Wisdom vs. Intelligence

[AuH20]

The recent study which portrayed those of the liberal bent to be more 'intelligent' than their conservative counterparts raised my suspicions not on it's findings, but rather the intellectual traits and cognitive abilities the study valued.

Aristotle defined 'wisdom' as the knowledge of causes, in that an individual who acquires it, is fully cognizant of the origin of certain things and the manner in which they operate. Many liberals and statist lackeys, while being appreciably knowledgeable and intelligent seem to be lacking this key trait of discernment. I'm reminded of a quote by a medieval philosopher named Pierre Abelard who said, "The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth." From my vantage point, many of the learned in our society never wander off the paved road of conformity since (a) the truth is distressing to their very existence (b) such a detour would inevitably reduce their social standing and many of them are vain creatures of a very prideful nature who sustain themselves on the trivial acclaim of their peers.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

bingo

[youngbuck]

Great OP :)

[hugolp]

Intelligence test dont reflect intelligence just academic culture in general. There is no way to mesure intelligence, so those studies are just bullshit.

And there is a reason why liberals are better at academic culture: its their culture. It does not mean they are more intelligent.

If the study was true, it would mean I became more stupid two years ago when I discovered Ron Paul. :D

[Jeros]

Intelligence test dont reflect intelligence just academic culture in general. There is no way to mesure intelligence, so those studies are just bullshit.

And there is a reason why liberals are better at academic culture: its their culture. It does not mean they are more intelligent.

If the study was true, it would mean I became more stupid two years ago when I discovered Ron Paul. :D

IQ tests work fine. They may not be perfect, butt the information provided isnt irrelevant or usless.

Einstein was a pure eccentric. He was not a participant of any majority culture. He scored very high on intelligence tests.

[hugolp]

IQ tests work fine. They may not be perfect, butt the information provided isnt irrelevant or usless.

Einstein was a pure eccentric. He was not a participant of any majority culture. He scored very high on intelligence tests.

They dont. They just reflect the education, not the potential intelligence of the mind.

Also, you have the problem that mesuaring intelligence in a number is a problem, because it can not be done. There are different types of intelligences.

[BuddyRey]

A very astute observation, and one I wish more people could grasp.

[sofia]

who is smarter?

The Harvard economist who couldnt recognize a housing bubble and is now saying that the recession is over?????

Or the "uneducated" business owner who didn't go to college and runs a succesful business that he built from scratch?

[pcosmar]

It depends on where you are standing.

Take a lifetime city dweller and drop him in the jungle or a desert and he is dumb as a stump.

Take the rural farm kid and drop him in an inner city and get the same result.

It depends on where you are standing.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

A hero of mine, Charles Walters, was fond of the phrase, "educated beyond their intelligence."

[Jeros]

They dont. They just reflect the education, not the potential intelligence of the mind.

Also, you have the problem that mesuaring intelligence in a number is a problem, because it can not be done. There are different types of intelligences.

Would you rather have an IQ of 160, or 60?

If an IQ just reflects education, does that mean it is possibly for a human with an IQ of 60 to be educated enough to have an IQ of 160?

If they just reflect education, how is it possible for a small child to have a very high IQ, while many college graduates have IQ's of in the first standard deviation? Even some doctors? The child was obviously educated less.

Are you saying that IQ has absolutely no correlation with intelligence potential? I would argue it has a very high correlation.

I don't understand your last paragraph.

[nandnor]

Lol. Thread title gives the impression that its a discussion on dungeons and dragons statpoints.

[hugolp]

Would you rather have an IQ of 160, or 60?

If an IQ just reflects education, does that mean it is possibly for a human with an IQ of 60 to be educated enough to have an IQ of 160?

If they just reflect education, how is it possible for a small child to have a very high IQ, while many college graduates have IQ's of in the first standard deviation? Even some doctors? The child was obviously educated less.

Are you saying that IQ has absolutely no correlation with intelligence potential? I would argue it has a very high correlation.

No. And I dont understand where you get that impresion.

If you see such a big correlation, how do you explain people with high IQ making all the wrong decisions in live?. There are hihgly famous very "intelligent" people that almost could not handle living in society. And how do you explain people with low IQ becoming rich and being able to prosper a lot more (and without parents help) than people with a lot higher IQ?


I don't understand your last paragraph.

Not all intelligence is the same. There is people with aptitude for maths that are completely incapbable when it comes to music for example. There are geniouses incapable of understanding difficult maths.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The recent study which portrayed those of the liberal bent to be more 'intelligent' than their conservative counterparts raised my suspicions not on it's findings, but rather the intellectual traits and cognitive abilities the study valued.

Aristotle defined 'wisdom' as the knowledge of causes, in that an individual who acquires it, is fully cognizant of the origin of certain things and the manner in which they operate. Many liberals and statist lackeys, while being appreciably knowledgeable and intelligent seem to be lacking this key trait of discernment. I'm reminded of a quote by a medieval philosopher named Pierre Abelard who said, "The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth." From my vantage point, many of the learned in our society never wander off the paved road of conformity since (a) the truth is distressing to their very existence (b) such a detour would inevitably reduce their social standing and many of them are vain creatures of a very prideful nature who sustain themselves on the trivial acclaim of their peers.

But what if we already have the Truth? What if that Truth is self evident and unalienable, meaning that it is self evident to the extent that we don't need experts manipulating us towards it politically, and it is unalienable to the extent that it reduces bipartisanly as a natural right (literally on the physical level) to be perceived in our soul, our conscience, or, what many like to call, our heart?
While we already know the Truth in our conscience, such a natural law cannot be altered. This natural law declared by our Founding Fathers is our Civil Purpose while it supercedes all legal precedence, every past tradition, and every future event yet to occur.

[Slutter McGee]

No. And I dont understand where you get that impresion.

If you see such a big correlation, how do you explain people with high IQ making all the wrong decisions in live?. There are hihgly famous very "intelligent" people that almost could not handle living in society. And how do you explain people with low IQ becoming rich and being able to prosper a lot more (and without parents help) than people with a lot higher IQ?

Not all intelligence is the same. There is people with aptitude for maths that are completely incapbable when it comes to music for example. There are geniouses incapable of understanding difficult maths.

Generally IQ tests are an accurate picture of overall intelligence. A genius who understand math better than music is a matter of aptitude, not intelligence. Certainly there are different ways that intelligence can manifest itself, but that doesn't negate the accuracy of IQ tests.

The issue here is not intelligence, althought that is a factor, but rather knowledge. Because Universities generally lean to the left, smarter individuals are more exposed to liberal ideas. The anti-intellectual views of the right have also contributed the lack of conservative education in post-secondary schools. Yes, I am blaming this partly on religion, although I do not mean to suggest that religious people are unintelligent. Rather that the Republican Party has become so intertwined with Christianity, that when ones religious beliefs are brought into question, or changed, the political beliefs associated with them tend to change also.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[ChaosControl]

I think wisdom is more valuable than intelligence. I also think it is far rarer.
As for intelligence... there is knowledge and there is the ability to acquire knowledge. I think the latter is more important than the former. I think it would be difficult to measure actual intellect and probably impossible or at least near impossible to measure wisdom. I think common sense is a part of wisdom and we all know how rare common sense is any more.

[scoot87]

wow, that is really insightful. I never thought about how dissecting and analyzing things beneath the surface could be categorized with wisdom. This pertains to how people approach the causes of the economic collapse. Liberals tend to look on the facade and attribute blame to greed and a set of large financial institutions, while many of us dig deeper and say that the Federal Reserve is the root cause that created a socioeconomic climate to spend and consume ourselves into a collapsing economy.

[hugolp]

Generally IQ tests are an accurate picture of overall intelligence. A genius who understand math better than music is a matter of aptitude, not intelligence. Certainly there are different ways that intelligence can manifest itself, but that doesn't negate the accuracy of IQ tests.

The issue here is not intelligence, althought that is a factor, but rather knowledge. Because Universities generally lean to the left, smarter individuals are more exposed to liberal ideas. The anti-intellectual views of the right have also contributed the lack of conservative education in post-secondary schools. Yes, I am blaming this partly on religion, although I do not mean to suggest that religious people are unintelligent. Rather that the Republican Party has become so intertwined with Christianity, that when ones religious beliefs are brought into question, or changed, the political beliefs associated with them tend to change also.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

What I am saying is imagine a baby who is potentially very intelligent and a baby who is average. The first baby has poor parents and recieves a shitty education and quits soon. The second goes to college and remains there as a teacher. In a IQ test the second one would do better than the first one.

[Jeros]

What I am saying is imagine a baby who is potentially very intelligent and a baby who is average. The first baby has poor parents and recieves a shitty education and quits soon. The second goes to college and remains there as a teacher. In a IQ test the second one would do better than the first one.

I disagree. I was raised in a very poor family in an environment of substance abuse, imprisonment, petty criminality, and fluctuating residence. I did horrible in school up until college. I almost didn't graduate high school, yet my IQ is moderately high.

One of my best friends was raised in a horribly screwed up family. I will spare you the details, but he said if he ever sees his father again, he would contemplate killing him. He did very poor in school too, but scored a 1580 on the SAT and has a higher IQ than I do.

I know countless individuals who were raised in stable families where everything was handed to them, they did very well in high school and college, but are pretty close to the mean IQ.

IQ test results have very little to do with formal education. I really don't think you have researched how they work or what useful information they provide.

[Jeros]

No. And I dont understand where you get that impresion.

If you see such a big correlation, how do you explain people with high IQ making all the wrong decisions in live?. There are hihgly famous very "intelligent" people that almost could not handle living in society. And how do you explain people with low IQ becoming rich and being able to prosper a lot more (and without parents help) than people with a lot higher IQ?

Not all intelligence is the same. There is people with aptitude for maths that are completely incapbable when it comes to music for example. There are geniouses incapable of understanding difficult maths.

You are making connections between somewhat unrelated topics, and using examples that seem to be the products of the preconceived notions of people who justify positions through folklore or oral hearsay. Who are these highly famous people and exactly how are they unsuccessful? Can you define their failures beyond a general feeling? How is the ability to conform to social structures related to the ability to understand complicated subjects? Who are all these dumb rich people you speak of? Who are all these poor smart people you speak of? I can give you many examples of high IQ's of the wealthy people in the world. Go look at any list of billionaires and look up the IQ's of its members. I am sure that some people with low IQ's become wealthy, and that some people with high IQ's become bums, but unless your can demonstrate some alternative overlying pattern, I'll trust what I have determined to be the overlying pattern.

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sftfi1%7Bimage0%7D.gif

http://contexts.org/socimages/files/blogger2wp/Methods-Zagorsky00-RelationshipbetweenIQandIncome.png

By 'low IQ" do you mean people with an IQ of lower than the average of 100? I don't think there are relatively many self made individuals with less than average IQ's.

I agree that not all intelligence is the same. I agree that an IQ test doesn't perfectly test for all types of intelligence. I never stated otherwise. I actually already said that the IQ test is flawed, yet still useful. Your belief that there are different types of intelligence is the only thing you got right. I completely reject everything else, including that "Intelligence test dont reflect intelligence just academic culture in general. There is no way to mesure intelligence, so those studies are just bullshit. And there is a reason why liberals are better at academic culture: its their culture. It does not mean they are more intelligent."

IQ test results have little to do with political or philosophical ideology.

[hugolp]

^^ So higher training (education) gives you more probability of having a better job and better result in the IQ test.

How does that prove that IQ test reflects intelligence?

Btw, I will repeat again that I am not implying that IQ test are completely unrelated to intelligence. I am saying that education plays a big big part when having a higher or lower result in the IQ test. For example, if you had a easier live and a better education probably you would have gotten even better IQ test results. That is different than saying anyone with a better education will get better IQ test results than you.

[kpitcher]

I've taken a number of IQ tests (Mensa, not the online ones) and a real IQ test doesn't ask academia style questions. They focus on spatial recognition, pattern matching, logic, reasoning. While some math is required it'd be no higher than simple addition and arithmetic for the pattern matching.

Now the supposed online IQ tests are simply bogus, you don't need to know a state's capital or other learned trivia for a real IQ.

http://www.mensa.org/index0.php?page=12

[Slutter McGee]

^^ So higher training (education) gives you more probability of having a better job and better result in the IQ test.

How does that prove that IQ test reflects intelligence?

Btw, I will repeat again that I am not implying that IQ test are completely unrelated to intelligence. I am saying that education plays a big big part when having a higher or lower result in the IQ test. For example, if you had a easier live and a better education probably you would have gotten even better IQ test results. That is different than saying anyone with a better education will get better IQ test results than you.

Lets look at 3 basic tests. Standard IQ, SAT, and ACT.

ACT is almost completely knoweledge based. SAT is more based on reasoning although knowledge is also important. And IQ tests requires little knowledge and is almost completely based on reasoning ability. Your argument might certainly apply to ACT and SAT tests, but it simply doesn't work for IQ.

Sincerely ,

Slutter McGee

[Jeros]

^^ So higher training (education) gives you more probability of having a better job and better result in the IQ test.

How does that prove that IQ test reflects intelligence?

I didn't originate the assertion that IQ tests and success are related. You did. Though on some level I may agree with it, I was only demonstrating that your examples and conclusion were inaccurate, so you should instead prove to yourself how or why IQ tests and "success" in life are related or admit you contradicted yourself.



Btw, I will repeat again that I am not implying that IQ test are completely unrelated to intelligence. I am saying that education plays a big big part when having a higher or lower result in the IQ test. For example, if you had a easier live and a better education probably you would have gotten even better IQ test results. That is different than saying anyone with a better education will get better IQ test results than you.

Actually, I said "IQ tests work fine. They may not be perfect, but the information provided isn't irrelevant or useless."

and then you countered "They dont. They just reflect the education, not the potential intelligence of the mind."

I think it is sometimes wise to admit one can change their opinion after gaining additional information.

I also think you may have environmental factors mixed up. You seem to think formal (liberal?) education accounts for almost all variations in IQ. Could it be that people who are deficient in certain nutrients during childhood, or that certain environments that don't allow the expression of constructive creativity might affect IQ scores? Did you know that a feral child, after a certain age, can never properly communicate with any advanced human society? The brain becomes hardwired after prolonged early exposure to environments that don't encourage problem solving or complex pattern recognition. Not only can they not communicate, their intelligence will never surpass that of an very young child.

[jsu718]

IQ is what you are born with. Wisdom is what you pick up along the way. Your IQ score may vary, but your actual intelligence does not. It deals with the concept of the time it will take you to learn a given concept. The "easy" explanation is to multiply the time by your IQ/100 and that is how long it will take to learn. For instance lets look at a year of schooling. For that year, a person of an IQ of 50 can only learn 6 months worth. A person with an IQ of 150 can learn a year and a half. Realistically the effects are much greater than that, but it's an easy way to think about it. A person with an IQ as low as 80 might need 40 repetitions to learn a concept, but someone with an IQ of 120 might get it permanently after 3 or 4.

[hugolp]

I didn't originate the assertion that IQ tests and success are related. You did. Though on some level I may agree with it, I was only demonstrating that your examples and conclusion were inaccurate, so you should instead prove to yourself how or why IQ tests and "success" in life are related or admit you contradicted yourself.



Actually, I said "IQ tests work fine. They may not be perfect, but the information provided isn't irrelevant or useless."

and then you countered "They dont. They just reflect the education, not the potential intelligence of the mind."

I think it is sometimes wise to admit one can change their opinion after gaining additional information.

I also think you may have environmental factors mixed up. You seem to think formal (liberal?) education accounts for almost all variations in IQ. Could it be that people who are deficient in certain nutrients during childhood, or that certain environments that don't allow the expression of constructive creativity might affect IQ scores? Did you know that a feral child, after a certain age, can never properly communicate with any advanced human society? The brain becomes hardwired after prolonged early exposure to environments that don't encourage problem solving or complex pattern recognition. Not only can they not communicate, their intelligence will never surpass that of an very young child.

Ok, the way I first expressed myself was a bit too much. I wanted to say that education influences the results. Not that intelligence is totally unrelated. We may not agree on how much.

I did some IQ test when I was at school and I got the second in class, it was pretty high, but I still think it was more because of education than another thing. Also, I believe emotional intelligence is not taken into account too much.