Intelligence is far too subjective to determine one's own, anothers, and then compare them. Anyone ever hear of Wisdom?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do people on RF believe they are more intelligent than everyone else?
- Thread starter DarkSun
- Start date
DarkSun
:eltiT
It wasn't a comparison of intelligence. It was a comparison of how we perceive intelligence, with regard to ourselves and others.
Ahh..., the perception of intelligence compared! Not quite sure what the difference is, but without the difference there is nothing to debate. Perception is always debatable which is why I try not to percieve.What I see beyond debate is that this is a conundrum.
DarkSun
:eltiT
How? :areyoucra
Last edited:
Peacewise
Active Member
Interesting topic.
Howard Gardner's model of intelligence is decent. (lol)
Linguistic Intelligence. Logical-mathematical intelligence. Musical Intelligence. Spatial Intelligence. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence. Naturalist Intelligence. Interpersonal Intelligence. Intrapersonal Intelligence. Existential Intelligence.
Are within his model of intelligences. So which intelligence should we look to in our fellow REF'ers?
A test I took recently placed me in the top 1% of 1300 tested, spose the makes me intelligent. Hey I looked over the Dunning-Kruger effect, perhaps that might account for why some people think REF'ers are smarter than your average bear.
I've met a few very creative people who lacked social intelligence (or at least the displaying of it!), and a few very social people who couldn't do maths, yes seems to me intelligence status cannot be measured across a single spectrum from stupid to smart, but must be broken down as Gardner has done. That is what reductionist science does, afterall.
Howard Gardner's model of intelligence is decent. (lol)
Linguistic Intelligence. Logical-mathematical intelligence. Musical Intelligence. Spatial Intelligence. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence. Naturalist Intelligence. Interpersonal Intelligence. Intrapersonal Intelligence. Existential Intelligence.
Are within his model of intelligences. So which intelligence should we look to in our fellow REF'ers?
A test I took recently placed me in the top 1% of 1300 tested, spose the makes me intelligent. Hey I looked over the Dunning-Kruger effect, perhaps that might account for why some people think REF'ers are smarter than your average bear.
I've met a few very creative people who lacked social intelligence (or at least the displaying of it!), and a few very social people who couldn't do maths, yes seems to me intelligence status cannot be measured across a single spectrum from stupid to smart, but must be broken down as Gardner has done. That is what reductionist science does, afterall.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Somebody better laugh at this.
Perception is always debatable because it is entirely subjective. Not that it always will be debated, but it is always open to. I TRY not to percieve, have not perfect doing so and never will. My point is I TRY to observe objectively rather then impose subjective perception. On those occasions when I succeed, what is true is more obvious.
monta
.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
What do brushes have to do with reading?
DarkSun
:eltiT
Why are you assuming I didn't understand you? Don't read what I said, read what I meant.
Also, if you know that the polls are inaccurate, and it's obvious that they are, then why are you so avid in trying to justify yourself?
Last edited:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I'm guessing she's assuming that because she mentioned a number of people who answered both questions, and your response was that 14 people answered one of the questions, not both. All we can do is read what you wrote, and what you wrote belied a lack of understanding of what she said.
It's no big deal, but it's only reasonable to assume you didn't fully read what she wrote.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I just got smarter.
*shrug* I know that with most things, I'm above average and others I'm below average. In academics, I'm a B-student that tests very well which skews my scores up in my favor. So, I'm confident that I know my limits and my strengths.
But where I'm really adept is in the art and science of making men weep and wrapping them around my little finger. I use that whenever I see the opportunity or if I just want to have a little fun.
But where I'm really adept is in the art and science of making men weep and wrapping them around my little finger. I use that whenever I see the opportunity or if I just want to have a little fun.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
:foryou:
You owe me child support, daddy.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Giggidi-giggidi-goo!! Al-right!
Is it wrong to believe that you are smart? Is it better if you believe you are an idiot? 
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Oh yes, having boobs takes immense amounts of skill.
Last edited: