I need to ask two other questions, then: 1. Do you think that "ability to think," and "creative scientific ability" are the same thing? 2. Do you think that there is any way to test "extremely good ability to think?" Is there any test, or cluster of tests, out there? I'm also curious about: 3. Do you think that "Intelligence," "smarts," …
1. Do you think that "ability to think," and "creative scientific ability" are the same thing?
2. Do you think that there is any way to test "extremely good ability to think?" Is there any test, or cluster of tests, out there?
I'm also curious about:
3. Do you think that "Intelligence," "smarts," or "brains" is a somewhat obvious trait that can be observed merely by talking to people? In other words, if we asked Hrothgar and Ragnhild about how smart various people were, would their guesses correlate at some trivial amount (r = .1) or rather well (r = .6)?
1. Interesting question! I think "creative scientific ability" is a subcategory to the ability to think. The ability to make clever artistic allegories is another, different subcategory to the ability to think. The ability for philosophical reasoning is also a subcategory to the ability to think.
2. No, I think it has proven to be very difficult to develop such a test, and that is not very strange: Thinking is about finding out new lines of reasoning not thought about previously. I don't know what such a test, with right and wrong answers, could look like. I do think that only people with fairly high IQ levels can be extremely good thinkers. If nothing else, people who do not belong to those with, say, the ten percent or so highest IQ are in general unable to learn enough of existing human knowledge to use as a basis for their thinking.
3. As I wrote about elsewhere, I think people would assess "intelligence" in other people more or less as uniformly as they assess "beauty" in other people. That is, I think different people's assessments would be different, but not wildly different.
OK, at #1 you describe different subcategories of thinking. It sounds like you believe that a person could easily be "rather good" at thinking, but merely "good" at philosophical reasoning, "average" at artistic allegories, and "superb" at scientific reasoning. Is this right, or, would such a person actually seem extremely strange or unlikely to you?
I understand what you mean at #2. And I'm avoiding using studies, but, how interesting or convincing do you find it when people speak from personal experience? Many people tend to ignore claims about what life is like, or how things feel to them, but in the past you've given the impression that you accept personal accounts without too much skepticism. Would you say this is accurate, or, would it be a waste of time to try to convince you of anything on the basis of people I've personally observed?
1. > It sounds like you believe that a person could easily be "rather good" at thinking, but merely "good" at philosophical reasoning, "average" at artistic allegories, and "superb" at scientific reasoning.
Definitely, yes. That sounds like a very likely person. Although I would consider "thinking" an umbrella term comprising all the others.
2. I do not only accept personal accounts. I eagerly seek them out. I am so perversely interested in people's personal anecdotes that over the years I have unwittingly given several men the impression that I am flirting with them just through listening to them very attentively for extended times. Like if people believe that no one can be that interested in what they say for real. So, yes, if you have something to tell from your own experience, I should be one of the more eager recipients of that information.
I need to ask two other questions, then:
1. Do you think that "ability to think," and "creative scientific ability" are the same thing?
2. Do you think that there is any way to test "extremely good ability to think?" Is there any test, or cluster of tests, out there?
I'm also curious about:
3. Do you think that "Intelligence," "smarts," or "brains" is a somewhat obvious trait that can be observed merely by talking to people? In other words, if we asked Hrothgar and Ragnhild about how smart various people were, would their guesses correlate at some trivial amount (r = .1) or rather well (r = .6)?
1. Interesting question! I think "creative scientific ability" is a subcategory to the ability to think. The ability to make clever artistic allegories is another, different subcategory to the ability to think. The ability for philosophical reasoning is also a subcategory to the ability to think.
2. No, I think it has proven to be very difficult to develop such a test, and that is not very strange: Thinking is about finding out new lines of reasoning not thought about previously. I don't know what such a test, with right and wrong answers, could look like. I do think that only people with fairly high IQ levels can be extremely good thinkers. If nothing else, people who do not belong to those with, say, the ten percent or so highest IQ are in general unable to learn enough of existing human knowledge to use as a basis for their thinking.
3. As I wrote about elsewhere, I think people would assess "intelligence" in other people more or less as uniformly as they assess "beauty" in other people. That is, I think different people's assessments would be different, but not wildly different.
OK, at #1 you describe different subcategories of thinking. It sounds like you believe that a person could easily be "rather good" at thinking, but merely "good" at philosophical reasoning, "average" at artistic allegories, and "superb" at scientific reasoning. Is this right, or, would such a person actually seem extremely strange or unlikely to you?
I understand what you mean at #2. And I'm avoiding using studies, but, how interesting or convincing do you find it when people speak from personal experience? Many people tend to ignore claims about what life is like, or how things feel to them, but in the past you've given the impression that you accept personal accounts without too much skepticism. Would you say this is accurate, or, would it be a waste of time to try to convince you of anything on the basis of people I've personally observed?
1. > It sounds like you believe that a person could easily be "rather good" at thinking, but merely "good" at philosophical reasoning, "average" at artistic allegories, and "superb" at scientific reasoning.
Definitely, yes. That sounds like a very likely person. Although I would consider "thinking" an umbrella term comprising all the others.
2. I do not only accept personal accounts. I eagerly seek them out. I am so perversely interested in people's personal anecdotes that over the years I have unwittingly given several men the impression that I am flirting with them just through listening to them very attentively for extended times. Like if people believe that no one can be that interested in what they say for real. So, yes, if you have something to tell from your own experience, I should be one of the more eager recipients of that information.
2.
OK Tove! I'll email you.
I sent you a reply (in case it got lost in all the other spam).
Oh - I looked for it, but I never found it. I'll check this evening.
Sent on 18 March.