- #1
- 1,745
- 0
"An human being is concerned because he or she has learned over the process of time-or is naturally, instinctively, existentially intelligent-the importance of self preservation, the practice of intelligence around the self, that of executive functioning."
Something that's been on my mind lately pertains to the subject of intelligence
Especially in relevance to autism, from what I remember, the IQ range for autistics (Weshler) has a pretty wide range, yet they are socially reclusive, or rather socially unintelligent/unintelligible. Is this an intelligence problem, the important question is of whether these people aren't able to "see" or comprehend certain things that an "ordinary" individual would be able to comprehend. It should also be noted that for the most part, especially in the U.S., most of us are deemed "ordinary." Despite what may be deemed as eccentric habits, when we come face to face with each other, I think that we see ourselves as victims of circumstance. We may label each other, of a lower class for example. But when do we label someone as "retarded" or borderline retarded? Can any of you tell? It is the popular belief that retarded people are drastically different, disadvantaged, from those of us that are ordinary.
The concept of multiple intelligence has become quite popular. Compliability with social customs, or one's social IQ, general forms of conduct as each of us deals with various social situations day by day which may be more or less complicated challenge our intelligence for the most part. Is there a perfect way of handling these situations? The way we see teenagers develop socially throughout adolescence, on the appearance of things, seems fairly natural. But anyone who has gone through the days of adolescence, knows that one gains a tremedous respect for the intelligence aspect of it all, that of executive functioning and strategy. Despite how ignorant one may seem, functioning socially ultimately is a challenge to intellectual development.
Has society developed concrete ways of testing social intelligence? Our society seems to be more concerned with the mathematical aspect of things (scientific aspect of things, technological), those of us that were born in higher classes may be more shrewd than those of us that were born poor. SAT/GRE passages seem to relate towards social intelligence. Perhaps verbal intelligence is a good indication of a social development more or less complete, mature.
Perhaps intelligence is really about motivation, those of us that have strived instinctively or were pressured early on are all to familiar with the problem, that is those of us that are more anxious and preoccupied, those of us that know how to protect ourselves, or know the importance/significance of it, those of us that value ourselves infinitely higher than others and will seek to gain at other’s expense. It seems that society is comprised mostly of people who worry sufficiently about themselves and have their intelligence centered around themselves. In this sense, yes, they are sufficiently "intelligent." A more accurate word would be "compatible." To be more specific, compatibility in the sense of one's ability to reproduce, have a social standing, have friends, essentially one's ability to establish a social network ultimately. To be seen as normal, "sound of mind".
I say all of this because I have met several people in the span of my lifetime whom seem to have adequate intelligence, yet are retarded in the social sense, displaying all the signs of retardation in this area, somewhat autistic. You can ask them to discuss a question of social relevance, or even a science/mathematical question, and they'll be able to answer it with organization and clarity. They're not engaged socially, and do not handle social situations/events very well, and don't show much motivation to do so. However, "intelligence" in general is intact, that is they're able to tackle something intellectually with even superior proficiency. But motivation, related to intelligence of self preservation, seems to be absent.
Perhaps the conclusion is that, those of us who had been pressured, or have a stronger instinct of self preseravation early relating to intelligence centered around the self, may be more aggresive and motivated so that at least the intellectual development of handling social situations is more or less complete. Of course this isn't just intelligence, as the ability to take tests, its about emtional regulation, in essence the ability to have some control over life itself, a long term process in self application. Perhaps this is existential intelligence, and perhaps people with autistic qualities don't have adequate existential intelligence. I truly believe that existential intelligence is something quite different than general intelligence itself.
Something that's been on my mind lately pertains to the subject of intelligence
Especially in relevance to autism, from what I remember, the IQ range for autistics (Weshler) has a pretty wide range, yet they are socially reclusive, or rather socially unintelligent/unintelligible. Is this an intelligence problem, the important question is of whether these people aren't able to "see" or comprehend certain things that an "ordinary" individual would be able to comprehend. It should also be noted that for the most part, especially in the U.S., most of us are deemed "ordinary." Despite what may be deemed as eccentric habits, when we come face to face with each other, I think that we see ourselves as victims of circumstance. We may label each other, of a lower class for example. But when do we label someone as "retarded" or borderline retarded? Can any of you tell? It is the popular belief that retarded people are drastically different, disadvantaged, from those of us that are ordinary.
The concept of multiple intelligence has become quite popular. Compliability with social customs, or one's social IQ, general forms of conduct as each of us deals with various social situations day by day which may be more or less complicated challenge our intelligence for the most part. Is there a perfect way of handling these situations? The way we see teenagers develop socially throughout adolescence, on the appearance of things, seems fairly natural. But anyone who has gone through the days of adolescence, knows that one gains a tremedous respect for the intelligence aspect of it all, that of executive functioning and strategy. Despite how ignorant one may seem, functioning socially ultimately is a challenge to intellectual development.
Has society developed concrete ways of testing social intelligence? Our society seems to be more concerned with the mathematical aspect of things (scientific aspect of things, technological), those of us that were born in higher classes may be more shrewd than those of us that were born poor. SAT/GRE passages seem to relate towards social intelligence. Perhaps verbal intelligence is a good indication of a social development more or less complete, mature.
Perhaps intelligence is really about motivation, those of us that have strived instinctively or were pressured early on are all to familiar with the problem, that is those of us that are more anxious and preoccupied, those of us that know how to protect ourselves, or know the importance/significance of it, those of us that value ourselves infinitely higher than others and will seek to gain at other’s expense. It seems that society is comprised mostly of people who worry sufficiently about themselves and have their intelligence centered around themselves. In this sense, yes, they are sufficiently "intelligent." A more accurate word would be "compatible." To be more specific, compatibility in the sense of one's ability to reproduce, have a social standing, have friends, essentially one's ability to establish a social network ultimately. To be seen as normal, "sound of mind".
I say all of this because I have met several people in the span of my lifetime whom seem to have adequate intelligence, yet are retarded in the social sense, displaying all the signs of retardation in this area, somewhat autistic. You can ask them to discuss a question of social relevance, or even a science/mathematical question, and they'll be able to answer it with organization and clarity. They're not engaged socially, and do not handle social situations/events very well, and don't show much motivation to do so. However, "intelligence" in general is intact, that is they're able to tackle something intellectually with even superior proficiency. But motivation, related to intelligence of self preservation, seems to be absent.
Perhaps the conclusion is that, those of us who had been pressured, or have a stronger instinct of self preseravation early relating to intelligence centered around the self, may be more aggresive and motivated so that at least the intellectual development of handling social situations is more or less complete. Of course this isn't just intelligence, as the ability to take tests, its about emtional regulation, in essence the ability to have some control over life itself, a long term process in self application. Perhaps this is existential intelligence, and perhaps people with autistic qualities don't have adequate existential intelligence. I truly believe that existential intelligence is something quite different than general intelligence itself.
Last edited: