Very much a way of proving the point, Clovie.
A true test of anything that we can try and objectively identify as inelligence, (which really can't be done like that, hence the problem of 'g' as a concept) would have to be understandable to people with the learning aspect removed. Which includes language, and makes the whole exercise rather abstract.
It would basically have to be about something new, and hence could only ever be done once.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
But if they can't communicate that idea in an intelligent manner, how would you be able to ever understand it and appreciate it? It's kind of a full package deal.
Well I have a friend who has pretty intelligent ideas. But he's people skills and his verbal communication suck severely. Not all his fault. However this doesn't make his ideas less intelligent
(altho you could argue that verbal communication is only part of being able to communicate well)
I think that's a valid point. Capacity for learning is not really dependent upon actual knowledge. Not to mention that 'intelligence' is an abstract concept to say the least. It is interesting that those that are scientifically adept seem to- in general- be regarded as the more intelligent members of society.
Originally posted by FeceMan
You guys are on the verge of me yelling at you because you are on the verge of committing the error of reification--the taking of something insubstantial, immeasurable, a concept or idea if you will, and making it a concrete and measurable thing.BAD N00BLETS. LEARN YOUR PSYCHOLOGY.
Yup, as I said, 'g' is not widely accepted these days- certainly not in simplistic form.