tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481298417819219839.post210889983640971478..comments2024-03-27T19:13:29.794+00:00Comments on A K Haart: The art of intelligenceA K Haarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05897490979828603179noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481298417819219839.post-3218626165569037792013-04-01T20:14:15.435+01:002013-04-01T20:14:15.435+01:00Ah but we can't just say we were only blogging...Ah but we can't just say we were only blogging. :) Those such as Nigel take what we say seriously and we need to defend each point in turn.James Highamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14525082702330365464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481298417819219839.post-79598274376949908702013-03-31T20:59:32.743+01:002013-03-31T20:59:32.743+01:00Nigel - I don't see anything wrong with your w...Nigel - I don't see anything wrong with your wording - it's a tricky subject and we are only blogging.<br /><br />I think disagreements over moral outlook are often fundamental and as you suggest they can lead to deep and often fractious disagreements.<br /><br />It seems to me that another problem is how those with axes to grind are often more persistent than those who are more detached so we can't remove the human element. A K Haarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05897490979828603179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481298417819219839.post-85368983375481269642013-03-31T17:22:06.294+01:002013-03-31T17:22:06.294+01:00AKH writes, in many ways quite properly corrective...AKH writes, in many ways quite properly corrective of my too-simple expression of view: "Nigel - it seems to me that your four headings are axioms. I think axioms are interesting, because we all have them and often they are not up for discussion and the really interesting question is often - why not?"<br /><br />I agree that two of my axioms are indisputably: (i) the acquisition of knowledge is valuable, and one's action should not be in conflict with one's knowledge of what works (in the world); (ii) rational logic is the only good way of moving forward from the combination of one's axioms and one's knowledge.<br /><br />I also acknowledge that I view persuasiveness as distinctly important, and separate from knowledge and rational deduction. However, I would rank it as somewhat less important than the other two.<br /><br />I would, however,view all three as of a higher ranking that other axioms that are personally chosen. This is because differentiation between other axioms becomes irrelevant if knowledge and rational thought are not valued at least as highly as those other axioms.<br /><br />Finally, concerning the meaning of axioms, these are (IMHO) the self-evident truths of Jefferson and the USA Declaration of Independence. They are not derivative of other things, by rational thought or by knowledge: they are self-evident (or not as the case may be). In so far as they are not self-evident between individuals, they are either inadequately refined as to their basicality across a variety of circumstances. Or they are an (overwhelming) factor of disagreement in terms of moral outlook, which would lead to opposition to the view that the other party possesses worthwhile (comparative) intelligence!<br /><br />I can predict that my view above is probably somewhat weak as to wording (as was my earlier attempt): but I think we are getting there by stages.<br /><br />Best regardsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481298417819219839.post-66209455165053328872013-03-31T15:38:43.459+01:002013-03-31T15:38:43.459+01:00Roger - I wonder why too. I think there is somethi...Roger - I wonder why too. I think there is something elusive we need a word for, but if we had one it would become corrupted by misuse.<br /><br />Sackers - I think Eysenck's admission shows a problem with IQ, but I think the problem is as you say, a can of worms.<br /><br />Nigel - it seems to me that your four headings are axioms. I think axioms are interesting, because we all have them and often they are not up for discussion and the really interesting question is often - why not?<br /><br />The trouble is, the very word "axiom" seems to make for a dry discussion which may not quite capture the problem in terms of daily experience.<br /><br />A K Haarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05897490979828603179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481298417819219839.post-74129438266315898132013-03-31T11:49:45.151+01:002013-03-31T11:49:45.151+01:00On intelligence: I suggest consideration under fou...On intelligence: I suggest consideration under four headings, in judging the intelligence of people - as it is and as it is perceived.<br /><br />1. Axioms. The basic premises ( in my terminology effectively defining a single composite objective function) that determine what is the 'good' to be maximised.<br /><br />2. Knowledge. The acquired evidence as to what is true and what is untrue about the natural world (perhaps universe) and about human society.<br /><br />3. Rational Deduction. The logical though processes that go from the axioms and knowledge to a conclusion in specific circumstances.<br /><br />4. Persuasion. The ability to convince other people that one is correct. This, of course, does allow for hidden axioms that place personal advantage over the common good, to a greater or lesser extent, leading to attempts (perhaps successful) in persuading other people to act against their own self-interest.<br /><br />Best regardsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481298417819219839.post-19742718633168684642013-03-31T11:20:14.898+01:002013-03-31T11:20:14.898+01:00PS Sorry for Eysenck typo, does that show I'm ...PS Sorry for Eysenck typo, does that show I'm stupid?<br /><br />Eyesenck you...Sackersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17284329249862764601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481298417819219839.post-44106790081159197932013-03-31T11:19:13.822+01:002013-03-31T11:19:13.822+01:00Can of worms, AKH. But even Eyesenck (I think) adm...Can of worms, AKH. But even Eyesenck (I think) admitted that intelligence could be increased by practising on his IQ tests. And hasn't it been reported that young people today score higher on such things than previous generations?Sackersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17284329249862764601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481298417819219839.post-51064380069939053052013-03-31T09:08:54.333+01:002013-03-31T09:08:54.333+01:00What is intelligence? Is it 'gumption', ...What is intelligence? Is it 'gumption', or 'sticking power', or persistance or the result of training and experience? One place I worked had an allegedly very intelligent (and smelly) chap of whom it was said 'Oh X's intelligence is entirely artificial'. Certainly this fellow was opinionated and good at producing chop logic arguments based on half-truths and wrong information. People of this type, if rather bossy, tend to be managers with the illusion of effectiveness. Well trained and persistant but lacking the gumption and the humility to see that just possibly one might be wrong.<br /><br />Then consider the lawyer paid to produce an interpretation of law that suit his client's purpose. Were those drafting the law malign or is the lawyer re-interpreting the law malign?<br /><br />Then consider Richard Feynman's analysis of the Challenger disaster. He had training, experience, gumption etc etc but also the intelligence and independence to look under the surface. The paperwork reports presented to him were mostly management flannel - by looking under the surface he exposed the reality.<br /><br />So, you are right AK, intelligence is easily and often misused - probably more often than it is put to useful purposes. I wonder why.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com