You are certainly generalising, Andrew, I don't know about averaging :-)
But the term average is a fuzzy one, now that you have used subjective
standards and anecdotal examples in your argument. I've never heard of
Gardener or that theory, but I should subscribe to what you describe if only on
the basis of your suggested attributes for intelligent persons. Many of the
intelligent people I know are not even-handed or tolerant. The rude git, the
historian David Starkey comes to mind, or the shrill denier of God, Richard
Dawkins. And I had always thought of "savants" as hugely intelligent, but a
savant is not normally adaptable.
But what do I know, eh?
Chris
On 13 Apr 2011, at 00:03, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>
> But it does seem clear that those we regard as intelligent seem to have
> common features - make up your own list but I'd include things like
> adaptability, quick thinking, even-handedness, tolerance and the like as
> these things are based in careful thought. I'd also expect such a person to
> be good at more than one thing. Now there is a clear, sliding scale that can
> measure these things. Yes I'm hopeless at music, languages and crosswords but
> I'm good in certain other areas so a test would have to measure outside these
> 'good ats' - for instance, the ability to comprehend and assess complex
> scenarios without leaping to faulty or facile conclusions.
>
> That average enough for you Chris? :-)
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|