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

Re: Intellegence...phat chance

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.