Quote (chiefwiggum654 @ Fri, Dec 12 2008, 02:33am)

Lol I wish my thoughts were that organized, but yeah it's the same idea. Btw where do you live? Your state must have the best high schools in the country because I never could have understood any of this crap when I was a sophomore.
About the relevance of A = BI, would it even be possible to know what I is without knowing A? Though, being that any set value to any of those variables is illogical because we have no units to measure any of them by, I'm just getting confused. I guess undefinable variable math is one thing my intelligence has a harder time with grasping.

Quote (chiefwiggum654 @ Fri, Dec 12 2008, 02:33am)

Well, one caveat concerning practical intelligence is the necessity for a comparison, being that there aren't really defined intelligences. Basically, calling a person intelligent because they understand/know advanced calculus has to be relative to another known (or estimable) level of intelligence (which obviously has to be a less complex math). I kinda feel like I'm just sifting through the semantics though. Advanced calc is, in the relative site of high school, a highly intelligent skill, so you're 100% correct.

Another interesting point, or rather a reinforcing point to previous thoughts, was brought up when I talking about this a few minutes ago with my brother.
If you are born with a predetermined intelligence, i.e., a limit to your capability of understanding, could a 5 year old child be said to be as intelligent as a 30 year old? I would assume not. But why not? My brother argued that your intelligence develops, but that implies growth, which goes against the idea of it being predetermined. It was then that I remembered that awesome equation Keg just came up with, and boom slammed it in his face. It makes perfect sense, too. Two people of drastic age differences are easily able to have the same capacity for understanding, but generally the younger you are, the less gained knowledge you've acquired, lowering the overall intelligence level.

shit man
this is probably the most interesting thing subject i've ever talked about on JSP.

Quote (chiefwiggum654 @ Fri, Dec 12 2008, 12:18pm)

Ah, sorry if this sounds rude, but I'm glad you don't fit it perfectly, and I didn't think you would.
Not because you aren't smart (you're easily one of the smartest guys here), but because you put the definition of a desired trait over your head, so to speak.
What I mean is that instead of arrogantly making it fit what you already are (like a lot of people here might), you objectively recognized the strengths and weaknesses of your own intelligence and created a definition you could strive for.
Perfect example for what you defined intelligence as, really.

Sounds like I'm slobbering all over your cock, I know, but I really have a lot of respect for genuine humility.

Quote (Myrddrall9 @ Thu, Dec 11 2008, 04:27pm)

if an extremely intelligent child was raised in a bad enviroment (abuse, etc) then his or her full potential probably wouldn't be fully realized.

Quote (kegman909650 @ Thu, Dec 11 2008, 08:31pm)

I see intelligence in two categories:
Work ethic and aptitude

Work ethic means you study every night, do your homework, learn extra material, etc.
Aptitude means you are just naturally good at it. You can copy your homework and not study and still ace the test.

Aptitude is what is inherited from your parents.
But your work ethic, which is really what makes you successful in life, is what makes you appear smart and helps you get better grades. You develop this on your own.

Like the pretty true stereotypes of Asians:
Their genetics make them smart
and their culture makes them have incredible work ethic
So they study hard and are already naturally gifted.

Quote (BovineDesi @ Thu, Dec 11 2008, 09:49pm)

Alot of time the difference between fast learners and slow learners is that those who learn fast can pick up and apply the subject material with only a superficial understanding (note, this is really just a generalization) -- they don't really need to be explained the inner workings of whats going on, they can just look at whats happening on the chalk board and say, well I can draw this connection to another problem and bam its solved.

Slow learners, generally they're the people who can't quickly realize connections because they over think the problem. Slow learners need to learn the entire subject material (for example the entire chapter instead of just a section of it) and then it'll finally all make sense to them. In this case, once they've learned it, they can more effectively understand what they're doing than those who only have a superficial understanding of the material.

I'll give you an example...me for example, I'm slow as hell to learn things -- lol I'm pretty much always lost in class and I need to sit there and think about it before it makes sense to me and my friend, he picks up things amazingly fast. In computer science, that friend of mine could catch all of his errors and could learn within minutes how to use commands that we've never learned. Me, I sucked at that, I got him to check my codes for me lol -- but I supplied the ideas, I understood what was going on.  In the end, my codes took me longer to write, but were efficient while he could write up entire programs within an hour, but it would be highly ineffective.

But yes, this is all subjective and we're all good at different things...now I'm not saying that fast learners are stupid and don't understand anything -- its just that normal instinct would tell you to stop studying if you can figure out how to solve the question right? So MOST fast learners would probably not go the extra step to understand why.

Quote (Defy_Lucifer @ Mon, Dec 22 2008, 02:03am)

I myself am someone who you can classify as a "slow learner" and manage to get good grades. But is there any way a person can strengthen their mind while keeping their instinct of learning/studying when for example, their memory is in fact slow. I just recently read about synapse transmission and the direct connection to memory (neurotransmitters are carried along neurons in the body) and find that through practices such as meditation, one can strengthen their mind by simply relieving stress (which increases synapse transmission). Is this true or simply hypothetical?

Quote (kegman909650 @ Mon, Dec 22 2008, 02:07am)

Well, one can imagine the toll stress has on your mind and thought process. I didn't really understand your first couple sentences; what was the question?

Quote (Defy_Lucifer @ Mon, 22 Dec 2008, 01:32)

As you stated earlier, there are two "types" of intelligent people: those who put effort and those who simply know it. Now let's say an individual lacks in the memorization or as you said "aptitude department". Now what are some ways humans can increase the brain's capacity to process information? (I heard for example meditation relieves stress and increases a person's capacity to think, thus increasing that type of intelligence)

Quote (Defy_Lucifer @ Mon, Dec 22 2008, 02:32am)

As you stated earlier, there are two "types" of intelligent people: those who put effort and those who simply know it. Now let's say an individual lacks in the memorization or as you said "aptitude department". Now what are some ways humans can increase the brain's capacity to process information? (I heard for example meditation relieves stress and increases a person's capacity to think, thus increasing that type of intelligence)

Quote (kegman909650 @ Mon, Dec 22 2008, 02:41am)

No. What I was saying was aptitude is what you are born with. That's like being born with brown hair. You will always have brown hair, even if you work hard to make it blonde, it's just naturally colored brown hair that is artificially colored blonde. You can always increase your work ethic, memorize more material, and appear more intelligent. But is someone that memorizes an entire math book and knows nothing else smart?