Howard Gardner argued that there was not one, but seven different intelligences. Each one can be exemplified by a historical Genius who changed the trajectory of history:
Logical Mathematical
Newton, revolutionized math, physics and astronomy
Verbal
Shakespeare: Wrote beautiful things
Spatial
Wright Brothers: Turned humanity into a flying species
Social
Oprah: Led millions of sexual abuse survivors to recovery, mainstreamed discussion of taboo topics like gays, got millions of couch potatoes to read literature, and put a black family in the White House
Intrapersonal
Buddha: helped us find inner peace
Musical
Mozart: created the world’s greatest music
Bodily-kinesthetic
Bruce Lee: despite being short and slim and coming from a population with slower movement speed, was able to physically defeat anyone on Earth.
One intelligence or many?
If there are seven different intelligences, why do IQ tests mostly just measure the first three (or four) with some only measuring the first?
As my high school Chemistry teacher told me so many years ago, “when you talk about intelligence, there are so many different parts to it…if you want a single umbrella to cover all of intelligence” (stretching out his arms to convey the vastness of it, “then it’s the ability to adapt: to take whatever situation you’re in, and turn it around to your advantage. That’s really what intelligence is”
Those words are burned into my brain.
So it’s mostly the first half of these intelligences (logical, verbal, spatial and perhaps social) that have helped us adapt as a species and turned the World to our advantage. Without the logical ability to create science, the spatial ability to create technological and the verbal/socal ability to communicate, we’d still be in the stone age. The other intelligences are useful, but perhaps not as much as the first three or four, so it’s not surprising that the Wechsler IQ tests have empathized logical-mathematical ability (Arithmetic, Matrix Reasoning, Figure Weights), verbal ability (Vocabulary, Similarities), spatial ability (Block Design, Object Assembly) , social understanding (Comprehension, Picture Arrangement). Only one subtest measures bodily-kinesththetic (Digit-Symbol), and none have ever measured intrapersonal or musical talents.
And notice that the most useful abilities seem to load most on the general factor of all cognitive abilities known as g. Perhaps g is simply how much of the brain an ability uses, and the abilities using more of the brain must have been useful or expensive brain mass would not have evolved to support them.
And the most g loaded ability of all is abstract reasoning and that’s also the most adaptable because the abstract transcends the specific context and allows you to solve a problem in universal form. Knowing one apple plus one apple equal two apples allows you to thrive in the orchard. but knowing x + y = z allowed us to leave our African Garden of Eden and reach for the starts.
If you’re good at math, then you are good at logic, and it you’re good at logic, you can be good at almost everything, because the universe is intrinsically logical.
Pumpkin Person 
i agree with this sentiment.
best is you can hear you have some fatal cancer and you just shrug…
(like max baer)
because you’ve trained yourself/disciplined yourself to never feel.
not to be a woman.
women are infantilized.
Basic Cognitive Architecture
Anime, you seem like a very visual thinker. I can tell that diagrams, videos, and things of that nature seem to stimulate you. I think you have an amazing imagination as well. Try using that broad spectrum of thought that you have to visually enhance your life.
[redacted by pp, feb 24, 2019]
My volunteering experiences were extensive when I was 14 and 15, but then I moved on to doing some other things, like acting and stuff.
“ability to ADAPT” = being a SOCIOPATH
Ability to adapt to WHATEVER situation you’re in. Just because one can adapt to being a sociopath with evil goals does not mean one can adapt to being a saint with moral goals.
[redacted by pp, Feb 24, 2019]
maybe i don’t like to adapt
Then that’s the situation you’re adapting to. You can’t not like to adapt, because the very desire not to adapt is itself a goal you’d like to adapt to.
I agree with most of what you wrote but I have always had an issue with this idea that intelligence is simply the ability to adapt. I think that does not do justice to intelligence, it does leave room for sociopathy to be considered a form of intelligence(trust me I know people that do make the connection) and it is lacking as an idea as it can only be interpreted in a social context or a life management context.
I prefer the idea that intelligence is a measure of one’s ability absorb information, effectively process and categorize it, retain it and use it to solve problems. I know it doesn’t sound as sexy as the “ability to adapt” but if we had to shorten it then I think “problem solving ability” far better captures what intelligence is.
Now you could argue that part of adapting is the ability to solve problems but do we really “adapt” when we sit down to take a test? Not really, if anything we are applying already existing knowledge and problem solving abilities perhaps the very antithesis of adapting.
So IMO problem solving could be used as a short and sweet way of capturing what classical notions of IQ is all about while adapting could be used as a short and sweet way of capturing what intra and interpersonal IQ is all about possibly even kinaesthetic too. But at the end of the day isn’t adapting just a more broad socially conventional way of saying problem solving? The very act of adapting is in essence coming up with a solution to a problem usually pertaining to a social context.
The definition of adapt:
adapt
verb
1. make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose; modify.
“hospitals have had to be adapted for modern medical practice”
2. become adjusted to new conditions.
“a large organization can be slow to adapt to change”
Now one could argue what is the best way to conceptualize the idea of intelligence in as much as it helps in our survival and in that context perhaps adapt better captures the survival aspect of intelligence. After all would you rather be right about something(ie a good problem solver) or alive(exceptional at adapting to your surroundings). Adapt doesn’t care about being right, it only cares about being alive and well. So while I don’t mind adapt and perhaps even value it in certain contexts I don’t think it does a good enough job at tapping into what intelligence is fundamentally about.
Anyway, just my two cents.
I agree that people associate adaptability with sociopathy, but that’s partly because ethics seem dumb to people who don’t have them. A sociopath would say it’s stupid to pay for something when you can simply steal it.
My view is that the sociopath is not more adaptable, he just has an easier situation to adapt to because he’s not burdened by moral considerations.
I use problem solving ability and adaptability interchangeably, but I sometimes prefer adaptability because:
1) it unifies all of intelligence into a single coherent entity. You can have many different kinds of problem solving abilities (mathematical, verbal, spatial) but you can’t truly have many different kinds of adaptability because adaptability by definition transcends domains.
2) it implies intelligence is the ultimate evolutionary adaptation since it’s the ability to adapt itself and may help explain why more evolved organisms are bigger brained
3) it gets to the heart of what makes us human. We’re the most intelligent species and arguably the most adaptable species in that we can live in so many different environments, and with genetic engineering, control our own evolution. Despite lacking the adaptations of other animals (size, strength, speed, claws) we were able to adapt the situation to our advantage and conquer them all.
I just find it more poetic but I understand why you might not like it because it’s kind of vague, imprecise and ambiguous.
I like the word adaptability for all the reasons you mentioned(good job btw) but that is as you said a more poetic perspective and there in lies the problem. This implies that it is up to interpretation. If one takes a more pessimistic cynical stance(ie less poetic) they can readily interpret it to just mean survival of the fittest, morals be damned. According to the conventional interpretation of the word a chameleon could be considered the epitome of an adaptable creature. It evades predators by blending into the environment. How much intelligence does that require though? It may be efficient but a creature that is quick and can think of more complex ways of finding solutions may in fact be the more intelligent animal and require the bigger brain.
Now a truly intelligent person would understand that high moral standards will serve their “adaptability” the best in the long run therefore implying that a sense of morality is inherent to adaptability but that is only true because we as a society have decided that this is how it aught to be. One could easily envision a society that does not operate that way.
In order to make my perspective a little more easy to understand consider the following example. Two university students need to pass a final exam to get their degree. One chooses to study for the test and another decides that the better route would be to cheat by concocting an elaborate plan. Both manage to pass with flying colours. One put in many hours of studying while the other spent half an hour coordinating with his techy accomplice who would feed him the answer via an earpiece and a micro-cam embedded in his glasses. The cheater gets away with it absolutely clean. Now which of the two would you consider more intelligent? According to the adaptability definition of intelligence the cheater is far more intelligent, he only put in a fraction of the time of the other and got the same grade. By that definition in terms of effort-to-results ratio, the cheater is far more intelligent. However if one looks at effort-to-results ratio from the perspective of my definition of intelligence(the ability to assimilate and categorize information and retain it for the purpose and ability in and of itself of optimally solve problems, implying that time and efficiency are critical components) then the studious student is by far the more intelligent or at least has exhibited more intelligence while if we were generous we would assert that the cheater displayed more cunning. I think problem solving gets to the crux of the issue of what intelligence is about, adaptability conjures up a far more convoluted, nebulous, and open to interpretation understanding of what intelligence is.
Now this does not mean that someone who subscribes ot my definition cannot be an immoral person(in fact my definition says nothing about morality) but it does relegate intelligence solely to the cerebral, to the absolute output of one’s brain in terms of task orientated problem solving ability and performance. Cheating is not task orientated at least not fully as it involves external aid or some kind of illegal shortcut.
Having said that I actually share the poetic notion of adaptability that you have and certainly subscribe to it but when we look at the nuts and bolts of intelligence “problem solving ability” describes it to a T while adaptability is a broader contextualized social/life management application of intelligence whose ultimate meaning implies furthering one’s self interests well being and survivability. In a very crude example one could say that “problem solving ability” is akin to the raw figures of displacement, torque and power output of an engine and “adaptability” could be seen as how many cars could that engine be fitted to and what is the real world applicability of that engine.
I like the word adaptability for all the reasons you mentioned(good job btw)
Thank you!
but that is as you said a more poetic perspective and there in lies the problem. This implies that it is up to interpretation. If one takes a more pessimistic cynical stance(ie less poetic) they can readily interpret it to just mean survival of the fittest, morals be damned. According to the conventional interpretation of the word a chameleon could be considered the epitome of an adaptable creature. It evades predators by blending into the environment. How much intelligence does that require though?
Well when one says the ability to adapt, the next question is, adapt to what? As I mentioned in the article you’re adapting the situation you’re in to your advantage. So from one perspective, the chameleon is adapting the situation to his advantage, but on another level, he’s just in an extremely adaptable situation (i.e. being in a colour changing body). You might say your body is part of you so it makes no sense to separate your adaptability from your body’s. A theologian however might say your body is just a vessel, and that the essence of you might come back in the next life as a chameleon.
As an agnostic I don’t believe that, but when people say adapt your situation to your advantage, the you in “your” may refer to the essence of you, and the situation may refer to the the body you’re in, the desires you feel, the external environment.
Of course if I wanted to be more scientific and precise, I’d just say “intelligence is the ability to adapt whatever body and environment you’re in to whatever goals you have”, but when being brief, I’d just “ability to adapt (situations to your advantage)”
In order to make my perspective a little more easy to understand consider the following example. Two university students need to pass a final exam to get their degree. One chooses to study for the test and another decides that the better route would be to cheat by concocting an elaborate plan. Both manage to pass with flying colours. One put in many hours of studying while the other spent half an hour coordinating with his techy accomplice who would feed him the answer via an earpiece and a micro-cam embedded in his glasses. The cheater gets away with it absolutely clean. Now which of the two would you consider more intelligent? According to the adaptability definition of intelligence the cheater is far more intelligent, he only put in a fraction of the time of the other and got the same grade. By that definition in terms of effort-to-results ratio, the cheater is far more intelligent.
But in terms of total cost/benefit ratio, the non-cheater might come out ahead because he’s not burdened by guilt or fear of getting caught and actually learned the material. Of course the cheater might be a sociopath and thus not feel guilt, but my interpretation is that being a sociopath is not part of his adaptability, but part of the situation he’s adapting to. So if one’s a sociopath and one’s not, you’re comparing people adapting to do different situations (as I would interpret it).
I think problem solving gets to the crux of the issue of what intelligence is about, adaptability conjures up a far more convoluted, nebulous, and open to interpretation understanding of what intelligence is.
But even problem solving ability can be problematic, because a sociopath would say the cheater solved the problem more efficiently, because for them guilt is not a problem.
the ability to assimilate and categorize information and retain it for the purpose and ability in and of itself of optimally solve problems, implying that time and efficiency are critical components
One problem I have with this definition is it includes too many separate abilities. What if I can assimilate but can’t categorize? What if I can categorize but can’t retain? A friend’s mother once gave the most succinct definition of intelligence I’ve ever heard: “to synthesize information usefully”
Having said that I actually share the poetic notion of adaptability that you have and certainly subscribe to it but when we look at the nuts and bolts of intelligence “problem solving ability” describes it to a T while adaptability is a broader contextualized social/life management application of intelligence whose ultimate meaning implies furthering one’s self interests well being and survivability.
Adaptability is more poetic, but problem-solving is less selfish sounding. Both have their pros and cons so depending on the context, one definition might be better than the other. Ultimately verbal definitions are less important than how we actually measure something which is why one psychologist defined intelligence as whatever IQ tests test.
Another example of adaptability being a problematic descriptor of intelligence is the following. Consider someone who argues for polyamory and promiscuity and another argues for monogamy and meaningful sexual partnerships. The former could quite readily argue from the perspective of adaptability that his stance is by far the more intelligent and progressive approach. It irequires the ability to process and cope with all sorts of social norms and feelings of jelousy in oneself and others. In other words the promiscuous person is the more intelligent person as they are far better at adapting and navigating the sexual/relationship landscape. The latter could be seen as morally archaic monolythic and inflexible. Of course anyone with any sense in them would realize that there are far reaching consequences of promiscuity(particularly cheating) and the topic is far more complicated than it seems and that the other person was incredibly naive and irresponsible in their approach while masking it with a supposed high value quality of adaptability. So you see my problem is that adaptability lends itself to these sorts of intepretations. I’m not entirely opposed to adaptability in fact I’m mostly sold on it as long as it is seen through a well thought out and moral lens.
I read your blog for a couple of years, and you have mentioned your high school chemistry teacher and the adaptation definition at least twenty times. I’m beginning to think that is for SEO purposes or something.
I have always had an issue with intelligence being defined as ability to adapt. By that measure, chameleon is far more intelligent than any human, because he can change his freaking color to adapt to the surroundings and survive in presence of predators. A trivial example, but it shows the lacks of such a definition: it is to vague and open to interpretation.
Google says it’s Howard Gardner, not Gardener. This story of seven different intelligencies sounds like nonsense to me. Musical intelligence? Why not the painting one? Also, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence?!? Bruce Lee was pretty much an exception, a lot of boxing champions are on the edge of being mentally retarded. Garry Kasparov in his prime has stated that his IQ was above average, but nothing special. So, he was the best chess player of his time (and many would say of all times) beacuse of… his chess intelligence?
For many decades now, the (deliberate?) attempts to relativize and obscure the meaning of intelligence have included putting specific talents and skills under that definition, talents and skills that have no apparent connection with the person’s ability to reason: physical coordination, social skills, intensity of imagination etc.
If there is a need to broadly define intelligence, and I think there is, my opinion is that the best formulation would be
*** capability of abstract logical reasoning ***
Both “abstract” and “logical” are essential here. Picasso’s paintings were pretty abstract, but he was not using cold hard logic in creating them, utilizing instead his imagination and artistic sense. On the other hand, every person uses logic in everyday life (if I don’t get up I will be late for work) but if it is not abstract it typically involves using experience or examples from surroundings – not any kind of thinking per se.
I have always had an issue with intelligence being defined as ability to adapt. By that measure, chameleon is far more intelligent than any human, because he can change his freaking color to adapt to the surroundings and survive in presence of predators. A trivial example, but it shows the lacks of such a definition: it is to vague and open to interpretation.
But a chameleon can’t live in as many environments as people can. From one perspective, yes a chameleon is extremely adaptable, but from another perspective, a chameleon is not adaptable, but just has a very adaptable situation to adapt to. Remember, my chemistry teacher said “whatever situation you’re in”. Having a body that changes color is part of the chameleon’s situation, not part of its ability to adapt there to. It’s your ability to adapt, not your body’s. Yes your body is part of you, but interpreting the definition correctly requires an almost religious separation of the two.
Pumphead,
You’re believing people on polyamorous approach are promiscuous and promiscuous people are always [the way you said] always sexually irresponsible.
Cheating happens commonly among monogamous couples. In my view, for many humans would be better if they had more than one partner. Monogamy is the extension of capitalistic mindset of individual property. At priori, everyone like to have their own ”things” and it’s not morally reprehensible.
The problem in promiscuity is the non-isolation of super-irresponsible, the first and big vectors of STDS. If these people were isolated from another groups or if promiscuous individuals created ”closed groups”, at priori, don’t appear to be risky.
Morality is not moralism. All moral stuff is based on the idea of adaptation and or stability and or balance.
Moralism is the use of fake or archaic philosophy [religion] to force people to behave in certain ways, but often not based on individual needs and compatibility with their subjective stability or balance.
It’s impoderated to force people to behave in ways they don’t born to.. for example
And, fundamentally, all religions are based on sociology, what sociology write today, that people’s behaviors are extremely sensitive to environment and easily changeable with social engineering [what themselves do]…
People only change their minds if their minds have some prediposition to be changed by self-convincing + favorable circumstances, but even circumstances, will not be stronger to affect people without the first and fundamental factor.
If my nonexistent son watch a movie where two guys kiss one each other he will not be influenced and not likely to become homossexual or to become sexually instigated. It’s doens’t happen in that way. Only if my son push his father.
Many conserfs hate sociology but they are, all the time, thinking in sociological ways when they dislike certain cultural aproximations.
kurt franz and adolf eichmann “adapted”.
that is, they were just careerists within the nazi state and might’ve been nobodies in weimar.
the point is…if one makes “adapting” per se a value then this is a license to do evil.
and i have encountered such people…and they were evil.
they use the just-so story of darwinism to JUSTIFY doing evil shit, and then…
they claim those who won’t substitute darwin for the lord are dumb.
I agree that Darwinian adaptation for its own sake is evil, but that’s a very concrete interpretation of adaptability.
I don’t think Darwinism is just limited to reproducing the most. I think there exists a qualitative aspect as well, particularly the skills and talents to create culture.
Intelligence is the fundamental ability for any living being to recognize facts and patterns of its reality, which mean knowledge, and use it to adapt.
Behavior is divided in performance and judgment.
Intelligence itself is the performance, the act, while rationality is the judgment of its act.
Nonhuman living beings no have differentiated the performance over the judgment, so why they are instinctive or intuitive.
if you ever think to yourself, “how can i adapt?” then you’re being a sociopath.
Or you’re just a meat-headed moron who’s watched one too many motivational videos
interesting that even then some grokked that he was the capi of horses.
A FREAK!
Another perfect post without bias keep it up! Also i’m humbly awaiting your analysis on Aleister Crowley.
why won’t peepee post this vid?
why do professors shoe and cockring FEAR this vid?
because it shows HBD is 100% BULLSHIT FOR DUMB PEOPLE.
I think that people in the 1800s used to be a lot more neurotic than we are today. Genius is filled with neuroses that comes along with being capable of broadening your scope interest beyond just your life.
I think otherwise, people became more neurotic when they reach better levels of economic well being. People, in that time, is likely to be more fatalistic, but tamed/normal people are the same whatever the period of historical time.
I think people who are monotonous scream autistic. I have a lot of tonality and emotion in my voice so people know I’m not autistic. I do backtrack a lot with my thoughts, though. I guess I’m a perfectionist when it comes to receiving feedback from other people.
“Perhaps g is simply how much of the brain an ability uses, and the abilities using more of the brain must have been useful or expensive brain mass would not have evolved to support them.”
But that would still imply that Musical and athletic talents are somewhat g loaded.
Yes.
Musical abilities has a g loading around 0.6.
Physical coordination has a g loading of around 0.35.
oh, word.
Re: physical (neuromuscular) coordination (PP’s nonsense is refuted):
You need to understand the intricacies in regard to NMC, MMC, action potentials and the like to understand NMC. You don’t. So you don’t understand it.
You haven’t refuted anything rr. That you think you have is delusion on your part.
I wonder what type of athletic abilities people on PP’s blog can do (I’ll make the claim that there are few, to none, that have exceptional strength or power, or balance/stabilization). Indeed, PP’s own admission attests to this:
… when I lift weights, I don’t feel like I’m using coordination.
This implies, to me, that PP doesn’t understand NMC, MMC or how muscle movement occurs in the body. Quoting myself:
So, if you’re just “doing the lift” without anything “extra” (as seen in my articles), then you will “feel like you’re not using coordination”, because you’re not lifting correctly and are, therefore, pretty much wasting your time in the gym.
bronze medal gay sauna champion = rr.
this is sad!
“You haven’t refuted anything rr. That you think you have is delusion on your part.”
Oh really? If this is the case, PP, then write a response refuting my article. Good luck, because you’re going to need it.
Now let’s discuss how to measure NMC. There are two ways:
(1) Observe someone new in the gym and watch their lifts go up in the first 6-8 weeks of beginning a new program. Most, if not all, of these gains are due to the adaptation to the CNS on the stress put onto the body. If one’s strength/balance/stabilization increases on the lifts in question, then their NMC is increasing; and
(2) Electromyography (EMG) tests. This is the recording of the electrical impulses in the muscles. A faster firing rate between synapses implies a higher NMC, whereas a slower firing rate between synapses implies a lower NMC. As I stated previously, motor neurons send electrical impulses to the muscles to move them. This is what EMGs measure.
As I wrote in my previous article on NMC, focusing on the muscles in question while you’re doing a certain lift, it increases the activation of the muscles in question. This is what is called “the mind-muscle connection”, and is how champion athletes are made. It’s not just “bro-science” from the gym: it’s a real phenomenon.
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1007/s00421-015-3305-7
So, PP, if I “haven’t refuted anything” and it is just “delusion on my part”, then write a response article and refute what I wrote. That you know a little bit about the brain from psycho-logists doesn’t mean you understand the intricacies of muscle movement, NMC, action potentials, MMC etc. I’m more than welcome to being proved wrong here (I doubt I will), but if I’m so wrong, then it should be easy to refute me and not rely on what sounds good in your head. Because “some commenters” actually know what they’re talking about when it comes to muscle movement. You, quite obviously, do not.
Oh really? If this is the case, PP, then write a response refuting my article.
There’s nothing to refute. You have yet to cite a single study showing elite body builders or top weightlifters score high on actual tests of physical coordination such as those used by the Department of Labor.
There is a ton to refute: my knowledge on the MMC and NMC which refute your sophomoric notions of what you think weight lifting really is.
Give me an example of a study you’re speaking of. Though my arguments and the studies I core are sufficient: they can be inferred. And if you say no, you’re fooling yourself.
In his book A Question of Intelligence, Daniel Seligman cited technical studies by the U.S. Department of Labor showing a moderate correlation between IQ and physical coordination. These were tests of actual physical coordination (psycho-motor coordination, manual dexterity) not firing rates between synapses. Where are all the studies correlating weightlifting ability with physical coordination? You have yet to cite a single one.
(1) Cite the study.
(2) EMG tests are how we measure NMC. If you disagree, I’d read relevant literature on the matter because you’re horribly wrong.
So, PP, the studies I cited in response to you prove my point. Hell, one is on normal people that use the MMC/NMC to perform the lift. Now what do you think would be the case for an elite bodybuilder?
Read the literature on the MMC and get back to me. Because you’re wrong: neuromuscular coordination is most definitely important for weight lifting and bodybuilding.
Measuring a complex voluntary behaviour like physical coordination by motor neuron speed in certain muscles is interesting but reductive. That’s like reducing IQ to nerve conduction velocity in the cerebral cortex. It’s at best a very crude proxy.
There are many other factors involved in coordination like the size & efficiency of the cerebellum.
I cited the book where I read about the study but don’t have access to it until I return home later in the week.
In the meantime read the coordination section of this article & see an example of how coordination is actually measured:
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~dons/part_1/chapter_10.html
I showed you how neuromuscular coordination is measured. It’s a statement of fact that, the higher the motor neuron speed is, the more coordinated one is.
Thanks for the link. Those are physical tasks, which, as I’ve already stated, one will see NMC go up just by training. We can quantitatively measure the phenomena using EMG tests.
I don’t doubt that motor neuron speed is correlated with physical coordination just like I don’t doubt that cerebral neuron speed is correlated with IQ, but in both cases the correlation is likely moderate at best.
No substitute for a direct measure of physical coordination:
Coordination is typically measured using tests of hand-eye or foot-eye coordination such as throwing, catching or bouncing a ball, or hitting an object. Manual dexterity tests, or tests of hand-eye coordination also fall into this category.
https://www.topendsports.com/testing/coordination.htm
You don’t have to doubt it; you just need to read into EMG tests. All you need to do is observe one on any task they’ve done previously and, as I’ve said previously, you’ll see NMC increase (such as in balance and stabilization exercises). If they can do more than they did previously, they NMC increased.
You realize there’s way more to physical coordination than just the speed of motor neurons in the muscles, right? Ever heard of the cerebellum or the motor cortex in the frontal lobe? Show me a study proving most of the variation in directly measured physical coordination is explained by muscle motor neuron speed alone.
You realize that the best way to measure NMC, quantitatively, is with EMG tests, right? We can use exercises like the Davies test to see how coordinated one is, and, over time doing it over and over getting better, one’s coordination gets better.
You realize that the best way to measure NMC, quantitatively, is with EMG tests, right? We can use exercises like the Davies test to see how coordinated one is, and, over time doing it over and over getting better, one’s coordination gets better.
Except the Davies test requires a lot more than just physical coordination. If your arms get stronger by working out, you can better at holding up your body weight and thus score higher on the Davies test. Take a large random sample of 300 lb U.S. bodybuilders and ask them to juggle as many balls as they can, or ride a unicycle, or go snowboarding down a black diamond hill or punch a speed bag or win a dance contest. If they can perform most of these tasks better than 90% of young U.S. men, then I’ll believe they’re coordinated.
No; of you’re not the coordinated you won’t score high on the Davies. I’ve used it with countless people and watched them get better and better.
What you’re currently asking is ridiculous. I’m showing you studies and am inferring what elite bodybuilders can do based on my knowledge of physiology. There’s nothing wrong with what I’m saying.
I agree you need coordination to score high on the Davies test, but you also need strength, since for split seconds you need to hold yourself up with one arm over and over, so if a person who you’re weight training gets better on the Davies test, you don’t know if a) they coordination has improved, b) their strength has improved, c) they’re getting a practice effect from taking the same test again, or d) all of the above.
A good test would be to one into some gyms with a bunch of tennis balls, and ask the 20 most muscular guys you can find to juggle 2 balls. If they can do so successfully at least once out of 2 trials, progress to 3 balls, 4 balls, 5 balls etc. Discontinue after 2 attempts at any level are failed. Record the maximum number of balls each bodybuilder can juggle.
Then ask 20 random guys on the street (same age range) to do the same. If the bodybuilders exceed the guys on the street by at least 1 SD in juggling ability, then you can say they’re coordinated.
It’s A, B, and C. But, when the movement is new, it’s mostly A. All strength gains for a noob are neuromuscular. The gains one sees in the first 8 weeks are neuromuscular gains. They’re not getting stronger per se, their CNS is adapting to the stress put on their body.
OK thought experiment, but it’s not really feasible since I don’t think something like that would be studied. I’ll dig in the literature later, but I’m positive my arguments establish the claim since, what I’m citing is on normal people/college athletes and elite bodybuilders are, of course, rare specimens.
You still haven’t cited a single study showing directly measured physical coordination correlates strongly with weight lifting ability, you’ve just shifted the goal posts by talking about muscle motor speed, which can’t possibly explain all of coordination because it ignores the cerebellum & the motor cortex.
I’ve at least cited a study (from Jensen’s book) showing no correlation between strength & actual coordination as well as testimony from a guy with impaired coordination saying he’s great at weight lifting.
I’m not saying weight lifters can’t be super coordinated, I’m just saying they’re largely independent abilities & you can be good at one but bad at the other.
Jensen is clueless. I’ve addressed what you wrote on that. “a guy with unpaired coordination” is useless; one can lift weights if they lack coordination. That’s not under contention. He just lacks the ability to use the MMC. I didn’t shift any goal posts. I can’t find any studies on it. I’ve explained the rationale behind my argument and my logic is sound. Therefore what I’m saying is true: bodybuilders have high NMC, they need to. Imagine being in a pose-off without control of your muscles.
No your logic is not sound because muscle motor neuron speed tells us almost nothing about the functioning of the cerebellum & motor cortex which have a huge impact on coordination.
(P1) spaghetti
(P2) marinara sauce
(C) anal pleasure
Race you are distracting pumpkin from his next post on Aleister Crowley. Argue later please.
I will get to Crowley in March. I need time to learn more about him, plus there are a couple articles I already told gypsy i’d do this week.
“(P1) spaghetti
(P2) marinara sauce”
Marinara sauce is disgusting.
the most i could ever bench or squat was 225 lbs and i did this having done no exercise for 6 months. but for that 6 months i did lie in bed and get tight with 375 mLs of Ballantine’s every night.
running up stairs was used to measure horsepower in my HS physics class. mine was highest in the school. teach said, “never seen anything like it. it was like something was pulling you up the stairs.” i was a gifted footballer. but i was limited at basketball by short fingers and short legs. i jump off two legs rather than one.
i do have a large reach for a NW euro, but long fingers are a much underappreciated physical advantage in basketball as they allow much better control of the ball.
negroes have long fingers for the same reason they have long legs and narrower torsos…adaptation to heat vs cold…allen’s rule.
but my penis is 2x the length of the average korean man’s.
this is sad.
”but my penis is 2x the length of the average korean man’s.”
Just your mother know this.. sad…
“No your logic is not sound because muscle motor neuron speed tells us almost nothing about the functioning of the cerebellum & motor cortex which have a huge impact on coordination.”
There are Purkinje cells in the cerebellum and they play a “critical role for cerebellar functioning.” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4338753/)
Nevermind the fact that the more one does something, the more they get better at it due to the MMC, and NMC is a huge part of it. EMG tests testing firing rates between synapses are a small part—they pretty much show the end part of the process I described in the quote above.
Why are you so certain that EMG placed on muscles is a valid test of physical coordination when you have yet to cite a study proving it? You’re always so 100% certain & then when do more research a month later, you praise yourself for admitting you were wrong
Btw rr, Ed Dutton claims whites have bigger testicles than blacks
When I asked him for proof, he cited unpublished research in his book
Do you know how credible this research is or what it says?
Was it his book on Rushton? I’ll check it out in a bit and comb through if it was.
Yes I assume he means the Rushton book. I’ll ak him what page
11 of my 12 children are by black ladies. the 12th is a china baby.
it’s easy to be “fit” in the darwinian sense…unless you’re severely physically disabled.
and willing to have sex with black women.
until rr makes intelligent comments about heidegger…
IGNORE!
Impossible rr make intelligent comments and even about heidegger..
I mean, it’s impossible to make intelligent comments about heidegger…
clever sillies, yes, intelligent, no.
interesting cherry garcia also died at age 53.
an example of the hispanic/latino distinction…he was a “spanish american”…like me…like the estevez bros…
the asylum should be like a charterhouse.
we’ll he’p you find a place.
if you have genuinely biological issues…
we’ll still he’p you.
daniel johnston is still alive.
called my mom in the hospital…she broke her clit.
she sounded like a klansman on the phone.
she sounded like a totally different person.
…
i asked, “what’s your middle name?”
super THICK southern accent.
i told her so and she hung up.
i swear to God sounded like she’d been swapped by the CIA.
VERY WEIRD…
most likely explanation is…
1. the phone connection was weird.
2. the anesthesia made her talk like a klansman.
so just anesthetize “suthrons” and they all sound like this…
Great movie.
I have a PHD in organic farming.
I respect all sexualities and religions. If a persons religion says they shouldn’t have a certain sexuality or not marry dead people that means the religion is irrational, not the person.
What is rationality anyway? – we should all read the new york times today, together, and find out.
”What is rationality anyway? ”
Half of useless life of pill is based in this blog repeating your lack of self-shaming..
The set piece moment of the movie will be the battle scene between the KKK camp guards and the blue eyed battalion of jews led by Brad Pitt. The jews will throw teddy bears and flowers at the guards in a show of love and decency. Meanwhile the evil KKK camp guards led by Herr Schneider will throw magic negro children and cease and desist orders at our brave heroes.
After fierce fighting beneath the shadow of Mt Doom. The evil lord of the KKK himself, Sauron will appear on the battlefield and in a moment of complete desperation Lil Wayne will throw a teddy bear at Saurons kneecap maiming him in rainbow powder and causing the evil forces of the Dark Lord – KKK prison guards, orcs, giant spiders and gargoyles to flee in fear.
General Goldman Sachs will then thank Wayne for his bravery in an award ceremony in the final scene. Sancho, his lover will look on with gay pride. And the centuries of oppression and evil will fade away as modern rap music plays and KFC is handed out to everyone.
Swap out Sauron with Donald Trump.
oh my god a mono version!! Hahahaha, even better.
Chris had 2 careers. One as a normal pop star in the early 60s. Then he tried a comeback as a kind of light jazz singer.
I can’t believe this guy is forgotten. His songs are incredible. The beatles used to support him when he toured.
“mainstreamed discussion of taboo topics like gays, got millions of couch potatoes to read [black] literature, and put a black family in the White House”
And these are good things?
Is there an example of a person who has high ability in all seven? Like a cognitive heptathlete. Obviously, such a person would not be the best in any modality (a dedicated sprinter or javelineer is going to be better than a track & field athlete who has to master 7 events) but would all-round be extremely smart.
Early man might’ve been. So would a lot of great Greek thinkers, and other cultures where the philosopher-king model thrived.
All cognitive abilities positively correlate with g so the more cognitive abilities you’re good at, and the better you are at them, the more likely you are to be high g.
In this post you’re saying that intelligence is only intelligence in so far as it provides utility, ie ability to deliver state-changes in reality according to an actor’s will. Under a materialist paradigm this boils down solving survival problems (where “survival” can take more or less severe forms – being bored and needing diversion is a milder form, for example). But in the end it all maps to atoms and bits changing according to an actor’s will.
That’s all fine and good, but I’m wondering if there is a class of problems beyond such problems. More metaphysical-mystical-aesthetic goals, having to do less with getting one’s will fulfilled and more to do with the texture of consciousness itself. The stuff at the upper end of Maslow’s pyramid, I guess you could say. Maybe musical IQ doesn’t give much utility (beyond mere entertainment) but maybe it is exactly the type of IQ that solves that second class of problems? Ie it doesn’t optimize for utility but it allows you to “unask utility” completely.
Of course, we could shoehorn that into the “intelligence is adaptation ability” paradigm as well and say that the end-goal of Buddhism (something like “a permanent shifting of consciousness toward non-dual perception”) has extremely high utility for the practitioner. Somehow that doesn’t sit quite right with me, although I can’t fully articulate why that is.
If I had more knowledge, I would probably like to make a point here about Schopenhauer’s notion of will-less aesthetic experiences as well, and how attaining those might go beyond the notion that intelligence is only intelligence proper if it leads to strategies with alpha pay-outs in the given environmental context. Anyone more knowledgeable about Schopenhauer, feel free to chime in.
This seems relevant:
‘Like many other aesthetic theories, Schopenhauer’s centers on the concept of genius. Genius, according to Schopenhauer, is possessed by all people in varying degrees and consists of the capacity for aesthetic experience. An aesthetic experience occurs when an individual perceives an object and understands by it not the individual object itself, but the Platonic form of the object. The individual is then able to lose himself in the object of contemplation and, for a brief moment, escape the cycle of unfulfilled desire by becoming “the pure subject of will-less knowing”. Those who have a high degree of genius can be taught to communicate these aesthetic experiences to others, and objects that communicate these experiences are works of art. Based on this theory, Schopenhauer viewed Dutch still-life as the best type of painting, because it was able to help viewers see beauty in ordinary, everyday objects. However, he sharply criticized depictions of nude women and prepared food, as these stimulate desire and thus hinder the viewer from the aesthetic experience and becoming “the pure subject of will-less knowing”.
Music also occupies a privileged place in Schopenhauer’s aesthetics, as he believed it to have a special relationship to the will. Where other forms of art are imitations of things perceived in the world, music is a direct expression and articulation of the will.’
Am I on to something or just blathering?
Meta: I’m a dialectic thinker who tries to find truth, not interested in getting my ego bashed with rhetoric here. Not attached to any viewpoint in particular.
You raise a lot of interesting questions about fulfilling a persons utility function. I remember Freud criticised zen buddhists for ‘hacking’ a way out of the pleasure principle by getting used to the idea of not sating desire. Schopenhauer is basically talking about Freuds idea that some people can have many of their needs met by intellectual consumption or abstract idealisation.
It is actually a smart thing to adapt by reducing the levels of resources and input you need to be satisfied. This is something Puppy can’t grasp sadly.
I grasp it, it’s just not always possible.
as i’ve said many times the shortest and surest route to happiness is wanting less…or wanting more what one already has.
it is the privilege of the gods to want nothing and of god-like men to want little. —Diogenes
That’s all fine and good, but I’m wondering if there is a class of problems beyond such problems. More metaphysical-mystical-aesthetic goals, having to do less with getting one’s will fulfilled and more to do with the texture of consciousness itself.
Good point, and I’d have to think about it. My first thought is anything you do to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, even if it’s an abstract aesthetic pleasure, shows adaptability. But if you’re adapting to a situation that 99.9% of life would never be in, then I’d give it less weight compared to more universal problem solving
‘Like many other aesthetic theories, Schopenhauer’s centers on the concept of genius. Genius, according to Schopenhauer, is possessed by all people in varying degrees and consists of the capacity for aesthetic experience. An aesthetic experience occurs when an individual perceives an object and understands by it not the individual object itself, but the Platonic form of the object. The individual is then able to lose himself in the object of contemplation and, for a brief moment, escape the cycle of unfulfilled desire by becoming “the pure subject of will-less knowing”.
I doubt they’re truly escaping their desires, they’ve just adapting to higher desires. For this reason the Genius may seem maladaptive or lacking in common sense, but in reality he’s just advancing more abstract goals that most people can’t relate to.
Ahh this just makes me more hyped for the Crowley analysis, because he was born a highly educated, wealthy aristocrat, whom turned completely toward achieving, mystical, abstract goals, within life, after a near death experience as a young man. He reasoned that the abstract higher goals were more important A quote from him states “The joy of life consists in the exercise of one’s energies, continual growth, constant change, the enjoyment of every new experience. To stop means simply to die. The eternal mistake of mankind is to set up an attainable ideal.”
to want to not desire is still to desire
Loadef since you are an illegal immigrant why do you think you can be objective on a range of issues. theres a reason convicted people arent allowed tovote. your response should be to every topic ‘forgive me. i am an illegal immigrant law breaker. i have no opinion’
Wow, dude. you’re fucking insane if you think you could treat another human being like that and receive no retaliation for it.
Honestly, no disrespect, but if I was a border patrol guard and saw you walking around, the scenario would end up in violence of some sort.
that was the most bizarre comment i’ve ever read on this blog. you’re mentally deranged, motherfucker.
I’m his prime, William F. Buckley had the highest VIQ I’ve ever seen. He had a response to EVERYTHING, and I doubt he was able to prepare these in advance. His political views were bland and unoriginal, which leads me to believe that verbal skills are largely coachable.
College athletes, black and white, used to be fairly well-spoken. Now, even the whiteys can hardly complete a sentence. Something changed, and it has nothing to do with genetics.
PP, Did you delete a couple of comments?. They havent appeared
no, at least not recently. And I checked the spam folder, nothing recent from you there either.
“Quest for Fire” was an early reason I got into HBD. I think that movie was really remarkable. Culture has always intrigued me and I think movies exemplify that quite best. I don’t think there’s anything better than a really good movie. But the Oscars suck.
Found PP’s sock puppet.
Not my sock puppet. I’m as baffled by his Quest for Fire comment as anyone. Maybe he’s trolling, pandering or confused.
I have unsexy face. So does PimpyZ. SAD!
I do agree that the ability to adapt is the fundamental feature of being an organism. That is its goal in any circumstance. If you create an environment with no adaptative features to it, then you create an organism that is not fit to survive.
It’s quite hilarious, the paradoxical nature in which you can’t adapt fully to your environment or else you deteriorate from there on. It’s like reaching an infinite number on a scale or a line, and then you see the number line go backwards.
Regardless, I think that the human mind is separate from our physical entity, so our minds are adapted to seeking out adaptation to the Universe rather than just our “environment.” That’s why I believe in the intelligence quotient, “IQ,” being relevant to our desires to seek out adaptation to our Universe. And essentially, we adapt through it by using patterns, because that’s all our Universe is built up of.
Intelligence is like water. There is its essential substance and how it can be changed.
wheres the first part of my movie script?
Puppys definition in my opinion is wrong.
People who are not even citizens shouldn’t have any role in public debate. I remember the democrat party saying people in zimbabwe right now have just as many rights and a current american citizen, because they could be a potential citizen. This kind of dumbass logic basically means theres no USA or Zimbabwe anymore. Steve Sailer is correct on this issue. He calls it the zeroth amendment. I call it a conspiracy.
Im quite a republican in the philosophical sense actually. If you don’t pay taxes and have no blood relation to the nation and are a criminal – you don’t get to have any rights. The whole point of punishing criminals is to deprive them of the rights that citizens are usually afforded.
Im not a lawyer so I don’t know how far it goes with deprivation of rights, but for me an illegal immigrant doesn’t even have the right to basic healthcare in a nation. They should be seen as invaders.
What do people think of that rutger bregman speech at Davos?
Been noticing the economist is saying a lot less nonsense lately. Think the new editor Zandy is a bit more realistic about populism. At least now theyve stopped talking about it like its AIDS.
Pumpkin, on the arithmetic subtest, would practicing mental division of two digit by one digit numbers transfer to mental division of 3 digit by one digit numbers?
Honestly, the selective pressures against early humans was so severe, intelligence probably grew exponentially after being introduced to Africa.
I bet intelligence, to exist, must grow exponentially, just like any trait that one can come to possess.
Its a good point. But if i may modify it slightly : For intelligence to exist for long, it must keep growing.
Like… we need to revise what we are good at, fill in the blanks in our intelligence like learn what we are bad at, practice mental skills we are weak at, avoid lifestyle habits that reduce our intelligence etc
It’s the law of physical properties that anything should be produced exponentially. It’s like the human mind has to encounter new things everyday, that adds to the level of things your brain is holding, for every event that ever occurs is also a new thing that your brain has stored in its memory capacity.
So in this case, the best proxy for intelligence would be recall from long-term memory.
I don’t know why I ever came to idealize white people when I was younger.
My buddy and I were talking about how parental influence is everything. All familial dynamics are very impactful on how we perceive everything around us.
Pumping Iron
The Right Stuff
Gates of Heaven
these would also be on my list of watch-able/non-emetic movies.
I think the best definition of intelligence is: Knowing what to do mentally and able to do it mentally.
*and being able to do it mentally.
i think it has to do with being able to do things morally and then doing it morally.