|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/26/2009 : 21:05:40 [Permalink]
|
Intelligence is a bitch of a word. There is no definition for it that isn't weak.
Merriam-Webster says:
1 a (1) : the faculty of understanding : capacity to know or apprehend :
b : the available ability as measured by intelligence tests or by other social criteria to use one's existing knowledge to meet new situations and to solve new problems, to learn, to foresee problems, to use symbols or relationships, to create new relationships, to think abstractly : ability to perceive one's environment, to deal with it symbolically, to deal with it effectively, to adjust to it, to work toward a goal : the degree of one's alertness, awareness, or acuity : ability to use with awareness the mechanism of reasoning whether conceived as a unified intellectual factor or as the aggregate of many intellectual factors or abilities, as intuitive or as analytic, as organismic, biological, physiological, psychological, or social in origin and nature
c : mental acuteness :
2 a : an intelligent being; especially : an incorporeal spirit :
b : a person of some intellectual capacity
3 a : the act of understanding
b (1) : information communicated
: interchange of information
(3) obsolete : a piece of information -- usually used in plural
|
Most people probably use the "the faculty of understanding, capacity to know or apprehend" when they use the word. I'd argue that if you have the capacity to learn language skills well enough to communicate in day to day life then you have the basic capacity to apprehend simple logic and logical rules. You can be trained to understand them.
And outside of the religious context most religious people probably do apprehend and apply those basic logic and problem solving skills. And if that is the case (it is, or they would probably all die very young) then they have the intelligence required to apply those skills to religious claims. That they do not apply them means there is some other reason, not basic intellect, that inhibits them.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 22:36:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Merriam-Webster says: |
Well Merriam-Webster sucks if they think that the "a piece of information" definition is obsolete, because it's obvious that the CIA and other intelligence-gathering agencies use it to mean just that all the damn time. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 23:18:31 [Permalink]
|
Yeah. Like I said.
Its a slimy little bastard of a word. Hard to pin down, not precisely defined (except in the "obsolete" usage, and I have no idea why that is considered obsolete...).
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2009 : 02:39:45 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Some might say that there are different sorts of "intelligences," the radical examples being math or music savants who can't understand how to tie their shoes. On a more "normal" level, I know that marf (for example) understands things about art that I just don't grok, and there's no telling whether I would eventually get it even if I threw myself into her world 24/7 for the next ten years (the oft-repeated amount of time it takes for a person to become "expert" at something). |
This was my first thought in response to Dude's example of Newton too.
Dave continued: | Your Newtonian example may be in a different class, though. With his foundation in math, it's unlikely that he would be unable to grasp the logic and empiricism behind criticisms of religious claims (even from his day), so there was obviously something other than intelligence at play, there. |
and Dude elaborated: Most people probably use the "the faculty of understanding, capacity to know or apprehend" when they use the word. I'd argue that if you have the capacity to learn language skills well enough to communicate in day to day life then you have the basic capacity to apprehend simple logic and logical rules. You can be trained to understand them.
And outside of the religious context most religious people probably do apprehend and apply those basic logic and problem solving skills. And if that is the case (it is, or they would probably all die very young) then they have the intelligence required to apply those skills to religious claims. That they do not apply them means there is some other reason, not basic intellect, that inhibits them. |
I suppose this point of contention is really a difference in our assumptions about what "intelligence" means. In addition to the idea that people have different types of intelligence, in my view, the ability to understand something on one level isn't enough. If a person allows other aspects of their mentality to get in the way of understanding something, that is indeed a weak spot in their intelligence - at least with regards to their powers of logic and critical thinking.
We definitely agree on one thing: | Its a slimy little bastard of a word. Hard to pin down, not precisely defined (except in the "obsolete" usage, and I have no idea why that is considered obsolete...). |
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2009 : 08:33:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Most people probably use the "the faculty of understanding, capacity to know or apprehend" when they use the word. I'd argue that if you have the capacity to learn language skills well enough to communicate in day to day life then you have the basic capacity to apprehend simple logic and logical rules. You can be trained to understand them.
And outside of the religious context most religious people probably do apprehend and apply those basic logic and problem solving skills. And if that is the case (it is, or they would probably all die very young) then they have the intelligence required to apply those skills to religious claims. That they do not apply them means there is some other reason, not basic intellect, that inhibits them.
|
I see what you are getting at, but I think what Marf is saying is that most "Intelligent" people don't need to be trained to use simple logic. They seek it out and learn it on their own. They become logical thinkers because they are a little swifter than the average bear. Sort of a intelligence = more logical thinking.
Personally I think it's a lot of both.
Many have the capacity but either lack the desire, or purposely refuse, to use it. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2009 : 09:56:50 [Permalink]
|
marf said:
| I suppose this point of contention is really a difference in our assumptions about what "intelligence" means. In addition to the idea that people have different types of intelligence, in my view, the ability to understand something on one level isn't enough. If a person allows other aspects of their mentality to get in the way of understanding something, that is indeed a weak spot in their intelligence - at least with regards to their powers of logic and critical thinking. |
The definition of intelligence is not central to my argument here. Language is, essentially, the ability to turn your perception into a set of symbols that you can communicate to another. Languages follow logical rules (grammar).
A person who can comprehend and use language well enough to get through the basic activities of day to day life has the "intelligence" to also learn basic logical problem solving skills. To learn the idea and implication of induction and deduction. Even if "induction" and "deduction" are not part of their vocabulary they probably have a rudimentary understanding of the concepts.
Because, really, do you think true believers need to test fire for hotness every time they see it before they decide not to put their fingers in? Do they have to test red lights every time they see one to make sure it still means stop? Are they incapable of deducing that if they leave some heat generating electrical appliance running (coffee pot, iron, stove, etc) for an extended time without supervision that disaster may result? That if they constantly fail to meet deadlines at work they wont be getting a good raise this year?
My point, again, is that most people who are true believers probably have enough intelligence to evaluate their religious beliefs. That they don't do so can't be chalked up to a lack of intellect, there is some other mechanism at work. Training, education, culture, community, and who their parents trained them to trust for information...
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2009 : 10:09:42 [Permalink]
|
Again....I think it's a combination. I also think you are oversimplifying.
How does your explanation (Dude) explain people who are raised as true believers and are not exposed to proper education...etc..., but still break out and become logical, reasonable members of society without the woo-woo they were raised with?
I think it's because those people tend to be a little brighter overall than the one's who never do see the light of reason. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2009 : 10:56:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
I certainly agree that anyone without clinical mental deficiencies has the ability to learn logic and reasoning. I'd say this goes for just about everything else as well. The problem is that very few have the drive to. It's the lack of a want that makes this statement
| People who are capable of basic langauge skills should be able to sort bullshit from reality. |
False. While there is a potential there, if it isn't developed it is meaningless.
|
Ricky, go back and read this thread again. We are talking about the basic capacity of "intelligence". You seem to have jumped in blind.
If a person has the capacity to learn language they also have the capacity to learn basic logic. Marf claims that religious people are inherently incapable of it because they lack the intelligence. I disagree.
edited to also add: If you use language to accomplish the mundane tasks in your day to day life then you also use and apply basic problem solving logic. That people do not apply this to their religious beliefs is not due to an inherent lack of intelligence.
astropin said:
How does your explanation (Dude) explain people who are raised as true believers and are not exposed to proper education...etc..., but still break out and become logical, reasonable members of society without the woo-woo they were raised with?
I think it's because those people tend to be a little brighter overall than the one's who never do see the light of reason. |
What about my posts has lead you to believe that I think all people have the exact same capacity for perception and intellect? When I say that anyone with the capacity for language also has the capacity to learn basic logical rules, what part of that leads you to assume I am saying that no one is capable of discerning those rules by observation and analysis without any formal training? Help me understand how I am communicating things to you that I have not intended to communicate, so I can avoid doing so in the future.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 08/27/2009 11:03:34 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2009 : 13:35:03 [Permalink]
|
Ricky said:
I agree with your assessment of their capacity, but what I'm saying is there is a disconnect between "capacity to analyze logic" and "ability to analyze logic". Just because one has the capacity to do something does not mean that one is able to. For most activities, there is a period of learning in between those two. Analyzing statements, in my experience, is no different. And without a want or need to develop those skills, most people simply don't.
|
And:
| Mundane and every day problem solving is so dramatically different then analyzing religious beliefs that I really don't believe there is any way to compare the two. |
Capacity and ability are very closely related, but: I have the capacity to solve calculus equations, because I currently can't solve them (just haven't been trained yet) says nothing about my inherent intelligence. I'm sure that I can solve those equations if I ever get around to taking the classes though, because I have a reasonable grasp of algebra and trigonometry.
I have the fundamental knowledge and skill required to learn calculus, (@astropin) despite the fact I am no math Newton who could independently discern calculus from his pre-existing knowledge of algebra and geometry.
Language structure contains built in logic, a set of rules to follow to communicate information. It is my contention here that if you are capable of using language to communicate then you are probably capable of learning the basics of formal logic and problem solving. I'd take it a step further and say that most do intuit some basic problem solving skills and basic logic from their everyday experiences.
The fact that religious people appear to function more or less normally in contexts that have nothing to do with religion supports (I think) this contention. That they do not apply even minimal logic or skepticism to their religious beliefs probably has nothing to do with inherent intelligence.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2009 : 17:30:00 [Permalink]
|
I'm not sure when this became about religious people. The thread started out talking about peoples ability to understand political analysis.
Dude wrote: | If a person has the capacity to learn language they also have the capacity to learn basic logic. Marf claims that religious people are inherently incapable of it because they lack the intelligence. I disagree. |
I don't see where I claimed that. You are the one who introduced the adjective "inherent" before "intelligence".
I originally used the phrase "average intelligence", by which I never meant peoples' inherent capacity for intelligence. I meant to refer to peoples' intelligence in a much broader, whole sense. I consider people who are blind to their own biases to be less intelligent. I consider people who lack curiosity to be less intelligent.
Edited to add: (in the spirit of humor) I also consider people who struggle with grammar and spelling and patience with editing to be less intelligent - and this applies to me quite often in this forum. I am constantly posting before doing proper editing and then doing all sorts of edits after the fact.)
 |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/28/2009 17:32:38 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2009 : 20:31:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Mooner wrote: | Note that the approach of the anti-health-reform people is strategically unified. They first try to find (or, more often, invent) faults in the legislation, then, when it looks as though the pro-health-reform people might fold, they tout that not as an improvement of the legislation, but as a sign that reform itself is riddled with problems. Then they shift to highlighting the next alleged problem. There is literally no pleasing them. That tactic makes any attempts to compromise completely counter-productive. |
Yeah, well, the pro-health-reform people need to get some better tactics of their own. One of my points in this thread is that tactics which in no way involve reason and facts often work very well with large segments of the public. So the liberals and Democrats need to friggin' step up their game.
I've heard Penn from Penn and Teller say that the truth doesn't need hype - in other words that truth will always ultimately win when and where it needs to on its own merits, and doesn't need to be promoted to the general public with fancy tactics. I think this might be true in the long run, but in the short run, the truth can be suppressed pretty effectively for several lifetimes. I think the truth does need some hype. |
I agree totally.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2009 : 22:42:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Yeah, well, the pro-health-reform people need to get some better tactics of their own. One of my points in this thread is that tactics which in no way involve reason and facts often work very well with large segments of the public. So the liberals and Democrats need to friggin' step up their game. |
I heard a report on NPR tonight which said that every single time that "universal" health care has been proposed in the US it has been brought down by opponents spreading fear by comparing the proposed system to either commies or Germans. Even way back in 1915, when doomsayers claimed that the system proposed back then was nothing more than a plot by the Kaiser to take over the US.
The point was that fear is powerful and that fear is contagious. Once the image of granny's fate being pondered by shadowy and uncaring government drones has been planted in one person's head, it'll infect others, too. People won't easily buy into the butterflies-and-puppy-dogs ideas once the ogre has a grip on their minds.
The report was woefully short on solutions. The only one I could see possibly working is a long and concerted national ad campaign offering up answers while somehow avoiding retelling the fear propaganda, which would likely cost billions all by itself (a factor that opponents could easily work into the anti-hype). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2009 : 00:21:12 [Permalink]
|
| Why can't fear be used in pro-health care propaganda? The idea that private health care insurance will become increasingly to costly, insufficient, and out of reach for those who need it most isn't scary? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Skepticism applied to postmodern liberalism
