Is natural intelligence becoming more underrated nowadays?

[tantacles]

Solution: just assume everyone is stupid in all domains. Then you never have to worry about the source of their intelligence-indicative material.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TheVillain]

Even though natural intelligence might be, as you said, getting underrated, it only goes to show how delusional most of the populous really is. Realistically, as the population get larger, a sort of natural selection occurs, through which only the best of the best (those with natural intelligence) will be able to outdo those inferior to them. Lets all agree that not everyone can become a doctor, astronaut, president, or some other position that requires higher thinking. This is why we have a few successful individuals at the top, the outliers, then we have the so called middle class (which is fading) more skewed to the right on the bell curve, and the rest living in poverty. In order to be successful requires intelligence, ambition, will, and the right environment for prosperity.

 

[Law2Doc]

Even though natural intelligence might be, as you said, getting underrated, it only goes to show how delusional most of the populous really is. Realistically, as the population get larger, a sort of natural selection occurs, through which only the best of the best (those with natural intelligence) will be able to outdo those inferior to them. Lets all agree that not everyone can become a doctor, astronaut, president, or some other position that requires higher thinking. This is why we have a few successful individuals at the top, the outliers, then we have the so called middle class (which is fading) more skewed to the right on the bell curve, and the rest living in poverty. In order to be successful requires intelligence, ambition, will, and the right environment for prosperity.

Perhaps, but in my experience there is actually an inverse relationship between those who regard themselves as naturally gifted and those that actually are.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Perhaps, but in my experience there is actually an inverse relationship between those who regard themselves as naturally gifted and those that actually are.

do you consider yourself to be gifted? I think you are confusing this with vocality of "giftedness"

 

[Thego2guy]

Even though natural intelligence might be, as you said, getting underrated, it only goes to show how delusional most of the populous really is. Realistically, as the population get larger, a sort of natural selection occurs, through which only the best of the best (those with natural intelligence) will be able to outdo those inferior to them. Lets all agree that not everyone can become a doctor, astronaut, president, or some other position that requires higher thinking. This is why we have a few successful individuals at the top, the outliers, then we have the so called middle class (which is fading) more skewed to the right on the bell curve, and the rest living in poverty. In order to be successful requires intelligence, ambition, will, and the right environment for prosperity.

LOL.

On another note, much props to astonauts.

 

[Law2Doc]

do you consider yourself to be gifted? I think you are confusing this with vocality of "giftedness"

Um no, the opposite. I'm saying anyone who claims to be naturally smart is full of themselves and probably doesn't have much going for them in life outside of their own head. Genius is something someone else can label you, but as soon as you start labeling yourself that way, it's pretty pathetic, and seldom accurate.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Um no, the opposite. I'm saying anyone who claims to be naturally smart is full of themselves and probably doesn't have much going for them in life outside of their own head. Genius is something someone else can label you, but as soon as you start labeling yourself that way, it's pretty pathetic, and seldom accurate.

then.... not the opposite... this is exactly what I was implying. You can consider yourself to be gifted. I'm sure all of the very gifted people out there do... However the ones who show the inverse relationship you describe are the ones who outwardly claim it. It is a "put your money where your mouth is" sort of situation. Giftedness can be easily demonstrated by those who are, so to claim it will usually denote an inability to demonstrate

 

[sean80439]

You are implying because someone states something to be true makes it less likely to be true. That is completely false in its own right, and stating it to be so doesn't actually factually make it right. Anecdote != data.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You are implying because someone states something to be true makes it less likely to be true. That is completely false in its own right, and stating it to be so doesn't actually factually make it right. Anecdote != data.

which is why both of us have said "in our experience". We are not implying a causative effect, just a correlative. and in your own post you used the word likely. You cannot say that this is false just because it is not causative. There are plenty of things that are statistically linked but not dependent on each other.
I was just saying that someone's personal belief that they are gifted isnt what is inversely correlated... as I assume most people who are gifted are aware of it.

 

[mmmmd]

I believe that "natural intelligence" is an oxymoron, and that intelligence is acquired. We all start at intelligence=0 and time=0, and then things change.

As for effort being linked to intelligence... yes, they are. Intelligence involves making decisions correctly. Deciding to get a "B" in a class may not be contrary to what one's goals are.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I believe that "natural intelligence" is an oxymoron, and that intelligence is acquired. We all start at intelligence=0 and time=0, and then things change.

As for effort being linked to intelligence... yes, they are. Intelligence involves making decisions correctly. Deciding to get a "B" in a class may not be contrary to what one's goals are.

IMO intelligence is innate and knowledge is acquired. One individual may learn not to touch the hot stove after 1 attempt. Another may take 10 attempts. The first individual is more intelligent, but both of these individuals have attained the same knowledge. The person who acquires knowledge more easily/readily is more intelligent.

 

[sean80439]

I believe that "natural intelligence" is an oxymoron, and that intelligence is acquired. We all start at intelligence=0 and time=0, and then things change.

As for effort being linked to intelligence... yes, they are. Intelligence involves making decisions correctly. Deciding to get a "B" in a class may not be contrary to what one's goals are.

You can believe it all you want, but I can link you large datasets and papers that demonstrate exactly the opposite. We have shown in models that certain variables load onto different types of intelligences, crystallized and fluid, and those tend to predict ability. Fluid intelligence increases with time, but it is what your natural ability is. There are no current tests out there that have been proven to actually increase fluid intelligence beyond someone's capabilities with practice.

 

[Barcu]

While I agree that an "everybody is great" mentality pervades our society, I would actually argue that innate intelligence is overrated. Nowhere is this more true than in the medical field.

Certainly, a physician needs some innate intelligence, but hard work will take you much further than intelligence. This is why GPA is still such a large factor in admissions (sure, GPA from different schools skews things a bit but stay with me). The MCAT is there to evaluate more critical thinking skills (ie a better measure of innate intelligence). Still, it's not like the MCAT is going to predict how good of a doctor you will be. A person with a 2.0 GPA and a 40 MCAT would probably struggle in med school much more than a 3.7/30 because study habits are hard to develop.

And this is true in pretty much any field. Sure, innate intelligence is great, and there has been a ton of innovation because of it. However, most successful people are harder workers than they are intelligent.

 

[mmmmd]

You can believe it all you want, but I can link you large datasets and papers that demonstrate exactly the opposite. We have shown in models that certain variables load onto different types of intelligences, crystallized and fluid, and those tend to predict ability. Fluid intelligence increases with time, but it is what your natural ability is. There are no current tests out there that have been proven to actually increase fluid intelligence beyond someone's capabilities with practice.

I haven't done extensive research (and I would certainly appreciate links to your favorite papers). For now I'm going to stand by my beliefs (and I am gracious to have your permission to do so ). Your models might have statistical significance, but they're still just models. Intelligence is more abstract.

IMO intelligence is innate and knowledge is acquired. One individual may learn not to touch the hot stove after 1 attempt. Another may take 10 attempts. The first individual is more intelligent, but both of these individuals have attained the same knowledge. The person who acquires knowledge more easily/readily is more intelligent.

Your example doesn't validate your claim. There's more at play in the example, for instance: one individual may ascertain why touching the hot stove is a bad idea, while the other simply determines that not touching the stove is a good idea. Mr./Ms. 10-attempts may have learned more about the world than the other (at an expense, of course ). So do we really know who is more intelligent?

 

[Knocked Up]

While I agree that an "everybody is great" mentality pervades our society, I would actually argue that innate intelligence is overrated. Nowhere is this more true than in the medical field.

Certainly, a physician needs some innate intelligence, but hard work will take you much further than intelligence. This is why GPA is still such a large factor in admissions (sure, GPA from different schools skews things a bit but stay with me). The MCAT is there to evaluate more critical thinking skills (ie a better measure of innate intelligence). Still, it's not like the MCAT is going to predict how good of a doctor you will be. A person with a 2.0 GPA and a 40 MCAT would probably struggle in med school much more than a 3.7/30 because study habits are hard to develop.

And this is true in pretty much any field. Sure, innate intelligence is great, and there has been a ton of innovation because of it. However, most successful people are harder workers than they are intelligent.

Yes, but if we are talking about a top tier school. With a good postbac or graduate school background red can still get in. Blue stands no shot whatsoever.

 

[Barcu]

Yes, but if we are talking about a top tier school. With a good postbac or graduate school background red can still get in. Blue stands no shot whatsoever.

Oh, I agree. But without proving it, the 40 MCAT guy would struggle.

That was really my point. Being innately intelligent is not even close to enough. In the vast majority of cases, working hard is going to get you way further than being intelligent.

 

[Aerus]

I believe that "natural intelligence" is an oxymoron, and that intelligence is acquired. We all start at intelligence=0 and time=0, and then things change.

As for effort being linked to intelligence... yes, they are. Intelligence involves making decisions correctly. Deciding to get a "B" in a class may not be contrary to what one's goals are.

How do you account for the people who learn things much more quickly and easier than others? You know those natural geniuses in the back of the room who play with their laptop during lecture and don't study all the time yet ace the tests?

While I agree that an "everybody is great" mentality pervades our society, I would actually argue that innate intelligence is overrated. Nowhere is this more true than in the medical field.

Certainly, a physician needs some innate intelligence, but hard work will take you much further than intelligence. This is why GPA is still such a large factor in admissions (sure, GPA from different schools skews things a bit but stay with me). The MCAT is there to evaluate more critical thinking skills (ie a better measure of innate intelligence). Still, it's not like the MCAT is going to predict how good of a doctor you will be. A person with a 2.0 GPA and a 40 MCAT would probably struggle in med school much more than a 3.7/30 because study habits are hard to develop.

And this is true in pretty much any field. Sure, innate intelligence is great, and there has been a ton of innovation because of it. However, most successful people are harder workers than they are intelligent.

You make it seem like GPA is solely based on hard work. Some people can absorb the lectures and just ace the tests with minimal amounts of hard work (only the required homework and such). GPA also has an intelligence factor too.

The MCAT, likewise, tests you on a lot of critical thinking skills. While it can be slightly improved with practice and repetition, you need some innate ability in order to survive it.

 

[sean80439]

I haven't done extensive research (and I would certainly appreciate links to your favorite papers).

Salthouse.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I haven't done extensive research (and I would certainly appreciate links to your favorite papers). For now I'm going to stand by my beliefs (and I am gracious to have your permission to do so ). Your models might have statistical significance, but they're still just models. Intelligence is more abstract.



Your example doesn't validate your claim. There's more at play in the example, for instance: one individual may ascertain why touching the hot stove is a bad idea, while the other simply determines that not touching the stove is a good idea. Mr./Ms. 10-attempts may have learned more about the world than the other (at an expense, of course ). So do we really know who is more intelligent?

I dont think it is appropriate to assume anything other than an even distribution of those who would try to figure out why vs just accept the outcome. Either way, I think you understand the point and can come up with several examples on your own in which rate of data-acquisition and use is indicative of intelligence.

 

[Barcu]

You make it seem like GPA is solely based on hard work. Some people can absorb the lectures and just ace the tests with minimal amounts of hard work (only the required homework and such). GPA also has an intelligence factor too.

The MCAT, likewise, tests you on a lot of critical thinking skills. While it can be slightly improved with practice and repetition, you need some innate ability in order to survive it.

I agree. I forgot to write that. GPA is kind of a combo of intelligence and hard work. But those people just get high MCATs and high GPAs and get into Harvard.

My point is still the same. Hard work will get you farther than intelligence, though you do need some intelligence.

 

[Aerus]

I agree. I forgot to write that. GPA is kind of a combo of intelligence and hard work. But those people just get high MCATs and high GPAs and get into Harvard.

My point is still the same. Hard work will get you farther than intelligence, though you do need some intelligence.

That's a very interesting point.

I somewhat disagree about hard work getting you further than intelligence, though. I believe that they are both (roughly) equally important.

If someone worked incredibly hard, but had very little natural intelligence, we would not be seeing them in the medical field. I can name quite a few people who study all day and night, writing unnecessary outlines, creating dozens of flashcards, and annotating copies of the textbooks and still do poorly on exams while another person just listens to lectures, rereads notes and aces the test. True that there might be other factors contributing to the first person's poor grades, but one of them might be intelligence. The medical field is definitely not cut out for everyone.

Likewise, a super intelligent person who is unwilling to work hard won't make it, either. That intelligence is there but there isn't any point in having it if it's not used. Someone can learn the material super fast and their brain just puts it all together flawlessly, but if one isn't even willing to do the required graded homework and earn the grade in the class, then that is just as bad.

 

[pre med 2014]

well the ones without the natural talent won't make it into the olympics or get into med school, so you need not worry yourself with other peoples capabilities. Better to focus on your own.