Shakespeare Vs. Einstein

[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.