Sociopath Community

Daniella stated: source post

the fact that they're all "skills" says enough about the perspective of whoever came up with it. they probably see  intelligence as something that can be "worked on".  it's definitely a more egalitarian definition. i'm not sure where people get the idea that it HAS to be 100% genetic, when IQs (just an example) have been shown to be affected by the smallest things outside of genetics.

Well as to genius being something that can be "worked on", your IQ is expected to increase over your lifetime.

I see what you mean about the theory of Multiple Intelligences being fair or "egalitarian". 

After all, my professor joked that we would all get As and trophies. That is, since most of us were the Millenial Generation, and you know how the millennials easily got trophies for everything.

I think success is not directly related to IQ necessarily but rather a combination of tenacity (steadfastness) and perspicacity (focus) as I said above.

Emotional intelligence isn't included in the list, so I'd say emotional maturity is the common link between all areas of intelligence in my opinion. None of them would be possible without emotional intelligence. 

They all work within societally constructed norms and are heavily impacted by other people's advancements (ex. philosopher studies other philosophers, etc.), including modern innovation and technology. 

the way you frame it makes it seem like it goes back to overall usefulness to society or ability to get what you want from it with ease, which sounds pretty reasonable.

What's a forte if you can't use it to your advantage

Daniella stated: source post

is there a widely agreed upon scientific universal definition for intelligence? i know there's the IQ, but i heard it only tests 3 types of known forms of intellect. there has to be more. can anyone bring up a full proof definition?

The only requirement to be intelligent, is to have any capacity for knowledge. A worm is considered low intelligence, where as we are considerably higher intelligence. That level of intelligence would be a way of measuring our capacity for knowledge.

For example, If they found fruit flies on the moon, they would call them intelligent lifeforms, no matter how bright they are.

if not, then it's just a construct. or subjective from person to person with maybe a few  universal consistencies, kinda like beauty.

All social constructs are spawned from intelligence at any level.

As for Beauty. I wouldn't call that a social construct either.

Yes some of us are programmed to think "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but that right there is a social construct.

it sounds reasonable, but i don't think most people would consider merely the capacity for knowledge intelligence within the human species. i think that only applies when comparing the abilities of different species. 

i didn't mean to say beauty was a social construct, i think you misread. i said intelligence would be either a construct OR similar to beauty in its subjectivity.

Agree.

Human yardsticks that measure this or that and define one attribute as more 'useful' than another one are all socially constructed.

"I think success is not directly related to IQ necessarily but rather a combination of tenacity (steadfastness) and perspicacity (focus) as I said above."

Correct.

Last I checked, people with IQs of over 160 were likely to be less wealthy/successful than their peers with IQs in the 100 to 130 range (average and slightly above average.) I remember a study where one man with an IQ of 180ish was working as a bouncer, and the woman who held the record for highest IQ at the time worked some office job. She was little better than a receptionist.

That study was done in the 80s, tho. Things may have changed and new studies have certainly been published.

most people see intelligence as an ability or just "knowhow",its just that some people are equipped with more knowhow than others,but i also think that intelligence may vary in the sense that some autists are geniuses in math but are completely retarded in which you could say more important areas such as socializing etc,which again relates to the multiple intelligence theory,then again is brilliance and genius a social construct as well?brilliance probably is as it requires others to be dumb,or extremely deficient in an area,also adding one more thing is intelligence just an ability to understand a concept,or is it necessary for someone to take it on by the bulls horns and try to disprove or add or even improve it,so is intelligence just a capacity to understand?is it not possible that the person who understands a concept would be able to add or negate some aspects of it?so would that person be negated of his intelligence?what about the person who simplifies a concept for the layman to understand in basic english is he more intelligent than the person who has a better grasp at that concept.say that person understood that concept and then described his understanding of it to the person who then described it in simple words.BUT i think its appropriate  to ask just about now is that does every person who has a good grasp of a concept also be a person who can further elaborate it to others?can a great student always be a great teacher?i think he can learn to be one but some people are just naturals at that,but if he becomes better or whatever does that make him more intelligent than the person who has innate talent in something.of course i think it does but i also think this doesnt make much sense anymore l o l

Daniella stated: source post

it sounds reasonable, but i don't think most people would consider merely the capacity for knowledge intelligence within the human species. i think that only applies when comparing the abilities of different species. 

On that note, how clever someone is, isn't a social construct, unless it's the social construct itself making someone out to be brighter than they really are.

As far as education goes, it's not that they doctor is by default brighter than the next person, they just have a different field of study.

i didn't mean to say beauty was a social construct, i think you misread. i said it would be either a construct OR similar to beauty in its subjectivity.

No need to say I misread or anything,  I'll just buy what you meant to say no questions asked.