Page 3 of 3 [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

goomba
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 314

20 Oct 2006, 11:31 pm

What a narrow view of intelligence. I've been called "simple" once before, and I guess it's because I meet only one quality of intelligence (according to the list), yet meet 4 of the 5 qualities of unintelligence. It could be that the most judgemental or outspoken people of the class composed that list. It's a shame that your professor didn't elaborate on this story about his PhD advisor and point out the perception bias demonstrated on that list. I enjoy it when professors point out new ideas to students. I would seriously consider leaving an anonymous note in his mailbox that shows him there are other ways of being intelligent and they should be discussed in class. It seems like basic material he should be covering.



Alicorn
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 196

21 Oct 2006, 12:53 am

Cade wrote:
The subjectivity of some of those answers says more about the people who came up with the answer than about intelligence. People with limited understanding of the human psyche and only average intelligence do tend to think people who are more intelligent are people they personally find attractive for reasons other than intelligence. Normally, it's something that person posseses than the other person wants: success, money, good looks, popularity, an accessible sense of humor, good manner (i.e., not threatening in a social situation), etc. On the flipside, egos are very easily threatened, so anything off-putting, like homely looks, a sense of humor they don't get or awkward or cryptic behavior, immediately gets deemed signs of poor intelligence. That way the ego thinks it doesn't have to compete with such a person in the almighty intellgience social status stakes game. Your class neeeds to cover "ego defenses" because that's all it is: little people with mediorce brains, big egos and even bigger insecurities.

I don't think we should take this personally. I don't think these people are singling out just AS or any other condition. You'd be giving them WAY more credit then they deserve. They're just reacting to what they find attractive and not attractive without thinking critically. They're basically operating on the psychological level of a 14 year old. And do you hold 14 year olds accountable for understanding their own behavior and motives? So basically, these people are idiots who physically graduated from high school, but psychologically don't realize high school's over. Pity them. And get used to it, because the world's full of idiots like that.


Wow. This is one of the best posts I've ever read that sums up "normal people" very well.

Good job.

:!:



Sophist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,332
Location: Louisville, KY

21 Oct 2006, 11:58 am

In a very very very broad and generalized definition, I'd say intelligence may be best defined as: The ability to cognitively adapt in multiple environments using diverse means.

This of course is about as detailed and specific as the words imply since there's LOADS of different abilities we all have or don't, often LOADS of ways to use them, and finally, it all depends on what the particular environment is requiring of the individual at any given time.

At best, it's probably an "average of cognitive adaptability". But even then, an average still ignores the individual intelligences within any given person and isn't necessarily a good predictor of overall adaptability. After all, that's usually the purpose of trying to measure intelligence isn't it? To predict an outcome of "success"?

But I think the main reason intelligence is precisely undefinable though is because its a measurement of behavior and no two behaviors are exactly the same; therefore, it's symbolic and subjective.

In effect, the psychological and philosophical worlds have been trying to define it and pin it down for centuries. But it all ends up being mental masturbation in the end.


_________________
My Science blog, Science Over a Cuppa - http://insolemexumbra.wordpress.com/

My partner's autism science blog, Cortical Chauvinism - http://corticalchauvinism.wordpress.com/


anbuend
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,039

21 Oct 2006, 12:13 pm

krex wrote:
Yes, they have done similiar studies with attributes of people with attractive/symetrical features and those without and found the same results.....those who were attractive where judged with many positive qualities.They were thought to be nicer,smarter,etc.


I'm generally judged to be not "there" at all based on my appearance, and then people are startled when they realize I do understand what's going on around me. Not sure what's up with that.


_________________
"In my world it's a place of patterns and feel. In my world it's a haven for what is real. It's my world, nobody can steal it, but people like me, we live in the shadows." -Donna Williams


Fogman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont

21 Oct 2006, 6:14 pm

Being that this is a Psychology class, I think that what the professor may have been doing is taking a poll of all the students to see what the students believe constitutes 'intelligence'. This professor will most likely get into the details that 'intellect' is a much differant thing than 'popularity', which is what appears to be what the other students believe.

If the professor knows that you have an ASD, you may have to prepare yourself to be Exhibit 'A' to help the professor prove the point that intellect and popuarlity are not necessarily one and the same.


_________________
When There's No There to get to, I'm so There!