What is the limit of human intelligence if any?

[loseyourname]

You call the Multiple Intelligence Theory bunk

though I won't comment on the theory itself

Funny how you missed that little caveat, which I specifically put in so that you wouldn't think I was calling the theory bunk.

now you are claiming intelligence is about understanding.

You're answering the question in the title of the thread, which is about intelligence. I'm answering the question asked in the post, which pertained to understanding . . .

Notice how I make a distinction there between understanding and intelligence. I'm not claiming intelligence is about understanding. I'm claiming that I'm answering the question "Is there a limit to human understanding?" Rather than the question "Is there a limit to human intelligence?"

It's clearly evident you need to loseyourwilltoargue and gainsomerealperspective.

Please don't make fun of me. It's very unbecoming, especially of a moderator.

 

[loseyourname]

So the fact that you scored high is evidence the test is bunk? :)

I will say that the test is bunk. It tests your preferences, not your aptitudes.

The fact that the test asked how you prefer to go about solving problems, rather than actually giving any problems to solve, is evidence that it is bunk. Again, it tests preferences, not aptitudes.

Just so that, hopefully, there is no further misunderstanding (though I get the distinct feeling there will be anyway), I will say one more time that I am not commenting on the theory itself. It may or may not be bunk. I have no idea. The way it was explained to me when I took the test, the theory seemed perfectly consistent and it makes sense, although I have no idea what kind of evidential backing it has. I am only saying that the test does not in any way measure a person's intelligence.

 

[Kerrie]

Funny how you missed that little caveat, which I specifically put in so that you wouldn't think I was calling the theory bunk.

i wasn't aware there was a link for a test on this page. i only provided a link to the this theory. why are you then commenting on a test?? and like SA commented, if you scored so well on the test, yet think the theory is bunk, it's not a wonder why you feel so misunderstood. your train of thought is extremely inconsistent and downright confusing.

Notice how I make a distinction there between understanding and intelligence. I'm not claiming intelligence is about understanding. I'm claiming that I'm answering the question "Is there a limit to human understanding?" Rather than the question "Is there a limit to human intelligence?"

if this is the case, you are then off topic. i think here you are trying to twist the words for whatever reason that is not worth arguing. if you are choosing to participate in this thread, then address the question being presented.

Please don't make fun of me. It's very unbecoming, especially of a moderator.

not poking fun, but rather making a point. stop being so sensitive and argumentative.

 

[loseyourname]

i wasn't aware there was a link for a test on this page. i only provided a link to the this theory.

You also didn't read my post very carefully, because I stated pretty clearly that I was not criticizing the theory. I stated that so that hopefully such a misunderstanding as this would not occur.

if this is the case, you are then off topic. i think here you are trying to twist the words for whatever reason that is not worth arguing.

Nope. I'm just answering the question that the author of the thread asked. I'll post it here for you to read once more:

Do you feel that humans will ever reach a point where they just won't be able to understand something?

Notice the word "understand." I am inclined to say that my posting about the limits of human understanding were not off-topic. But I suppose it's your call. This is your forum.

and like SA commented, if you scored so well on the test, yet think the theory is bunk, it's not a wonder why you feel so misunderstood.

All right. Let me state one last time, as unambiguously as I possibly can: I do not think that the theory is bunk. I do not even know the specifics of this theory. I have no idea what kind of evidential backing it has. For this reason, I am not commenting on the theory in any way, positive or negative. Is that clear enough for you, or should I repeat it a fifth time?

 

[Nicomachus]

What's the deal here? I thought we were discussing epistemology? As far as this theory ... What so it basically says "Some people are good at math and some people are not but are good with language" or whatever ... big deal. Nothing revolutionary there. Oh well.
*Nico

 

[Kerrie]

i agree nico. i believe there is a certain amount of biological influence coupled with a will that drives intelligence, whether it be expressed artistically, intellectually, athletically or emotionally. certainly there can be something said for artists and their abilities (music, classical, etc) that the average human is unable to achieve. as i stated before, the only limit is what we place on ourselves. to elaborate more on that point, we are in direct control of how far we can take ourselves within the boundaries of our biology. if more were convinced of this fact, humanity as a whole could achieve so much more then we already have.