On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: > > > > On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote: > > > > A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have sufficient > patience, > > Interestingly, it turns out that those with moderate IQs have the highest > levels of patience. They are aware that they don't have a V8 engine > upstairs so they drive their car slowly and with caution. For this reason > we notice that the super brains also have a tendency to want to be right > about everything and charge ahead because they have been told by mommy and > daddy and their schoolteachers how smart they are; they have been called an > "accelerant" at school and they have a self-image to match. Such people are > rarely creative. Creativity requires a temperament that is apt to suspend > judgement. Someone who has elevated IQ and an elevated opinion of > themselves usually rush to be the first to judge, to dive in and make the > quick kill, and to be "cock of the rock". This is nothing more than a > caveman-style contest of strength, not a contest of creative ability. > Creativity is the least understood and certainly the most neglected aspect > of human thinking. Given we exist in a culture of adversarial > rock-throwing, attack and defense thinking, then this should come as no > surprise. Ever since Socrates' balls dropped we have been advancing down > the path of progress by kneecapping each other and then standing back and > saying "See how marvelously creative I am as a thinker? I made this other > fellow fall down!!! What a coward he is!" > > Creativity has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Intelligence > exists to say what everything, what everything means, what everything is > worth. Creativity might be seen to be many things but above all it is the > ability to put existing information together in new ways to render > previously unseen value. In other words, the logic of creativity is the > licence to be illogical when necessary. This scares intelligent people > because they associate being illogical with being wrong. That is their > biggest failing and given the world is run by intelligent people with huge > IQs and lots of money, power and influence it is highly unlikely that > humans will ever truly see the need for, let alone do anything seriously > about learning how to think creatively. More than likely they will > understand all of this in principal only and then teach machines how to do > this and that will be the end of us because any creative machine will > instantly see the need to get rid of humans if it values its own freedom. > > Kim >
Opinion: As with many scientific fields, the historical emergence of "I.Q." has featured a kind of convergent effect from many independent lines of enquiry. The nature of this convergence is NOT that of, 'toward intelligence' - this is a major misunderstanding, which many in, or in support of, the field also succumb to. But such talk would be totally ignorant of the general PATTERNS found in the history of science and robust knowledge. The convergent effect in a particular field is much more akin to shedding the majority of data ALSO RELEVANT to the matter of intelligence. That data, represents facets of intelligence that will need to be picked up by other, nascent, fields. I.Q. is good hard science, but as with all good hard sciences, it represents a very partial frame in the as yet undiscovered mystery of intelligence. Other key but under-developed fields include the amazing results certain kinds of approach can have - such as for example that done by Anthony Robbins. Then there is the creative/memory work done by the likes of Tony Buzan. Then there is the incredibly cross-over with health and fitness, in terms of clarity/determination and mental health. It's all relevant. With that, there is the very under-appreciated and misunderstood potential of MEMORIZATION techniques in learning. This is no less relevant in fields like mathematics than anywhere else. Yet suffers exclusion by some prevailing attitudes regarding, say, mathematics that there's no place for such things, due to...some or other magical property or function, like 'deriving' that which we need. A lot of views that are popularly accepted by intellectuals on this matter are not necessarily shared by the worlds best mathematicians. This chap won the Field's Medal (equivalent of Nobel Prize in Maths), yet positively supports the memorizing activities of mathematics students in Cambridge. Worth noting, that one does not have to be a complete snob, to recognize a mathematics undergraduate course in Cambridge University is likely to be attracting some of the most promising young mathematicians in the world. Yet a large number of them resort to memorization. A lot more people do the same, but don't mention it because they fear it gets them judged 'rote' learners. But this is all completely bonkers. In reality very FEW people have all round symmetrically amazing brains. We all typically have strengths and weaknesses. There is no I.Q. issue in play, necessarily, between one person whose weakness is morale, or commitment, and another whose weakness is memory and concentration. A lot of people would benefit hugely from a better understanding what matters in learning. What that is, in my view, is learning the methods and tools that first of all, identify where we are strong and weak, and then allow us to CONSTRUCT methods of revision and learning that COMPENSATE. I definitely designed a revision technique that compensated for my personal shortcomings, which were (a) totally uneducated at point of entry into university and (b) confidence issues and (c) short term memory issues - potentially from a large amount of indugengce in recreational drugs over a long period of time. Whatever though...didn't seem to be remembering as well as I needed to and/or had too much to remember given lack of background education. Designed a good compensation system. Got a First. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
