Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Intellegence

Expand Messages
  • Amy
    HI, I have just some working defintions of intellence in an article called Learning to Be Smart: An Exploration of the Culture of Intelligence in a Canadian
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      HI,

      I have just some working defintions of intellence in an article
      called "Learning to Be Smart: An Exploration of the Culture of
      Intelligence in a Canadian Inuit Community" written by PAMELA R.
      STERN. I am doing a paper on Language preservation in Inuit schools
      and I want to see if at leaste one of the definitions passes the
      existential test of acceptance.

      "Implicit theories of intelligence are more fuzzy [than
      explicit/universal standerds]. They are developed by asking what
      constitutes intelligent behavior in real-world situations
      and "consist of people's stated or implemented beliefs regarding
      intelligent functioning" (Sternberg 1985:31). Because different
      groups of people inhabit different ecological niches and possess
      differing cultural values, it is reasonable to assume that
      intelligent behavior also differs from culture to culture and,
      perhaps, from setting to setting within particular cultures. Rather
      than seeing intelligence as a measurable cognitive capacity,
      proponents of implicit theories view intelligence as configurations
      of competences. Different cultures and subcultures vary in the
      emphasis placed upon various expressions of intelligence. The skills
      and behaviors that are valued and encouraged in one society may be
      quite different from those valued and encouraged in another."(Stern)

      What do you existentialists think of this definition of intellegents?

      All the best,

      Amy
    • Knott
      ... Being not exactly only Existentialist, I can only speak from a position of other grief. First, judge not I one of grammatical endeavor -- especially before
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        > What do you existentialists think of this definition of intellegents?

        Being not exactly only Existentialist, I can only speak from a position of other grief.

        First, judge not I one of grammatical endeavor -- especially before there were rules.

        Second, judge not I of ditto, as I am guilty of same -- and still manage to publish
        books.

        Third, it is impossible to judge 'intelligence' from my perspective, lest that be
        defined. And if defining it by a test or definition, then anything falling in that
        definition and thus defined is that thing -- so anything can be 'smart' (e.g., Duard, by
        his own definition).

        Fourth, I have known many book-smart people who cannot function or fathom the
        'reality' we live in...either making more or less of it than it is (i.e., rather than
        nothing). Trying to measure intelligence was probably something an intelligent
        person thought of to make self superior...in that, there is an error. However grievous
        depends on who you are.

        Fifth, given a chance to explain an error on a test, anyone would have an excuse.
        given an inability to perform, an excuse is inherent in the performance. Given an
        unusual skill of a savant, a test or excuse does not explain the intelligence. Brilliance
        is not normal, inherently, yet intelligence (or interest) cannot be measured according
        to the norm.

        just as I wouldn't have myself measured by my success or failure as a professional
        sportsman, I would not have intelligence judged by some skewed example of
        perfection (e.g., Duard).

        What difference does it make? I would hope to have an intelligent doctor. i may not. i
        had a call today from an old friend whom I had not talked with in probably 10 or
        more years...a doctor...a doctor whose emails are so rattled with flurry that he has not
        time to spell a word right -- and that not minding his dyslexia. I might trust my life
        to him, as it is a less great evil than an unknown. And knowing some dyslexics who
        are far smarter than most, yet who can barely read, i might not feel stupid in the
        hands of his ignorance.

        nothing is accepted, when everything is excepted.

        Pewter Stool
      • Amy
        Hi! This is the un-definition that is intellegent. Thanks a million, and all the best, Amy ... intellegents? ... position of other grief. ... there were
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi!

          This is "the" un-definition that is intellegent.

          Thanks a million, and all the best,

          Amy

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <god@t...> wrote:
          > > What do you existentialists think of this definition of
          intellegents?
          >
          > Being not exactly only Existentialist, I can only speak from a
          position of other grief.
          >
          > First, judge not I one of grammatical endeavor -- especially before
          there were rules.
          >
          > Second, judge not I of ditto, as I am guilty of same -- and still
          manage to publish
          > books.
          >
          > Third, it is impossible to judge 'intelligence' from my
          perspective, lest that be
          > defined. And if defining it by a test or definition, then anything
          falling in that
          > definition and thus defined is that thing -- so anything can
          be 'smart' (e.g., Duard, by
          > his own definition).
          >
          > Fourth, I have known many book-smart people who cannot function or
          fathom the
          > 'reality' we live in...either making more or less of it than it is
          (i.e., rather than
          > nothing). Trying to measure intelligence was probably something an
          intelligent
          > person thought of to make self superior...in that, there is an
          error. However grievous
          > depends on who you are.
          >
          > Fifth, given a chance to explain an error on a test, anyone would
          have an excuse.
          > given an inability to perform, an excuse is inherent in the
          performance. Given an
          > unusual skill of a savant, a test or excuse does not explain the
          intelligence. Brilliance
          > is not normal, inherently, yet intelligence (or interest) cannot be
          measured according
          > to the norm.
          >
          > just as I wouldn't have myself measured by my success or failure as
          a professional
          > sportsman, I would not have intelligence judged by some skewed
          example of
          > perfection (e.g., Duard).
          >
          > What difference does it make? I would hope to have an intelligent
          doctor. i may not. i
          > had a call today from an old friend whom I had not talked with in
          probably 10 or
          > more years...a doctor...a doctor whose emails are so rattled with
          flurry that he has not
          > time to spell a word right -- and that not minding his dyslexia. I
          might trust my life
          > to him, as it is a less great evil than an unknown. And knowing
          some dyslexics who
          > are far smarter than most, yet who can barely read, i might not
          feel stupid in the
          > hands of his ignorance.
          >
          > nothing is accepted, when everything is excepted.
          >
          > Pewter Stool
        • Pedro Gonzales
          What definiton? :) ... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            What definiton? :)
            --- Amy <loconito442@...> wrote:
            > HI,
            >
            > I have just some working defintions of intellence in
            > an article
            > called "Learning to Be Smart: An Exploration of the
            > Culture of
            > Intelligence in a Canadian Inuit Community" written
            > by PAMELA R.
            > STERN. I am doing a paper on Language preservation
            > in Inuit schools
            > and I want to see if at leaste one of the
            > definitions passes the
            > existential test of acceptance.
            >
            > "Implicit theories of intelligence are more fuzzy
            > [than
            > explicit/universal standerds]. They are developed
            > by asking what
            > constitutes intelligent behavior in real-world
            > situations
            > and "consist of people's stated or implemented
            > beliefs regarding
            > intelligent functioning" (Sternberg 1985:31).
            > Because different
            > groups of people inhabit different ecological niches
            > and possess
            > differing cultural values, it is reasonable to
            > assume that
            > intelligent behavior also differs from culture to
            > culture and,
            > perhaps, from setting to setting within particular
            > cultures. Rather
            > than seeing intelligence as a measurable cognitive
            > capacity,
            > proponents of implicit theories view intelligence as
            > configurations
            > of competences. Different cultures and subcultures
            > vary in the
            > emphasis placed upon various expressions of
            > intelligence. The skills
            > and behaviors that are valued and encouraged in one
            > society may be
            > quite different from those valued and encouraged in
            > another."(Stern)
            >
            > What do you existentialists think of this definition
            > of intellegents?
            >
            > All the best,
            >
            > Amy
            >
            >
            >
            >


            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
            http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
          • Baztuk@aol.com
            Amy I don t think that it is a complete definition, because sometimes intelligence means that your views are going to differ fom what you are expected to
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Amy

              I don't think that it is a complete definition, because sometimes
              intelligence means that your views are going to differ fom what you are expected to
              think, although everyone on this Island may be "valued and encouraged" when
              believing that we all need to act like robots and complete our endless task of
              chores, whilst buying anything and everything that goes on sale, it doesn't
              necessarily mean that that is an intelligent thing to do.
              Intelligence is the ability to see past what your society wants you to think.

              I'm not talking big conspiracy theories either. Just to realise that so much o
              f what we are fed by the media is make believe, I avoid reading newspapers as
              much as possible,but on the odd occasion that I do, I always find it amusing
              and amazing to read a headline, and then the last paragraph of a story
              (normally tucked away 3 pages in and 12 font sizes lower), they so often completely
              contradict each other.

              Barry

              In a message dated 02/04/2004 01:24:29 GMT Standard Time,
              loconito442@... writes:

              > HI,
              >
              > I have just some working defintions of intellence in an article
              > called "Learning to Be Smart: An Exploration of the Culture of
              > Intelligence in a Canadian Inuit Community" written by PAMELA R.
              > STERN. I am doing a paper on Language preservation in Inuit schools
              > and I want to see if at leaste one of the definitions passes the
              > existential test of acceptance.
              >
              > "Implicit theories of intelligence are more fuzzy [than
              > explicit/universal standerds]. They are developed by asking what
              > constitutes intelligent behavior in real-world situations
              > and "consist of people's stated or implemented beliefs regarding
              > intelligent functioning" (Sternberg 1985:31). Because different
              > groups of people inhabit different ecological niches and possess
              > differing cultural values, it is reasonable to assume that
              > intelligent behavior also differs from culture to culture and,
              > perhaps, from setting to setting within particular cultures. Rather
              > than seeing intelligence as a measurable cognitive capacity,
              > proponents of implicit theories view intelligence as configurations
              > of competences. Different cultures and subcultures vary in the
              > emphasis placed upon various expressions of intelligence. The skills
              > and behaviors that are valued and encouraged in one society may be
              > quite different from those valued and encouraged in another."(Stern)
              >
              > What do you existentialists think of this definition of intellegents?
              >
              > All the best,
              >
              > Amy
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
              > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • louise
              Pedro-Profile, Is that an aorta in your hand? Herat-Throb
              Message 6 of 6 , Apr 4, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Pedro-Profile,
                Is that an aorta in your hand?
                Herat-Throb


                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Pedro Gonzales <milanab2002@y...>
                wrote:
                > What definiton? :)
                > --- Amy <loconito442@y...> wrote:
                > > HI,
                > >
                > > I have just some working defintions of intellence in
                > > an article
                > > called "Learning to Be Smart: An Exploration of the
                > > Culture of
                > > Intelligence in a Canadian Inuit Community" written
                > > by PAMELA R.
                > > STERN. I am doing a paper on Language preservation
                > > in Inuit schools
                > > and I want to see if at leaste one of the
                > > definitions passes the
                > > existential test of acceptance.
                > >
                > > "Implicit theories of intelligence are more fuzzy
                > > [than
                > > explicit/universal standerds]. They are developed
                > > by asking what
                > > constitutes intelligent behavior in real-world
                > > situations
                > > and "consist of people's stated or implemented
                > > beliefs regarding
                > > intelligent functioning" (Sternberg 1985:31).
                > > Because different
                > > groups of people inhabit different ecological niches
                > > and possess
                > > differing cultural values, it is reasonable to
                > > assume that
                > > intelligent behavior also differs from culture to
                > > culture and,
                > > perhaps, from setting to setting within particular
                > > cultures. Rather
                > > than seeing intelligence as a measurable cognitive
                > > capacity,
                > > proponents of implicit theories view intelligence as
                > > configurations
                > > of competences. Different cultures and subcultures
                > > vary in the
                > > emphasis placed upon various expressions of
                > > intelligence. The skills
                > > and behaviors that are valued and encouraged in one
                > > society may be
                > > quite different from those valued and encouraged in
                > > another."(Stern)
                > >
                > > What do you existentialists think of this definition
                > > of intellegents?
                > >
                > > All the best,
                > >
                > > Amy
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                > __________________________________
                > Do you Yahoo!?
                > Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
                > http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.