Bible and Spanking Children

[Crittle]

Man, you are so right. There is nothing to be gained here. I keep telling myself that. Excellent advice.

a. I'm not a 'man'.
b. Hold the phone, I didn't say there was nothing to gain here. In fact, I think that is far from the truth. I'm just wondering if you've really given much thought as to what it is you would like to gain. I'm strongly assuming you are a Christian...as per the name...so as a Christian...what is it you would like to gain? Once you've answered that question (honestly)...then go to: What do you think the best way to go about that is?

~crittle

 

[Christian]

Crittle wrote:
a. I'm not a 'man'.

Sorry for the sexist expression. Human, you are so right.

Crittle wrote:
Hold the phone, I didn't say there was nothing to gain here. In fact, I think that is far from the truth. I'm just wondering if you've really given much thought as to what it is you would like to gain. I'm strongly assuming you are a Christian...as per the name...so as a Christian...what is it you would like to gain? Once you've answered that question (honestly)...then go to: What do you think the best way to go about that is?

Those are interesting questions. If it is all the same to you, I will get to clearing some things with Victor's last post.

Victor wrote:
Nevermind the obvious silliness of this statement -- how the ◊◊◊◊ do reconcile this assertion with your assertion that intelligence is a survival skill, whe only actuality matters in life?

Aside from that I don't see a contradiction between the two, I don't think your last statement is true "only actuality matters in life."

Victor wrote:
You don't get to be a star athlete by being potentially (but not actually) athletic, you don't get to be a good businessman by having potential (but not actual) understanding of the martket, and you don't get a PhD by bein potentially (but not actually) able to understand, learn, and improve upon massively complex bodies of knowledge.

But you do get to be intelligent by virtue of being human, whether you actualize your pontetial or not.

Victor wrote:
In life skills, actuality is what matters -- unactualized potential is no different from lack of potential. Therefore, if intelligence is a life skill or a collection thereof, it cannot incorporate potential as a part of its composition.

Absolutely false. The human potential is what really matters. To actualize one's potential is a blessing. It does not show that one is more intelligent than the other, it shows the former had the opportunity to show his intelligence.

Victor wrote:
And what would those "absolute terms" be?

The sum of all intelligences actualized and potential.

Victor wrote:
And idiocy like this is why I "discriminate" against you -- not because you are a xian.

Yes, but don't you see it is wrong to discriminate against who you perceive to be ignorant people.

Victor wrote:
No, probably not. OK, consider this: Person X is the strongest man in the world, physically

Consider that you are using a false analogy. I can objectively and in absolute terms say someone is stronger physically than another. I can make them lift weights, here in El Salvador, in Australia or the US and the results will be unequivocally the same.

This is not true with intelligence. A public bus driver in El Salvador will be much smarter than you in knowing his way around town.

Victor wrote:
Yes, but a group's ability to achieve certain ends does not add to the individual abilities, it just aggregates them.

That is not the point, the point is that 99.99% of the time it is indistinguishable. In real life, you are able to take the test home. How can you know if the person did it alone or in collaboration when you receive it finished.

Remember, my claim is that intelligence can't be measured. I give this argumentation why you cannot. You are ofuscating my argument by stating that I don't know the difference between individual or collective intelligence. Who wouldn't.

I'm saying that is one more reason why you can't measure it.

Victor wrote:
You had to effectively lump them together and make "intelligence" an umbrella for all proficiencies, in order to make a claim that Jordan's gift is in "body-kinesthetic intelligence".

I'm not claiming it.

body-kinesthetic intelligence

Body K-I 2

Victor wrote:
By trying to abolish such meaningful lines of differentiation, you are trying to destroy meaning -- to remove the ability to make certain statements (such as "A is smarter than B"). Completely, utterly Orwellian.

I'm not doing this at all.

Victor wrote:
Are you ◊◊◊◊◊◊ in the head?.. From which ass did you pull such a moronic conclusion out of?

Wheren't you the one who posted this link with this title (you gave it that title)?

Crime and religiousity

And call me crazy, but that is what I can conclude from these comments:

Posted by Victor page 3:

In fact, I would go so far as to say that xians, on a very fundamental level, are denied the opportunity to develop ethically...Just as the threat of death robs that man of a chance to make an ethical choice, of a chance to act ethically, so the hell/heaven thing robs xians of a chance to develop true ethics.

Xians, on the other hand, always act under duress, and thus cannot be known to be ethical. Sorry.

Posted by Victor page 5:
Yes, this includes NewAge, but frankly, I think xianity to be far worse than any NewAge belief I can think of that I have personally encountered so far.

When a significant number of the world's xians see xianity as the paradigm for building a better (truly better) society, I will change my opinion of it; but I don't see it happening, as xianity is IMO an exceedingly poor vehicle for such ideas.

Victor wrote:
Saying "X is smarter" absolutely does not translate into "X is more successful in life", unless the translator is an idiot or a cheesy ideological hack.

They are your words Victor.

Victor wrote:
there is no logical reason to claim that intelligence's life-success effect means that atheists are more successful than xians.

Absolutely correct.

Victor wrote:
I discriminate against you because you are a willfully blind ignoramus, not because you are a xian; see below.

Yes, and I say that sort of discrimination is evil.

Victor wrote:
No, I can't. These are universal human standards of beauty -- they are held by African plainsmen, South American Indians, Chinese, Europeans, etc. There is nothing racist about saying that all races and ethnicities prefer ~0.85 waist/hip ratio in men, and like healthy skin. In fact, if you are wondering (which I doubt you are), those universal physical beauty traits are based on survival adaptation -- they are all indicators of health and physical reproductive fitness.

Ok, If there are universal standards of beauty, tell me. Who is more beautiful, a typical (translate typical to average physical features of the race) arian or a typical African American? If there are standards, there should be an objective answer.

While you are answering that one, answer this one. Who was more intelligent Picasso or Rembrant? Here another one, Einstein or Bethoven?

Victor wrote:
Labelling a point "strawman" does not diminish its validity unless you can prove that it's a strawman

I'm sorry, the burden is not on me to disprove your accussations. And it takes a lot more than vague assumptions.

Victor wrote:
Well, guess what: any difference can lead to discrimination. it's possible to discriminate against people based on their eye color, but that dopesn't mean that we should proclaim that there is no differences between "blue" and brown" (we should instead say that eye color is not acceptable basis for discrimination in any situation but the one actually requiring specific eye color).


False analogy. (I already explained why)

Victor wrote:
Anyway, your use of the term "discrimination" here is ridiculous. While that word has come to bear unqualifiedly negative connotations, that's not all it means.

Obviously Victor, read my response to Darat.

Victor wrote:
True, and true -- but my problem is not with ignorance per se (everyone is ignorant of something at some time), but rather with the willful, stone-headed, in-your-face flag-bearing arrogant ignorance of the sort you are displaying

You can add of the adjectives you want, they wont justify your discrimination. Do you think anyone would object to humble ignorance. Most times ignorance is arrogant, and tolerance is warranted always.

You claim viva voce that you are superior intellectually to me. Then, it is your ethical (moral) responsibility to be generous to me. The more power, the more responsibility you possess.

While reading through the thread, I couldn't help but notice how silly this whole discussion has gotten. Here I am making wild accussations of someone I don't know, getting insulted left and right, and wasting time miserably. I do know my emotional intelligence is lacking. I display poor judgement sometimes.

I'll let you have the last word. I'm going to withdraw my comparison to Hitler, I can see clearly now, I got carried away. But please understand your comments were not that nice.

Victor, you are probably a decent guy and I will accept what you say about your humanism.

 

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
Paradox wrote:
For a commentary concerning this fallacy written by someone who is smarter than I (*gasp* did I just smack my ego in the face, according to you? ) read up here:

As I’ve said before, you are a dishonest poster. You introduced the strawman and now the magic trick appears(you and Victor must be related). My position has never been anti-intellectualism.

Much as I would like to partake of Victor's gene pool, no we are not related.
I didn't say anti-intellectualism is the main crux of your position, but it's one of the facets that the notions are built upon. You've attached some transcendental insult to simple intelligence differentiations (an understandable, but naive viewpoint). Actually, it's differentiation of any sort that you seem to deny. Does this mean I'm really not 'shorter' than Hulk Hogan?

Do you actually believe that no one person is smarter than the next, or is it rather than no one person should be smarter than the next?

Paradox wrote:
Affirmative action does not make anyone smarter, you dolt.

Oh, yes it does. By giving minorities or the environmentally challenged, the opportunity to hold positions where they can learn new skills, become more educated and productive, the vicious cycle is broken. In effect, the future generations of those families becomes smarter.

Can you pitch an 85 mph curve ball? No? Neither can I. Having some clause that demands that either of us be inserted into the starting rotation of a major league baseball club will not make us magically able to do it.

Paradox wrote:
Here's a tissue...wipe those tears from you face.

Thank you. I needed it

You're welcome.

Paradox wrote:
Oye, pendejo...lee de nuevo lo que dije. Your translation is wrong. If your friend(s) in El salvador can't help you with, there are plenty of spanish speaking people on the forum who would assist you.

No Paradox, my translation is absolutely correct. I doubt there are any Spanish speaking people in the forum who are as proficient as myself in written Spanish (and that is not because I’m smarter, is just that I spend a lot of time with it).

Oh, that’s what you wanted to say. Great, you can curse in Spanish too. Anger management classes might help you to increase your emotional intelligence.

Right. There are plenty of people on the forums who I'm sure have spent more time with spanish than you. Granted it's been quite some time since dealing with it in a day-in day-out scenario, 13 years of 'exposure' sure isn't shabby. At least I can pick out pronouns in a sentence when they are in plain sight...heck, I should be able to, I'm spanish after all.

(As an aside, the expletive in the previous post was an indirect 'suggestion' that perhaps that was the word you were looking for a definition for, rather than 'bandejo'.)

 

[Paradox]

Well hello, Crittle.

Oh, and by the way, you don't have to be the brightest color in the box...you see, in truth, no crayon is 'more bright' than the next. They are all qualititavely the same.

 

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
But you do get to be intelligent by virtue of being human, whether you actualize your pontetial or not.

Perhaps this should have been done long ago, but...could you define for the readers here what your definition of 'intelligent' and/or 'intelligence' is? If it is the same as those provided by Garnder (about whom I asked if he had definitions for his intelligences), you never provided them.

Victor wrote:
In life skills, actuality is what matters -- unactualized potential is no different from lack of potential. Therefore, if intelligence is a life skill or a collection thereof, it cannot incorporate potential as a part of its composition.

Absolutely false. The human potential is what really matters. To actualize one's potential is a blessing. It does not show that one is more intelligent than the other, it shows the former had the opportunity to show his intelligence.

You are confusing the term 'matters' here. I may be mistaken, but I believe Victor's use of the word implied the practicality in a basic living sense (naturalistically speaking). It seems you are using the term in reference to the moral/emotional worth of the potential.

Out of curiousity, how do you presonally measure potential?

This is not true with intelligence. A public bus driver in El Salvador will be much smarter than you in knowing his way around town.

Another example of why your defintion of 'intelligence' would come in handy. To the average person, I don't think 'navigation familiarity' translates as 'intelligence'...I may be wrong.

Victor wrote:
No, probably not. OK, consider this: Person X is the strongest man in the world, physically

Consider that you are using a false analogy. I can objectively and in absolute terms say someone is stronger physically than another. I can make them lift weights, here in El Salvador, in Australia or the US and the results will be unequivocally the same.

Are you saying that 'Bodily Kinesthetic Intelligence' can be measured?

 

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
Actually, it's differentiation of any sort that you seem to deny. Does this mean I'm really not 'shorter' than Hulk Hogan?

False analogy.

Paradox wrote:
Do you actually believe that no one person is smarter than the next, or is it rather than no one person should be smarter than the next?

Yes, I do, not in absolute terms.

Paradox wrote:
Can you pitch an 85 mph curve ball? No? Neither can I. Having some clause that demands that either of us be inserted into the starting rotation of a major league baseball club will not make us magically able to do it.

False analogy.

Paradox wrote:
At least I can pick out pronouns in a sentence when they are in plain sight...heck, I should be able to, I'm spanish after all.

If you are from Spain, you should know that ell is not the same as él. That you can't distinguish the two, should not be my problem. The translation stands as you wrote it.

 

[Crittle]

a. I'm not a 'man'.

Sorry for the sexist expression. Human, you are so right.

Oh my, that's okay...I'd rather be called 'man' than 'human' (makes me feel like I'm on Star Ship Voyager or something...ready to be pounced on by some funny lookin alien)...my friends call me 'Crittle' though, so feel free.

Well hello, Crittle.

Oh, and by the way, you don't have to be the brightest color in the box...you see, in truth, no crayon is 'more bright' than the next. They are all qualititavely the same.

Hiya Paradox...just thought I'd drop by.

And thanks for the vote of confidence regarding my box of crayons...athough, after reading some of the threads on this site...geesh...I'm sure wishing that a person could buy brain cells! How much do you and Vic think you'd charge? Ummm.....on second thought, I think I do alright with the ones I have.

~Crittle

 

[Paradox]

Paradox wrote:
Actually, it's differentiation of any sort that you seem to deny. Does this mean I'm really not 'shorter' than Hulk Hogan?

False analogy.

Fair enough. I take this to mean that height isn't a part of what you consider to be 'intelligence'. However, this is a differentiation, isn't it? One that the 'evil' you speak of could indeed be born from. You realize that, at least, some forms of differentiations are impossible to deny. Why, then, do you believe the realm of intelligence to be immune to such variations?

Paradox wrote:
Do you actually believe that no one person is smarter than the next, or is it rather than no one person should be smarter than the next?

Yes, I do, not in absolute terms.

Which one? That no one is smarter than the next, or that no one should be smarter than the next (the latter would imply that perhaps there is a differentiation, but that methods should be taken to equalize them).

Paradox wrote:
Can you pitch an 85 mph curve ball? No? Neither can I. Having some clause that demands that either of us be inserted into the starting rotation of a major league baseball club will not make us magically able to do it.

False analogy.

Why? Doesn't this fall under 'Bodily Kinsthetic Intelligence'? If it doesn't, what would be an example that involves BKI?

Paradox wrote:
At least I can pick out pronouns in a sentence when they are in plain sight...heck, I should be able to, I'm spanish after all.

If you are from Spain, you should know that ell is not the same as él. That you can't distinguish the two, should not be my problem. The translation stands as you wrote it/

Okay, I didn't specifically use the accent necessary in the particular situation. Of course you realize that for simplicity's sake, I had foregone using accents at all. I also didn't say I was from Spain (I used 'spanish' in a general sense). In any case, I'll let this part drop if you will in order to devote more time to the intelltigence issues.

Which reminds me...did you define 'intelligence' yet? Or, by simply persuing the links you provided above, will I find the definition(s) exactly as you espouse them?

 

[Paradox]

Hiya Paradox...just thought I'd drop by.

And thanks for the vote of confidence regarding my box of crayons...athough, after reading some of the threads on this site...geesh...I'm sure wishing that a person could buy brain cells! How much do you and Vic think you'd charge? Ummm.....on second thought, I think I do alright with the ones I have.

~Crittle

Yes, you do. So there.
Although, considering my financial woes of late, any extra change you'd care to toss my way would be cool!

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian

But you do get to be intelligent by virtue of being human, whether you actualize your pontetial or not.

Except that if intelligence is defined as a specific subset of life skills, potential doesn't matter -- because in real-life success, it only matter what you can do, not what you could do given proper schooling.

As I said, it intelligence is a life skill, then it cannot incorporate potential. You basically blew that point off without addressing it, so here it is again.

Absolutely false. The human potential is what really matters

You are taking my words out of copntext. Potential most certainly does matter -- but not for the purposes of determining the real-life success. One's life skills matter only inasmuch as they have been actualized, because unactualized potential won't let you affect the world for the purposes of succeeding.

The sum of all intelligences actualized and potential.

At the current state of scientific advancement, "potential" intelligence is unknowable. Therefore, even if we might care about potential some time in the future, right now, actuality is th eonly thing that should matter -- it's the only thing that can matter. There is no way to tell apart a man with max potential IQ of 120 who developed himself fully and has all 120, and a man with max poitential IQ of 180 who is intellectually slothful and only scores 120 (that is, if there is even such a thing as max potential intelligence).

Among other things, actuality is the only thing that can be measured. You might be able to make a guess at potential, but only when the actualization is actively increasing -- you might be able to, say, look at the rate with which a chess player is getting better, and say that he is a prodigy. However, again, this is just a guess based on actualities, potential itself cannot be measured yet.

Yes, but don't you see it is wrong to discriminate against who you perceive to be ignorant people.

In a debate, where knowledge does matter, discriminating against ignorant people is as reasonable as Chicago fire department's discrimination against the physically unfit applicants. Now if I was discrimianting against you because you are xian, or because you were male/female/gay/straight/whatever, that would be a different story.

This is not true with intelligence. A public bus driver in El Salvador will be much smarter than you in knowing his way around town.

Yes, we already went over being 'smart at flipping burgers'; unless you can refute my objections, shove this line of argument where the sun don't shine.

That is not the point, the point is that 99.99% of the time it is indistinguishable. In real life, you are able to take the test home.

being able to "take the test home" is not the same as being able to simply purchase other's services. Not having to perform in test conditions, on a timeline does not mean that you get to cheat and get the smart kid in class give you his answers, lest you beat him up after school.

Remember, my claim is that intelligence can't be measured. I give this argumentation why you cannot. You are ofuscating my argument by stating that I don't know the difference between individual or collective intelligence. Who wouldn't.

But your current objection, dude, is that you cannot measure intelligence because you can't distinguish individual intelligence from collective intelligence -- because Michael Jordan can hire himself Einsteins, presumably. So which one is it -- can you distinguish individual and collective intelligence, or can't you?..

I'm saying that is one more reason why you can't measure it.

I already agreed that you can't measure intelligence directly, because nobody agrees on what it really is if for no other reason; however, that doesn't mean that we can't approximate the answer by using a variety of intelligence-related metrics, both test and real-life ones.

I'm not claiming it.

Yes, you are; you are repeating others' assertions.

I'm not doing this at all.

[Then stop trying to make the meaning of "intelligence" even more vague than it already is. It's vague enough, OK?..

Wheren't you the one who posted this link with this title (you gave it that title)?

I wrote that in response to your statement:

When you say atheists are smarter than Christians, what I understand you to be saying is that atheists are more successful than Christians in life.

I didn't say that atheists are less represented in prisons because they are smarter, which is the only model under which your statement would have made sense; and furthermore, being under-represented in prison does not mean that they can't compensate by being better at something else.

Your ignorance is letting you down once again here, Christian. Correlation is not the same as causation.

They are your words Victor.

Yes, they are -- and they don't say what you claim they say.

Yes, and I say that sort of discrimination is evil.

No more evil than discriminating against firefighter applicants based on their physical fitness. As I said, ignorance is a relevant trait in debate.

Ok, If there are universal standards of beauty, tell me. Who is more beautiful, a typical (translate typical to average physical features of the race) arian or a typical African American? If there are standards, there should be an objective answer.

Why, tall blond Aryans, of course!

The fact that physical beauty standard have universal core, does not mean that there is an objective way tio say that a race is more or less beautiful than another race. This is exactly the sort of "bad discrimination" I was talking about -- the one that is not entailed by the proper discrimination, by recognizing that physically, Adrian Paul, is more beautiful than Quasimodo in the eyes of vast majority of representatives of any racial or ethnic group.

Saying that there are certain objective physical beauty standards does not imply that some races are more beautiful than others; yet you assume that it does, falsely, and in the same way you falsely assume that my recognition of differences in intelligence implies bigotry.

While you are answering that one, answer this one. Who was more intelligent Picasso or Rembrant? Here another one, Einstein or Bethoven?

I didn't claim that there was an objective way to compare the intelligence of every possible pairings of individuals; however, the opposite view -- that no such comparison can be ever made -- is not merely false, it's outright lunatic.

The solid comparison can be made a significant portion of th etime, and so the statement "group X is on average more intelligent than group Y" is meaningful, if not necessarily true.

I'm sorry, the burden is not on me to disprove your accussations.

Yes, it is -- because I already explained the bases for the said accusations. If you wish to address them, it's now your turn for rebuttal.

You can add of the adjectives you want, they wont justify your discrimination. Do you think anyone would object to humble ignorance. Most times ignorance is arrogant, and tolerance is warranted always.

"Tolerance" is only the antonym for the improper discrimination, for bigotry. Chicago FD wasn't being intolerant when they rejected the physcally unfit applicants, and I am no tbeing intolerant when I refuse to suffer fools gladly in debate.

You claim viva voce that you are superior intellectually to me. Then, it is your ethical (moral) responsibility to be generous to me. The more power, the more responsibility you possess.

That's why I am trying to educate you here -- because I feel a moral duty to do so, a responsibility to your sorry ass. See?

I'm going to withdraw my comparison to Hitler, I can see clearly now, I got carried away. But please understand your comments were not that nice.

being compared to Hitler is prettyy bad, you know. Your apology is accepted. I will in turn apologize for having insulted you, and offer a parting piece of advice:

Don't let your ideological bias prevent you from evaluating the truth. Truth must be paramount. Take this thread not as attack on all you see as good and decent, but as an opportunity to learn more and come closer to the truth.

 

[Christian]

Crittle wrote:
Oh my, that's okay...I'd rather be called 'man' than 'human' (makes me feel like I'm on Star Ship Voyager or something...ready to be pounced on by some funny lookin alien)...my friends call me 'Crittle' though, so feel free.

Ok.

Paradox wrote:
Fair enough. I take this to mean that height isn't a part of what you consider to be 'intelligence'. However, this is a differentiation, isn't it? One that the 'evil' you speak of could indeed be born from. You realize that, at least, some forms of differentiations are impossible to deny. Why, then, do you believe the realm of intelligence to be immune to such variations?

I want to try to be as sharp as possible, and please help me in not twisting things.

1. All things with quantifiable attributes by nature can be differentiated.

2. Intelligence cannot be quantified. (yes, it is theoretically possible, but not yet)

3. The human potential is so vast that any quantification is meaningless.

Paradox wrote:
Which one? That no one is smarter than the next, or that no one should be smarter than the next (the latter would imply that perhaps there is a differentiation, but that methods should be taken to equalize them).

If you have two cars and you don't know their top speed, but one is driven consistently faster than the other, could you say it is indeed a faster car?

The quantification is meaningless unless you know the top speed. And if the speed limit can be achieved by both (due to regulations, road conditions etc.) is there any sense in measuring top speed, unless there is an agenda.

Paradox wrote:
Why? Doesn't this fall under 'Bodily Kinsthetic Intelligence'? If it doesn't, what would be an example that involves BKI?

The false analogy is based on what you used this one for (your objection to affirmative action) Now, you are changing it to mean this is also one type of intelligence.

Yes, it is obvious that individual actualized intelligences can be measured in some way, but that doesn't mean you are measuring intelligence as a whole.

Roger Banister was the first man to run a mile in less than 4 minutes. Before he did it, sport authorities thought that could not be done by a human.

He demonstrated it could be done. The same year he did, more than 300 other athletes accomplished the same feat. The reason is simple, they modeled the performance. All these athletes where capable of that speed, the just didn't know it.

Paradox wrote:
Which reminds me...did you define 'intelligence' yet? Or, by simply persuing the links you provided above, will I find the definition(s) exactly as you espouse them?

Our intelligence is our singular collective ability (potential and develop) to act and react in the world.

When I say potential, I mean that if the brain needs to perform to meet the challenge presented by the environment it well can.

It is not in the human potential to fly; it is to learn to play the piano proficiently.

 

[Crittle]

Christian,

Does this mean you're not planning on answering my questions? Bummer. I guess what I was getting at was that I don't recall Jesus ever debating CP or any other issue for that matter. He made His mark and changed lives by His actions and words of love and kindness. Like I said before, what is it you are wanting here? Is it to be a witness for Christ? or is it to only prove a point? Just something to think about is all.



Paradox,

Sorry dude, I just got done paying off my phone bill (finally!) and have no extra change in my possession.

 

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
Paradox wrote:
Fair enough. I take this to mean that height isn't a part of what you consider to be 'intelligence'. However, this is a differentiation, isn't it? One that the 'evil' you speak of could indeed be born from. You realize that, at least, some forms of differentiations are impossible to deny. Why, then, do you believe the realm of intelligence to be immune to such variations?

I want to try to be as sharp as possible, and please help me in not twisting things.

1. All things with quantifiable attributes by nature can be differentiated.

Okay.

2. Intelligence cannot be quantified. (yes, it is theoretically possible, but not yet)

So what you mean is that differences in intelligence may indeed exist, however you believe we are not in a position to be able to sensibly gauge them? Why are you unsatisfied with current methods available to test, at least, valuable portions of intelligence?

3. The human potential is so vast that any quantification is meaningless.

Please explain how potential, at any given moment in time, is of any import unless it is actualized at that moment. (And, for clarification, I mean 'of import' in the sense that it would affect the success of a given action, not 'of import' in a 'human worth/value' sort of way.)

Do you observe any dichotomy between latent (potential) intelligence and active (in use) intelligence?

If you have two cars and you don't know their top speed, but one is driven consistently faster than the other, could you say it is indeed a faster car?

Yes. The one that has been faster thus far. You didn't ask which could be a faster car, but which is. The only way to arrive at that conclusion is to compare all performances we have seen thus far.

However, in your analogy, you do know beforehand what the expected maximum speed of the vehicles will be. These have been tested and are, generally, expressed by the speedometer. I asked you before if you believed potential was measurable (and how)...is it? If so, we can discern if one person could be smarter than the next. However, this would still not necessarily be the correct answer for "who is smarter", as the question deals with all measurable aspects either at present, or in the past.

The quantification is meaningless unless you know the top speed. And if the speed limit can be achieved by both (due to regulations, road conditions etc.) is there any sense in measuring top speed, unless there is an agenda.

If we can measure the top speed, then there is indeed an 'agenda': to discover which car can be driven at a higher speed.

Paradox wrote:
Why? Doesn't this fall under 'Bodily Kinsthetic Intelligence'? If it doesn't, what would be an example that involves BKI?

The false analogy is based on what you used this one for (your objection to affirmative action) Now, you are changing it to mean this is also one type of intelligence.

Yes, it is obvious that individual actualized intelligences can be measured in some way, but that doesn't mean you are measuring intelligence as a whole.

Of course not. But even Garnder listed the main (in his opinion) intelligences. If each of these intelligences can be calibrated, then we have, at very least, a rough picture of the differences in overall intelligence from one person to the next. As I mentioned before, all this hinges on your definition of intelligence.

Roger Banister was the first man to run a mile in less than 4 minutes. Before he did it, sport authorities thought that could not be done by a human.

He demonstrated it could be done. The same year he did, more than 300 other athletes accomplished the same feat. The reason is simple, they modeled the performance. All these athletes where capable of that speed, the just didn't know it.

Are you saying everyone in the world, then, is capable of running a mile in under 4 minutes, now that the performance is there to be modelled? Is this an example of BKI?

Paradox wrote:
Which reminds me...did you define 'intelligence' yet? Or, by simply persuing the links you provided above, will I find the definition(s) exactly as you espouse them?

Our intelligence is our singular collective ability (potential and develop) to act and react in the world.

Okay, then I fail to see why my former analogy..

"Can you pitch an 85 mph curve ball? No? Neither can I. Having some clause that demands that either of us be inserted into the starting rotation of a major league baseball club will not make us magically able to do it."

...is faulty. If my intelligence is, isolating a single 'act, my ability to pitch an 85 mph curve-ball, isn't my inability to do so indicative of a lesser 'intelligence' in that aspect? At least 'developped' intelligence.

This is where I think it would be best to draw that line between 'Latent Intelligence' and 'Active Intelligence' (to be abbreviated from here on). The former is (as far as I know) immeasurable, consequently injecting it into the overall picture of 'intelligence' makes it immeasurable.

That, with enough effort and practice [and maybe steroids! ], I may be able to hit home runs as often as Barry Bonds or not does not mean that, at this moment, he isn't better at it than I.

When I say potential, I mean that if the brain needs to perform to meet the challenge presented by the environment it well can.

It is not in the human potential to fly; it is to learn to play the piano proficiently.

How do we define what is within the an individual's potential?

 

[Paradox]

Paradox,

Sorry dude, I just got done paying off my phone bill (finally!) and have no extra change in my possession.

Yeah, yeah...likely story!

 

[Christian]

Crittle wrote:
Christian, Does this mean you're not planning on answering my questions? Bummer. I guess what I was getting at was that I don't recall Jesus ever debating CP or any other issue for that matter. He made His mark and changed lives by His actions and words of love and kindness. Like I said before, what is it you are wanting here? Is it to be a witness for Christ? or is it to only prove a point? Just something to think about is all.

Why I post at the JREF(3 of the top of my head)?

1. Practice reading, writting, learning skills
2. Ego gratification
3. Cement my beliefs

Paradox wrote:
So what you mean is that differences in intelligence may indeed exist, however you believe we are not in a position to be able to sensibly gauge them?

So what I mean is that differences in intelligence may indeed exist, however I believe human intelligence is so vast that these difference are irrelevant.

This ship can fit 1000 people and this one can fit 1200. The total universe of people to be fitted is 30.

Paradox wrote:
Why are you unsatisfied with current methods available to test, at least, valuable portions of intelligence?

I'm not unsatisfied.

Paradox wrote:
Please explain how potential, at any given moment in time, is of any import unless it is actualized at that moment. (And, for clarification, I mean 'of import' in the sense that it would affect the success of a given action, not 'of import' in a 'human worth/value' sort of way.)

When you insert *at any given moment* and *at that moment* you are loading the scale in your favor.

Let's try loading it in my favor:

Potential is of import in a worthy length of time after which it is equivalent to any other that is actualized at that moment.

Paradox wrote:
Do you observe any dichotomy between latent (potential) intelligence and active (in use) intelligence?

Not from my thesis.

Paradox wrote:
Yes. The one that has been faster thus far. You didn't ask which could be a faster car, but which is. The only way to arrive at that conclusion is to compare all performances we have seen thus far.

So if a Porche had been driven on average at 65 mph and a Bettle at 80 mph, would you still say the faster car is the Bettle?

Paradox wrote:
However, in your analogy, you do know beforehand what the expected maximum speed of the vehicles will be.

I know human intelligence is far far greater than any requirements of a normal, successful life.

Paradox wrote:
I asked you before if you believed potential was measurable (and how)...is it?

And I answered, it is theoretically possible because I believe human intelligence is finite. But, the limit is so high (compared to earthly requirements) that measuring it is meaningless.

Paradox wrote:
If we can measure the top speed, then there is indeed an 'agenda': to discover which car can be driven at a higher speed.

If you can never achieve this top speed, what is the purpose? Curiosity.

My contention is that these measurements done to humans serve mainly the purpose of negative discrimination.

Paradox wrote:
Are you saying everyone in the world, then, is capable of running a mile in under 4 minutes, now that the performance is there to be modelled?

I'm saying that the human pontential was there to begin with. You could have said factually "these men can run 4 minute miles" with them having done it yet.

Paradox wrote:
Okay, then I fail to see why my former analogy..

"Can you pitch an 85 mph curve ball? No? Neither can I. Having some clause that demands that either of us be inserted into the starting rotation of a major league baseball club will not make us magically able to do it."

...is faulty.

Ok, let get focused here. I said affirmative action makes people smarter. You said no and cited this example. I said false analogy. I already explained why affirmative action makes people smarter.

Paradox wrote:
How do we define what is within the an individual's potential?

I guess how we define any other concept: analysis, investigative process, experimentation, logical deductions and inductions, etc.

 

[Crittle]

Why I post at the JREF(3 of the top of my head)?

1. Practice reading, writting, learning skills
2. Ego gratification
3. Cement my beliefs

I guess this is not a huge surprise to me. If these are the three that first came to you, as a Christian myself, I find this rather sad. My hope is that non-believers here would take you as seriously as I do...which sorry to say...isn't too much.

Oh, and #2? Wow...*shakes head* Try reading up on what the bible has to say about 'humility'....

 

[Christian]

Crittle wrote:
guess this is not a huge surprise to me. If these are the three that first came to you, as a Christian myself, I find this rather sad.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Crittle wrote:
My hope is that non-believers here would take you as seriously as I do...which sorry to say...isn't too much.

I'm also sorry you have this opinion.

Crittle wrote:
Oh, and #2? Wow...*shakes head* Try reading up on what the bible has to say about 'humility'....

Yes, Crittle I agree, I have work hard at humility.

 

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
Paradox wrote:
So what you mean is that differences in intelligence may indeed exist, however you believe we are not in a position to be able to sensibly gauge them?

So what I mean is that differences in intelligence may indeed exist, however I believe human intelligence is so vast that these difference are irrelevant.

So one person can be more 'specifically' intelligent (in one category, at least) than another? Isn't it possible that, at a given point, one person's AI can be higher in every respect to another's?

Paradox wrote:
Why are you unsatisfied with current methods available to test, at least, valuable portions of intelligence?

I'm not unsatisfied.

Unsatisfied meaning you don't think said methods accurately measure intelligence.

Paradox wrote:
Please explain how potential, at any given moment in time, is of any import unless it is actualized at that moment. (And, for clarification, I mean 'of import' in the sense that it would affect the success of a given action, not 'of import' in a 'human worth/value' sort of way.)

When you insert *at any given moment* and *at that moment* you are loading the scale in your favor.

Can you, for one, single, solitary moment not see this as a poker game that you have to win, but as a way to arrive at some clarity about a certain issue (if not simple aggreement on it)?

When I use 'at that moment' or 'at any given moment' I do so because that is the particular instance I am interested in coming to a conclusion with. If I ask you who's clobbered more home runs today 'at this moment', Nomar Garciaparra (3) or Barry Bonds (has not played today), I don't need to know that Bonds has more on the year than Nomar, because that wasn't what I was asking.
I know that if you, for some reason, thought it was my secret agenda to show how Nomar is a more prolific home run hitter than Bonds, you might think of this as 'loading the scale in my favor'. That is neither my intent in the analogy, nor in our discussion of intelligence.

Granted, you've already labeled me an 'insincere poster', so perhaps my honest say-so above is insufficient...

Let's try loading it in my favor:

Potential is of import in a worthy length of time after which it is equivalent to any other that is actualized at that moment.

At least you admit that the speed at which LI becomes AI differs from individual to individual.

Paradox wrote:
Do you observe any dichotomy between latent (potential) intelligence and active (in use) intelligence?

Not from my thesis.

You, personally, not your thesis. You don't see any difference at all despite the fact that I've just described the specific difference(s)? Now who is being insincere?

Paradox wrote:
Yes. The one that has been faster thus far. You didn't ask which could be a faster car, but which is. The only way to arrive at that conclusion is to compare all performances we have seen thus far.

So if a Porche had been driven on average at 65 mph and a Bettle at 80 mph, would you still say the faster car is the Bettle?

Yes. The only reason we know any different, is because we are familiar with the speed capabilities of both cars a priori...ergo, past instances have shown Porsches to be faster than Beetles.

Try the same test, but with the both cars covered in boxes/coverings that do not disclose their shape/brand (unless you are the type of car afficionado who can tell just from the difference in engine sounds...but even then, pretend you are watching from within a room with soundproof windows). One car has been driving at 90 mph the entire time, the other at 75 mph. Now, tell me which car has been (and, at the moment we ask the question) currently is the faster car?

Paradox wrote:
However, in your analogy, you do know beforehand what the expected maximum speed of the vehicles will be.

I know human intelligence is far far greater than any requirements of a normal, successful life.

Don't sideswipe the topic of the discussion into a broad issue about what makes a worthwhile life, please. If you don't know beforehand the max speed of each car, you will say that the car that has been going faster, is indeed the faster car. Until we ask what the maximum speed of each car could be, their potential is irrelevant.

Paradox wrote:
I asked you before if you believed potential was measurable (and how)...is it?

And I answered, it is theoretically possible because I believe human intelligence is finite. But, the limit is so high (compared to earthly requirements) that measuring it is meaningless.

Explain to me how, if LI (potential intelligence) is immeasurable, you have any idea whatsoever how 'high' it's limit is?

Paradox wrote:
If we can measure the top speed, then there is indeed an 'agenda': to discover which car can be driven at a higher speed.

If you can never achieve this top speed, what is the purpose? Curiosity.

Taking your analogy at face value in its representation of the topic...are you saying that you, somehow, know that this formerly 'immeasurable' facet (as of one quote ago) is now 'never achievable' (aka infinite/almost-infinite, I'm assuming)?

My contention is that these measurements done to humans serve mainly the purpose of negative discrimination.

My contention is that the negative discrimination is not born of the differences in measurements of humans, but in the supposition by narrow-minded people that those differences translate to one person's life not only being more wortwhile than another's, but that one person should be more entitled to a worthwhile life than another (people such as white-supremacists, for instance).

That is where the evil is born. When the fact that I can play Galaga better than the next fellow somehow translates into me being a better person that he is.

Paradox wrote:
Are you saying everyone in the world, then, is capable of running a mile in under 4 minutes, now that the performance is there to be modelled?

I'm saying that the human pontential was there to begin with. You could have said factually "these men can run 4 minute miles" with them having done it yet.

'Can' is a query of potential. 'Does' is one of past-to-present experience. The answers to these two questions need not be the same. Do I run a mile in less than 6 minutes? Nope (the fastest I remember, being 6:18...and I'm not nearly as fit as I once was). Can I run a mile in less than 6 minutes? Well, give me a month of hardcore training, and I'm sure I could probably force it out of myself.

Paradox wrote:
Okay, then I fail to see why my former analogy..

"Can you pitch an 85 mph curve ball? No? Neither can I. Having some clause that demands that either of us be inserted into the starting rotation of a major league baseball club will not make us magically able to do it."

...is faulty.

Ok, let get focused here. I said affirmative action makes people smarter. You said no and cited this example. I said false analogy. I already explained why affirmative action makes people smarter.

You explained why you feel affirmative action makes people smarter with this:

"By giving minorities or the environmentally challenged, the opportunity to hold positions where they can learn new skills, become more educated and productive, the vicious cycle is broken. In effect, the future generations of those families becomes smarter."

First, when you say it makes them smarter, it is obvious that you mean it in an LI sense (their potential has perhaps increased, with more options of learning available). It has no control over whether they will or can actualize that potential or no.

Second, this doesn't explain why my analogy is is false (something which you didn't give an explanation for). Although it seems the analogy isn't actually pertinent to the issue you actually had in mind when you wrote the above, so nevermind.

Paradox wrote:
How do we define what is within the an individual's potential?

I guess how we define any other concept: analysis, investigative process, experimentation, logical deductions and inductions, etc.

Wonderful. Do you have any suggestions of ways to go about doing this at the moment?

 

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
So one person can be more 'specifically' intelligent (in one category, at least) than another? Isn't it possible that, at a given point, one person's AI can be higher in every respect to another's?

1)Yes
2) Theoretically yes, I can't think of a single instance that this has been true

Paradox wrote:
Unsatisfied meaning you don't think said methods accurately measure intelligence.

They accurately measure development. An uneducated person can be as intelligen as an educated person. The educated person just knows more. That is what you are measuring really, and it is valid to make decision based on that disctintion.

Paradox wrote:
At least you admit that the speed at which LI becomes AI differs from individual to individual.

Actualized intelligence is based on education and practice, those are time related.


Paradox wrote:
You, personally, not your thesis. You don't see any difference at all despite the fact that I've just described the specific difference(s)? Now who is being insincere?

I see a difference Paradox, but it is not a difference in intelligence, it is a difference in education, practice, etc. Don't roll out sports analogies. They are false analogies. I'm certain that no matter how much I practice I don't think I can run a 4 minute mile. The reason is I'm dealing with a known (physical capabilities), and this can be measured.

When it comes to the brain, you can't measure it's limits. With practice and education most brains will accomplish well above any standard that you might want to set.

Paradox wrote:
Yes. The only reason we know any different, is because we are familiar with the speed capabilities of both cars a priori...ergo, past instances have shown Porsches to be faster than Beetles.

Yes, excellent. So just look at educated people all over the world. See what any normal human being is capable of doing. Anybody can be lawyer, a doctor, musician, etc. All that is needed is education, training, persiverence, time. Anybody can achieve.

Paradox wrote:
Explain to me how, if LI (potential intelligence) is immeasurable, you have any idea whatsoever how 'high' it's limit is?

Because I see a human and see how far he has gotten, and I conclude: wow look what any human can do with education, dedication and training. I don't conclude: hey this guy is really smart and special.

Paradox wrote:
That is where the evil is born. When the fact that I can play Galaga better than the next fellow somehow translates into me being a better person that he is.

The evil is born out of saying, that guy is smarter than that guy, and believing internally that it is a judgement of capacity.

If when one says it, one means, that guy has studied more, has practiced more, has dedicated himself more, than it is perfectly acceptable.

Paradox wrote:
First, when you say it makes them smarter, it is obvious that you mean it in an LI sense (their potential has perhaps increased, with more options of learning available). It has no control over whether they will or can actualize that potential or no.

I mean they become more educated and are put in the envirnment where after a little while they will perform at par with peers who where not at the disadvantage position.

Paradox wrote:
Second, this doesn't explain why my analogy is is false (something which you didn't give an explanation for)

The analogy is false because, it is possible that no matter how much some one practices they will never be able to pitch at those speeds. It is not the same with mental actions. Practice and education will make you *pitch* at whatever speeds the *alphas* as you call them can pitch.

Paradox wrote:
Wonderful. Do you have any suggestions of ways to go about doing this at the moment?

Look at the world Paradox, look at how humans excel. Then say, look what wonderful things any human can achieve with education and practice.

 

[Guest]

Alright I have been busy and Away lately and I came across this thread and instead of posting all the past stuff I missed I will just say well so far the score seems to be (According to my opinion and what I think is valid points answer questions and being correct in what they say) Paradox 200 Christian 3 Victor 200!
So anyway I will just comment on this particular post wich is the most recent and try to keep up after putting my 2 cents in here! *laugh* Also I will state it is late I am tired but I wanted to make a post here before I forgot what I wanted to say! *giggle*

Paradox wrote:
So one person can be more 'specifically' intelligent (in one category, at least) than another? Isn't it possible that, at a given point, one person's AI can be higher in every respect to another's?

Umm yes! This is proven and engrained in us when we start school if this factor were not true and was not correct then why would they grade you on anything? Why would they pass or fail you through school? Some people have an ability to read things and to learn at a faster pace than others! As well as the fact that some people can learn things others can not! For instance I could never be a Doc. because I could never remember all the stuff they have to know! So bottom line The Doc. is smarter than me! DUH!!!
On the second part of this.. Well I am not sure.. I am not the "smartest" person but.. I do believe there has never been a proven case of that! I could however be wrong and am more than welcoming any corrections to that! On a personal level I would say No.. that would not be the case at any Point!

They accurately measure development. An uneducated person can be as intelligen as an educated person. The educated person just knows more. That is what you are measuring really, and it is valid to make decision based on that disctintion.

Ummm Ok.. I suppose I agree with this to a point! However.. I am not so sure on the whole just as intelligent part!
So going by Def. I would disagree seeing as I believe education Helps to expand your thought process therefore helping you to make better judgments! I also believe that it helps you to become more mentally acute by expanding your thought process and therefore allowing you to have a better rationality of diffrent things! All in all making it easier to make an "intelligent" comment or appealing to the intellect of someone else!
Education is the disipline of our Intellect therefore they do go hand in hand! However the part that I agree with you on is that I do not believe you need education to have intellect! I believe you have that already! However I disagree in the fact that an uneducated person has just as much intellegents as an educated person (for reason's already stated)!
The educated person has a better intellect because it is structured through his knowledge! So make a valid decision on that Distinction!

Actualized intelligence is based on education and practice, those are time related.

Yes again I would agree with this statement! It takes time to gain those things!

Paradox wrote:
You, personally, not your thesis. You don't see any difference at all despite the fact that I've just described the specific difference(s)? Now who is being insincere?

I see a difference Paradox, but it is not a difference in intelligence, it is a difference in education, practice, etc. Don't roll out sports analogies. They are false analogies. I'm certain that no matter how much I practice I don't think I can run a 4 minute mile. The reason is I'm dealing with a known (physical capabilities), and this can be measured.

Ok.. well then... again it is a diffrance of Intellect! Again refering to everything I just stated before! *pointing up* Also going by this I would have to say Paradox's Intellect far out does yours!

When it comes to the brain, you can't measure it's limits. With practice and education most brains will accomplish well above any standard that you might want to set.

There is a standard that is set! And not everyone accomplishes above it! That is the whole pass or fail part of school in case you needed a refrance!
I Do agree that there is no real way to measure the limit of your brain but there is a way to test the knowledge you posses as well as your ability to absorb the knowledge put before you! Again it is all done by other humans so who knows how accurate it is.. but that is besides the point! The fact still remains that there are tests and that in today's life there are set limits with knowledge that one reaches or does not period!

Yes, excellent. So just look at educated people all over the world. See what any normal human being is capable of doing. Anybody can be lawyer, a doctor, musician, etc. All that is needed is education, training, persiverence, time. Anybody can achieve.

Well no! I would have to disagree with this! Again this is why some make it and some do not! There are some people who start out to be a Doc. and they start the classes and they excell in the normal everyday classes! (their strong point such as Math English History so on) But when they hit the actual harder classes.. (not familuar with these things but to name one Anatomy) They flunk out.. the reason why.. and if you ask anyone who actually has tried and not made it.. the Asnwer is simple.. I could not remember everything I needed to know there was just so much to absorb! AHHHHH This would point to fact that some people are capable of remembering these types of things and some are not! I am one of those who can not! I could never do it! I would love to! Make money and help people 2 of my all time fav. things... However I am secure enough to admit I could never do it my brain is not capable of comprehending these types of things! Period! Yes you can educate anyone.. however their abilty to respond to the education and allow their Intellect to gorw is purely a person to person analogy

Because I see a human and see how far he has gotten, and I conclude: wow look what any human can do with education, dedication and training. I don't conclude: hey this guy is really smart and special.

Yes but you have to give credit where credit is due! Fact he has accomplished alot through his abilty to understand and absorb the knowledge given him therefore anology shows his Intellect is growing He is better able to make "Intelligent" decisions now and he is appealing to the "Intellect" of others around him! He is Smart! He is special in his abilities! He excels at something in particular give him is due respect! In others words by Def. he is showing superiority or Surpassing others! So I feel I made my point there!

The evil is born out of saying, that guy is smarter than that guy, and believing internally that it is a judgement of capacity.

If when one says it, one means, that guy has studied more, has practiced more, has dedicated himself more, than it is perfectly acceptable.

Yes this again means he has Exceled he has applied himself more and his intellect has grown! He has surpassed me and his abilities to absorb knowledge are greater than mine! He is therefore Smarter! He again deserves his credit! *Laugh* Again going by Def. a Sharp Quick thought.. refere to Intelligent! So I will simply say *points up* I feel I have beaten that horse to death by now! *giggle*

Paradox wrote:
First, when you say it makes them smarter, it is obvious that you mean it in an LI sense (their potential has perhaps increased, with more options of learning available). It has no control over whether they will or can actualize that potential or no.

I agree Paradox whole heartdly and I suppose that is what I have been saying this whole time in a round about way! *bows to your Intellect* *Giggle* As always Paradox you are a Master of your words and your meanings! *Smile*

I mean they become more educated and are put in the envirnment where after a little while they will perform at par with peers who where not at the disadvantage position.

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ everyone has a disadvantage position! Some just Excel past it while others do not! This is an excuse to remain Stupid! I do mean stupid! There is a diffrance between Stupid and Ignorant! I will not go test book version Def. here but basically Ignorant people can learn but have not been given the knowledge while Stupid people refuse to learn even after the knolwedge is given to them! Hence why I hate Stupid people but am willing to help Ignorant people.. I also am not afraid to admit I am ignorant in some things and hope others would have the patients to teach me! (HINT Paradox) (HINT Victor) *laugh*

Paradox wrote:
Second, this doesn't explain why my analogy is is false (something which you didn't give an explanation for)

The analogy is false because, it is possible that no matter how much some one practices they will never be able to pitch at those speeds. It is not the same with mental actions. Practice and education will make you *pitch* at whatever speeds the *alphas* as you call them can pitch.

It is the same with Mental actions! Again refering to said things already! *points up* But basically for instance here.... no matter how much some one practices they will never learn the abilty of not being being Stupid! They will never grow beyond their said Intellectual point! Therefore others will continue to surpass them and excel therefore making them smarter than he! *sigh*

Paradox wrote:
Wonderful. Do you have any suggestions of ways to go about doing this at the moment?

Look at the world Paradox, look at how humans excel. Then say, look what wonderful things any human can achieve with education and practice.

But it is not just those things as I have well pointed out over and over through out this whole thing!






Alright there is my 2 cents for the time being!
At risk of getting us off this great topic however I would like to say to VICTOR! Hello sorry I missed your entrance and I know I am a little late here but Welcome! *laugh* Hope you are enjoying yourself! Nice to meet you and I look forward to reading more of your posts!


~Dream~