A Solid Intellectual Mind

Post Reply New Topic

What features and dispositions and frameworks go together to make a person a solid intellectual? (Note: To Philologos, before he even comments, "intellectual" here is meant in the standard form, not as a pejorative. You can substitute the word "thinker" or whatever it is you use as a substitute)

Obviously not all intellectuals have to think the exact same way, but there are some definite things we tend to see, if at least an interest, a wealth of knowledge, and IQ.

Spoken like a gentleman. In this context at this point - initiated by you and this contectualized - not technically necessary. It is not as if, say, Glowworm referred to meas "an intellectual".

But the gesture is noted and greatly appreciated.

--------------

That said:

my list has to include:

alertness
reasonable dissatisfaction with the knowledge one has
ability to use reason without being entangled
ability to discern character
a reasonable sense of humor

That pretty much conflates the majority of alpha-minds I have encountered.

Category error! There is no Mind. Only brain and other neural tissue.

ruveyn

At the base it would require a 'presence of mind', or the ability to reflect, analyze, and store-- always adding 'in' in this edifice of knowledge. A non-intellectual, does not seem to be self actualized-- they, somehow, are satisfied with a in the moment presence of consciousness and just move with the local currents.

I think disposition wise, a reflecting individual would be an introvert. But I hear extroverts can be high in cognition( IQ), but not nearly as much in the ranks.

The greater the long term memory, memory, and greater analytical skills(all cognitive abilities) the more apt could one become.

So I believe it is centered in cognitive ability, and reflection.

Obviously some degree of intelligence is required.

A broad base of accumulated knowledge is also necessary, along with greater depth in at least a couple specific areas.

Curiosity would be the most important trait.

A good ability to compartmentalize and consider counterfactuals and hypotheticals is important, as without the ability to set aside certain assumptions for sake of argument, no new ideas may be introduced successfully.

There are lots of different sorts of thinkers. I don't think there is an optimal sort. Some are masters of the literature already produced. Others are the authors of new materiel. Some contextualize broad fields into common elements others point out divergences. Some are researchers; others teachers of students. I suppose the best would be one who could do it all, but then there are extreme specialists who are also very useful.

Look no further.

Maybe you got no mind. Me, I got it a mind, and I will keep on using it, if you don't mind.

A question that comes to mind [sorry, ruveyn] is, does this mind - or these minds because 91 points out quite correctly that there are different mental styles that qualify - get bored?

Mdyar points out - and it matches my own observations - "A non-intellectual, does not seem to be self actualized". This is to a large extent true, and without a TV or other source of toktok many get very uneasy, where those whose minds are intellectually inclined can almost always find something [if it be only noting one's reactions to having no stimuli].

But there are some of both the + and the - intellectual categories whose default state is relaxing under the cork tree. So are there also intellectually inclined who are more susceptible to boredom?

Accumulating and retaining data is vital to any ability to comprehend and resolve problems but also a general paradigm is necessary to assess and fit the data into patterns that relate to a sensible architecture of assumed reality and that is fundamental. My paradigm runs towards the pragmatic and functional qualities of data as best I can evaluate it. Not all paradigms do and that frequently creates irresolvable problems.

A stereotypical Vulcan from Star Trek is the idealized solid intellectual of the 60's, however the meaning of the word intelligence, from Latin at least, would be "understanding". Knowledge is not equivalent to understanding, since knowledge is the data to be understood. If, hypothetically, a set of persons were equally intelligent and yet each had a different set of data apiece, then some would understand their set of data to lead to one conclusion and another to another. If, however, each expressed their conclusions in absence of the premises, some would probably consider the others to be "unintelligent" since their conclusions did not match.

Hmm, I tend to emphasize knowledge seeking for it's own sake as a defining trait of being an intellectual, along with logical flexibility and an ability to set aside or at least consider outside of any ideology that may be present.

I've met some very dense intellectuals in my time.

And some sparse ones, as well.

solid intellectual mind = blockhead?

ruveyn

I agree with this except my version takes out the sentence I bolded. That's because I think intellectuals are born, not made and thus are intellectuals as children too, even with little accumulated knowledge.