What Truly Defines Intelligence Beyond IQ Tests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mariexotoni
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Intelligence
AI Thread Summary
Intelligence is a complex concept that cannot be fully captured by IQ tests, as they measure only a narrow aspect of cognitive ability. Many believe that motivation and commitment to learning are more significant indicators of success than raw intelligence. Insight, creativity, and the ability to apply knowledge in various contexts are also crucial components of intelligence. Personal biases and belief systems can hinder one's ability to gain awareness and insight, affecting how intelligence is perceived and utilized. Ultimately, intelligence encompasses a broader range of skills and attributes beyond mere cognitive ability, emphasizing the importance of perseverance and adaptability in achieving one's goals.
mariexotoni
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
What does it mean to you?

sorry if this seems silly, but- i don't understand how something like intelligence can be quantified by an IQ test. Or why people think they're unintelligent and they can't do anything about it.
Is it being really well-read?
Is it knowing lots of crap?
Is it how efficiently ones brain works? Does that make someone intelligent? Some wiring of the brain? That doesn't even make sense to me...I just feel confused and silly.

I'm trying to reach some understanding of the limitations of people.. because right now I just feel like, if somebody wants to study and devote their life to a subject they find really challenging (Astrophysics, for instance), they shouldn't be discouraged that their brains aren't working as fast as they'd like.

i'm terrible with words, but I guess to put it as simply as I can: I believe people can be whatever they want to be.
Career-wise
that they shouldn't be discouraged if they feel lit's too challenging for them. They should teach themselves to work harder! to stay committed.

ugh. idk what I am talking about.

SOMEBODY SHED SOME INSIGHT.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
However it is defined I think that imagination and creativity come into the mix.
 
Intelligence is an ambiguous word. It's relevant to mental performance, but that is such a complex subject that it requires specification.

General intelligence pertains to the ability to take information learned in one context and apply it in another.

However, learning requires memory and there are also several kinds of memory.
 
I believe people can be whatever they want to be.

Above a certain IQ I think that's true. If you're above that level (if you know you're an intelligent guy or if you can use logical thinking - which surprisingly many people can't - you're most likely above that level), you're hardworking and you're motivated, I'd say that's true. Now that doesn't apply to lazy people, people who don't have enough motivation for doing what they're doing, or people who just aren't minimally intelligent.
Motivation is so much more important than IQ though... Just imagine that a person with very high IQ was only interested in entrepreneurship went to study to Physics or Mathematics. He'd do very poorly, because he wouldn't be motivated, while a person with a normal IQ interested in the subject would do much better than him... And guess who'd become a scientist?
And take that woman who has an IQ of 190... What is she doing? Solving stupid problems that people send to her, while scientists who have a much lower IQ than her are doing serious and important work. Just looking at IQ is so reductionist...
 
Hey mariexotoni.

Intelligence is hard but apart from creativity and imagination from Dadface which I think are really important and sometimes overlooked in terms of defining intelligence, I would also have to say that insight is also important.

Insight is hard to define but loosely I would say that it's the ability to consider the widest range of situations and to then act in a way that uses this consideration.

In other words, acting in a way that shows long term thinking, careful consideration of many things (which is a product of awareness) and also acting in a way that is harmonius and doesn't end up in long term destruction: long term destruction is not the sign of someone intelligent IMO.

The insight mechanism also involves all of the aspects like recognizing patterns, being able to make use of uncertainty and all of the other aspects involved in learning, but it's not the whole story. Insight requires a kind of awareness that demands the individual consider as much as possible and pay attention to everything in a way that is unhindered by personal belief systems, personal biases and other forms of mental constraints.

Unfortunately human beings in general are not like this and therefore any potential gain for awareness will be lost due to the fact that we have biases, belief systems (not just religion but belief systems in general) and other things that constrain us mentally which ultimately hinders insight.

Being able to remember things, spell, put shapes together and do those kinds of things to me is a very minor part of intelligence because the activities in terms of measuring insight are quite limited in the grand scheme of things: they definitely do test certain forms of insight that can be non-obvious, but insight is so much broader than this and it also applies to every single area of life in all of its manifestations and is not strictly limited to putting blocks together or knowing general knowledge.
 
What other belief systems?
 
mariexotoni said:
What other belief systems?

Just anything that constrains what we will even consider to begin with. One requires a suspension of disbelief initially for this to occur across the board.

Also the thing is that this is clouded by whatever experiences we have and unsurprisingly different people will hold different things to be 'self-evident'. The thing about though is that if these self-evident truths are strong enough to constrain anything else not conforming to them, then will limit the potential awareness that is out there and subsequently constrain their insights.

Here are a few examples. A women has been abused by her ex-lovers and thinks that all men are trash and scum. A man goes through his life as a drug addict, gets helped by a priest and believes that god is our saviour and refuses to believe in chance. A scientist has spent their entire life studying nature under a microscope or with an instrument through a computer and after all they have experienced through their findings refuses to believe the mutterings of a religious crackpot.

All of these are belief systems whether they have learned through personal experience or programmed by other people or social systems.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having beliefs no matter how they accumulated or what they are based on: the important thing is to be aware that these are beliefs whether they have been accumulated by experiments, personal experiences, or otherwise.

When people think of belief systems they usually think of religion, cults, and all of those things but it's not true. They also think a negative thing about belief systems but again I am not placing a judgement of what they are, only that they need to be acknowledge and also that the non-consideration of other systems has to be acknowledged.

This is as hard for the scientist as it is for the priest as it is for the abused lover and there is nothing really wrong with that as long as these don't end up hurting other people (which in some cases is unfortunately true).

If I were to offer a solution to the above, it would be to suspend disbelief and all emotional filtering and then use some kind of logic to show that a counterexample exists. The problem is getting past the suspension of disbelief phase and the truth is that many people value their time enough in a way that they will not expend the energy on taking the risk that someone else might have a valid point even if it may be covered in a lot of untruth because there is always the risk that we will have wasted our time on something fruitless and unmeaningful. Also if we have had a bad experience in the past like our abused lover, scientist talking non-scientists about their failed inventions, or even our ex-addict who believes he has found god, then it's not hard to rationalize why people in general don't do this.

Again it's got more to do with acknowledging the fact rather than trying to justify or not justify it.
 
first you need knowledge, not necessary from books. then you just need to be able to apply it.
 
mariexotoni said:
What does it mean to you?

sorry if this seems silly, but- i don't understand how something like intelligence can be quantified by an IQ test.

I'm not going to claim to know what "intelligence" but I will say that I don't know any one, including a number of people I know well that give or deal with "IQ" tests regularly, that believe that "IQ" tests quantify "intelligence". The general opinion of professionals who work with "IQ" tests is that they are one of many measures that, taken together, can give some insight into how well a person can learn.
 
  • #10
Intelligence exists as a very general mental capability involving ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. The brain processes involved are little understood.
 
  • #11
chiro said:
A scientist has spent their entire life studying nature under a microscope or with an instrument through a computer and after all they have experienced through their findings refuses to believe the mutterings of a religious crackpot.

This is something i can't understand, you call someone a religious crackpot and then expect a someone to even consider his arguments.

BTW there is a difference between refusing to consider someone's argument and openly denigrating the other side's argument as fairytale or crackpot.

IMO intelligence is having or developing the ability to persevere your goal or interest.
 
  • #12
mariexotoni said:
What does it mean to you?
I perceive someone to be intelligent when they demonstrate an ability to manipulate other people without force. This is an exceptionally hard thing to do, and requires a deep knowledge of the self and of people in general. It is probably also the most important ability to have for success in any field. People with this ability are the most alert of all people, and have the big picture in perspective.
 
  • #13
thorium1010 said:
This is something i can't understand, you call someone a religious crackpot and then expect a someone to even consider his arguments.

BTW there is a difference between refusing to consider someone's argument and openly denigrating the other side's argument as fairytale or crackpot.

IMO intelligence is having or developing the ability to persevere your goal or interest.

The crackpot is the term that scientists usually apply: I have only chosen their language from reading forums posts here and elsewhere.

You've basically outlined the key problem (in bold). It's one thing to just denigrate, abuse, and slander among just not given the other person a chance versus having some kind of discussion (as opposed to an argument): you've illustrated this exactly in your post.
 
  • #14
chiro said:
The crackpot is the term that scientists usually apply: I have only chosen their language from reading forums posts here and elsewhere.

You've basically outlined the key problem (in bold). It's one thing to just denigrate, abuse, and slander among just not given the other person a chance versus having some kind of discussion (as opposed to an argument): you've illustrated this exactly in your post.

I doubt real scientists would call people or term them as crackpots. Still there is a difference if a person refuses to even consider well established science and start off on his own tangent just because he believes in it or does not like it, its quite difficult to even take him very seriously.
 
  • #15
thorium1010 said:
I doubt real scientists would call people or term them as crackpots. Still there is a difference if a person refuses to even consider well established science and start off on his own tangent just because he believes in it or does not like it, its quite difficult to even take him very seriously.

There is actually a philosophical basis in what I am trying to say, but this is not the philosophy and would sidetrack the thread: basically the idea is that even in these situations, the person who is experiencing their reality and ends up going on the tangent is for whatever reason having an interpretation that is valid in their mind and although it may end up in the case you are specifying, philosophically this has implications about the makeup of the universe amongst other things.

Also the fact that we will always be in this situation where we do not wish to expend the time and energy on being involved in such an experience should not be taken as a character flaw because we all do it: everyone does it.

It might be because of a previous experience, it might be because we've formed an impression through a non-direct experience (maybe from a conversation, movie, whatever): again it's not a judgemental thing what I am saying: the only thing I am saying to the OP is to be aware of how this affects us ultimately as human beings and how we not only obtain but process information which has an effect on the thing called intelligence.
 
  • #16
I've heard it said that the most intelligent people are those who admit when they don't know.

And, in this case, I would define it in whatever what it makes the most logical sense, wholely. So, I guess you could say that it is being able to assess the situation/information and formulate a reasonable/acceptable answer/solution.
 
  • #17
I have no idea of how to define it. I recognize it when I encounter it, and I like to think that I have some, but beyond that it's a total mystery.
 
  • #18
mariexotoni said:
What does it mean to you?

I like zoobyshoe's description (post #12). You, do have to be really intelligent for that (an ability to manipulate other people without force..) But then again, I'd have to say all girls I find attractive are intelligent, so hmmm, I guess it fails that logic test.
 
  • #19
People who are extremely creative, no matter the field. I also consider the quickness with which one learns new ideas/concepts to be a factor, though not as strong as creativity. So, when I meet someone who learns quickly and creatively applies or expresses their knowledge, I become intellectually aroused. :biggrin:
 
  • #20
I define intelligence as something that is, and not that could be.
 
  • #21
If you consider what IQ tests measure, it is the ability to uncover logical patterns and then apply them to the world.

Speed and complexity count.

And also the self-awareness to be able to articulate the rules. Doing the same thing instinctively, without being able to explain the rules being used to others, seems less intelligent.

So some autistic savants or great sports people can do amazing feats, but they don't seem smart in the sense of having consciously induced the rules that then control their behaviour.

Emotional intelligence would count as "intelligent" on the same basis, IMO. Good manipulators actually understand why what they do works. They have formed social theories with some degree of clarity they can communicate. But others may be more instinctive in their social actions - effective in their way, but not "bright".

So as well as intelligence being about speed and complexity of pattern handling, it is also about not being contextually-bound. The patterns themselves are the subject of thought rather than being just subconscious rules expertly and unthinkingly applied.

And I guess if you were talking about truly effective intelligence - of the kind you find in the world's actual achievers - you would have to throw in drive and curiosity. Some people just seem to find great satisfaction in finding out the hidden rules of life. Working things out to the level they can be consciously articulated becomes addictive.
 
  • #22
Pythagorean said:
Intelligence is an ambiguous word. It's relevant to mental performance, but that is such a complex subject that it requires specification.

General intelligence pertains to the ability to take information learned in one context and apply it in another.

However, learning requires memory and there are also several kinds of memory.

I'd say something similar.

Intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge in difficult contexts.

However, it is different from imagination and creativity.
 
  • #23
mariexotoni said:
What does it mean to you?

sorry if this seems silly, but- i don't understand how something like intelligence can be quantified by an IQ test. Or why people think they're unintelligent and they can't do anything about it.
Is it being really well-read?
Is it knowing lots of crap?
Is it how efficiently ones brain works? Does that make someone intelligent? Some wiring of the brain? That doesn't even make sense to me...


I just feel confused and silly.

I'm trying to reach some understanding of the limitations of people.. because right now I just feel like, if somebody wants to study and devote their life to a subject they find really challenging (Astrophysics, for instance), they shouldn't be discouraged that their brains aren't working as fast as they'd like.

i'm terrible with words, but I guess to put it as simply as I can: I believe people can be whatever they want to be.
Career-wise
that they shouldn't be discouraged if they feel lit's too challenging for them. They should teach themselves to work harder! to stay committed.

ugh. idk what I am talking about.

SOMEBODY SHED SOME INSIGHT.
I try to avoid using the word intelligence. As at least one poster has mentioned, it's an ambiguous term. Maybe even absurdly ambiguous ... though, imo, some posters have offered some interesting insights.

Because of that ambiguity, you needn't feel silly. Confused maybe ... like most everyone (I'm guessing) including myself, but not silly.

I agree with your attitude that most anyone can achieve anything they want, given certain resources and perseverence (a combination of desire and commitment ... wrt which some vague notion of intelligence would seem to be less important).
 
  • #24
A combination of things: reason, creativity, wisdom, amount of control over emotion, curiosity, and that is the current standard by which I judge a person's intelligence.

Intelligence definition:

The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills

I believe my own standard would apply to the definition.
 
  • #25
Intelligence is the ability to distinguish things from other things well. Doing that well includes speed, accuracy, and breadth. For example, certain levels of low mental skill correspond to an inability to distinguish self from surrounding. We can speak of distinguishing truth from falsehood. We can also speak of distinguishing if a person likes or hates a certain action (social genius) or whether people visually enjoy something or visually hate it (artistic genius). Intelligence needn't be a conscious effort.
 
  • #26
I don't know whether I got your point well enough. Did you say that intelligence is an ability to distinguish one's self from their surroundings, but in another sense say it's just the aspect of unconscious thinking, and my question to that, is it contradictory?

The other few questions are, aren't you simplifying "genius" a bit much? If a person hates something it is more because of a difference of taste than a genius. But while speaking on like and hate, aren't you saying, if it doesn't require conscious effort, you are saying that there are objective goods and that the genius can see through the non-good so to speak and the good rather than it being some sort of preference?
 
  • #27
Read Robert Frost's "Two Tramps In Mud Time"
 
  • #28
Easy.

Intelligence: the property of being intelligent.

Do we need a different notion of intelligence apart from the criteria of how we deem others (or ourselves) intelligent; that is, excelling in areas requiring thinking. That's how the meaning of intelligence is derived, not by the structure of the brain.
 
  • #29
i agree with you , intelligence and "talent" is far from the most important thing when it comes to how succesfull you are going to be in your carrier , or life for that matter . i think that the mere fact that a person seeks for knowledge , that's what makes him smart , to choose to explain things around him.
consiousness and bran activity is described as a way of learnig new things , if you think about it , you are not " consiouss" or aware" of things that you regulary do , like going to work or school each morning , this actions are already on " auto-drive " , your brain has already learn how to do it , so it simply doesn't make you "aware" of it , it just "does " it for you. but the momment when tyou enconter something new , something foreign , to what you already " learn" , its first then that your brain activates" consiousness , to learn about the new things in order to achive the desired goal , to put it simple , in your way to school/work , you come to your regular road , but it has been closed , so your brain most come up with a new way to get you to your goal , so it becomes "consious" of its surrondigs , to learn from them and find a new way. this is how the brain works. that's why we humans, called animals with higher intelligence, are so good at adapting.
but what i really think makes a person really "smart" is he's ability to actually choose to learn more than it needs, just to go back to the previous example , whne you meet the closed road , you can choose to only find a way around it , our you can choose to "find out " more , to explore , it maybe to learn WHY the rod is close , or even deeper , what is the thing i call "road"? and this is ability is what i think makes human intillgent , it is this abilitty that has brought us here and that i know will bring us further

of course it would always be people who choise to make profit of this closed road , buy apening a new one or something like that , but that can be discussed another time...
 
  • #30
i think that the mere fact that a person seeks for knowledge , that's what makes him smart

I would say that makes him/her curious. But I don't think it would necessarily make him/her smart just because s/he is pursuing knowledge to better understand his/her surroundings.

If that person is able to learn from his/her surroundings (gaining knowledge) and able to apply it quickly to better help his/her -self adapt to their surroundings, then I would be inclined to label him/her smart. Otherwise the mere aspect of trying to gain knowledge (or gaining) isn't enough to judge the breadth of a person's quick intelligence. It also, in my opinion, depends on which aspect of a field you are judging that specific person.

But does anyone else believe that it is environment dependent as well? Some people perform better under certain conditions? I have a friend who performs better under pressure than he does when he isn't under pressure.
 
  • #31
i agree with you to certain extent. but isn't it the seek for knowledge that makes you question things and try to come up with new ideas , and learn more ? and if you think about it , the only way to get better at something is practise , so the seek for knowledge alows a person to train its brain more efficiently
i don't believe that a person is genetically born to be more intelligent than others, they may have a brain that is physiological adapted to resolve certain problems in a better way than others , but this is nothing that cannot be achieved through training.
and to try to answer your question , we people use our brains differnetly . scientist have long believed that each of the function of the brain is "placed " in a specific area of the brain , but research is now showing that all the functions of the brain is achived through the cooperation of diffferent areas , deiffrent people can thus deal with the same problem using different areas of the brain , one way maybe more efficient than the other , here we can go back to my point , a brain that has been better " trained " can "choose " or is able to do a more effective way of dealing with problems , and the same may aply for your friend , he may just have trainded is brain to work better under pressure
another explanation maybe that his brain reacts differently to pressure than other people , when the brain is exposed to pressure it can send out different types of hormones , they may aid to the brain function or just make it worse , dependig on how the brain has been "trained" to react, and which areas he uses to deal with problems
of course environment matters , afterall its our response to the environment and how we learn from it and adapt to it that decide how "intellignet " we are
 
  • #32
phoenix:\\ said:
I don't know whether I got your point well enough. Did you say that intelligence is an ability to distinguish one's self from their surroundings, but in another sense say it's just the aspect of unconscious thinking, and my question to that, is it contradictory?

The other few questions are, aren't you simplifying "genius" a bit much? If a person hates something it is more because of a difference of taste than a genius. But while speaking on like and hate, aren't you saying, if it doesn't require conscious effort, you are saying that there are objective goods and that the genius can see through the non-good so to speak and the good rather than it being some sort of preference?

I didn't say intelligence is the ability to distinguish self from surrounding. I said intelligence is the ability to distinguish things. That was merely a specific example of intellectual capacity seen through ability to distinguish.

I also didn't say it is just the aspect of unconscious thinking. I said it need not be conscious. For example, someone could be a social genius without verbalizing his plans in his head. That is, it just comes naturally to him. On the other hand, I can envision another social genius who verbalizes all of his plans before acting, and in this way, it can also be a conscious effort.

I think you misunderstood my viewpoint. I wasn't defining characteristics of a singular genius. I was merely giving single examples of ability to distinguish that could be used to characterize a certain type of genius. Your point that certain things are a matter of opinion is moot, because you can still have a political, social, or artistic genius whose expertise is to maneuver that opinionated world. I also don't recall speaking about any absolute rights and wrongs (morality?). My other example of distinguishing truth and falsehood is closer to the standard IQ definition of a genius where people are tested on logical grounds.
 
  • #33
ability to solve problems. Needs a new paradigm, weighted less to problems of math and mechanics and more toward problems with human nature than current one.
 
  • #34
jim hardy said:
ability to solve problems. Needs a new paradigm, weighted less to problems of math and mechanics and more toward problems with human nature than current one.

Does music, art, and other types of beauty solve problems? If so, what problems do they solve. If not, is there no such thing as an artistic genius?
 
  • #35
RoshanBBQ said:
Does music, art, and other types of beauty solve problems? If so, what problems do they solve. If not, is there no such thing as an artistic genius?

To me art, music, and other things create stimuli, patterns, and other forms that help indirectly with solving problems.

We might see art or music as something that is completely separated from problem solving, but then we have to go back to a fundamental question which is "What exactly is a problem?"

The thing is, most problems to us in our mind, are knowable. We usually are able to clearly define what the problem is. But what if we are currently solving problems that we unknowingly haven't realized or even had a chance to define?

If we don't see something as a problem, then we won't even acknowledge something as a problem. Problems are usually defined because we have often faced interference at some point which has prevented us from progressing (hence the word problem).

But what if the actual 'problem' was not something that was immediately stopping us from progressing? It might be something that later on without our knowledge at that or previous time ends up helping us or other people 'progress' but at the time it by no means would have been considered 'a problem'.

Music and art might not seem to be 'problem solving', but look at what music and art do to culture, to patterns, to new information and ideas being created in which these later become used in ways that are unforeseen and also in applications that solve 'problems'.
 
  • #36
RoshanBBQ said:
Does music, art, and other types of beauty solve problems? If so, what problems do they solve. If not, is there no such thing as an artistic genius?

Good thought.

As I am utterly lacking in the skills required to produce such things,

i can only imagine that creating them involves much problem solving.

Music is built from themes and progressions and i don't know what other terms. I know from listening that Mozart always has at least 3 melodies in progress that mesh and gyrate like planetary gears. Dave Brubeck mimicked the syncopation of oil wells in "Take Five". How do they make it sound so good? Got to be lots of details to work out.
My wife paints and i see her working to get just the right colors, which she sees with far greater discernment than i.
Bouguereau's peasant girls are so realistic they look like they're aout to step out of the canvas. He even paints the flecks in the iris of their eye.
Crown.jpg

credit to Wikimedia, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Crown.jpg
(original is in Musee de Beaux Arts , Montreal, and worth stopping into see.)

So the ability to solve the problems necessary to make order out of disorder , be it on a chapel ceiling, or on a lathe, or in a town hall meeting, or in a physics book, is what i see .

Your art & music are the products of intelligence but are still just objects. As is the old Ford truck engine i have apart right now.

old jim
 
Last edited:
  • #37
RoshanBBQ said:
I didn't say intelligence is the ability to distinguish self from surrounding. I said intelligence is the ability to distinguish things. That was merely a specific example of intellectual capacity seen through ability to distinguish.

I also didn't say it is just the aspect of unconscious thinking. I said it need not be conscious. For example, someone could be a social genius without verbalizing his plans in his head. That is, it just comes naturally to him. On the other hand, I can envision another social genius who verbalizes all of his plans before acting, and in this way, it can also be a conscious effort.

I think you misunderstood my viewpoint. I wasn't defining characteristics of a singular genius. I was merely giving single examples of ability to distinguish that could be used to characterize a certain type of genius. Your point that certain things are a matter of opinion is moot, because you can still have a political, social, or artistic genius whose expertise is to maneuver that opinionated world. I also don't recall speaking about any absolute rights and wrongs (morality?). My other example of distinguishing truth and falsehood is closer to the standard IQ definition of a genius where people are tested on logical grounds.

Yup. I misunderstood what you were saying and went from there which is where the morality bit came from.
 
  • #38
Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in specific contexts, so the meaning of intelligence can change according to the context in which you use the word. However, for a general definition I'd have to go with Socrates on this one who said, "True wisdom is knowing you don't know." He wasn't just talking about humility either, but literally knowing that you don't know something like how to swim or do calculus. Intelligence then can be viewed as the overall capacity to know you don't know things as well as the ability to learn other things.

I'm reminded of Helen Keller's teacher spending endless hours trying to teach her sign language which Keller resisted learning in every way possible. For all intents she was an animal living only for immediate gratification because she literally had no clue what language was and, therefore, no clue what she didn't know. Once the light bulb finally went off she couldn't get enough.
 
  • #39
This is a wonderful thread. I normally spend time on the engineering forums. I’m glad I wondered over here, where I find this thread on a topic that I’ve studied since childhood, more than five decades ago. Intelligence encompasses many concepts and ideas, many of which have already been mentioned in a piecemeal way in the notes posted above. So now I’ll add my two cents worth.

As a very small child, I was identified as being extremely intelligent and creative. They were looking for kids like us in the post Sputnik era, because we were the ones who were going to save the USA from the Great Red Menace. The fear was that Russia was already ahead of us in science and engineering, and that we had better start educating the next generation to fix that problem. The Space Race evolved out of this sort of thinking. So they set me aside and made sure that I had the most excellent education. The kids who got left out really got left out. Nobody really cared about them. One mantra I heard from my parents and teachers many times when I would ask about the other kids was, “Well, someone has to dig our ditches, but you and your peers are going to save this country.”

They told me that my IQ was at least 145, which is three standard deviations above the mean. They said that IQ measurements above that were unreliable because the sample size was to small to standardize a reliable test in that range. So if anyone talks about an IQ of 170 or 190, they are blowing smoke up your tail pipe. An IQ score can be one of many useful measurements for anyone in the normal range, but it means nothing for those who are truly brilliant. All I knew was that most of the kids in these special classes were a whole lot more intelligent than me, so I grew up thinking that I was less than average. Some were awarded degrees in math and physics simply by passing all the finals without taking any classes, so they started their post graduate work at 17 or 18.

I have always believed that it is possible to train your brain to be more intelligent and more creative by certain techniques, but it has only been recently when some of the cognitive researchers have begun to believe the same thing and figure out how. What they are finding is what I’ve always known, because I learned it by experience. We can thank the Dali Lama for this new research. He chided them for always spending time studying minds that don’t work well. He said they should instead be finding minds that work extremely well and study those. With his endorsement, much of this new research has found funding. Money always seems to follow him around. Every time he suggests that something is a good idea, the funds become available.

Since I was a small child, I have been taught to believe that I would always be successful and that I will accomplish anything I set my mind to do. I believe it much more today than then after all these decades, because I’ve never had an example where it failed me, and I have thousands of examples where it worked exactly like that. This is where the passion comes in that has already been mentioned. The higher the level of passion I can maintain for what I’m doing, the more creative and successful my behavior. After maintaining a fleet of heavy equipment for many years, I got laid off very late in my career. I saw it as a wonderful opportunity to become a jet engine design engineer. That is like an old animal doctor becoming a human brain surgeon. I had not been any sort of design engineer since 1984, I had not kept up with any of the modern design tools, and I knew nothing at all about jet engines. I told this to the first jet engine company that interviewed me, and they hired me with the comment: “You will pick it up in six weeks.” My reputation had preceded me and I’m now designing gas turbines, having fun, and doing well. This is pretty much how my whole life has transpired.

High intelligence has nothing to do with learning stuff, retaining it, and spitting it back out on request. It has to do with finding new and creative applications for what we already know, and with expanding our collective knowledge base by learning things that nobody had known previously. Kelly Johnson studied buzzard wings, which were the basis for his ground breaking and new technology that he put into the U-2 spy plane, and now you will find it on every jet liner. That is true genius. Truly intelligent people have little respect for rules, except those that continue to prove themselves to be useful. They question all rules and everything else we think we know, and from that mental process they will find better ways of living. No paradigm or tradition is scared. I introduced a concept from the Boiler Code to fix a long standing concern in gas turbine design that nobody had as of yet figured out. But the solution was clear, simple, and obvious to me the first time someone showed me the concern. I work with some very brilliant people. They understood and appreciated the solution immediately. I was told by management to document it and teach it to the other engineers.

I’ve never been able to explain to anyone how to train the mind to be more intelligent. We simply don’t have the words or concepts in our English language. But in recent years I’ve become a student of the Christian Kabbalah, because they do have the words and teaching methods to transmit this understanding. All the wisdom traditions teach the same thing, with slight variations in the language they use. Modern psychology is mostly plagiarized from ancient mystics. This is a language filled with esoteric figures of speech—metaphors, parables, similes, and the like. These are the myths and legends of old that are not truly understood, except by those who have studied the language. A story might talk about a river or a mustard seed, for example; but those are just stand-ins for much more sophisticated concepts. Another tradition might substitue an almond or a grain of rice for the mustard seed, but they all seem to speak of rivers in the same way.

The long and the short of it is this: We only use a very small part of our brain for conscious thought, some say only ten percent. The rest is for unconscious thought. It has often been postulated that we could be much more intelligent if we could use more of the brain for conscious thought. Every once in a while, everyone gets a sudden and unexpected download of unconscious thought into the conscious part of the brain. These are those sudden flashes of inspiration or insight that surprise and delight us. Intelligent people get them more often, but the truly brilliant understand how to go into the unconscious mind and draw out what is needed. This explains people like the great masters of old, and some of the ones still living. The things we draw out of our unconscious mind will relate to whatever we are most passionate about.

Another thing the truly brilliant do is to refuse to file data in the mind under a rigid rule of classification. Much better to let it float around and find a new home. I’ve used things I learned studying ancient Philistine architecture in aerospace design. Other engineers said that was an excellent idea, but how did I ever think of it or make the connection? It just came naturally to me, because of the loose structure in my mind. Everything that I’ve ever learned is in my subconscious mind, but I will download it to conscious thought if and when I need it.

I’ve seen it mentioned that what is done by instinct, like some of our best sports stars, is not really intelligence. What is done by instinct is coming from the subconscious mind. I’d prefer to say that they have learned to be very intelligent concerning they things about which they are most passionate.

I am not in the least bit religious. But consider this: The words “spiritual,” “philosophy,” and “psychological” all come from the same ancient root concept. It was an endeavor to better understand how our minds work. Those that have failed to understand this are the ones who have invented all these religions that depend on faith rather than rational thought. I have faith, which is literally to say that I believe. But what I believe most strongly is that which I’ve experienced, and that which I can duplicate in similar circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top