Intelligence is sensed. It cannot be measured.

[iGoontoOrgans]

IQ tests and other similar metrics are all missing the point.

If u intend to "improve ur intelligence" it must be something that u can sense. Not a religious belief about x metric or y metric.

 

[lowtiersubhuman]

IQ tests and other similar metrics are all missing the point.

If u intend to "improve ur intelligence" it must be something that u can sense. Not a religious belief about x metric or y metric.

Ok

 

[iGoontoOrgans]

Ok

For some time I thought I wanted to IQmax. But that isn't what I wanted, and that is why I never ended up doing any IQmaxxing.

 

[lowtiersubhuman]

For some time I thought I wanted to IQmax. But that isn't what I wanted, and that is why I never ended up doing any IQmaxxing.

Ye

 

[notlarpingscott]

Ok

ur avis frying me

 

[gioscottist]

IQ tests and other similar metrics are all missing the point.

If u intend to "improve ur intelligence" it must be something that u can sense. Not a religious belief about x metric or y metric.

It's both, coper
Btw, a study which showed that intelligence could be sensed, also found that it wasn't found attractive

 

[lowtiersubhuman]

ur avis frying me

Idgaf

 

[notlarpingscott]

Idgaf

Im tryna be nice gng what did I do

 

[Ahmed88]

,,IGoonToOrgans" talking abt intelligence

 

[lowtiersubhuman]

Im tryna be nice gng what did I do

Im sorry bro
Your newgen I've had this avid and never changed it

 

[notlarpingscott]

,,IGoonToOrgans" talking abt intelligence

 

[notlarpingscott]

Im sorry bro
Your newgen I've had this avid and never changed it

I’ve known about you since before I even made this account it was just frying me today im autistic

 

[piec]

nigga just scored 98 on an iq test

 

[jizargo]

IQ tests and other similar metrics are all missing the point.

If u intend to "improve ur intelligence" it must be something that u can sense. Not a religious belief about x metric or y metric.

Shut the fuck up nigga
Go fuck some pussy

 

[iGoontoOrgans]

It's both, coper
Btw, a study which showed that intelligence could be sensed, also found that it wasn't found attractive

Anyway, aside from the joke, do you actually imagine that I care whether intelligence is "attractive"? It is useful in it's own right. Not all value in the world is based on being attractive.

 

[lowtiersubhuman]

I’ve known about you since before I even made this account it was just frying me today im autistic

For some reason I thought u were def a march account

 

[gioscottist]

View attachment 4867560

do you actually imagine that I care

Dunno, I dont care about you tbh

 

[notlarpingscott]

For some reason I thought u were def a march account

Nah I was in september but i went to the psych ward so i wasnt on org as much

 

[iGoontoOrgans]

nigga just scored 98 on an iq test

Ok and? That would be above average for most places. Not that it even matters.

BTW I scored over 150 on an official test, so your guess would be incorrect

 

[lowtiersubhuman]

Nah I was in september but i went to the psych ward so i wasnt on org as much

Oh damn hope your good

 

[notlarpingscott]

Oh damn hope your good

I’m better thanks for hoping im good

 

[toji.]

IQ tests and other similar metrics are all missing the point.

If u intend to "improve ur intelligence" it must be something that u can sense. Not a religious belief about x metric or y metric.

You're mixing several things together.

Intelligence is one thing, and knowledge is quite another.

The former refers to the ability to reason, solve problems, learn, and plan.

The latter refers to the notion of knowing an object, a concept, or an idea through familiarity or understanding.

What’s interesting is that the two overlap and tend to interact with each other; those who recognize better ways to solve, for example, a math problem, acquire knowledge and expand their intelligence for similar problems, and so on.

IQ tests attempt to measure this aspect (the ability to solve specific types of problems) as rigorously as possible. I believe that IQ tests do not measure intelligence at a high level, but rather the range pertaining to those unable to contextualize, justify, or even imagine solutions to the problems presented.

That is why intelligence and knowledge are not fixed; that is the mistake many people make: thinking that one is born with a certain level of intelligence that remains constant throughout one’s entire life (not counting those with natural disparities, such as neurological disorders).

Intelligence cannot be felt; it can be measured, but not from a deterministic perspective, rather through the ability to comprehend knowledge. And precisely, assessments and exams are a tool to determine whether you understand something and can deepen your understanding of the problems that arise and the solution, I repeat, is generated solely through a solid understanding of disciplines, objects, and concepts.

 

[Algernon]

IQ tests and other similar metrics are all missing the point.

If u intend to "improve ur intelligence" it must be something that u can sense. Not a religious belief about x metric or y metric.

if it can be sensed, it can be measured

pretty easy, get ~100 people in a room, define intelligence in your own objective way (A person more intelligent then another will ...), then find what makes that way true, after that find a way to make a test which tests the differences in this, make a average and control spread of iq and then scale this up to all people

 

[iGoontoOrgans]

You're mixing several things together.

Intelligence is one thing, and knowledge is quite another.

The former refers to the ability to reason, solve problems, learn, and plan.

The latter refers to the notion of knowing an object, a concept, or an idea through familiarity or understanding.

What’s interesting is that the two overlap and tend to interact with each other; those who recognize better ways to solve, for example, a math problem, acquire knowledge and expand their intelligence for similar problems, and so on.

IQ tests attempt to measure this aspect (the ability to solve specific types of problems) as rigorously as possible. I believe that IQ tests do not measure intelligence at a high level, but rather the range pertaining to those unable to contextualize, justify, or even imagine solutions to the problems presented.

That is why intelligence and knowledge are not fixed; that is the mistake many people make: thinking that one is born with a certain level of intelligence that remains constant throughout one’s entire life (not counting those with natural disparities, such as neurological disorders).

Intelligence cannot be felt; it can be measured, but not from a deterministic perspective, rather through the ability to comprehend knowledge. And precisely, assessments and exams are a tool to determine whether you understand something and can deepen your understanding of the problems that arise and the solution, I repeat, is generated solely through a solid understanding of disciplines, objects, and concepts.

You have a rather scholarly conception of intelligence. This scholarly conception is precisely what I view as unintelligent.

"The former refers to the ability to reason, solve problems, learn, and plan."
These are arbitrary metrics. Perhaps coincidentally useful when comparing humans to eachother, but useless when extended beyond human life. So it cannot be the ultimate understanding of what intelligence is, owing to the idea that it can be said that nonhuman life possesses some form of intelligence.

When u say that intelligence cannot be felt, it seems to me a profound ignorance of the true reality. If we could not sense intelligence, then it must be very unimportant to us. This does not align with how intelligence is generally understood. So the only way this would be possible is if intelligence is defined as something useless, like the inclination to score high on "exams".

 

[iGoontoOrgans]

if it can be sensed, it can be measured

pretty easy, get ~100 people in a room, define intelligence in your own objective way (A person more intelligent then another will ...), then find what makes that way true, after that find a way to make a test which tests the differences in this, make a average and control spread of iq and then scale this up to all people

Ur idea of easy is very different from mine.

Intelligence is not based on what people do, but rather why and how they do what they do.

 

[iGoontoOrgans]

@_MVP_

 

[Lefty Rankin]

IQ tests and other similar metrics are all missing the point.

If u intend to "improve ur intelligence" it must be something that u can sense. Not a religious belief about x metric or y metric.

Yeah, I suck at patterns and doing math. Probably. My brain tells me it's too much of a pain in the ass and if I really need I can just hire someone to do it for me. Either that or just marry a Chinese woman and have her do it for free.

 

[iGoontoOrgans]

Yeah, I suck at patterns and doing math. Probably. My brain tells me it's too much of a pain in the ass and if I really need I can just hire someone to do it for me. Either that or just marry a Chinese woman and have her do it for free.

Same. I failed my math classes. I liked math as a kid when it was simple things like operational problems but grew to hate it with a passion.

 

[toji.]

You have a rather scholarly conception of intelligence. This scholarly conception is precisely what I view as unintelligent.

"The former refers to the ability to reason, solve problems, learn, and plan."
These are arbitrary metrics. Perhaps coincidentally useful when comparing humans to eachother, but useless when extended beyond human life. So it cannot be the ultimate understanding of what intelligence is, owing to the idea that it can be said that nonhuman life possesses some form of intelligence.

When u say that intelligence cannot be felt, it seems to me a profound ignorance of the true reality. If we could not sense intelligence, then it must be very unimportant to us. This does not align with how intelligence is generally understood. So the only way this would be possible is if intelligence is defined as something useless, like the inclination to score high on "exams".

Look, saying that a structured, analytical definition of intelligence is “unintelligent” sounds like some super-deep philosophy, but at its core, it’s just anti-intellectualism in disguise. Let me explain why I think your arguments fall apart when we look at them closely:

You’re forgetting about other species; you say that things like reasoning, problem-solving, or planning are “made-up metrics” that are useless beyond human life. That’s not understanding how biology works. Scientists measure animal intelligence using exactly those metrics. Think of crows solving puzzles to get water, octopuses opening jars, or a herd planning a hunt. That is literal learning and problem-solving in other species. They aren’t “our inventions”, they are evolutionary survival mechanisms.

You argue that “if we can’t sense intelligence, then it must not be that important.” That’s a giant logical leap. Biologically, we are incapable of “sensing” carbon monoxide, ultraviolet radiation, or our own blood pressure, and yet these are things that control our survival and physical reality. Human intuition (what you call “feeling”) fails a lot and is full of biases. Relying on a “vibe” or a subjective feeling to define intelligence isn’t arriving at a profound truth, it’s basically believing that only what you perceive exists.

I myself made it crystal clear what the limitations of intelligence tests (IQ) are, and explained that they often fall short when it comes to measuring more complex things like imagination or context. But you chose to ignore that nuance on purpose and reduced my entire point to the claim that supposedly “I only care about test scores.” That’s a textbook straw man argument designed to avoid addressing the actual point.

At the end of the day, intelligence isn’t some mystical aura that you “feel” someone has. It’s a real, demonstrable, and objective ability to adapt to, understand, and navigate the environment. If you define intelligence based purely on what your subjective emotions tell you, you’re not actually defining intelligence… you’re just describing your own biases.

 

[Notcel]

Youre correct, its annoying though that my speaking patterns/verbal capabilities are severely limited

 

[iGoontoOrgans]

Look, saying that a structured, analytical definition of intelligence is “unintelligent” sounds like some super-deep philosophy, but at its core, it’s just anti-intellectualism in disguise. Let me explain why I think your arguments fall apart when we look at them closely:

Maybe Im imperceptive, but i cant tell if ur using AI or if ur thought patterns have just become similar to AI

You’re forgetting about other species; you say that things like reasoning, problem-solving, or planning are “made-up metrics” that are useless beyond human life. That’s not understanding how biology works. Scientists measure animal intelligence using exactly those metrics. Think of crows solving puzzles to get water, octopuses opening jars, or a herd planning a hunt. That is literal learning and problem-solving in other species. They aren’t “our inventions”, they are evolutionary survival mechanisms.

I understand this concept. Considering crows, octopuses, apes, dolphins, etc more intelligent than the rest of animals because they happen to possess intellectual traits that in some ways resemble human intellectual traits. This is what I see as strange.

You argue that “if we can’t sense intelligence, then it must not be that important.” That’s a giant logical leap. Biologically, we are incapable of “sensing” carbon monoxide, ultraviolet radiation, or our own blood pressure, and yet these are things that control our survival and physical reality. Human intuition (what you call “feeling”) fails a lot and is full of biases. Relying on a “vibe” or a subjective feeling to define intelligence isn’t arriving at a profound truth, it’s basically believing that only what you perceive exists.

Whatever u say boss

I myself made it crystal clear what the limitations of intelligence tests (IQ) are, and explained that they often fall short when it comes to measuring more complex things like imagination or context. But you chose to ignore that nuance on purpose and reduced my entire point to the claim that supposedly “I only care about test scores.” That’s a textbook straw man argument designed to avoid addressing the actual point.

OK IQ tests dont address imagination or context. I never refuted that point. Its irrelevant to me

At the end of the day, intelligence isn’t some mystical aura that you “feel” someone has. It’s a real, demonstrable, and objective ability to adapt to, understand, and navigate the environment. If you define intelligence based purely on what your subjective emotions tell you, you’re not actually defining intelligence… you’re just describing your own biases.

Yeah of course intelligence is real. No shit sherlock. That doesnt mean we can easily define or measure it.

 

[iGoontoOrgans]

Youre correct, its annoying though that my speaking patterns/verbal capabilities are severely limited

My verbal ability is good when Im typing over the computer. During real life conversations, it collapses into imbecility.

 

[toji.]

Maybe Im imperceptive, but i cant tell if ur using AI or if ur thought patterns have just become similar to AI


I understand this concept. Considering crows, octopuses, apes, dolphins, etc more intelligent than the rest of animals because they happen to possess intellectual traits that in some ways resemble human intellectual traits. This is what I see as strange.



Whatever u say boss



OK IQ tests dont address imagination or context. I never refuted that point. Its irrelevant to me



Yeah of course intelligence is real. No shit sherlock. That doesnt mean we can easily define or measure it.

Problem-solving is not inherently human. Species have survived natural selection solely because of their ability to solve problems (survival).

We don’t have beaks, but crows are capable of moving food with their beaks to eat it. That is intelligence (problem-solving ability). An increase in the complexity or differentiation of the context allows for adaptability and an improvement in intelligence (usually through trial and error).

By the way, if we couldn’t measure intelligence, how could you determine who is more intelligent than another person?

 

[toji.]

By the way, truly foolish people are those who are afraid of failure and unable to learn from their mistakes. Those who give up in the face of failure never learn, never gain knowledge, and have less intelligence (fewer problem-solving skills). Intelligence and knowledge lie in overcoming the fear of failure and in adaptability. The only thing this post and your responses reflect is an inability to overcome failures and mistakes. I used to do just okay in math in high school, and when I got to college, I realized it was only because of an incorrect approach to math problems and the way I studied them. After I fully understood how to tackle and understand math problems, I aced precalculus and calculus.

 

[Notcel]

My verbal ability is good when Im typing over the computer. During real life conversations, it collapses into imbecility.

Thats the same issue I have

 

[iGoontoOrgans]

Problem-solving is not inherently human. Species have survived natural selection solely because of their ability to solve problems (survival).

We don’t have beaks, but crows are capable of moving food with their beaks to eat it. That is intelligence (problem-solving ability). An increase in the complexity or differentiation of the context allows for adaptability and an improvement in intelligence (usually through trial and error).

By the way, if we couldn’t measure intelligence, how could you determine who is more intelligent than another person?

Of course problem solving isnt inherently human. Im saying its an arbitrary trait that we happen to specialize in. Not to mention the way we define "problem" and "solving" are very human-centered

I may not be able to determine who is most intelligent. And am willing to accept this if so. Nature will decide, not me.

 

[iGoontoOrgans]

By the way, truly foolish people are those who are afraid of failure and unable to learn from their mistakes. Those who give up in the face of failure never learn, never gain knowledge, and have less intelligence (fewer problem-solving skills). Intelligence and knowledge lie in overcoming the fear of failure and in adaptability. The only thing this post and your responses reflect is an inability to overcome failures and mistakes. I used to do just okay in math in high school, and when I got to college, I realized it was only because of an incorrect approach to math problems and the way I studied them. After I fully understood how to tackle and understand math problems, I aced precalculus and calculus.

Nature is all about learning from mistakes.

 

[iGoontoOrgans]

Thats the same issue I have

Well autists like us probably dont have much experience talking irl. or when we do its not something that actually hones our ability but may even act to keep it dull.

 

[toji.]

Of course problem solving isnt inherently human. Im saying its an arbitrary trait that we happen to specialize in. Not to mention the way we define "problem" and "solving" are very human-centered

I may not be able to determine who is most intelligent. And am willing to accept this if so. Nature will decide, not me.

All species that have survived over thousands of years have specialized in problem-solving.

While the concepts of “problem” and “solution” are distinctly human, they are something all species can understand: when a need arises (such as hunger, for example) and is satisfied, it serves as a reward (precisely a solution) and this applies to all species.

Actually, the fact that we are at the pinnacle of the trophic pyramid reflects only one thing: “Humans are the most intelligent species on Earth.”

We were able to survive and dominate other species, developing the capacity for abstraction and planning, which makes us more intelligent than the early species of Homo sapiens. This allows us to measure intelligence through a comparative scale and technical development throughout history.

From fire to the construction of the railroad, various metrics emerge that allow us to comparatively elucidate intelligence among species.

We have built up a body of knowledge, according to Schutz; that is, we are born into a world with a history, a human history full of failures and successes from which we can learn and create new solutions.

Do you understand? Intelligence is not something uniquely human; it is the development of solutions to multiple problems and diverse contexts. The more one knows, the greater their ability to solve problems, and the greater their intelligence.

 

[iGoontoOrgans]

All species that have survived over thousands of years have specialized in problem-solving.

While the concepts of “problem” and “solution” are distinctly human, they are something all species can understand: when a need arises (such as hunger, for example) and is satisfied, it serves as a reward (precisely a solution) and this applies to all species.

Actually, the fact that we are at the pinnacle of the trophic pyramid reflects only one thing: “Humans are the most intelligent species on Earth.”

We were able to survive and dominate other species, developing the capacity for abstraction and planning, which makes us more intelligent than the early species of Homo sapiens. This allows us to measure intelligence through a comparative scale and technical development throughout history.

From fire to the construction of the railroad, various metrics emerge that allow us to comparatively elucidate intelligence among species.

We have built up a body of knowledge, according to Schutz; that is, we are born into a world with a history, a human history full of failures and successes from which we can learn and create new solutions.

Do you understand? Intelligence is not something uniquely human; it is the development of solutions to multiple problems and diverse contexts. The more one knows, the greater their ability to solve problems, and the greater their intelligence.

sure, id like to believe we humans are smarter than all animals too. but i cant help but feeling a bit foolish if i raise my ego that high.

 

[toji.]

“I know that I know nothing.” Docta ignorantia. I’ll repeat what I said earlier: the capacity for intelligence depends solely on accepting failure and error, and then building a solution from there.