Unique types of intelligence often ignored

Skarekrow said:
I guess you missed the part where I stated that he can tell you all about each one...each coin, year, stone/crystal - why you shitting on my post?
Click to expand...
  1. I am not 'shitting on your post'. I am expressing my disagreement towards parts of your post. Sometimes I have a hard time being diplomatic and other times I come of as rude unintentionally. There are, of course, those times where I don't give a damn about diplomacy or not being rude. This was none of those cases. Chill a bit, I simply expressed my opinion. You don't agree with me and I don't agree with you. Let's move on from there, shall we ?
  2. My point is not that your nephew does not have a unique type of intelligence or that he is not intelligent. My point was that having hobbies and following them is not necessarily a sign of intelligence. Take your average kid with a strong passion for ... let's say ice creams. Maybe he will just eat lot's of ice creams (can we be friends :grinning:) or maybe he will go beyond that, learning everything there is to know about the history, types, curious facts, methods of preparation etc of ice - creams. That fact alone does not make him intelligent. It only makes him very committed to something, and very curious about it. I don't think curiosity is a certain sign of intelligence, though there might be some connection. Neither is memorizing and recalling things.
Anyway, have a great day.

PS: One question, out of curiosity. Did you take my comment as an 'attack' towards your nephew or your opinion?
 
dorothysargasso said:
PS: One question, out of curiosity. Did you take my comment as an 'attack' towards your nephew or your opinion?
Click to expand...

No, neither.
It was unnecessary and rude and dismisses my perspective outright.
Disagree all you want...I just don’t understand why people feel the need to express inner commentary that should probably remain internal.
 
Last edited:
dorothysargasso said:
  1. I am not 'shitting on your post'. I am expressing my disagreement towards parts of your post. Sometimes I have a hard time being diplomatic and other times I come of as rude unintentionally. There are, of course, those times where I don't give a damn about diplomacy or not being rude. This was none of those cases. Chill a bit, I simply expressed my opinion. You don't agree with me and I don't agree with you. Let's move on from there, shall we ?
  2. My point is not that your nephew does not have a unique type of intelligence or that he is not intelligent. My point was that having hobbies and following them is not necessarily a sign of intelligence. Take your average kid with a strong passion for ... let's say ice creams. Maybe he will just eat lot's of ice creams (can we be friends :grinning:) or maybe he will go beyond that, learning everything there is to know about the history, types, curious facts, methods of preparation etc of ice - creams. That fact alone does not make him intelligent. It only makes him very committed to something, and very curious about it. I don't think curiosity is a certain sign of intelligence, though there might be some connection. Neither is memorizing and recalling things.
Anyway, have a great day.

PS: One question, out of curiosity. Did you take my comment as an 'attack' towards your nephew or your opinion?
Click to expand...

Okay...very simply.
He has an abnormal and unique brain, and an abnormal and unique way of thinking, and historically such peoples’ intelligence is often ignored or dismissed.
That falls easily into the OP’s question (And thread title of "Unique types of intelligence often ignored”) - that is why I asked you why you are taking the time to be dismissive (shitting on my post) when your whole argument is really of a semantical nature?
You disagree with my example because you disagree with my definition as defined by my example.
Semantics...and it comes off as rude if you meant to or not.
Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Insofar as I'm barely able to change a light-bulb to save my life, I value 'practical' intelligence extremely. It might not be unique as such but given that I do not have an atom of it, it feels unique to me ;) And without help from people who have it, I would certainly not have survived into this world at all.

Regarding unique types of intelligence, I have to say that I am always impressed by extreme levels of emotional intelligence, particularly introspective emotional intelligence. People who could write 5 pages on their internal emotional states with an uncanny amount of detail. I am impressed and inspired by that.
 
Ren said:
Insofar as I'm barely able to change a light-bulb to save my life, I value 'practical' intelligence extremely. It might not be unique as such but given that I do not have an atom of it, it feels unique to me ;) And without help from people who have it, I would certainly not have survived into this world at all.

Regarding unique types of intelligence, I have to say that I am always impressed by extreme levels of emotional intelligence, particularly introspective emotional intelligence. People who could write 5 pages on their internal emotional states with an uncanny amount of detail. I am impressed and inspired by that.
Click to expand...

For sure...
IMHO so much has to do with learning style also and how we are all basically taught with one style regardless of how a person learns.

I was just reading about “emotional intelligence” vs “cognitive intelligence” and how there is a rising number of those studying these types of intelligence who are putting more weight into emotional intelligence as playing a far more important role in our lives concerning how we learn and how we coexist with one another - our ability to actually function as a “normal” person in society. It was inferring how emotional intelligence is actually more influential and rules our so-called “common sense” or as you put it - “practical intelligence”.
You can have all the titles and cognitive intelligence - you can have a high IQ and still be socially retarded - and in some cases vice-versa.
It’s the combination of the two, and how a person is able to weave them together as one they found, that are the most successful at whatever endeavor is being undertaken.
 
Creativity is a kind of intelligence that is routinely ignored. It's a mistake to think that creative people are exclusively artistic. Although some certainly are, some are also entrepreneurial. In fact, artists and entrepreneurs are the same kind of people. They are both extremely creative.

Just a side note, not everyone is creative. True creativity is a very rare thing.
 
wolly.green said:
Creativity is a kind of intelligence that is routinely ignored. It's a mistake to think that creative people are exclusively artistic. Although some certainly are, some are also entrepreneurial. In fact, artists and entrepreneurs are the same kind of people. They are both extremely creative.

Just a side note, not everyone is creative. True creativity is a very rare thing.
Click to expand...

Hey wolly, what you said made me curious about one thing. How would you define "true creativity", versus (let's say) mundane or false creativity?

I think there would be much value in trying to segregate different types of creativity, because it's true that creativity is a term that tends to be overused these days, and so devoid of its meaning as a consequence. I think everyone genuinely can be creative, but I don't think all creations that people produce are of the same value. However, how to measure the value of a creative person's creation?
 
Ren said:
Hey wolly, what you said made me curious about one thing. How would you define "true creativity", versus (let's say) mundane or false creativity?

I think there would be much value in trying to segregate different types of creativity, because it's true that creativity is a term that tends to be overused these days, and so devoid of its meaning as a consequence. I think everyone genuinely can be creative, but I don't think all creations that people produce are of the same value. However, how to measure the value of a creative person's creation?
Click to expand...

I don't believe there are many kinds of creativity like there are many kinds of intelligence. In my opinion, there is only one kind. Also yes, all people use 'creative thinking' -- this much is obviously true. When I said "there are few people that are truely creative", what i meant is there are few people that are exceptionally creative.

I'm not sure what it is however. Or whether it can even be "measured". In fact, if exceptionally creative people are those that seek novelty and think outside the box, it follows that there can be no "measure" for what they do. This because when they are thinking outside the box, they are necessarily thinking outside of any 'conceptual box' you might impose on them.
 
wolly.green said:
I don't believe there are many kinds of creativity like there are many kinds of intelligence. In my opinion, there is only one kind. Also yes, all people use 'creative thinking' -- this much is obviously true. When I said "there are few people that are truely creative", what i meant is there are few people that are exceptionally creative.

I'm not sure what it is however. Or whether it can even be "measured". In fact, if exceptionally creative people are those that seek novelty and think outside the box, it follows that there can be no "measure" for what they do. This because when they are thinking outside the box, they are necessarily thinking outside of any 'conceptual box' you might impose on them.
Click to expand...

Although the word creativity may be used too often, at the same time, it's a good thing when it can be applied in different ways and not seen as limited to a privileged few who have it. Describing it as something so unique or rare that only a genius few may have it only reinforces a way of thinking that places people in classes depending on their creativity, similar to separating everyone by IQ. This assumes the genius of them is the only one with specialized access to creativity or has the patent on creativity. There are many ways creativity can manifest, and to limit it is going against what the concept represents, the idea that you have to think outside the box. If you keep narrowing the box, or squeezing it in, you'll restrict what can fit. Rather than allowing more options to fit, this just diminishes types of creativity that may not fit neatly into that specialized box of creativity. Concepts such as creativity are always evolving. No one has the monopoly on it. It's like Picasso trying to define what is or isn't art for all time. Just as art can't be defined by one person's success in it, creativity can't or shouldn't be either.
 
Gaze said:
Although the word creativity may be used too often, at the same time, it's a good thing when it can be applied in different ways and not seen as limited to a privileged few who have it. Describing it as something so unique or rare that only a genius few may have it only reinforces a way of thinking that places people in classes depending on their creativity, similar to separating everyone by IQ. This assumes the genius of them is the only one with specialized access to creativity or has the patent on creativity. There are many ways creativity can manifest, and to limit it is going against what the concept represents, the idea that you have to think outside the box. If you keep narrowing the box, or squeezing it in, you'll restrict what can fit. Rather than allowing more options to fit, this just diminishes types of creativity that may not fit neatly into that specialized box of creativity. Concepts such as creativity are always evolving. No one has the monopoly on it. It's like Picasso trying to define what is or isn't art for all time. Just as art can't be defined by one person's success in it, creativity can't or shouldn't be either.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said except that there is more than one type of creativity. Whatever it is, in my opinion it is a single kind of thing that unifies all of its uses in Art, Science, Philosophy, Mathematics and so on.
 
We can measure some facets of creativity, such as "resourcefulness" (making a small amount of something stretch farther), "ability to overcome functional fixedness" (seeing multiple uses for an item that it normally wouldn't have, or transforming trash/everyday items into treasure), and "openness to new experiences."

Like, if you ordered a pizza, and they put the little white plastic table in the center of the pizza, most people throw that out. When I was a kid, I used to save them and put them in my Sesame Street doll house as "furniture." Incidentally, I also used to purposely put the bathtub in the kitchen, the slide on the roof, etc. I thought it'd be fun if they bathed in linguini and then slid off the roof.
:mclap:
 
SuperManda said:
We can measure some facets of creativity, such as "resourcefulness" (making a small amount of something stretch farther), "ability to overcome functional fixedness" (seeing multiple uses for an item that it normally wouldn't have, or transforming trash/everyday items into treasure), and "openness to new experiences."

Like, if you ordered a pizza, and they put the little white plastic table in the center of the pizza, most people throw that out. When I was a kid, I used to save them and put them in my Sesame Street doll house as "furniture." Incidentally, I also used to purposely put the bathtub in the kitchen, the slide on the roof, etc. I thought it'd be fun if they bathed in linguini and then slid off the roof.
:mclap:
Click to expand...

Thanks @SuperManda, that is a very interesting way of categorising and measuring different kinds of creativity!

I've always admired the creativity that just takes something well-known and offers a different perspective on it. It's not necessarily coming up with a completely new idea (supposing that exists), but with a new perspective on the original idea. In other words, adding more dimensions to the idea, more textures, more nuance, more intensity maybe. Under your framework, I don't know whether this particular creative talent would fall under "resourcefulness" or "ability to overcome functional fixedness". But it's certainly a kind of creativity that I've always found impressive, and that I don't see being necessarily correlated with IQ at all.
 
Ren said:
Under your framework, I don't know whether this particular creative talent would fall under "resourcefulness" or "ability to overcome functional fixedness". But it's certainly a kind of creativity that I've always found impressive, and that I don't see being necessarily correlated with IQ at all.
Click to expand...

These are real trait complexes and are actually being looked at in the world of psychology. They all have some bearing on different things, but IQ is still the best predictor we have of success.
 
Wyote said:
These are real trait complexes and are actually being looked at in the world of psychology. They all have some bearing on different things, but IQ is still the best predictor we have of success.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. My first reaction would be: how do you create a model that predicts an entirely qualitative outcome from quantitative input? Or do you think the measure of creativity can be quantitative?

In France, Switzerland and Belgium, the IQ test is gradually becoming outdated in favor of the concept of HP (high potential). Is that known at all in the US? I can provide some links (I dated a Swiss psychologist briefly last year and she gave me some great insight into HP) but it would be in French. The basic idea is to keep the insights from the IQ test while moving away from quantification, and allowing more room for originality of perspective.
 
Last edited:
@Ren I don't know enough to say one way or another but my feeling is that the US is slowly following that same path
 
Ren said:
do you think the measure of creativity can be quantitative?
Click to expand...

I do in the sense that you can discover aspects of creativity or aspects that influence creativity to a large enough degree to have merit.

If you look at IQ, it being the best predictor we have, it is still not nearly 100% accurate in its ability to predict. In fact the percentages are quite low if I remember right, but it is still the best we have.
A piece of shit can still be the best tool you have at any point, if the only thing you do have is a piece of shit.
 
Icedream said:
how unfortunate
Click to expand...

Look at things positively: if the IQ test is the best predictor of creative talent only by default (= only because it's the least bad right now), it's bound to be surpassed in the future ;) That is actually a very heartening thought. In the mean time, it will still be as useful as it can be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top