^^ as to the 'us' phenomena. This could be helpful.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enûma_Eliš

Kay17 -

Do you not see contradictions in these -

Kay 17:

Intelligence is the element for creation.

Does the above not starkly contradict these -

Kay 17:
Thus, intelligence, a byproduct of life is as insignificant as life is to the universe.

Kay 17:
The cold reality is life seems more and more like an accident, we more or less dominated by an inanimated world.

MyJoe. As fascinating as all these categorizations of genius are (kinesthetic, spatial, verbal-linguistic, musical etc) I am reluctant to accept them as chips of intelligence. I'd rather say they were abilities resultant from genes AND some intelligence. It is said that everyone is good at something at least. You may never discover that you're good at one thing if you never tried. But then you'd need the tools which I think is independent of intelligence. Chess would be a more suitable sport to test intelligence even though it is cliched.

I'd also wanna distinguish between training or developing an ability from actual intelligence. So almost anybody could be a snake charmer, but very few indeed would.

The snake charmer thing was a rather poor example of the point I was trying to make. (I was merely trying to explain the “genius failure paradox”). Which is that there are intelligences, not simply inclinations. Of course, training and actual intelligence are different - that is given. Look at it this way: Kid A is said to have an IQ of 100, Kid B 120, Kid C 140. Now we raise them in the same house, give them the same mentoring, and then test the three of them at grammar, music, and drawing. Would it happen that Kid A scores 100 points in grammar, music and drawing, while Kid B scores 120 in all, while Kid C scores 140 in all? No. We may have close results. But we may also have staggeringly divergent results, with kid C, the most “intelligent”, manifesting a very poor ability at music and Kid A surprising everyone at drawing. Because there is no such thing as universal intelligence. That is why the chess model is non-starter for me. There are intelligences - not merely chips of it. There is no consensus on this subject and the theory I lay down here (the eight intelligences), is far from perfect. But it is one I find far more useful than the IQ or chess idea.

“Abilities resultant from genes”? I haven’t said anything really contrary, but I’m not discussing genes.

@DS
In relation to humans! I have mentioned earlier that innovation in arts, military science, etc

ako na uche >>> your brain & your thinking

intelligence requires a processing centre like the brain!

MyJoe. I assume that musical, verbal-linguistical etc are part of these eight intelligences you speak of. Could you mention the other four? It's interesting. May change my whole outlook. I like the training model you mentioned cuz I've always believed that environment more than anything affects intelligence. Einstein in Akure might have just become a village headmaster.

And I forgot to ask, MyJoe. Your theories seem to suggest that there's no such thing like being more intelligent than another and if possible there's no way of measuring it or that one may merely be more intelligent than another in one type i.e. musically etc. Is this correct? Also do you think intelligence increases or decreases? Is it possible?

Intelligence - get information and process it to a useful end AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.

I think "processing speed" is what makes the difference.

^^^ O, now that's an intelligent description. Bang correct man.

^^ Wow. Thanks but sincerely, SINCERELY, I didn't expect a believer in Jesus could be seen as intelligent in your estimation.

Maybe then, the Jesus factor is what lowers us in your reasoning.

Now now fellas, play nice

@vescucci

The other four (I am basing this on the theory originally made up by Harvard professor Howard Gardner) are: logical-mathematical – the ability to solve mathematical and abstract problems. Accountants, machine designers, and astronauts, are among those who need this kind of intelligence in real life.

Interpersonal – understanding other people and being able to deploy that understanding to useful ends. In real situations, politicians, public administrators, and advertising copy writers need this kind of intelligence.

Intrapersonal - understanding yourself, now often called “emotional intelligence”. It is now thought by many to be the most important of all the intelligences. I share that view. And it is probably the best explanation for the age long question of why many intelligent people fail at small things. It is also the one sound solution to Aristotle’s admonition that when we get angry we should get angry with the right person, for the right reason, and to the right degree.

The remarkable thing with emotional intelligence is that we are told it can be taught, particularly in childhood. To what extent, though, I won’t stick out my neck on. But schools from USA to China now have “emotional intelligence” sessions on the curriculum.
Naturalist – the ability to make fine distinctions with nature. This would be the kind of intelligence required of a geologist, a ranger or an ornithologist.

Usually when we say someone is “intelligent”, what we have in mind the verbal-linguistic and sometimes the logical-mathematical. The verbal-linguistic is about the only intelligence required of you to do well in primary and secondary school, with the exception of the subject of mathematics and related stuff like physics. Of course, it is also the intelligence required of such professionals as teachers, poets, lawyers and lexicographers.
I believe most people excel at, at least one. Some people excel at several or most. I believe someone like Leonardo da Vinci was a genius at every single one. I believe a chess master would need to be a genius at verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical and intrapersonal, but this is not given. A piano master would also need several of the intelligences, but that would not be given, too. You would be a better lawyer or poet if you are a genius at more than one. A seismic interpreter would be well served by both the naturalist and the logical-mathematical.

Environment affects intelligence. To what extent is what I won’t risk guessing. Whichever way you look at it, one person can be more intelligent than another. Even if we identify all the kids with high kinesthetic intelligence and encourage all of them to practice dancing or sports some will do better than others. What I am saying is that the current methods of testing are not accurate methods of telling us who is more intelligent than another. Let’s say we were to use chess. There are highly “intelligent” people who can’t stand chess. There are people who are not very bright who play chess well. And then you have the autistic savant who is a chess master but can’t do anything else. It is not useful in the real world. What would be more useful is if the school system recognizes the different intelligences and encourage people to excel in their area of genius, or for a start, use it to help them find the learning method that suits them best.

On measuring, I believe a lot of progress has been made if you take a close at the current models which use a progressive system of tests and subtests, but I believe they are still miles away from adequate since they hardly span more than a few of the intelligences. So, no, there is no simple, objective and accurate way of measuring the eight intelligences. My view of modern intelligence testing methods is that they are still too weighted in favour of verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematical. That may explain why most of the people awarded scores above 170 in this link  are philosophers, theologians, poets and writers. It is quite telling that up till date, psychologists are yet to device a single method of intelligence testing that attains an average degree of correlation with school performance, to say nothing about successfully predicting real life success and performance! I sometimes feel intelligence is overrated, anyway.

Does intelligence increase? This one has generated a lot of traffic on the streets of speculations, conjectures and debates. There is a thriving business around it, from foods marketed to increase intelligence in your children to drugs said to improve retention. We have long been told that listening to Mozart increases intelligence in children. Trust me, none of this is proven. In fact, I think it’s mostly lies. But I believe that increase in intelligence is possible and can be observed. If there are things you can consciously do to bring this about is what is really contentious. That is, of course, if you remove what I will call obvious factors like, say, a child decreasing in intelligence due to malnourishment and a hitherto harassed and abused child increasing in intelligence on being taken to a loving environment. Kids from poor homes adopted into rich homes have shown an increase in intelligence scores. On the whole, I believe intelligence is in-born, but environment can play a role. It is in your genes, but the way your genes interact with your environment is a key factor.

nuclearboy:

Intelligence - get information and process it to a useful end AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.

I think "processing speed" is what makes the difference.

I believe intelligence helps to get information – that is, being able to get information and process it is merely one of the functions of intelligence. And speed denotes apparent intelligence or academic intelligence. That is, it is likely to help you pass JAMB. But those who pass JAMB aren’t necessarily the most intelligent people now, even in the classroom, much less in the real world.

@Vesc:

I wrote the above in good faith and not with tongue in cheek. It was light hearted and meant to strike at the idea that believers had to "shed" their thinking faculties to become so.

@MyJoe:

I wasn't thinking in terms of academic intelligence. In my thinking, its more of "problem solving". I spoke of such and any situations that would warrant [1] sifting through possibly large volumes of information [2] extracting the needed/required [3] using it in as precise a manner as possible [4] communicating same "extracted" to others as painlessly as possible(if needed) [5] retaining enough of the "discarded" information to use it later [6] multi-tasking even during this above process [7] being as fast as possible about it.

Basically then, I'm looking at a person with the capability to apply mind to building multiple algorithms, run through each simulteanously and still have mental backup to retain clarity of mind as an intelligent person. Speed in these would definitely signify superior mental capability.

And I think it is inborn. Some people just learn faster and can apply themselves to more! I see any supposed growth/increase as tied to environment and situation and thus, not real.

EDITED: - BTW, I do not believe warped usage of information is "intelligent" e.g. used to win arguments, cheat or use someone etc. The distinction may not be easily clear but that would be "cunning" and immature/greedy/both/more. Such usually shows eventually as stupidity of one sort or the other

MyJoe:

It is my view that what is involved in making generalizations is often the same process of making distinctions – at almost every stage. So I can tell that a dog and a wolf belong to the same genus. But this is before (or is it after?) [/b]I tell they belong to a different family from horses (Equidae) even though they are all mammals. And that is because I know mammals are different from amphibians. So you find while grouping (generalizing) we are actually involved in the process of making distinctions. Generalisations would have no meaning without distinctions. [b]You cannot generalise correctly if you lack the ability to make fine distinctions.

There is absolutely no need to determine that canines are a different class from Equidae in order to tell that Dogs and Wolves are both canine, or rather that they have common traits. At least I don't think so.  When we generalize, yes, that general trait that we discover is distinct from other general traits.  But that fact is not necessary to the process of generalizing. 

On the other hand, language and words are used to distinguish things.  We name and term things to set them apart.  This might be what is causing the confusion.

It is demonstrably more than inclination, Pastor. I think there is some innate natural ability involved.

Demonstrably?  Please demonstrate.

If due to genetics someone's muscles can generate the power to help them jump higher than others is that to be counted for as some form of intelligence?  I can accept that coordination, the ability to aim accurately etc can be considered a form of intelligence.

I've read Daniel Goleman's book and while I liked the basic premise of there being multiple intelligences I think after making that great point the book degenerated to waffle.  It does not comprehensively account for intelligences and it does not even provide a succinct definition of Intelligence itself.  It doesn't even do so for Emotion either.

And I think the ability to acquire and retain information is what brings about knowledge (information in mind). Being intelligent makes this easier. I will say you can’t be knowledgeable without possessing a fair degree of something called “intellectual curiosity.” But the two still remain different things. I think "belief" is an entirely different matter.

The ability to acquire and retain information was my definition.  It wasn't a statement of absolute fact.  Like I said earlier it can be arbitrary but once the definition has been made then you must stick within it's parameters. 
What is the difference between acquiring information and making fine distinctions?  What is information?  Are the distinctions not information?  Orange is sweet.  Agbalumo is sweet.  Orange is sweet in a different way from agbalumo.  Is that not information?  If someone doesn't know there is a difference in the sweetness of agbalumo and orange is that person not uninformed. 

Like, if you are about to walk through a jungle populated by lions you would rather hire a snake charmer with an IQ (verbal-linguistic intelligence) of 50 living near the Congo River as a guide, even if an intelligent guy like Vescucci offers to do it free! Thing is, the two have different intelligences.

The two have different life experiences and I might deem one's life experience as more pertinent to getting me through the jungle alive then the other's.

No, sir. I insist there is no “entire intelligence”. It is this view of intelligence (verbal-linguistic intelligence measured by the popular IQ) that is the major cause of the fact only about 30% of kids do well in school

You're presuming that when I say entire intelligence I am referring to 'verbal-linguistic intelligence'.  I have already defined my terms.  I am referring to the ability to acquire and retain information.

MyJoe:

I can think of a case right now - the protesters currently shutting down France and intimidating their government. Along with their backers in the Socialist Party, they are, in my opinion, very very unintelligent. What we have here is a deplorable inability to make a distinction. The government wants to extend retirement wage by making workers work two years more, the workers want to retire early, the students want workers to retire early so there will be more vacancies for graduates. Why the government wants to do it – to save the pension system and by extension, the civil service, does not matter to the protesters. They are unable to make a distinction between elitist government policies and those that will be benefit the people in the long run. The government is unpopular, so anything it does must be opposed. They are unable to tell when an unpopular government does something good.

This is not a very good case. There is nothing unintelligent in the action of the strikers. We are talking about politics here. There is a cake and people are sharing it and we are all scrabbling for as big a share as possible. There is more to the France issue than helping the government to budget. There are people in France earning millions upon millions and they are paying negligible tax because the right-wing government has thought up some clever excuse why they shouldn't. (There is always some clever excuse. 'good reasons' abound).
If the Banks fail these governments deem them too big to fail and squeeze out the money from somewhere to prop up the banks. When you put into perspective the way the fiscal budget is shared out then workers pensions is a relatively small thing. When there are squeezes to be made on an economy it has to come from some sector or the other. That is when each sector starts to kick up a fuss that they should squeeze the others but not squeeze them. Everybody can appreciate the problem the question is who should pay for the solution. This is simply politics and nothing to do with being unintelligent.

I have often wondered, on a lighter note, when all these western governments with right wing leaning start making excuses for why the rich shouldn't be taxed, about the solidity of their claims. A lot of the time they say that if they tax the rich the rich will just leave the country. So most westernised countries (with the exception of the scandinavians- I really dig those people) make tax breaks for the rich and squeeze the middle classes instead. But I often wonder if they all started taxing the rich where would the rich go. To Nigeria?

lol. Rich people cannot just leave, that is a rubbish excuse. What about cultural adjustments etc? Why do the Rich people in Holland, Denmark, Norway etc, why don't they flee their country. People don't just leave their homeland unless there is heavy heavy pressure to do so. If an english man leaves england where is he going to get his disgustingly soggy fish and chips. Where is he going to get his shepherd's pie. Or his Sunday roast in the local pub?

Anyway, I'm ranting now.

Er, you're not ranting. I wish there was an excuse for you to open a thread.

Thanks MyJoe. Maybe I'll try to read that book. Have you considered whether these eight can be added to or shrunk? You know, whether it is over-generalization or over-simplification? I quite agree with you that intelligence testing methods come with heavy bias towards logical-mathematic and verbal-linguistical. I'd wager it is because these are the most pertinent to use in future. Musical intelligence is great but hardly useful for instance. To a lesser degree so is kinesthetic intelligence which may be useful only to a hunter. Without being conditioned by my last two sentences, do you think any of these intelligences are superior (not necessarily more useful, perhaps rarer and harder to develop) to the other. Would you advocate something of a hierarchy of these intelligences?

vescucci:

Er, you're not ranting. I wish there was an excuse for you to open a thread.

Thanks MyJoe. Maybe I'll try to read that book. Have you considered whether these eight can be added to or shrunk? You know, whether it is over-generalization or over-simplification? I quite agree with you that intelligence testing methods come with heavy bias towards logical-mathematic and verbal-linguistical. I'd wager it is because these are the most pertinent to use in future. Musical intelligence is great but hardly useful for instance. To a lesser degree so is kinesthetic intelligence which may be useful only to a hunter. Without being conditioned by my last two sentences, do you think any of these intelligences are superior (not necessarily more useful, perhaps rarer and harder to develop) to the other. Would you advocate something of a hierarchy of these intelligences?

@ MyJoe,
While you're answering the above questions could you also tell us what exactly are the logical-mathematic and verbal-linguistic intelligences and why they are different from each other? Thank you.

. . be entirely a mental effort

Pastor AIO:

@ MyJoe,
While you're answering the above questions could you also tell us what exactly are the logical-mathematic and verbal-linguistic intelligences and why they are different from each other? Thank you.  

People do have different sorts of minds. Some minds are more logical and mathematical in their thought construction than others. Some minds think more creatively, intuitively - in a random fashion which could often be the well spring of genuine brilliance.

You yourself have hinted at this when you described in a recent thread something about the gunas and how people could have different approaches to resolving a problem. Some are logical, mathematical and others are creative and intuitive.

In the same way there are people whose intelligence factors are rigidly mathematical and people whose intelligence factors are more fluid and creative. In this regard you may also have people whose intelligence is better expressed in words and language (verbal linguistic) and people whose intelligence is better expressed in figures and mathematical equations.

Think Albert Einstein vs William Shakespeare.

What Is Intelligence? >>> Uyi's definition

The ability to gather, retain & evolve information

vescucci:

Would you advocate something of a hierarchy of these intelligences?

Would you say Albert Einstein was more intelligent than William Shakespeare?

Absolutely different sorts of expression of intelligence, but in my opinion, it is altogether impossible to begin to rate the one sort as superior to the other sort.

Not let me contradict myself directly.

What do you suppose is the element of intelligence expressed by the founding principle of existence.

I maybe wrong, but in my view it is first a mathematical principle. That principle devolves into a succession of principles which unfolds as the multifaceted creation.

^^

Surely you meant "creative/logical" rather than mathematical

The art of science >>> The science of art

@ Deep Sight >>> inasmuch as the modus operandi of expressing intelligence (thought) could be logical-mathematical/verbal-linguistic
                    >>> the two are enmeshed, albeit, not rigidly so

Think Leonardo Da Vinci & Benjamin Franklin

^^^ Ah, Leonardo Da Vinci. . .in my humble opinion the most brilliant man that ever walked the earth.

The perfect union of scientific and artistic brilliance.

What a man.

[size=4pt]Retracted with apologies[/size]

'originality'

nuclearboy:

^^

Surely you meant "creative/logical" rather than mathematical

I meant oneness of infinity, lol.

nuclearboy:

^^ Wow. Thanks but sincerely, SINCERELY, I didn't expect a believer in Jesus could be seen as intelligent in your estimation.

Maybe then, the Jesus factor is what lowers us in your reasoning.

Now then Nuke! Haba na? Be a good man! You know there are far too many brilliant religionists for any person to ever suggest such. I would never be so presumptuous as to compare my mind, for example, to the absolutely brilliant and super intelligent minds of some of the world's all time genuiuses - many of whom have been christian, muslim, hindu etc.

^^ Ah, but you thus limit "oneness of infinity" since math and number systems are relatively narrow fields when you consider the like of "logic".

Oooo, thou shall not offend thy prophet of infinity,

Deep Sight:

, I meant oneness of infinity, lol.
,

why am I thinking of Pythagoras & Heraclitus now

Deep Sight:

I meant oneness of infinity, lol.
, far too many brilliant religionists,

the nemesis of this statement is how a negative stereotype is being spread >>> like a viral meme
Faith is congruent to Stupidity (i.e a lack of intelligence)

Ok DS, I'll be STILL.