Link Between Intelligence & Viewing the World in Greater Detail - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Link Between Intelligence & Viewing the World in Greater Detail
in Philosophy

By xMathFanxxMathFanx 125 Pts
The More Intelligent One is, the Greater Ability they Possess to View the World in Detail

Consider, if this is true, how do we reconcile it with PhD Scientists who subscribe to Young Earth Creationism?  If it is false, how would the ability to view the world in greater detail not be connected with the concept of intelligence in a logically consistent matter?  Is there more to the picture than has been raised here (as of yet)?

Thoughts?
yolostidejoecavalry



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • I belive that people with intelligence may be able to perform better academically, etc.
  • Some people who have greater intelligence than others could perform better in certain fields such as Academics.
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • agsragsr 851 Pts
    I don't think that correlation of intelligence and attention to detail is an absolute correlation.  Sometimes I see really smart people over-focus on unnecessary details instead of seeing the big picture.  Being able to have a vision and tie together various abstract components is important in business and possibly academics.  
    Ability to zoom in and out between big picture and detail is important, and likely requires high degree of intelligence.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • It depends on perspective. Some highly intelligent people knew that Hillary would be president, and she didn't even come close. Intelligent people can be influenced by their own prejudices just like their less intelligent counterparts.
    agsr
  • agsragsr 851 Pts
    @SuzyCreamcheese, that's exactly right.  They focused in certain details to reach their conclusion and missed the big picture and other details.  
    Live Long and Prosper
  • agsr said:
    @SuzyCreamcheese, that's exactly right.  They focused in certain details to reach their conclusion and missed the big picture and other details.  
    This may be true, but this involves something political, which means that even intelligent people are going to have some sort of bias. Second, everyone thought Hillary was going to win, the dispproval of that does not take away from "seeing the big picture", it means that they made a prediction that wan't what they excepted. Politics is finicky, I know that choosing political science as a current high school sophomore. It is a matter of who you appeal to, the nature of yourself, and your credibility, not always the validity of your ideas. Therefore, politics should not be a means of seeing if a person can view the world in more detail, because although we can make predictions or show which candidate is more sound, we can not judge the actions of the people. A better measure of seeing the big picture is giving a philosophy or a geometry test and see if they can use reasoning and theorems to connect the big picture between concepts and ideas. This is because geometry and philosophy follow a line of reasoning, not a hypothesis. Math is proven by laws and theorems, people are proven by nothing except patterns and history of voting.

    Hope this helped, feel free to debate this, I will respond ASAP.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • agsragsr 851 Pts
    @WilliamSchulz, if we take your position then we are saying that intelligence isn't even correlated with ability to predict politics.  That's probably overreaching
    Live Long and Prosper
  • @WilliamSchulz I'm hardly a brainiac, but I knew Trump was going to win months before the election. He was filling stadiums with thousands outside listening to his speeches. Hillary was coughing up kidneys at the Iowa State Fair in front of 40 kids with balloons and cotton candy. Trump killed her in debates. Hillary had the personality of a bloated toad. And yet she led in every poll by every brilliant scholastic pollster and pundit alike. The NY Times, those highly educated movers and shakers, gave her a 98% chance of winning on election day.

    There is a difference between intelligence and wisdom.
    agsr
  • I consider myself above average in intelligence but my attention to detail is probably sub par.

    So... You clearly like a certain type of intelligence (what I would call a fast thinker) whereas people like me are what I call fluid thinkers. We are smart at things like chess or poker but not the smartest at a fast paced intensive science exam or a motorcycle race.
  • I consider myself above average in intelligence but my attention to detail is probably sub par.

    So... You clearly like a certain type of intelligence (what I would call a fast thinker) whereas people like me are what I call fluid thinkers. We are smart at things like chess or poker but not the smartest at a fast paced intensive science exam or a motorcycle race.

    @someone234 ;

    Actually, your reference to the game of chess is a prime example of why intelligence is linked to the ability to see the world in greater detail.  Consider, in order to perform well at the game, one has to:

    (A)    Comprehend the rules

    (B)    Accurately evaluate the present situation

    (C)    Have the prudence to assess all potential options and the (highly) predictable consequenses to such options (i.e. moves and countermoves)

    (D)   Always have the “end game” in sight.  That is, multi-level focus

    (E)    Ect. Ect.




  • @xMathFanx, I would agree that chess requires high level of intelligence.  There is requirement for tremendous focus, memory, ability to quickly evaluate complex situations, and make trade offs
  • "Viewing the world in detail" is a specific science, that of geopolitics.  The best geopolitical thinkers are, indeed, very intelligent; but as it is a specific science, intelligence alone doesn't necessarily translate into having a good view of geopolitics.  It takes a lot of intelligence to be a brain surgeon, it takes a lot of intelligence to be a quantum physicist; but a brain surgeon doesn't necessarily understand quantum physics.  The same is true of geopolitics.  George Friedman of Geopolitical Futures is, in my opinion, among the best geopolitical minds of our age.  Not many people are willing to imagine what the world will be like in a century, much less attempt to forecast it.  It's been nearly a decade since "The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century" was first published, and it's amazing how accurate the book has been.  He doesn't get everything completely correct (one thing I think he missed was the problems unbridled immigration would cause in the US and Europe and the backlash it would create) but he always has a sound foundation for his projections.  The World in Maps is a good introduction to some of Friedman's forecasts and the basis on which they were made.

  • There's a good argument here on both sides.  I for one, personally don't see any absolute correlation between intelligence and observation.  

    The breakdown is as follows:

    Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.  So essentially intelligence is a brain power skill.  This being said, more intelligence does not necessarily equate better observational skills.  While I myself would personally like to think that the more intelligent you are, the better equipped you are to make an appropriate observation...the simple truth of the matter is that it may not be true.  There's something to be said about higher intelligence being limited to speed of observation instead of depth. 

    Imagine, if you will, that James has a higher intelligence than John.  How much...doesn't really matter, let's say by all metrics of measurement he's twice as intelligent.  James is in the top 10 percent of intelligent people on the Planet.  All that being said, James and John both begin an observational study of the growth and overall life cycle of a common plant, let's say a Sunflower.  Now while James, being more intelligent than John, can make astute observations at approximately twice the speed of John...John in this case has spent more time observing than James and subsequently may have observed a greater detail of the aforementioned life cycle.

    The bottom line is that, in observing the World in "Great detail", having more or higher intelligence does not necessarily equate a better understanding.  This is setting aside the fact that high intelligence can just as easily interfere with observation as it can help it.  Too often do intelligent people spend entirely too much time overthinking something simply because their mind is not accustomed to the simplicity of the answer.

    So I'll leave someone the question, who observes better...the simpleton with the untainted mind or the genius who's predisposed in thought?

    “Most misunderstandings in the world could be avoided if people would simply take the time to ask, "What else could this mean?” 
    ― Shannon L. Alder

    “The sharpest minds often ruin their lives by overthinking the next step, while the dull win the race with eyes closed.” 
    ― Bethany BrookbankWrite like no one is reading

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/overthinking
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • agsr said:
    @WilliamSchulz, if we take your position then we are saying that intelligence isn't even correlated with ability to predict politics.  That's probably overreaching
    Intelligence can be used in predicting politics, I completely agree, what I was arguing is that one can not downgrade another person's intelligence for predicting the wrong person for the aforementioned reasons listed.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • @WilliamSchulz I'm hardly a brainiac, but I knew Trump was going to win months before the election. He was filling stadiums with thousands outside listening to his speeches. Hillary was coughing up kidneys at the Iowa State Fair in front of 40 kids with balloons and cotton candy. Trump killed her in debates. Hillary had the personality of a bloated toad. And yet she led in every poll by every brilliant scholastic pollster and pundit alike. The NY Times, those highly educated movers and shakers, gave her a 98% chance of winning on election day.

    There is a difference between intelligence and wisdom.
    Good for you for the correct prediction! However, few people in the media could have predicted Trump's win, especially since we got several user polls post-debates which showed Trump up the first and down the other two. Media is biased, and they wanted a first woman president who was the political norm, but the people disagreed. Intelligence and Wisdom can be different, but more often than not, wisdom stems from intelligence. In order to make an accurate wise decision in foreign politics, I would first need the intelligence to know what the issue was and how to best address it. More later.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • There are many different types of, let us say, different brain activities and states, that are only loosely connected to each other - and definitely do not linearly depend on each other. Here is just a few ones (the naming is unofficial):

    Knowledge - raw amount of how much information your brain contains.
    Big picture intelligence - how much the information you have allows you to understand large-scale effects and the world as a whole.
    Tiny detail intelligence - how well you connect the dots in the small-scale effects.
    Perceptiveness - how good you are at detecting small and, at the first glance, insignificant and irrelevant details of a certain situation which let you use it to full advantage.
    "Street" smartness - how easily you adapt to chaotic unpredictable situations, noticing the patterns in them others do not see.
    Wisdom - how complex your thinking is and how deep through the web of philosophy and logic can it pierce in order to make extraordinary conclusions.
    Outside the box thinking - how easily you put aside the conventional notions about the entity and look at it from a counter-intuitive perspective.
    Attentiveness - how good you are at focusing on a large amount of information and keeping it all right in front of your thought process.
    Flexibility - how dynamic your beliefs and thoughts are and how easily you can change them when the new information challenges your preconceptions.
    Discipline - how good you are at controlling what your brain is doing in order to force the functionality in it you want to use.

    We can go on and on, but the bottom line is that "intelligence" is very difficult to define without the definition either being too wide to draw any conclusions from it, or too narrow to be representative of any global trends.

    Personally, I think myself very good at outside the box thinking, at wisdom, flexibility and big picture intelligence - but my tiny detail intelligence, attentiveness and discipline could use some work. I have also always been strongly dissatisfied with how poor my brain is at storing raw knowledge: a lot of things I would like to remember "for reference", I forget. This flaw makes my brain's "field of view" being somewhat narrow, so I have to perfectly combine multiple elements of a matter at hand in order to draw any outstanding conclusions, and that combination process often takes year before various chunks of data finally come into place and show the trend I should have noticed a long time ago.

    I am working on my PhD in a very challenging field requiring a lot of intellectual activity - but there are intellectual areas in which my neighbor working at Walmart outperforms me by a large margin. I may be good at understanding how the nuclear processes in stars work, but I cannot for the life of me learn to cook catfish properly no matter what guides and instruction manuals I follow. I am very good at chess, but Go has always been an unapproachable jungle to me. I know the probability theory and statistics pretty well, but I can never win a game of poker against anyone.

    With regards to Trump, he had just the right intellectual qualities to be able to win the election at just the right moment. His raw amount of knowledge is pretty poor, and his attention span is smaller than my you-know-what - but his "street" smartness is out of proportions. He always knows exactly what to say to capture the attention of the people he wants to get on the good side of. He is also very perceptive and often jumps at, at the first glance, dubious ideas - only to see them come to fruition very soon, despite everyone's belief that it was impossible.

    Trump compared to, say, the average Stanford graduate is like a chess hustler on the streets against a serious player: sure, in normal conditions the latter will destroy the former - but in the hustler's environment, the latter will have a really hard time surviving, as he is not ready for the tricks and will be thrown off by the chaos. Trump is that chess hustler that looks unassuming and plays poor moves objectively, but in the end always wins due to beating you at the mental game going far outside the domain of logic and rules, and inside the dark areas of human psychology.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch