Shakespeare Vs. Einstein

[samsonite2100]

I've been thinking about intelligence recently. Specifically, what we mean when we say someone is "intelligent" and the relationship between different types of intelligence. IQ tests measure a combination of different traits correlated to intelligence, i.e. spatial reasoning, cognitive ability, knowledge, memory, linguistic ability, and so forth. But what's the easiest shorthand for "intelligence?"

If I had to put forth a very simple answer, I'd say "the ability to make cogent, logical arguments." Mathematical ability, IMO, is most highly correlated to IQ because mathematical proofs are the purest and most objectively testable version of this ability to construct a coherent argument. But linguistic ability usues a lot of the same mechanisms. Writing a convincing academic paper or a good novel require a similar rigorousness of thought and marshalling of one's intellectual power.

Getting to the point, how correlated do you think these types of intelligence are? If we agree that Shakespeare is the greatest writer in the history of the English language, would he also have made a great mathematician? Could Einstein, or Gauss, or whoever, have been good playwrights?

[madnak]

No. There's a clear correlation but a strong indication that they're different abilities.

[drzen]

Not a chance. David Sklansky, although a genius of his own cognisance, would not, I feel, turn out a great sonnet. I doubt that without research he could even explain what a sonnet should consist in, or what would distinguish a good one from a bad one.

[samsonite2100]

Ok, but the fact that he doesn't give a crap about writing sonnets, or even (hypothetically) know what their verse structure is, doesn't mean he couldn't write a good one. It means he's focussed his intellect on other things.

[arahant]

They are different attributes, but it's important to make a distinction within 'linguistic ability'. IQ tests measure pattern recognition and knowledge of language, rather than the sorts of talents that shakespeare (arguably) exhibits. The ability to evoke emotion and empathy (my stab at what makes a good artist) is probably not highly correlated to the things an IQ test measures.

That said, I'm sure there is SOME correlation. Part of the beauty of good writing depends on connotations and associations of language that many people may not even be consciously aware of, and understanding the connections between words should be correlated to measured IQ.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, but the fact that he doesn't give a crap about writing sonnets, or even (hypothetically) know what their verse structure is, doesn't mean he couldn't write a good one. It means he's focussed his intellect on other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The ability to evoke emotion and empathy (my stab at what makes a good artist) is probably not highly correlated to the things an IQ test measures.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were true, wouldn't "great" and "popular" mean the same thing? Hey, there are some reality shows that are better at evoking emotion for the average person than some of the best literature ever written.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The ability to evoke emotion and empathy (my stab at what makes a good artist) is probably not highly correlated to the things an IQ test measures.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were true, wouldn't "great" and "popular" mean the same thing? Hey, there are some reality shows that are better at evoking emotion for the average person than some of the best literature ever written.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. Well...who says they don't mean the same thing? I think there are pieces of literature that are considered great by only the most educated, for example. I mean, Finnegans Wake...show that to most people and they will call it trash if they get past page one. On the flip side, apparently a lot of folks think the davinci code was a good book. It seems to me that art is created for a subset of society for the most part. I think that what we think of as 'great' literature is what really smart people think of as great literature. I don't think that neccesarily makes finegans wake 'better' than the davinci code as art.

And even with shakespeare...yeah, everyone somehow agrees that it is 'great', and we all start reading it in junior high or whatever. But is it really that good? Or is it just something that's fairly accessible? Do you know many people who would actually rather read shakespeare than the latest michael crichton book? (god i hate that mofo /images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

Wow...I started getting my drink on early today, so this may not be coherent:).

[madnak]

I love Shakespeare personally, but that aside.

So aren't you arguing that artistic merit is 100% subjective?

Here's a Sklansky for you - what if I made a bunch of art, but everyone thought it was absolutely terrible. Now imagine that I also happen to have superpowers. I kill everyone who didn't like my art, round up those who liked it best, and make them breed. I keep breeding for appreciation for my art until I've created an entirely new species - each member of which thinks my art is absolutely brilliant.

Now, every sentient being on earth thinks I'm an artistic genius. Am I? Am I artistically on par with all the rest? Am I, perhaps, even better, having worked so hard on my "art" and achieved such universal praise?

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, but the fact that he doesn't give a crap about writing sonnets, or even (hypothetically) know what their verse structure is, doesn't mean he couldn't write a good one. It means he's focussed his intellect on other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying DS would necessarily write good poetry. I'm saying that

1) there's certainly no reason to think he couldn't

and furthermore,

2) that he's probably more likely to be able to write a good sonnet than someone with a 100 IQ.

What I'm curious about is how correlated the two (and other) types of intelligence are.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
They are different attributes, but it's important to make a distinction within 'linguistic ability'. IQ tests measure pattern recognition and knowledge of language, rather than the sorts of talents that shakespeare (arguably) exhibits. The ability to evoke emotion and empathy (my stab at what makes a good artist) is probably not highly correlated to the things an IQ test measures.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, great writing is great b/c of the writer's facility with structure--i.e. being able to marshall characters and themes, and build a structure that is greater than the sum of its parts. This seems to me to be highly correlated with logical ability.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
I love Shakespeare personally, but that aside.

So aren't you arguing that artistic merit is 100% subjective?

[/ QUOTE ]
hmmmmm again...yeah, i believe i am!

[ QUOTE ]

Here's a Sklansky for you - what if I made a bunch of art, but everyone thought it was absolutely terrible. Now imagine that I also happen to have superpowers. I kill everyone who didn't like my art, round up those who liked it best, and make them breed. I keep breeding for appreciation for my art until I've created an entirely new species - each member of which thinks my art is absolutely brilliant.

Now, every sentient being on earth thinks I'm an artistic genius. Am I? Am I artistically on par with all the rest? Am I, perhaps, even better, having worked so hard on my "art" and achieved such universal praise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly, if you hadn't killed everyone who didn't like your art, you'd be a great genius. I guess I consider the greatest artists to be those who create the greatest good for the most people (within the limited realm of art). If you kill anyone who doesn't like your work, you're kind of cheating /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Whether it is 100% subjective or not, I think it's hard to argue that it isn't subjective at all.

This is really moving beyond my bailiwick. I'm sure some philosopher of art has thought this out /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[FortunaMaximus]

Would you consider mathematics an art?

At least for the purposes of this discussion. To make initutive leaps, to tread into undiscovered country has to take a sort of artistic genius.

One thing to consider, at least where iambic pentameter was cocnerned, the Bard had a sense of mathematical rigor, at least in nuance and rhythm.

His ouevre is amazing. So are Einstein's contributions. It might be accurate to consider those two geniuses in a class of their own.

You can weave magic with the English language. The same is true of mathematics.

They each had a passion for their subjects. The same ability to transcend understanding and comprehesion and create probably comes from the same sources.

Some can understand the madness and anger of Hamlet, and the surprised awe of Einstein.

But, yes, they are two different things, at least in expression, but probably not, in source.

[theblackkeys]

Do any of you feel that motor skills are a type of intelligence?

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, but the fact that he doesn't give a crap about writing sonnets, or even (hypothetically) know what their verse structure is, doesn't mean he couldn't write a good one. It means he's focussed his intellect on other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying DS would necessarily write good poetry. I'm saying that

1) there's certainly no reason to think he couldn't

and furthermore,

2) that he's probably more likely to be able to write a good sonnet than someone with a 100 IQ.

What I'm curious about is how correlated the two (and other) types of intelligence are.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the question was "why has he focused his intellect on other areas?" The answer to that is the answer to the question whether he could write a great sonnet.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, but the fact that he doesn't give a crap about writing sonnets, or even (hypothetically) know what their verse structure is, doesn't mean he couldn't write a good one. It means he's focussed his intellect on other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying DS would necessarily write good poetry. I'm saying that

1) there's certainly no reason to think he couldn't

and furthermore,

2) that he's probably more likely to be able to write a good sonnet than someone with a 100 IQ.

What I'm curious about is how correlated the two (and other) types of intelligence are.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the question was "why has he focused his intellect on other areas?" The answer to that is the answer to the question whether he could write a great sonnet.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's money in it?

[Borodog]

Noam Chomsky is very smart, and a brilliant writer, and has an encyclopedic knowledge of many subjects, but his logical abilities are some of the worst I have ever seen. Spectacularly bad. Almost to the point where I think he has a mental defect where it comes to logic. Which makes him particularly dangerous, precisely because he is so intelligent, well spoken, and knowledgeable. Ordinary people, who are not equipped by our public education system to identify even the simplest of logical fallacies, find people like Chomsky very impressive.

The point being that someone can be very intelligent while conspicuously lacking in logical skills.

[Zygote]

intelligence is the ability to accurately describe and predict the information you absorb.

the level of accuracy, given the same information, will dictate the level of intelligence.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, but the fact that he doesn't give a crap about writing sonnets, or even (hypothetically) know what their verse structure is, doesn't mean he couldn't write a good one. It means he's focussed his intellect on other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying DS would necessarily write good poetry. I'm saying that

1) there's certainly no reason to think he couldn't

and furthermore,

2) that he's probably more likely to be able to write a good sonnet than someone with a 100 IQ.

What I'm curious about is how correlated the two (and other) types of intelligence are.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the question was "why has he focused his intellect on other areas?" The answer to that is the answer to the question whether he could write a great sonnet.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's money in it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Was that why?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
The point being that someone can be very intelligent while conspicuously lacking in logical skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

[Kimbell175113]

If the question were about painting or singing, then definitely no. But as many have said, writing drama in iambic pentameter - with very specific goals in each line, scene, whatever - contains a lot more than just pure artistic ability. Shakespeare had to get information to the audience, have characters get information to each other, and find the best way to exploit structure, vocabulary, etc. Same thing with sonnets, basically.

And would it be possible to be an important physicist with only average logical skills, if one had a unique imagination that could conceive of things in new and helpful ways without necessarily figuring them out mathematically first?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]

And would it be possible to be an important physicist with only average logical skills, if one had a unique imagination that could conceive of things in new and helpful ways without necessarily figuring them out mathematically first?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not today. To achieve credibility, the amount of background education required is pretty extensive.

[Kimbell175113]

I should have used a different word than 'skills.'

Let's say we clone Picasso and give him all the background education we decide is necessary for physics-y goodness. Would he be able to get by on that and his own kind of intelligence? would he be better off than a random person? does one kind of intelligence bleed into the others? I think you know what I'm saying.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
Noam Chomsky is very smart, and a brilliant writer, and has an encyclopedic knowledge of many subjects, but his logical abilities are some of the worst I have ever seen. Spectacularly bad. Almost to the point where I think he has a mental defect where it comes to logic. Which makes him particularly dangerous, precisely because he is so intelligent, well spoken, and knowledgeable. Ordinary people, who are not equipped by our public education system to identify even the simplest of logical fallacies, find people like Chomsky very impressive.

The point being that someone can be very intelligent while conspicuously lacking in logical skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious how you can describe Chomsky as "smart and a brilliant writer," while also describing him as having terrible logical ability. Can you elaborate on this? It's an earnest question as I haven't read any of Chomsky's books--just a couple of shortish articles here and there.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
Noam Chomsky is very smart, and a brilliant writer, and has an encyclopedic knowledge of many subjects, but his logical abilities are some of the worst I have ever seen. Spectacularly bad. Almost to the point where I think he has a mental defect where it comes to logic. Which makes him particularly dangerous, precisely because he is so intelligent, well spoken, and knowledgeable. Ordinary people, who are not equipped by our public education system to identify even the simplest of logical fallacies, find people like Chomsky very impressive.

The point being that someone can be very intelligent while conspicuously lacking in logical skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've said more about yourself than about Chomsky, I think. Have you read his work in linguistics?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The answer to that is the answer to the question whether he could write a great sonnet.


[/ QUOTE ]

You should go to the horse's mouth:

[ QUOTE ]

I would have been out of my element a little bit in Sociology or Psychology but not to the point that I couldn't have made up for it with sheer thinking ability. Art or even Literature is a different story.


[/ QUOTE ]

From a DS post in his very own forum.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But is it really that good?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it is. Billy Bob Thornton notwithstanding, the Bard is in the top 2 or 3 all time in lit. Hands down. No question.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious how you can describe Chomsky as "smart and a brilliant writer," while also describing him as having terrible logical ability

[/ QUOTE ]

Writing (as with all arts) is often about creating an emotional attachement with your reader, making them want to continue and to know further the characters and the story. Intriguing characters and stories can make up for deficiency's in other areas (look at the popularity of soaps). These skills translate into non-fiction aswell, getting the reader involved and attaching his mind to the who, what and where makes it pleasureable for the reader and makes him want to continue. However none of this makes the points they are making correct, logical or moral. it makes them effective commuicators of ideas not effective creators of ideas.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Noam Chomsky is very smart, and a brilliant writer, and has an encyclopedic knowledge of many subjects, but his logical abilities are some of the worst I have ever seen. Spectacularly bad. Almost to the point where I think he has a mental defect where it comes to logic. Which makes him particularly dangerous, precisely because he is so intelligent, well spoken, and knowledgeable. Ordinary people, who are not equipped by our public education system to identify even the simplest of logical fallacies, find people like Chomsky very impressive.

The point being that someone can be very intelligent while conspicuously lacking in logical skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious how you can describe Chomsky as "smart and a brilliant writer," while also describing him as having terrible logical ability. Can you elaborate on this? It's an earnest question as I haven't read any of Chomsky's books--just a couple of shortish articles here and there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just read any of his political writings. As an example, he claims to support free speech while also supporting university "speech codes", which is just code for restricting free speech.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Noam Chomsky is very smart, and a brilliant writer, and has an encyclopedic knowledge of many subjects, but his logical abilities are some of the worst I have ever seen. Spectacularly bad. Almost to the point where I think he has a mental defect where it comes to logic. Which makes him particularly dangerous, precisely because he is so intelligent, well spoken, and knowledgeable. Ordinary people, who are not equipped by our public education system to identify even the simplest of logical fallacies, find people like Chomsky very impressive.

The point being that someone can be very intelligent while conspicuously lacking in logical skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've said more about yourself than about Chomsky, I think. Have you read his work in linguistics?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm talking specifically about his politics. See my previous response regarding speech codes.

[madnak]

Nobody is rational when it comes to politics and religion. Or at least, so few people are that we may as well assume none of them are.

[mindflayer]

[ QUOTE ]
If I had to put forth a very simple answer, I'd say "the ability to make cogent, logical arguments." Mathematical ability, IMO, is most highly correlated to IQ because mathematical proofs are the purest and most objectively testable version of this ability to construct a coherent argument. But linguistic ability usues a lot of the same mechanisms. Writing a convincing academic paper or a good novel require a similar rigorousness of thought and marshalling of one's intellectual power.


[/ QUOTE ]
My friends and I had this discussion.
Many of my friends would score well on an IQ test but
we (mostly)do not consider ourselves as Genius. We were trying to beat down on the guy who thought he was a genius because he scored 140+ on some crap test. (we all scored that well and most took the results as meaning we can score well on IQ tests.)

We seperated knowledge (level of education)
from intelligence (level of genius) by the ability to make leaps in level of knowledge/education WITHOUT being educated/taught in that field.

The example we used was Leonardo.
We agreed he would know less than an average college grad in anatomy (working human organs)/physics (mechanical flyin machines) and Astronomy/Math (Planetary orbits).

Yet if he were born today and was educated on these topics to the highest level of current knowledge, he could ADD to the knowledge base by making a NEW theory/discovery in one or more of these areas. THAT we all agreed would take Genius.

Sometimes genius requires the ability to think laterally not logically/or linearly. For example to cure a patient of an illness may require the patient to become "sicker" initially.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Noam Chomsky is very smart, and a brilliant writer, and has an encyclopedic knowledge of many subjects, but his logical abilities are some of the worst I have ever seen. Spectacularly bad. Almost to the point where I think he has a mental defect where it comes to logic. Which makes him particularly dangerous, precisely because he is so intelligent, well spoken, and knowledgeable. Ordinary people, who are not equipped by our public education system to identify even the simplest of logical fallacies, find people like Chomsky very impressive.

The point being that someone can be very intelligent while conspicuously lacking in logical skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious how you can describe Chomsky as "smart and a brilliant writer," while also describing him as having terrible logical ability. Can you elaborate on this? It's an earnest question as I haven't read any of Chomsky's books--just a couple of shortish articles here and there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just read any of his political writings. As an example, he claims to support free speech while also supporting university "speech codes", which is just code for restricting free speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think what you're talking about has more to do with his political biases than his inherent logical ability. I would assume the linguistic theorist responsible for deep structure would make a better mathematician than your average guy on the street, right?

[ QUOTE ]
I should have used a different word than 'skills.'

Let's say we clone Picasso and give him all the background education we decide is necessary for physics-y goodness. Would he be able to get by on that and his own kind of intelligence? would he be better off than a random person? does one kind of intelligence bleed into the others? I think you know what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think he'd make a better physicist than a person picked at random, yes.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious how you can describe Chomsky as "smart and a brilliant writer," while also describing him as having terrible logical ability

[/ QUOTE ]

Writing (as with all arts) is often about creating an emotional attachement with your reader, making them want to continue and to know further the characters and the story. Intriguing characters and stories can make up for deficiency's in other areas (look at the popularity of soaps). These skills translate into non-fiction aswell, getting the reader involved and attaching his mind to the who, what and where makes it pleasureable for the reader and makes him want to continue. However none of this makes the points they are making correct, logical or moral. it makes them effective commuicators of ideas not effective creators of ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're overestimating the "emotional attachment" side of great art and underestimating the logical/structural side. I'm not talking about Dan Brown or John Grisham in the OP. I'm talking about James Joyce, Shakespeare, or Tolstoy. Or for that matter Picasso or Bach.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is rational when it comes to politics and religion. Or at least, so few people are that we may as well assume none of them are.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point, and someone else makes the same one later in the thread. Perhaps the logic centers of his brain are only crippled when it comes to political thinking.

With that, I withdraw from the argument.

[hmkpoker]

"Intelligence" is a logically meaningless term. I mean, you had to make up your own definition of the word to support your argument. Einstein and Shakespeare both excelled in their respective fields, which were very different.

Olympic distance running champion vs. olympic wrestling champion: who's in better shape? It's an inherently meaningless question because "shape" is not defined. Ultimately, the question will be answered by interpretting shape to reflect the answerer's biases, just like intelligence.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
"Intelligence" is a logically meaningless term. I mean, you had to make up your own definition of the word to support your argument. Einstein and Shakespeare both excelled in their respective fields, which were very different.

Olympic distance running champion vs. olympic wrestling champion: who's in better shape? It's an inherently meaningless question because "shape" is not defined. Ultimately, the question will be answered by interpretting shape to reflect the answerer's biases, just like intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not totally meaningless, although I agree that, yes, it is vague at best. As per your example, it would indeed be impossible to say who was in better shape between a marathoner and an olympic wrestler. That said, I think we could not only agree that marathoners and olympic wrestlers are in better shape than the average person, but also that there's some physical correlations between the level of fitness required in both pursuits.

Likewise, I believe there must be some degree of intellectual correlation between the ability to create great art and the ability to do great math/science. Just curious about how much there is.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Noam Chomsky is very smart, and a brilliant writer, and has an encyclopedic knowledge of many subjects, but his logical abilities are some of the worst I have ever seen. Spectacularly bad. Almost to the point where I think he has a mental defect where it comes to logic. Which makes him particularly dangerous, precisely because he is so intelligent, well spoken, and knowledgeable. Ordinary people, who are not equipped by our public education system to identify even the simplest of logical fallacies, find people like Chomsky very impressive.

The point being that someone can be very intelligent while conspicuously lacking in logical skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've said more about yourself than about Chomsky, I think. Have you read his work in linguistics?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm talking specifically about his politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the [censored] does "logic" have to do with politics?


[ QUOTE ]
See my previous response regarding speech codes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see a problem with it. You'll get sacked if you say "kill [censored]" at work too. You don't want to agree not to say "kill [censored]" at school, you can stand outside the front gate and say it there. Chomsky would support your right to do so.

Note that the operative word in the previous paragraph is "agree". The censored word begins with "n".

[Borodog]

I've already conceded the argument; I haven't read Chomsky on what he's known for, which is linguistics, so I probably shouldn't be shooting my mouth off about him.