Unintelligent Intelligence

[Received]

First, I'm a big fan of Howard Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basically because there is too much controversy particularly around the idea of intelligence as a singular construct.

And I think there is a type of intelligence that is capable of bridging the gap between abstract, complicated, high level thinking and concrete, not complicated, low level thinking. IOW, a type of intelligence that speaks from the heights of near-genius (or somewhere around that tail of the distribution) to the lows of the opposite. Chesterton once remarked that speaking polysyllabically (i.e., intelligently) is much easier to do than create a whole sentence of single syllables expressing basically the same idea.

I think this idea can be extended: if you are so intelligent that you can't express your ideas in less-than-intelligent ways, or to below-the-average intelligent people, this is a type of unintelligence. Even a type of disability.

(And this thread is probably an example of this idea.)

 

[quatona]

I think this idea can be extended: if you are so intelligent that you can't express your ideas in less-than-intelligent ways, or to below-the-average intelligent people, this is a type of unintelligence. Even a type of disability.

Rather, I am tending towards the notion that the nature of language puts severe limitations on what can be expressed in it.
New thoughts might require a new language. However, language rests squarely on (semantic) conventions, established as its frame of reference due to the fact that it has evolved out of the need to express a certain (conventional) thinking.
IOW: If you have problems explaining colours in a language that only has words for black and white, this isn´t a token of a lack of intelligence on your part.

 

[twinc]

Rather, I am tending towards the notion that the nature of language puts severe limitations on what can be expressed in it.
New thoughts might require a new language. However, language rests squarely on (semantic) conventions, established as its frame of reference due to the fact that it has evolved out of the need to express a certain (conventional) thinking.
IOW: If you have problems explaining colours in a language that only has words for black and white, this isn´t a token of a lack of intelligence on your part.

it behoves us to be able to walk and talk with kings anf yet not loose the common touch - colours can be answer by answering "what colours grass" - twinc

 

[quatona]

it behoves us to be able to walk and talk with kings anf yet not loose the common touch -

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

colours can be answer by answering "what colours grass"

From your threads I meant to understand you were positing that there´s no such thing as grass.

 

[twinc]

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

From your threads I meant to understand you were positing that there´s no such thing as grass.

misunderstanding is your problem not mine - of course there is grass but it is internal not external to mind and therefore mental and not material since matter as generally accepted matter is an illusion and a bluff - twinc

 

[Paradoxum]

I think I would agree to some extent. Some philosophers seem much more able to express themselves clearly than others. I do think that how long you want to make the explanation matters too. Depending on who you are talking to, the explanation will be longer of shorter. Eg: one person might know what nihilism is, but another doesn't, so you would have to explain yourself more with then second.

I think there is skill in being about to explain new ideas to people (especially complex ones) in a way they can easily grasp.

 

[quatona]

misunderstanding is your problem not mine

And being not understood or misunderstood is yours not mine (unless your intention in writing posts here is talking to yourself).

- of course there is grass but it is internal not external to mind and therefore mental and not material since matter as generally accepted matter is an illusion and a bluff - twinc

...but it´s green?

 

[Received]

Rather, I am tending towards the notion that the nature of language puts severe limitations on what can be expressed in it.
New thoughts might require a new language. However, language rests squarely on (semantic) conventions, established as its frame of reference due to the fact that it has evolved out of the need to express a certain (conventional) thinking.
IOW: If you have problems explaining colours in a language that only has words for black and white, this isn´t a token of a lack of intelligence on your part.

I agree in a sense. But I also think that language is irrelevant given that speaking in *metaphors* or parables is what makes the transition from abstract, heavy stuff to concrete, easy stuff. That is, a person's ability to speak metaphorically is along the lines of his ability to speak easily.

 

[quatona]

I agree in a sense. But I also think that language is irrelevant given that speaking in *metaphors* or parables is what makes the transition from abstract, heavy stuff to concrete, easy stuff. That is, a person's ability to speak metaphorically is along the lines of his ability to speak easily.

Two points:

1. Explaining things by means of metaphores or parable is a creative or artistic skill. I wouldn´t call lacking this skill a lack of intelligence. (Now, of course you are free to subsume any skill you like under "intelligence" - but if you would your OP basically would say nothing but: Some people are good at something but not so good at something else. Which would be quite trivial, wouldn´t it?).

2. While I agree that metaphores/parables are often helpful in getting an idea across more easily, I tend to doubt that they can successfully communicate concepts/ideas that are beyond the frame of reference of language (and, more importantly, beyond the conventional thinking that language represents). The problem here is not so much language itself but the fact that metaphores/parables are wide open to the interpretation of the receiver, and a conventionally thinking receiver will naturally interprete them in the way that conforms with his conventional thinking.

 

[twinc]

And being not understood or misunderstood is yours not mine (unless your intention in writing posts here is talking to yourself).

...but it´s green?

the problem is that you even have a problem reading my post correctly besides trying to convince us that grass is green as seen in the light of the sun which is seen to revolve around the earth - but is this really so - twinc

 

[quatona]

the problem is that you even have a problem reading my post correctly

Indeed I often have problems understanding what you are trying to say.

besides trying to convince us that grass is green as seen in the light of the sun which is seen to revolve around the earth - but is this really so - twinc

It wasn´t me who said that grass was green. It was you.

 

[RDKirk]

First, I'm a big fan of Howard Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basically because there is too much controversy particularly around the idea of intelligence as a singular construct.

And I think there is a type of intelligence that is capable of bridging the gap between abstract, complicated, high level thinking and concrete, not complicated, low level thinking. IOW, a type of intelligence that speaks from the heights of near-genius (or somewhere around that tail of the distribution) to the lows of the opposite. Chesterton once remarked that speaking polysyllabically (i.e., intelligently) is much easier to do than create a whole sentence of single syllables expressing basically the same idea.

I think this idea can be extended: if you are so intelligent that you can't express your ideas in less-than-intelligent ways, or to below-the-average intelligent people, this is a type of unintelligence. Even a type of disability.

(And this thread is probably an example of this idea.)

When I was in a military headquarters, the regulations stipulated that the directives to the field that I wrote be comprehendible at the 8th grade level, as determined by the Flesch-Kincaid calculator.

Goodness gracious, how difficult that was! Both polysyllabic words and the number of words worked against the score, so it wasn't just a matter of using a lot of monosyllabic words, but a matter of simplifying the concepts as well.

However, I disagree with the idea of "other types of intelligence." I think that's just a feel-good snake oil. "Intelligence" has (or used to have) a single distinct meaning: The ability to learn.

Other innate skills can certainly be important--more important sometimes--but those skills already have their own nomenclature. If the point is just to say, "Those other skills have their importance alongside intelligence," then say that.

Putting them under an umbrella that had been reserved for one innate skill now leaves that skill without its own term. "Intelligence" now means nothing.

 

[twinc]

Indeed I often have problems understanding what you are trying to say.

It wasn´t me who said that grass was green. It was you.

you stated I said there was no grass and now you say I said this no grass is green - twinc

 

[Received]

Two points:

1. Explaining things by means of metaphores or parable is a creative or artistic skill. I wouldn´t call lacking this skill a lack of intelligence. (Now, of course you are free to subsume any skill you like under "intelligence" - but if you would your OP basically would say nothing but: Some people are good at something but not so good at something else. Which would be quite trivial, wouldn´t it?).

2. While I agree that metaphores/parables are often helpful in getting an idea across more easily, I tend to doubt that they can successfully communicate concepts/ideas that are beyond the frame of reference of language (and, more importantly, beyond the conventional thinking that language represents). The problem here is not so much language itself but the fact that metaphores/parables are wide open to the interpretation of the receiver, and a conventionally thinking receiver will naturally interprete them in the way that conforms with his conventional thinking.

1. I think, then, that if there are multiple forms of intelligence, that the artistic or creative one is what I'm referring to when I say some people are too "dumb" to speak their ideas clearly enough by breaking them down in easy-to-understand ways. I.e., they're "dumb" not in general, but only with regard to artistic or creative intelligence.

2. I agree that metaphors/parables are open to interpretation, but I don't think that quite eclipses their applicability in general. I mean, the argument has been made that language as a whole, including very abstract stuff, is composed of non-literal words and uses of words. Take the terribly, terribly complicated, mysterious concept of quantum entanglement. Entanglement is a pretty fleshy, concrete term being used in application to a very abstract, very confusing idea.

 

[Received]

When I was in a military headquarters, the regulations stipulated that the directives to the field that I wrote be comprehendible at the 8th grade level, as determined by the Flesch-Kincaid calculator.

Goodness gracious, how difficult that was! Both polysyllabic words and the number of words worked against the score, so it wasn't just a matter of using a lot of monosyllabic words, but a matter of simplifying the concepts as well.

Yeah, the story for me that motivated this post and the idea behind it is I'm a therapist and I'm starting a group on study skills and support for first-year students on academic suspension. So my supervisor, who is awesome, made it painstakingly clear that these "kids" need things broken down to very, very simple terms -- a good deal too far, IMO. And yeah, it's easy enough telling people how to study, how to highlight, but a good deal harder to explain what a thesis sentence is and how to find it; and pretty dang hard to explain the cognitive bases of procrastination.

However, I disagree with the idea of "other types of intelligence." I think that's just a feel-good snake oil. "Intelligence" has (or used to have) a single distinct meaning: The ability to learn.

Eh, I think the singular and multiple views might not be mutually exclusive. I understand intelligence as the ability to overcome obstacles or challenges. The question then becomes: what *type* of obstacles or challenges? Michael Jordan is a kinesthetic genius because he overcame movement-related obstacles better than anyone in the history of basketball. Einstein is an abstract genius because he overcame abstract-related obstacles better than (perhaps) anyone in the history of physics.

I think you can break things down to specify the channel through which someone is intelligent, which means you have specific forms of intelligence. I think you can take it further and speak of intelligence "in general" as a type of average of all these different types of intelligence for particular people.

Where things become complicated and controversial is the question as to whether (general) intelligence tests are psychometrically valid; that is, whether they actually measure intelligence in general, which means they give equal weight to each type of intelligence, rather than (as seems to be the case) put more emphasis on some types of intelligence (e.g., spatial) and little or no emphasis on others. A person who is brilliant creatively or kinesthetically might come away with the conclusion that he's dumb in a general intelligence way because he scored low on a general IQ test that was invalid because it didn't have questions that equally measured the types of intelligence he is really good at.

 

[quatona]

1. I think, then, that if there are multiple forms of intelligence, that the artistic or creative one is what I'm referring to when I say some people are too "dumb" to speak their ideas clearly enough by breaking them down in easy-to-understand ways. I.e., they're "dumb" not in general, but only with regard to artistic or creative intelligence.

Personally, I don´t find it particularly useful to stretch the words "intelligence" and "dumb" that far. (I know it is being done - I´ve heard of "emotional intelligence", "social intelligence", and possibly there are some people out there who´d call someone who is not a good runner "lacking body intelligence").

On another note, I was talking about conceptualizations that require extraordinary intelligence. Even if the person is over-average in his creativity, his creativity may not just be as extraordinary as the intelligence required to form his idea.

But, yes, I agree: People who are extraordinarily intelligent may not be extraordinarily creative, not extraordinarily empathic, not of extraordinary physical strength etc.

2. I agree that metaphors/parables are open to interpretation, but I don't think that quite eclipses their applicability in general.

I guess that´s why I didn´t say it did.

I mean, the argument has been made that language as a whole, including very abstract stuff, is composed of non-literal words and uses of words. Take the terribly, terribly complicated, mysterious concept of quantum entanglement. Entanglement is a pretty fleshy, concrete term being used in application to a very abstract, very confusing idea.

This metaphore doesn´t enlighten me.
I wouldn´t be so bold to blame this failure entirely on your lack of creativity.

 

[dysert]

if you are so intelligent that you can't express your ideas in less-than-intelligent ways, or to below-the-average intelligent people, this is a type of unintelligence. Even a type of disability.

I know someone who is just like this! Even a bit worse, though, because they can't express what they know even to people of average intelligence. It's a shame because this person knows *a lot* -- they just can't convey that knowledge to anyone else.

 

[dysert]

I think I would agree to some extent. Some philosophers seem much more able to express themselves clearly than others. I do think that how long you want to make the explanation matters too. Depending on who you are talking to, the explanation will be longer of shorter. Eg: one person might know what nihilism is, but another doesn't, so you would have to explain yourself more with then second.

I think there is skill in being about to explain new ideas to people (especially complex ones) in a way they can easily grasp.

I agree with you. This "skill" that you mention is what separates good teachers from bad ones. It is part art & science to be able to convey knowledge to others. Hard to measure, though.

 

[Paradoxum]

I agree with you. This "skill" that you mention is what separates good teachers from bad ones. It is part art & science to be able to convey knowledge to others. Hard to measure, though.

 

[brightlights]

First, I'm a big fan of Howard Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basically because there is too much controversy particularly around the idea of intelligence as a singular construct.

And I think there is a type of intelligence that is capable of bridging the gap between abstract, complicated, high level thinking and concrete, not complicated, low level thinking. IOW, a type of intelligence that speaks from the heights of near-genius (or somewhere around that tail of the distribution) to the lows of the opposite. Chesterton once remarked that speaking polysyllabically (i.e., intelligently) is much easier to do than create a whole sentence of single syllables expressing basically the same idea.

I think this idea can be extended: if you are so intelligent that you can't express your ideas in less-than-intelligent ways, or to below-the-average intelligent people, this is a type of unintelligence. Even a type of disability.

(And this thread is probably an example of this idea.)

Bonhoeffer said that if we can't teach theology to children then we don't truly understand it. I agree. It's easy to make things complicated. It's profoundly difficult to make things simple.