What do you guys think? Is intelligence inherent, or is it cultivated?

Post edited at 9:51 pm on June 23, 2008 by Micus

-------
Educators destroy your brain,
but you don't know, so why care?
Fagotto

How smart you are, and how you apply yourself can be trained and cultivated, but not intelligence.

That is at least how I feel about it.

-------
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384,
32768, 65536, 131072, 262144, 524288, 1048576, 2097152, 4194304, 8388608,
16777216, 33554432, 67108864, 134217728, 268435456, 536870912, 1073741824,
2147483648, 4294967296

But at the same time, instruction isn't enough.  It's a mixture of both.

-------
Message me for Custom-made Avatars! *Price Negotiable*
This signature line is missing and cannot be recovered.
Or is it just camouflaged?!

(I can only do 50 digits after the decimal place)

-------
If your heart were broken,
you'd be dead.

---

What we consider to be a 'genius' is one who is learned in a variety of areas, correct?
Most of these areas being book smarts, not street smarts.
Someone that has a lot of common sense is not a genius, someone that can recite 500 digits of pi is.

(I can only do 50 digits after the decimal place)

---

You're wrong. Seriously. I can't even explain it, you're just wrong. Someone doesn't need to be learned in all areas to be a genius. Mathematicians can be geniuses but don't need to know Plato.

-------
http://americaatitsfinest.blogspot.com/
This line will change when my love loves me back

---

What we consider to be a 'genius' is one who is learned in a variety of areas, correct?
Most of these areas being book smarts, not street smarts.
Someone that has a lot of common sense is not a genius, someone that can recite 500 digits of pi is.

(I can only do 50 digits after the decimal place)

---

For the record, memorization is kind of the antithesis of a genius.  A genius is defined as one that can inherently see and connect patterns (which demonstrates an ability to link up advanced concepts easily).   Memorization really has little to do with being a genius.

-------
Message me for Custom-made Avatars! *Price Negotiable*
This signature line is missing and cannot be recovered.
Or is it just camouflaged?!

As a true intellectual, I believe the above assertion is sufficient. Really. I really, really believe so.

For me, the intellgienc eof a person is pretty more determined by the ability of the person to appply learnt knowledge into any situation possible - Essentially the basic functions of the brain focuses on 'connections' of memories (or known knowledge)

If the person fails to apply that knowledge in theri brain, then they'll still do stupid things . .  simply put ..

Which is why, for me, a person needs to first have knowledge (cultivated) and the ability to utilize that knowledge (also cultivated), a brain not exercised is equal to well . .  a body without exercise lah swt. . .

-------
The key to victory is the element of surprise.
When that doesn't work, I guess I just gotta gun you down.

---

I tend to draw a line between ignorance and stupidity; as such it's quite possible to be an intelligent person who knows very little. I do not, however, believe that we are born with a set capacity for intellect that remains unchanging and eventually manifests itself to the fullest regardless of what happens to us. While some people obviously have greater capacity for intelligence than others, it is also, I believe, something that can be nourished or neglected. A child raised in a highly-intellectual society that encourages constant mental exercise would be both more intelligent and more educated than if the same child was raised in a primitive hunter-gatherer society.

---

agreed.

And yet, that same child born in the primitive hunter-gatherer society might hold proportional intelligence with respect to the societal norms.

The child in the highly intelligent society might be considered educated and intellectual, and be considered an intellectual giant compared to the second child, however to those in his tribe, the second child might be considered something astonishing. He might provide new insight in hunting/trapping, or new ways of running the society. Though his intellect is not focused on physics and mathematics, it is focused on what MATTERS in his society, and what is valued. In that, I think the second child would be considered far more intelligent in the second society than the first one would in that society [what would he contribute? existential theories... that is of no help to those who hunt and gather to survive]

I believe the level to which someone is CONSIDERED intelligent is subjective to the societal ideals about what makes one intelligent.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

An education, as defined by a business, for an application for a job, or application to a college, would be the school that you graduated from, or are currently attending.  Your basic marks, and your habits of work.  This is not the path of learning, this is the path of doing what we are forced to do in our society.

In order to learn anything, you must want to learn it.  Basic skills, such as being able to do simple calculations, as well as read in specific languages, are somewhat exceptions, because these skills are used every single day, and nearly all of the time, we're unaware that we're using them.  Because of this, they grow on us.

Schooling does not enhance intelligence, nor does it sustain it.  It attempts to lower it, by forcing you to learn in the same way that everyone else in the classroom does.  We all learn differently, and we all prefer to learn different things.  Schooling can never work efficiently.

We are intelligent as people, because of the fact that our brains our capable of constructing things in our minds, and being able to understand them.

-------
Any render of a 3D image posted by me, was by me.
So please don't ask.