Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
I was thinking this morning about why David's posts on these sorts of topics grate on people. David's instinct is to define intelligence by reference to competency in STEM subjects, logical reasoning, performance on standardized tests (especially the parts of those tests that purport to measure competency in math and logical reasoning), and processing speed. I suspect that he measures intelligence using these metrics in large part because he believes that he excels in these areas. He gives less weight to creative or emotional intelligence for the same reasons.
I'm sure that grates on a lot of people, but I can tolerate it, perhaps because whatever intelligence I have skews in the direction of logical reasoning, etc., rather than writing novels, so it doesn't strike much of a nerve.
For me, the condescension and shorthand tests for intelligence (which often involve probability problems) are more irritating. For example, David mentioned the Monty Hall problem.
Getting the Monty Hall Problem is not the type of intelligence that I am proud of. Its coming up with a simple explanation for it that virtually anyone can understand. Same with problems like why dealing it twice doesn't change EV. There is an instant simple explanation. But its not clear that your friend would have thought of it. Or, to give a more difficult example that came up a few years ago on this website, a roulette ball bounces one slat clockwise or counterclockwise based on coin flips until it has visited every number. Prove that all numbers, except the original of course, have an equal chance to be the last one visited. The mathematicians and physicists on the forum were either stumped or came up with complicated solutions. I came up with a two sentence solution that required no math. Then there was the time I was told that there was no way to put a poker type game on a poker table. I came up with one that day that eventual sold for thirty million.
So you are wrong that that I undervalue creative intelligence. I think that Deane Kamen is smarter than 99% of math or physics Phds. Being able to learn things quickly and accurately is a talent I am less impressed with. (The very best mathematicians and physicists have both.)
I use probability problems to show off because it is the only math where you don't have to know anything. It takes brilliance to be the first one to realize that ellipses are somehow connected to Fermat but it also takes years of study. I don't even know what a differential equation is. But 99% of those who do know cannot do logic puzzles as well as me or Kamen or Howard Lederer. And THAT's what grates on them. They know 100 times more than me but I still sometimes beat them when the goal mainly requires cleverness.
But with that being said, it is true that I have a lot more respect for those who study STEM type subjects, as opposed to others, regardless of their IQ, for one simple reason. They can't get away with being wrong (with some exceptions.) They get found out. In most other subjects two people can have highly differing views and they will both be accepted. Pretty sweet. And yes, that includes law.