Which type of "smart" are you?

Zmffkskem said:


Ah well, semantics? Unfortunately, a definition of intelligence would be really required, because also to even discuss brain function's relation to intelligence, one must know what intelligence and what it refers to.

I am assuming you mean proper brain function, for a normal person. Intelligence could be vaguely suggested at through memory, through 'complexity of behaviour,' through 'tool usage,' among others. A test can be used to probe memory, and thus intelligence. However, regardless of how great one's memory is, complex behaviour or how efficient one is at using tools, (May or may not inclu. advanced computers/machinery, but doesn't really matter) I would argue that intelligence is not achieved. That is, of course, personal opinion, though I guess I should concede a little, and take such as partial intelligence.

Progress in human history has been greatly attributed to creativity and new thinking. If so, then perhaps it would be possible to judge intelligence through new thinking, creativity, ability to 'synthesise,' 'analyse,' and 'compare.' It is here that something very odd strikes me... what is 'new?' Should generation of ideas and abstractions be considered an 'intelligent' task? Unfortunately, this would require more explanation on creativity. Loosely speaking and taking creativity as ability to create, and if intelligence is judged on such grounds, I can only say that intelligence would be based on someone's 'ability' to pull things out of thin air. In a way, this consequence comes from our way thinking of creativity.

Albert Einstein is widely documented to have been fascinated by light, and thought about it all the time. Thus, he thought a lot about it, and in a stroke of genius came up with special relativity. In a way, he could be credited(and he is) with thinking about light and thus coming up with an idea. However, such an occurrence, to me, seems like a random event, and as predictable as the thermal agitations of molecules. The 'fact' that such an idea was a success, as an alternative to Lumiferous Aether, is, I shall hold the following word back no more, luck. Same goes for every minor or major breakthrough, all those that led to relativity, that of hyperbolic geometry or anything. Simply because it was related to academia, and/or that it reflected a phenomenon and that it could 'explain' and 'predict' the mechanisms, the person who came up with it is touted as intelligent.

It is undeniable that such an event shook the scientific community like no other. I would take it as being of greater importance than that of Newton's Principia, but using my most objective lens and breaking the event up into its elements, I cannot find anything but thin air and luck. There is no major causal link between it and the event, other than the fact that I would say Einstein drew a lot more lots than others. (There are also talks of the discovery being inevitable due to Poincare and whatnot, and thus someone, perhaps Poincare, would eventually strike the lottery.) He also got even luckier, being described today as one too forward for his time, noting issues with nonlocality which are still issues today.

In the end, one could equate luck with intelligence, which seems like something sound and all if you try breaking up intelligence, because such would be impossible unless you know how to break up luck into more fundamental things. The power of the brain also seems important, with Wolfgang Pauli supposedly a quick calculator and one of solid mathematical ability, and as such taken as one with great intellect and as a genius, though in general such results in slower progress as something novel is what has been driving breakthrough after breakthrough in history, and likely the future.

ReaperEXE said:
Honestly, if you can't explain "intelligence" in 30 words or less, it's a safe bet you don't know what it means. If you have to write a short, contrived essay, in which a solid definition clearly escapes you, then you really don't know.

ReaperEXE said:
The type of smarts I have is the pick up sluts at nightclubs smarts. The trick there is to be good looking, walk up to a girl, and talk to her. It's alright I guess, but I don't like to wear condoms. Instant gratification at it's finest.

celestialocean said:
I don't think one must be limited to only one of these. The last time I took a Multiple Intelligences test, this was the result:

100% Naturalist
100% Musical
95% Intrapersonal
80% Verbal/Linguistic
80% Visual/Spatial
80% Logical/Mathematical
75% Bodily/Kinesthetic
45% Interpersonal

I don't consider myself particularly weak in any but one (interpersonal) of the listed categories, although I do agree with the assessment that the three with the lowest percentages are my weaker points.

I've always been very musically and artistically inclined; I've always been fairly good with language and writing; and I've always been very introverted, reflective, intuitive, and self-aware. Likewise, I've always felt a very strong connection with nature and animals. Therefore, I consider all of the top five types listed in my result "my type of smart."