM. Those with the first type are usually quick to admit inferiority regarding things that those with the second type are good at. But the reverse is usually not true (except in extreme cases like calculating the radius of curvature of a section of a graph.) They think their opinion deserves almost equal weight on many matters where it most certainly does not.

There are lots of stupid people. I called Harlabob a ****** earlier and hes probably not even stupid.

IQ tests measure a slice of intelligence that benefits academia so we roll with it despite that its main use is as a tool for racism. Thats the issue with IQ tests. I don't care if some people are smarter or dumber than others, just that the way we measure it is completely flawed. Its not personal

I don't know how not personal it is - your definition of "stupid" seems to be "someone I don't like", and conversely everyone you do like then has to be intelligent in some way.

Prove me wrong, are there any people you like whom you consider stupid? Because if not, that would be statistically very hard to justify.

I have heard an artist or a musician, or even a footballer described as a genius. That's because "genius," at least colloquially, means "someone who is world class in their field, a virtuoso" not just "someone of exceptionally high intelligence".

When did I say intelligence was exclusive to academics? That's a view you keep ascribing to me, but not one I have put forward. There are plenty of very intelligent people who ply their trade outside of academia.

Is this like one of those "to be truly smart you must first know how dumb you are" type of things?

This is both correct, and doesn't refute what I said about how the word "genius" is used. Your point seemed to be that artists, musicians etc. are described as "geniuses". My point was "genius" and "someone of exceptionally high intelligence" are not synonymous, at least colloquially. Someone saying "Ronaldo is a genius" would not say "Ronaldo is very intelligent" to mean the same thing. Which is why you will often hear that someone is a "genius at xyz" whereas saying someone is "intelligent at xyz" sounds stilted and cringeworthy. That's the whole point - you can't be intelligent "at something", you're just "intelligent".

No. It's a "when a statistician says that you should not bunt after the leadoff hitter hits a single in the first inning and you hit next" you should realize that you are almost certainly wrong if you disagree.