Rewards and ideas

[Connolly]

EDIT: Let me approach this another way ( I think im better at reacting to things) :P

For capitalists - and those who probably see how deludedet his theory is. Answer the questions.

Where do ideas come from?

Should a person be rewarded for coming up with an idea?

[Publius]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 15, 2007 06:27 pm




Depending on what exactly your position is, then I claim you logically must take one of three positions

Alright, I followed you this far, but I think I lose the trail here...



1) you agree with rewarding people simply for being put into a certain set of circumstances or privilege - and you therefore must logically agree with hereditary governance.

This seems like a complete non sequitur to me.



2) You believe that ideas originate from a persons "genius", intelligence (or generally, the individual directly) - and it must therefore be concluded that those races who have not contributed as much along the lines of advanced inventive ideas are inferior in being. And, also, that the history of development is random (which is plainly rubbish).

First of all, saying that different individuals have different intelligences, or that ideas originate from them, is not saying that races have different intelligences. That, again, just does not follow.

And I don't see how 'the development of history' being random has anything to do with this at all.



3) That you agree that ideas are a result of the circumstances that one finds themselves in and have little to do with individual calbre. Great ideas are not of our choosing, and therefore circumstance should not be rewarded.

Yet again, I cannot see how this follows. Just because ideas are predicated on situations, they should not be rewarded?

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I just really don't understand any of these arguments.



---------------------

Thats what I find so far.

So I find it a contradiction for those who disagree with rewarding privilege to also agree with rewarding ideas. Since ideas are not totally of our own doing.

----------------

Rewarding someone for doing something, for making an invention, for coming up with a new idea is obviously different in nature than rewarding someone for managing to crawl out of a particular birth canal...

I can't even see how you could argue some equivalence here.

One is a case of rewarding identity, which is nonsense, another is a case of rewarding action, which makes perfect sense.



So, as I said, im still formulating my position on it and id like to discuss this - particularly with members of OI.

Shoot.



If you disagree with this.


I'm not sure I understand it.



Where do ideas come from?

From our brains, or rather our minds.



And why should they be rewarded.

To give people an incentive to think up similar ideas. If you reward people for say, coming up with a better way to purify water, people who otherwise wouldn't give a shit about the idea would say "Hmm, I'm a smart guy, I could solve that problem." And then they do, and people are better off because we have a better water purification system. So you reward people as an incentive to do things they might not otherwise do.

[Connolly]

I think I may have approached this wrongly in trying to argue my point.

Ill edit that post and put it another way. Now thats not because I cannot reply to you Publius, but in the interests of getting what im trying to argue across - which may be totaly wrong.



To give people an incentive to think up similar ideas. If you reward people for say, coming up with a better way to purify water, people who otherwise wouldn't give a shit about the idea would say "Hmm, I'm a smart guy, I could solve that problem." And then they do, and people are better off because we have a better water purification system. So you reward people as an incentive to do things they might not otherwise do.

But we cannot just solve problems because we want to, but when conditions permit.

You are saying that a person should be rewarded for something which is not of their own choice and not totally of their own doing. We cannot choose to come up with great ideas - external conditions decide whether an idea is permitted to develop and be successful.

If external conditions permit, an idea will occur anyway to a person - with no choice.

I am arguing that to reward someone for something not of their own choice can be compared to rewarding (or justifying) a persons position as hereditary monarch - which is not of their own choice or doing either.


From our brains, or rather our minds.

Or more specifically, our interaction with the external world.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 15, 2007 06:27 pm
EDIT: Let me approach this another way ( I think im better at reacting to things) :P

For capitalists - and those who probably see how deludedet his theory is. Answer the questions.

Where do ideas come from?

Should a person be rewarded for coming up with an idea?
Capitalist logic dictates that only ideas which make money or benefit the status quo should be rewarded.

[Publius]

I think I may have approached this wrongly in trying to argue my point.

Ill edit that post and put it another way. Now thats not because I cannot reply to you Publius, but in the interests of getting what im trying to argue across - which may be totaly wrong.

We'll see.



But we cannot just solve problems because we want to, but when conditions permit.

That's absolutely correct. But realize this: the reward system itself helps to create those conditions. Think about that.



You are saying that a person should be rewarded for something which is not of their own choice and not totally of their own doing.

If a person chooses to say, study nanotechnology, and makes some brilliant discovery on their own, then they have, by definition, done something of their own choice, by themselves.

So why shouldn't they be rewarded?

Let me put it differently: do you think people who sit on their asses all day and do nothing should be treated EXACTLY the same as people who contribute to society through their ideas? Do you respect them the same? Should you?

The question is obvious, at least to me, and I have a suspicion that you feel as I do.



We cannot choose to come up with great ideas - external conditions decide whether an idea is permitted to develop and be successful.

Of course we can choose to come up with great ideas or not. A person who dedicates his or her life to studying, researching, and developing new technologies WILL get ideas about what they're doing. A person who doesn't study, who sits at home and watches TV and never learns of the subject will NOT get those ideas.

The ideas you have are predicated on what you learn and do, yes, but those involve decisions. So why in the world would not reward people for making the decision to learn?



If external conditions permit, an idea will occur anyway to a person - with no choice.

The choice is indirect. Yes, you don't actually choose to have an idea -- that's an incoherent concept. You'd have the idea before you had the idea to have the idea of having the idea... That self-evidently doesn't make a damn bit of sense, yet that seems to be what you're implying.

No, I don't choose to have the idea that a particular book is about something, I just have it. But I have it because I'm an astute reader, because I've read books like it before, because I know the background, etc.

But I don't see how any of this has any bearing on why I should or should not be rewarded for my scholarship. Here, think of it like this: rewarding people for their idea is just a way of rewarding them for the efficiency of effort they put into something.



I am arguing that to reward someone for something not of their own choice can be compared to rewarding (or justifying) a persons position as hereditary monarch - which is not of their own choice or doing either.

Ideas don't just magically appear, at least not to me. You only get ideas through serious labor and time investment. If you don't reward people for making that investment, who's to say they will?

Yet again you're confusing identity with action.



Or more specifically, our interaction with the external world.

Yes, but to be an idea all of that interaction has to be localized and internalized in the brain/mind.

[Connolly]

That's absolutely correct. But realize this: the reward system itself helps to create those conditions. Think about that.

Not necessarily (now remember you are talking to a communist :P and so I am arguing from my views on labour ).

The position of occupation alone creates those conditions. Money, a big house - or whatever luxuries created on the back of the workers you may think up - do not create the material conditions.

It is the persons occupation and being which generates ideas. Not the rewards.

And arguing from a communist point of view (and im sure youv heard the arguments a million times) - money and material reward - at least, in our view, can be replaced by other motivating factors (not for this discussion) by which a person may want to be a research scientist, or other challenging occupations.


Let me just add also. I think rewarding someone by using the labour of others - at least excessivly - is to descriminate against those who have been incapable of developing such ideas themselves - by virtue of their occupation or other conditions (mental handicap for example).

So it puts those in certain occupations at an economic advantage - if it were the case that they were to be rewarded by the excessive use of the labour of others.


If a person chooses to say, study nanotechnology, and makes some brilliant discovery on their own, then they have, by definition, done something of their own choice, by themselves.

If they have made that discovery - it was not of choice - but of circumstance. Not every scientist, or not everyone wishing to come up with a million dollar idea - actually create anything of use. Despite "wanting". It comes down to circumstance.


Let me put it differently: do you think people who sit on their asses all day and do nothing should be treated EXACTLY the same as people who contribute to society through their ideas? Do you respect them the same? Should you?

Well, I dont think someone should be rewarded with the labour of workers simply because, due to occupation and environmental circumstance - they happen to develop an idea that others - by virtue of their position - are incapable of developing.

Thats rewarding circumstance which favours (and very unpredictably) certain occupations.

And also, the ideas and thoughts of the workers putting the inventive idea into practice are no less worthy of reward.


Of course we can choose to come up with great ideas or not. A person who dedicates his or her life to studying, researching, and developing new technologies WILL get ideas about what they're doing.

Thats simply not true. An engineer may not come up with anything of great significance throughout an entire career (despite wanting to). Or he may come up with something simple - a new improved screw diameter - which - he came up with by virtue of his position.


A person who doesn't study, who sits at home and watches TV and never learns of the subject will NOT get those ideas.

But neither will a super hard working civil servant or medical doctor come up with an idea (at least very unlikely) of significance for a field of engineering.

As I mentioned above - it gives an unfair economic advantage which would reward circumstance - not "hard work" or anything of the sort.

A person who may work extra hard in a field where room for new ideas to develop is minimal, even if that field requires a degree (level of education) - is disadvantaged from a person who - with no education, and works part-time, in a field (or material circumstance) where new ideas are quite likely.


Rewarding "ideas" is - in practice - rewarding circumstance. No better than justifying hereditary monarchs.


The ideas you have are predicated on what you learn and do, yes, but those involve decisions. So why in the world would not reward people for making the decision to learn?

But what you learn and do does not gurantee million dollar ideas - or ideas of any social significance.


The choice is indirect. Yes, you don't actually choose to have an idea -- that's an incoherent concept. You'd have the idea before you had the idea to have the idea of having the idea... That self-evidently doesn't make a damn bit of sense, yet that seems to be what you're implying.

Yes, I can have difficulty reconciling my sort determinist position within this.


But I don't see how any of this has any bearing on why I should or should not be rewarded for my scholarship. Here, think of it like this: rewarding people for their idea is just a way of rewarding them for the efficiency of effort they put into something.

But its not. A scientist may work just as hard - and not come into contact with the external conditions needed to develop an idea.

For example - and I cant remember the details - a scientist working with magnetism conducted an experiment with electricity. He had the apparatus set up in such a way that he could not hear that the magnets needed to be moved around the electric wire in order to understand its effect. He was some distance away in another room. Each time he conductef the experiment - or moved the magnets to a new location around the electric wire - he had to change rooms (maybe bcause the apparatus was so big :huh: ).

Whatever the discovery was, he was very close. Just that he didnt listen for the effect while the magnets were being moved. Maybe due to a small house and needed seperate rooms for the apparatus? Maybe he hadnt a helper at the other end listening for any noise? etc etc

Whatever the reason - it wasnt due to a lack of "brains" - or a lack of work - but simply bad circumstance. Someone else discovered it instead.

Effort, time, work, intelligence really has nothing to do with it when you consider the various historical races to get the patent in for the radio or TV.

Distance to patent office? bad leg? late pay cheque? - all could be reason enough not to "claim" the idea and be rewarded.


Ideas don't just magically appear, at least not to me. You only get ideas through serious labor and time investment.

Not true.


Yet again you're confusing identity with action.

No, im talking about the justification for one mans gain over the labour of anothers.

A circumstantial idea, by your book, is reason enough to live off the backs of the workers. Just as the monarchs - by virtue of circumstance - live off the backs of workers. I think its a fair comparison.


Yes, but to be an idea all of that interaction has to be localized and internalized in the brain/mind.

Which may be disabled - slow - handicapped - not attune to be capable of developing certain ideas (some people are poor at maths for example).

So, again, in the end it comes down to a persons privileged circumstantial position - which they did not choose.

[Connolly]

You have to remember Publius aswell, that a very large portion of discoveries and ideas, both scientific and business in character, which changed the face of the globe - were accidental.

[Publius]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 15, 2007 11:31 pm





Not necessarily (now remember you are talking to a communist :P and so I am arguing from my views on labour ).

Not necessarily, but in actuality.



The position of occupation alone creates those conditions. Money, a big house - or whatever luxuries created on the back of the workers you may think up - do not create the material conditions.

Under communism people wouldn't want to be rewarded? Inventors and thinkers would be perfectly happy getting the same respect and admiration as a couch potato?

I doubt it.



It is the persons occupation and being which generates ideas. Not the rewards.

Ever heard of the X Prize? Awards spur all kinds of scientific research. Ever heard of the MacArthur Fellowship?



And arguing from a communist point of view (and im sure youv heard the arguments a million times) - money and material reward - at least, in our view, can be replaced by other motivating factors (not for this discussion) by which a person may want to be a research scientist, or other challenging occupations.

But we're talking about right now, aren't we?

In a communist society you might be right -- but that's purely hypothetical, fictional.

In the world we live in, there's nothing wrong with rewarding people who do good things, even financially. And that's certainly nothing like Monarchy.



Let me just add also. I think rewarding someone by using the labour of others - at least excessivly - is to descriminate against those who have been incapable of developing such ideas themselves - by virtue of their occupation or other conditions (mental handicap for example).

That might be unfair, but how is it discriminatory?



So it puts those in certain occupations at an economic advantage - if it were the case that they were to be rewarded by the excessive use of the labour of others.


I don't follow this, or the last item, really.



If they have made that discovery - it was not of choice - but of circumstance.



Not every scientist, or not everyone wishing to come up with a million dollar idea - actually create anything of use.

Of course. Which is why we reward people in the first place. That's so obvious, and yet you missed it.


Despite "wanting". It comes down to circumstance.

What do you mean by this? "It comes down to 'a condition, detail, part, or attribute, with respect to time, place, manner,agent, etc., that accompanies, determines, or modifies a fact or event'"

Well, yeah, I have to agree. A person coming up with an idea does come down to a condition, detail, part, or attribute, with respect to time, place, manner,agent, etc., that accompanies, determines, or modifies a fact or event. But I don't see what that has to do with anything at all.



Well, I dont think someone should be rewarded with the labour of workers simply because, due to occupation and environmental circumstance - they happen to develop an idea that others - by virtue of their position - are incapable of developing.

If you're arguing that everyone should receive an equal education, I agree. If you're arguing against exploitation, I again agree. But if you're arguing against reward, period, I have to ask why.



Thats rewarding circumstance which favours (and very unpredictably) certain occupations.

And also, the ideas and thoughts of the workers putting the inventive idea into practice are no less worthy of reward.

I agree. So then why are talking about getting rid of rewards? This all strikes me as very incoherent. Workers should be rewarded too, so let's get rid of rewards? That doesn't make an ounce of sense to me



Thats simply not true. An engineer may not come up with anything of great significance throughout an entire career (despite wanting to).

And who's fault is that? Who is to blame there?


Or he may come up with something simple - a new improved screw diameter - which - he came up with by virtue of his position.

How did he get his position? Rolling dice?



But neither will a super hard working civil servant or medical doctor come up with an idea (at least very unlikely) of significance for a field of engineering.

No shit. And a polar bear won't bake you a cake. And a coffee machine won't turn urine to gold. But what does that have to do with anything?

Medical doctors don't study engineering as a rule. They've CHOSEN not to study it. So what's your point? That doctors aren't engineers?



As I mentioned above - it gives an unfair economic advantage which would reward circumstance - not "hard work" or anything of the sort.

So engineers don't work hard?



A person who may work extra hard in a field where room for new ideas to develop is minimal, even if that field requires a degree (level of education) - is disadvantaged from a person who - with no education, and works part-time, in a field (or material circumstance) where new ideas are quite likely.

Yes, one person was SMART enough to get into a new field, another person was STUPID enough to get into a stagnant one. Now who's to blame for these choices?



Rewarding "ideas" is - in practice - rewarding circumstance.

So doctors are born to be doctors and have no choice to be engineers or computer programmers?

I think I have figured out your idea now, I just don't think it makes any sense.



No better than justifying hereditary monarchs.

So people who choose to be computer engineers and not doctors are,and in turn make huge discoveries and are rewarded for it are, in your mind, feudal lords?

That's ridiculous...



But what you learn and do does not gurantee million dollar ideas - or ideas of any social significance.

You're contradicting yourself.

If that did gurantee million dollar ideas, then it WOULD be due to 'circumstance'. But because it doesn't, it isn't. That's my point. And you agree with it. You made the exact same point I did, in contradiction to your earlier point. Please, clean up your reasoning.



Yes, I can have difficulty reconciling my sort determinist position within this.

You have a confusing determinist position.



But its not. A scientist may work just as hard - and not come into contact with the external conditions needed to develop an idea.

So? A scientist who continually fails to come up with good ideas is a FAILURE of a scientist. How hard he tries doesn't matter one shit to anyone.

Noam Chomsky isn't better than other linguists because he 'tries harder', though might.



For example - and I cant remember the details - a scientist working with magnetism conducted an experiment with electricity. He had the apparatus set up in such a way that he could not hear that the magnets needed to be moved around the electric wire in order to understand its effect. He was some distance away in another room. Each time he conductef the experiment - or moved the magnets to a new location around the electric wire - he had to change rooms (maybe bcause the apparatus was so big :huh: ).

Whatever the discovery was, he was very close. Just that he didnt listen for the effect while the magnets were being moved. Maybe due to a small house and needed seperate rooms for the apparatus? Maybe he hadnt a helper at the other end listening for any noise? etc etc

Whatever the reason - it wasnt due to a lack of "brains" - or a lack of work - but simply bad circumstance. Someone else discovered it instead.

Effort, time, work, intelligence really has nothing to do with it when you consider the various historical races to get the patent in for the radio or TV.

He didn't properly set up the experiment. This may be due to his house or whatever, but it doesn't really matter.

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts we'd all have fucking rotten teeth. So what?



Distance to patent office? bad leg? late pay cheque? - all could be reason enough not to "claim" the idea and be rewarded.


They could be. But that doesn't mean that they always are.



Not true.


You just a very confused, incoherent idea...



No, im talking about the justification for one mans gain over the labour of anothers.

A circumstantial idea, by your book, is reason enough to live off the backs of the workers. Just as the monarchs - by virtue of circumstance - live off the backs of workers. I think its a fair comparison.

Wrong.

Again, you are ignorantly confusing IDENTITY with ACTION. Monarchs take no ACTION to become monarchs, they just ARE. People who DO things take ACTION. Einstein wasn't born knowing relativity, he learned it. That's the difference. It's obvious.



Which may be disabled - slow - handicapped - not attune to be capable of developing certain ideas (some people are poor at maths for example).

So, again, in the end it comes down to a persons privileged circumstantial position - which they did not choose.

Please, for the love of God, restate your thesis as clearly and cogently as you can.

I don't know what it is you're 'against'. Rewards? Determinism? Capitalism? All of the above?

We're both very confused with each other, it's clear to me.

[Publius]

You have to remember Publius aswell, that a very large portion of discoveries and ideas, both scientific and business in character, which changed the face of the globe - were accidental.

Very true.

And a lot were not.

I can admit that some, maybe many, ideas are purely accidental and circumstantial. Why can't you admit that some are the result of talent, effort, and genius?

[Red Tung]

Under communism people wouldn't want to be rewarded? Inventors and thinkers would be perfectly happy getting the same respect and admiration as a couch potato?

I doubt it.

Respect and admiration comes in many forms nobel prize cheques amount are only about $100,000 which is about the same or less than what most doctors and lawyers make in a year, but nobel prize winners are very few with even fewer regarding the prize money as the primary motivation.

Sure, a couch potato might have enough government supplied rations to live on, but in terms of social respect as compared to somebody else doing something constructive or creative? You take a guess.


Of course. Which is why we reward people in the first place. That's so obvious, and yet you missed it.

Only if you think that most technical or scientific discovery are individual efforts which can be shown they are not.

If you read up on the actual history of most inventions, not simply the popular culture assumptions of it you'll find that inventions are actually incremental improvements over earlier developed prototypes that were not as obviously useful. The famous inventors were by chance simply fortunate enough to come up with the incremental improvement at that point in history. Read about the history of the steam engine which was by far the single most important invention leading to industrialization for evidence of this statement being true.

Not that I don't believe in rewarding good works, but let's take things into perspective. The point is I rather have someone eventually come up with an invention or discovery because he was genuinely motivated by the desire to do good work or simply because he enjoys the novelty and challenge of it rather than have it be invented quicker by someone else that is more motivated by money than any noble ideals. The latter case will always lead to bad ends as in patents and copyrights over the invention or discovery to deprive the knowledge or use of the invention to the public for further financial gain.

But, hypothetically this would be impossible in a economy where work is rewarded in proportion to the labour and time put in by the worker as well as free resources harnessed through technology (how do you really propose to reward a handful of workers in a largely automated power generation plant objectively from a resource based perspective?).

[Publius]

Respect and admiration comes in many forms nobel prize cheques amount are only about $100,000 which is about the same or less than what most doctors and lawyers make in a year, but nobel prize winners are very few with even fewer regarding the prize money as the primary motivation.

Sure, a couch potato might have enough government supplied rations to live on, but in terms of social respect as compared to somebody else doing something constructive or creative? You take a guess.


First of all, I don't see where he specified monitary reward. I thought he meant all reward, originally, which he then later contradicted.

I don't know what he actually opposes.

That being said, I understand the value is only partially monetary. That's obvious.



Only if you think that most technical or scientific discovery are individual efforts which can be shown they are not.

If you read up on the actual history of most inventions, not simply the popular culture assumptions of it you'll find that inventions are actually incremental improvements over earlier developed prototypes that were not as obviously useful. The famous inventors were by chance simply fortunate enough to come up with the incremental improvement at that point in history. Read about the history of the steam engine which was by far the single most important invention leading to industrialization for evidence of this statement being true.

Not that I don't believe in rewarding good works, but let's take things into perspective. The point is I rather have someone eventually come up with an invention or discovery because he was genuinely motivated by the desire to do good work or simply because he enjoys the novelty and challenge of it rather than have it be invented quicker by someone else that is more motivated by money than any noble ideals. The latter case will always lead to bad ends as in patents and copyrights over the invention or discovery to deprive the knowledge or use of the invention to the public for further financial gain.

But, hypothetically this would be impossible in a economy where work is rewarded in proportion to the labour and time put in by the worker as well as free resources harnessed through technology (how do you really propose to reward a handful of workers in a largely automated power generation plant objectively from a resource based perspective?).

Good points, all. But I see no justification in any of it to do with rewarding people as a rule, which is what I interpreted the original poster to mean.

[blueeyedboy]

I believe an idea is always steeped in history, meaning that a new idea is always based on the ideas that came before and that a "new idea" is not a stand alone concept but is related to another idea historically. I might not have the same insights Publius and redbanner have on ideas and intelligence and whatnot, this is just my opinion.

Intelligence, I believe, is a way of controlling people by placing them in distinct categories and then they are made to feel either good or bad, depending on if they can solve a stupid maths question or have this or that sort of personality. Don't get me started on what is known as "personality". What is general intelligence? This is not specific, hence the word general meaning that the concept of intelligence isn't concrete and nobody knows what it really is then. Someone having a high IQ means nothing if all they have is general intelligence. There is nothing general you can apply intelligence to, everything is specific. I saw Einstein mentioned in one of Publius's post above I think. Using him as an example, he applied his thought to physics, David Hume applied his thought to philosophy and so on and so forth.

I'm not completely certain if my argument is clear. Could Publius or redbanner guide me in the right direction.

[pusher robot]

Someone having a high IQ means nothing if all they have is general intelligence.

I disagree with that. General intelligence is different than knowledge. Someone can be ignorant, but intelligent. Someone else could be knowledgeable, but unintelligent.

A book has knowledge, but it is not intelligent.

Intelligence is the ability to synthesize, to analyze; to reason to the general from the specific.

[luxemburg89]

A book has knowledge, but it is not intelligent

I can see your point pusher robot BUT a book 'contains' knowledge in its words; it is not knowledgable, as 'having knowledge' suggests. The knowledge that one gains, as a result of reading the book, simply comes from making sense of all the words. A book contains a series of letters, that is all. Perceiving these words as beautiful, informing, or powerful comes form us implying our greater knowledge on the words. Therefore the book itself has no knowledge itself, but it contains possible knowledge, provided we make sense of it. Rather it is better to say that a person who gains knowledge exclusively from a single book is not intelligent, but does have knowledge from that book. Intelligence, in this case, can be seen as building on the knowledge you have gained from reading a book, by simply repeating the words on the page - you are merely book smart. Although a good memory could be seen as one form of intelligence.


Intelligence is the ability to synthesize, to analyze; to reason to the general from the specific.

Yes they are types of intelligence. Psychologists, however, have now produced a list of 8 types of intelligence (though this late at night I cannot remember them all off the top of my head, and don't wanna work on looking for the source lol). The jist of their investigation, and the findings and conclusions (which i fully agree with) is that a footballer (you'll probably call them a soccer player) is more intelligent than an author on the football pitch; on the other hand an author is far more intelligent than a footballer in their own particular field (writing). Although obviously some people can cross over. Also it can be used to dispell the myth that scientists are the most intelligent people. This research shows that scientists are just as intelligent as artists, who are, in turn, just as intelligent as a politician, but simply in their own way. An artist can create a masterpiece (i.e. Picasso painting Guernica) but cannot, probably, create an amazing scientific theory (If Einstein counts - I'm not a scientific person so there may be someone better). I think this research will add to the respect of a civerse range of proffessions and people, and will act as a great leveller for society. That is provided it is accepted, and read.

Similarly Psychologists, in general, cannot agree on a true definition for 'intelligence'. A Psychologist once said to me:

"The only credible definition of intelligence iis that it is 'What intelligence tests claim to measure"

Lol! It's a bit sneaky that one but it left me thinking.

[blueeyedboy]

Intelligence is different from knowledge, but how can you infer from the specific to the general. All intelligence is appled to something, there is nothing general to apply intelligence to. Everything we apply intelligence to is specific, and that specific is what we are currently applying that intelligence to. I agree that a book cannot have intelligence in itself because that's silly. However, we have the ability to develop our intelligence from this book but this depends on multiple factors. We must be reading this book for a reason or else why read it in the first place. We need to have the a priori ability to draw meaningful data from this book, assuming that we wish to actually want to draw meaningful data out of it in the first place. We may just be reading it because someone recommended it to us etc. All I'm saying is intelligence is a subjective concept and I believe that it can't be measured logico-deductively. To say someone has a higher or lower IQ is down to inaccurate standardised tests which are rife with fallacies anyway. Firstly, the researcher is wanting to prove his hypothesis so the test of IQ will be designed to shift the eventual results towards proving this hypothesis. The standardised test has limited questions with which the participant can answer, therefore not providing a full picture of the concept of intelligence in the first place. It may be that a participant may not understand the question with which they have been given, therefore they may answer anything. Finally, this type of experiment only provides a snapshot of time and due to this cannot provide generalisations over a longer time period. In context then, it is only measuring IQ at the particular point in time the IQ experiment is been carried out.

Intelligence to me is just unmeasurable and is bound by what an individual person thinks it is.

[pusher robot]

but how can you infer from the specific to the general.

You observe the the sun rose yesterday and all the days before. You observe that the sun rose today. From these specific events, you reason a general principle: the sun rises every day. That is an act of intelligence. From that you can infer that the sun will rise tomorrow. Thus you have gained knowledge. You can pass the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow to others, and they can gain the knowledge even without the intelligence to independently discover it.

Intelligence may be difficult to measure, but I do think it really exists.

[luxemburg89]

Intelligence may be difficult to measure, but I do think it really exists.


Unfortunately I find myself seeing your point of view - don't get used to it! Intelligence may be impossible to measure but that is not to say it doesn't exist - just that it is really hard to judge. Ronaldinho and Leonardo Da Vinci are equally intelligent, just in their own field, they are using their intelligence to apply their knowledge effectively to perform their respective tasks. From an intellectual point of view there is no contest, Da Vinci, the artist, would be far smarter than Ronaldinho; yet get them on the football pitch and Da Vinci would be useless compared to Ronaldinho. Intelligence is so diverse that it is impossible, and pointless, to measure effectively.

[blueeyedboy]

luxemburg89, I tend to disagree with the concept of multiple intelligences. Let's take your example of Ronaldinho. I believe it isn't intelligence which provides him the ability to be a good footballer. It is talent and natural ability which makes him a good footballer. Also, people are good in more than one field, indicating that talent is not restricted to one thing. Does intelligence provide talent or is it the other way round is another debate which I would like you to answer.

On pusher robot's belief that you can pass knowledge on to others is true, however just because they have received this knowledge, it doesn't necessarily mean they will believe it unless they directly experience the sun rising. Direct experience of something doesn't require intelligence to be able to physically experience something. In your case, looking up in the morning is a pretty effective way of proving your point lol.

In accomodating your point of generalising the principle of the sun rising, isn't the actual generalising of this point a specific act of intelligence. The very fact you are generalising the rising of the sun is a specific act of reasoning, therefore intelligence remains specific to a particular action.

This is an interesting debate and I respect your views. Your posts are well reasoned and I look forward to continuing the debate.

[luxemburg89]

Also, people are good in more than one field, indicating that talent is not restricted to one thing. Does intelligence provide talent or is it the other way round is another debate which I would like you to answer.

Oh certainly. People do not have one type of intelligence, according to this research (and mind I am only quoting the research, not saying whether it is right or wrong). Personally I value 'talent' more than I do what most people perceive to be intelligence. I personally believe talent is somewhere beyond intelligence, as I suppose one can gain intelligence from sources; talent you cannot.