The Idea of Intelligence

[CollinEstes]

I was having a discussion with my wife about the idea of a person being very intelligent. The person we were discussing had a very high IQ but had terrible social skills and doesn't not take care of himself at all physically. This is just one example of my question below.

My question is does having a high IQ really all you need to be considered an intelligent person? Does lacking in common sense or proper social skills not show also some lack of intelligence. Or is a person that doesn't take proper care of his body and his apperance does that not also show some lack of intelligence. Or what about a truely smart person who doesn't use his knowledge to better himself or the world in any real way, is he truely intelligent?

This may seem like a stupid question but I have a hard time with most people I meet who are considered "highly" intelligent because most of them lack the basic social or personal skills that most people have. To me that shows that while they may have a great understand of math or science they don't have any understanding of the skills that are more important in life and thus show a lack of intelligence.

Just curious what anyone else thinks about this.

[drudman]

It really just depends on your definition of intelligence. I define it as just your IQ. So intelligence isn't anything too special by my definition. A person like the one you describe above, of which I have the misfortune of knowing several, is intelligent, antisocial, and unhygenic. But intelligent nonetheless.

I am reminded of this scene from The Breakfast Club:

Bender - You must be a [censored] idiot.
Brian - What, I'm an idiot because I can't build a lamp?
Bender - No, you're a genius because you can't build a lamp.

[PairTheBoard]

This is why I submited Nicole Kidman's name for the 10 most Influencial People list.

PairTheBoard

[SheetWise]

Intelligence is very different from knowledge or common sense. It's the ability to process information and make conections between what others see as seemingly unrelated data and events. Imagine a person with an IQ of 150 having to spend most of his public life dealing with IQs of 100 -- it is analagous to a normal person having to deal with morons -- they simply don't see the world in the same way. These people may not have much interest in the "normal" world. The person you describe is the typical Mensan -- a recent questionaire sent to Mensans asked why they joined the group, and what they get out of the gatherings -- the most common answer was simply to be around people who get their jokes.

SheetWise

[Bodhi]

I get really tired of people like you who think I ought to dress nicer, shave more often, or be familiar with petty things like social graces. /images/graemlins/wink.gif Just kidding.

The people you speak of simply place a higher value on their fields of study than on anything else. Civilization probably would not have come very far without this type, so let them do their thing.
As for the word "intelligence," I have no problem with a division between theoretical and practical intelligence. In fact, for Aristotle, a virtuous person had to have both.

[CollinEstes]

[ QUOTE ]
I get really tired of people like you who think I ought to dress nicer, shave more often, or be familiar with petty things like social graces. /images/graemlins/wink.gif Just kidding.

The people you speak of simply place a higher value on their fields of study than on anything else. Civilization probably would not have come very far without this type, so let them do their thing.
As for the word "intelligence," I have no problem with a division between theoretical and practical intelligence. In fact, for Aristotle, a virtuous person had to have both.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to change what anyone is doing, I just was challenging what people see as intelligent.

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
I was having a discussion with my wife about the idea of a person being very intelligent. The person we were discussing had a very high IQ but had terrible social skills and doesn't not take care of himself at all physically. This is just one example of my question below.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is an example of a person who is highly intelligent but can only in apply that intelligence in specific or controlled environments. Decisiveness and energy are what turn IQ into well developed life skills.

[ QUOTE ]
Does lacking in common sense or proper social skills not show also some lack of intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ] It shows a lack of interest and heart. I don't think they're really related to intelligence, more attitude and experience.

I studied physics and math at a good university, and spent a lot of time around these types. I also tutored for a couple of years. In my experience most of these types aren't really that intelligent at all, they just study hard and develop specialised skills. There are very few who exhibit adaptability of thought or who do well when faced with truly novel situations.

I'd also add that if he is truly intelligent, he probably craves stimulation that he can't find in your or others' company. Most people (especially socially adept ones) are terribly dull to someone who's spent their life pondering things that actually matter.

Just my two cents.

[CollinEstes]

Thanks for the thoughts Zorro I agree with alot of what you said.

I have no problem with any type of person, I didn't mean to sound like that, I just thought it was intresting to think about what we consider to be a intelligent or smart person. To me a smart/intelligent person is someone who not only has a high IQ but also is well adjusted and has their pirorities in the right place for them.

[Siegmund]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a hard time with most people I meet who are considered "highly" intelligent because most of them lack the basic social or personal skills that most people have. To me that shows that while they may have a great understand of math or science they don't have any understanding of the skills that are more important in life and thus show a lack of intelligence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a reasonable viewpoint. If you're the sort of person who believes social skills are more important than mathematical/scientific intelligence.

I am one of those science types who isn't much for socializing. I admit it. In my more hotblooded youth I was fiercely proud of it.

I have three answers for you. None of them is complete, but each adresses one part of the gulf between us.

Some of us are socially inept because we (in our opinions) have better things to do with our time than, to pick an example at random, learn how to dance. The people who go to nightclubs think we are worse than apes, and we think the same of them; hey, finally something we agree on. That's a simple difference of opinion about what's a good way of spending time. I am content to let them "waste" their lives dancing to rock and roll if they will let me "waste" mine attending operas and reading books. (All nonfiction, of course, except for mythology and a few classics like Goethe and Schiller in the original German.)

There are also certain social norms that don't make a great deal of logical sense. These are rules we know how to follow, but can't be bothered with. Yes, I know how to put on a necktie. I know that in "business" they are considered essential clothing. And I know that they are uncomfortable and have no practical use. So I don't wear one. And I work for an employer that understands that fact; my boss doesn't wear one either. Yes, I know that in the United States, you are supposed to cut your food with knife in right hand and fork in left, then put down the knife and use the right hand to lift the food to your mouth. I also know that there's no reason other than cultural norms for this (and had a Canadian grandmother who ate with fork in left hand her whole life even while living in the states.) By contrast, I DO always hold doors open for ladies; there's a good reason for that; I get to stare at her ass while she passes by and I walk in right behind her. So, if I am being myself, I may come across as an uncultured slob. On the rare occasions I choose to put on an act for someone I can, but I rarely choose to do so.

That brings me to reason #3.

I have some principles. I tell it like it is. Honesty is the best policy, my mother always said. If you share an idiotic idea that will never work with me and ask my opinion of it, I will tell you straight up you how stupid it is - whether you are a stranger, friend, neighbor, grandfather, boss, general, or President. Furthermore, I expect you to do the same to me knowing I wouldn't be offended by it - and may regard you as a despicable liar for the rest of my life if you softplay it and "let me down gently" instead of coming right out and telling me you won't date me, won't hire me, won't agree with me idea. (This is why, for instance, I hate being called "Sir." It's theoretically a token of respect - but, in practice, it's a word spoken only by those who either want something from me -- "Sir, may I have a moment of your time to try to sell you this subscription to Nightclub Scene Weekly?" -- or are giving me thinly veiled orders -- "sir, may I empty your carefully packed backpack all over the table and makes a mess of it so I can see that that pointy object on the x-ray is a fountain pen nib and not something really dangerous like a nail clipper?" -- or someone refusing to give me satisfaction -- "I'm sorry, sir, but there are no rooms with working air conditioning available".)

I am sure I've missed out on some opportunities because of telling it how it is. So be it. I don't mind being called socially inept for it. I am satisfied that it earns me the respect of those who are worth my time, and most of the ones who are put off by it I am better off without.

[CollinEstes]

Siegmund I appreciate your response and I agree with alot of what you are saying. However my question isn't why don't people with IQs worry more about their social skills, it was does that make them not as intelligent. I don't think it makes them stupid just wondering if that should be a consideration when you think about a person as intelligent.

Also I hear what you are saying about dancing in the club but I wasn't talking about being popular in college, I was talking about the ability to handle yourself in a manner that will not put off people from wanting to be around (unless they do it by design).

And while I can respect your opinion about "telling it like it is" you don't tell your wife that she is fat." sparing people's feelings and acting in an apporiate manner is just nice for society. The world would be a terrible place if everyone just was 100% honest all the time.

And attire isn't really what I was thinking about. I am talking about obesity or not taking care of ones body, i.e. exercise. Because body and mind are connected.

[Siegmund]

[ QUOTE ]
Siegmund I appreciate your response and I agree with alot of what you are saying. However my question isn't why don't people with IQs worry more about their social skills, it was does that make them not as intelligent. I don't think it makes them stupid just wondering if that should be a consideration when you think about a person as intelligent.


[/ QUOTE ]

If they have a coherent reason for having deliberately neglected certain social skills, I don't think that counts as a strike against intelligence.

Is it a consideration? Sure it is. If a person devotes their whole energies to the social skills - believing it's important to belong to all the right clubs, or to take two hours primping to look perfect before she (or he!) goes out on a date - that destroys all hope of qualifying as intelligent in my book. (Oh, you meant in the other direction, didn't you...heh.)

My threshold for accusing someone of wasting too much effort on the social graces and not enough on worthwhile pursuits is likely lower than yours, I admit.
[ QUOTE ]

I was talking about the ability to handle yourself in a manner that will not put off people from wanting to be around (unless they do it by design).


[/ QUOTE ]

Here I am not so sure I agree with where you are going. If people are put off by someone's natural manner, I tend to assume that has more to do with other people being too lazy or intolerant to understand. If I know I am right and someone else is wrong about something, and I tell them so, ideally they will see the error of their ways and be appreciative; now, if they don't take well to the news, or don't believe me, or whatever, that is entirely their problem, not mine. (Unless we're talking about a teacher failing to make himself clear to a student, or something like that, where the teacher does have to examine himself and make sure he's presenting his message clearly.)

The old "a hundred million people can't be wrong" saw is nonsense. Distance from perfection is the meaningful measure, not distance from average. "The Masses" can be, and often are, very wrong. There is not enough time in one life to save them all from themselves. And devoting one's energies to such a hopeless project as attempting it anyway is a waste of one's own life, not intelligent, or as admirable or honourable as society pretends it is.

[ QUOTE ]

And while I can respect your opinion about "telling it like it is" you don't tell your wife that she is fat." sparing people's feelings and acting in an apporiate manner is just nice for society. The world would be a terrible place if everyone just was 100% honest all the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

And here we part ways entirely. My take on it is that the world -- well, the pop-culture, political correctness, and "socialite scene" world -- IS a terrible place right now, in large part because of the sleazes who think taking the easy way out by lying is OK. In my book that is completely inexcusable, no exceptions for feelings or anything else, full stop.

A lot of people, even otherwise sensible people, disagree with me. That doesn't change the fact that all hundred million of them are wrong. Vide supra.

[ QUOTE ]

And attire isn't really what I was thinking about. I am talking about obesity or not taking care of ones body, i.e. exercise. Because body and mind are connected.

[/ QUOTE ]


Here we are again in agreement. You'll find plenty of intelligent people unshaven, hair standing on end, and with unmatching socks. But very few who have rotten teeth, weigh 300 pounds, or have ever tried cocaine let alone been addicts. To know what the "right thing to do" is and then do the opposite anyway becomes rarer and rarer as people become more intelligent. So, yes, if you come upon a stranger who is not taking care of himself in that way, it's fair for you to assume lower intelligence.

And if you lie to people you care about who are fat, instead of helping them improve themselves, that reflects badly on both you for trying such a trick, and them for listening and deluding themselves instead of accepting the truth. Even wives.

[daryn]

man, i really like where this siegmund is coming from. it's almost like he's typing exactly what i'm thinking.

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
man, i really like where this siegmund is coming from. it's almost like he's typing exactly what i'm thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe Siegmund is your brain manipulating your computer while you sleep.

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
man, i really like where this siegmund is coming from. it's almost like he's typing exactly what i'm thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe Siegmund is your brain manipulating your computer while you sleep.

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Since we can't prove it is not happening I think we should seriously consider it as being true.

[LargeCents]

The way I approach intelligence is EXACTLY the way I'd approach any other "gift", such as being able to run fast, for example. Some people are plain and simply gifted at running. It has nothing to do with how they dress, how they act, etc, etc. Some gifted runners are real jerks, some are really cool, some are really stupid, some are quite intelligent. It's wierd that running fast has absolutely nothing to do with any other aspect of life.

I claim the same can be said about intelligence. Some intelligent people are quite socially refined and whatnot, others are more reclusive, etc. Maybe you think because someone is intelligent, they should automatically know better than dress like a bum and smell like a drunk. Well, intelligence doesn't necessarily keep someone away from alcoholism, for example, any more than if someone was seemingly fast enough to "run away" from a liquor bottle. lol. The value of intelligence is sometimes overrated, IMO.

[DCWildcat]

I'm a little skeptical of the absolutism of the "honesty is the best policy" belief.

As the son of two psychologists (and a slowly emerging one myself), I can state with certainty that there exist many times when honesty is not the best policy. If we're ascribing the value of honesty to it's consequences (as Siegmund has done), it becomes rather obvious.

Here's an example: Ms. Smith leaves her child in the car on a hot day to bring her groceries inside. The temperature swells inside the car to over 150 degrees. The child stumbles out and collapses on the yard. Ms. Smith calls 911, the paramedics arrive and take him to the hospital, where he is pronounced dead on arrival. Ms. Smith is completely clueless as to what killed her son.

Now suppose the doctor bearing the bad news somehow has the option of telling her the child died of a preexisting condition. The mother would never find out the truth if he lied. Research shows an overwhelming tendency for parents to commit suicide if their child dies at a parent's fault. Should the doctor lie?

Or suppose another medical ethics example from my philosophy professor. A Jehovah's Witness needs a bypass surgery. There's a 35% chance he'll need a blood transfusion during the surgery. But he tells the doctor that he cannot receive foreign blood due to his religious beliefs, and he'd rather die than get that transfusion (also suppose he'll commit suicide if he finds out he received foreign blood). The doctor, an atheist (who also happens to abide by his medical standards), says "ok," performs the surgery. It becomes apparent that the man needs a blood transfusion, and the doctor gives him one. When the patient wakes up he asks the doctor if he received blood. "Of course not," replies the doctor. Should the doctor have been honest?

[DCWildcat]

Intelligence itself is defined differently by different psychologists. Some use it to refer specifically to pattern recognition abilities. Some believe in "emotional IQs." Creativity, pragmatic problem solving ability, and other such traits are often measured.

A side note on the social skills thing--about 50% of a person's personality is believed to be determined by genetics, believe it or not.

[CancerMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Now suppose the doctor bearing the bad news somehow has the option of telling her the child died of a preexisting condition. The mother would never find out the truth if he lied. Research shows an overwhelming tendency for parents to commit suicide if their child dies at a parent's fault. Should the doctor lie?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think everyone should have to pander to people like this. The woman made a mistake and if she commits suicide, maybe she'll be an example for others. Even if she doesn't I don't understand the need to keep people like this around.

If a person is aware of the fact that they are giving up meaningless social relationships for the ability to devote more time to their own self improvement and growth in knowledge then I think they may be head and shoulders above the rest. They're able to adapt and clean themselves up when they need to, but they don't make an effort everyday to impress every person they come in contact with.
I agree with Siegmund 100% on this.

[DCWildcat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now suppose the doctor bearing the bad news somehow has the option of telling her the child died of a preexisting condition. The mother would never find out the truth if he lied. Research shows an overwhelming tendency for parents to commit suicide if their child dies at a parent's fault. Should the doctor lie?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think everyone should have to pander to people like this. The woman made a mistake and if she commits suicide, maybe she'll be an example for others. Even if she doesn't I don't understand the need to keep people like this around.

If a person is aware of the fact that they are giving up meaningless social relationships for the ability to devote more time to their own self improvement and growth in knowledge then I think they may be head and shoulders above the rest. They're able to adapt and clean themselves up when they need to, but they don't make an effort everyday to impress every person they come in contact with.
I agree with Siegmund 100% on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an astonishingly cruel and illogical outlook on things. How do you justify suicide "as an example?"

Maybe I should qualify it like an economist, then. Suppose 100 utils are effected by lying, and 50 are effected by telling her the truth?

I also agree regarding social skills, although there's a correlation between people with strong social skills and happiness in life. That's not to say social skills should be forced upon them, just that they're nice to have.

[CancerMan]

[ QUOTE ]

That's an astonishingly cruel and illogical outlook on things. How do you justify suicide "as an example?"

Maybe I should qualify it like an economist, then. Suppose 100 utils are effected by lying, and 50 are effected by telling her the truth?

I also agree regarding social skills, although there's a correlation between people with strong social skills and happiness in life. That's not to say social skills should be forced upon them, just that they're nice to have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't say it's illogical, you haven't heard what I've had to say on it.
I'm saying the mother's suicide may spread the word to others that you should be a better parent and use common sense instead of leaving your child in a car. ANYWAY, I think society would be better off if "the less desirable segments" of the population were told relentlessly the truth about themselves and they then chose to end their lives. The gene pool would be stronger. I'm not saying that this should happen AT ALL! I'm just asking you to consider what would happen in my scenario. Would it really be that bad in the long run for humans? If you were to not believe in a life after death, and maybe the only goal we have as humans is to produce a stronger, more efficient person and cause the next generation to be better off.

But to be honest, I'm very happy that people aren't honest all the time. I'm socially akward and if I was told everyday that I was useless and no one liked me, I would have ended up on top of a clocktower with pantyhose on my head long ago.

But if I were to look at it from an economic viewpoint, then it completely takes it out of context.

[Siegmund]

[ QUOTE ]

Or suppose another medical ethics example from my philosophy professor. A Jehovah's Witness needs a bypass surgery. There's a 35% chance he'll need a blood transfusion during the surgery. But he tells the doctor that he cannot receive foreign blood due to his religious beliefs, and he'd rather die than get that transfusion (also suppose he'll commit suicide if he finds out he received foreign blood). The doctor, an atheist (who also happens to abide by his medical standards), says "ok," performs the surgery. It becomes apparent that the man needs a blood transfusion, and the doctor gives him one. When the patient wakes up he asks the doctor if he received blood. "Of course not," replies the doctor. Should the doctor have been honest?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure what I find more disturbing - the examples themselves, or that fact you think they make it "obvious" that lying is OK.

You seriously believe this doctor has any business practicing medicine? Fortunately there are such things as medical records, and the witnesses have a legal-aid service for their members, so its a virtual certainty this doctor's career will be over as soon the patient's itemized hospital bill arrives. As it should be. Lying to a patient about your intentions just to get his business is despicable. I appreciate that the doctor found himself in a moral dilemma when he had the patient near death. I can understand how some doctors would feel obligated to give blood under the circumstances. But I have no sympathy for a doctor who feels that way leading a Jehovah's Witness to believe his wishes (and his legal papers he signed when he was admitted to the hospital spelling out what treatment he would refuse!) would be respected.

I find both of your examples classic cases of why I believe the world as it is to be a terrible place because of the people who think lying is excusable under circumstances such as these.

Suicide, incidentally, is just as much against the beliefs of the Witnesses as receiving blood transfusions is - but that is really tangential to the argument itself.