Most "types of intelligence" are nonsense designed to make people who are not smart feel smarter, amirite?

I'm fruit smart. I can name all the fruit and their country of origin. I know zero math, though...tis the cost of being fruit smart.

by Extra-Swimmer-540 1 week ago

oh does thy fruit smarts know no boundaries?!

by Lfarrell 1 week ago

I'll put it this way. I know so much about fruit that I have no idea what you just said. I can barely read, but I know my way around a persimmon. Don't even get me started on custard apples.

by Extra-Swimmer-540 1 week ago

Grown all over the place (north and south america, asia), look kinda like an artichoke or a pine cone, big black seeds, smells weird-sweet kinda like cookie doh? Vanilla is what Google says (not my experience but makes sense). Taste sweet and are in no way like an apple, they are soft like a banana. That's about it, Hermano.

by Extra-Swimmer-540 1 week ago

Where are Papayas from?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Now if only we could reframe math into some kind of fruit-related problem solving.. Tell me, how many plantains can you fit in one hand?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Mathletes have entered the chat

by Aggravating-Disk-754 1 week ago

LOL. I always make fun of my husband for having been a "mathlete" in high school.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I guarantee you your husband gets made fun of for his choice of wife

by Anonymous 1 week ago

His choice of *husband, I think OP is a man based on their avatar

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I couldn't tell, I'm looking at it on my phone and it seemed like a neck warmer!

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I think we have another mathlete here. Shouldn't you be gearing up for the 2024 Mathlympics?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

So... is being a rude ahole just a hobby or is that how you are smart?

by Ferrydestin 1 week ago

Are you a 90s bully or something?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

conflates intelligence with abilities. It also little in the way of empirical evidence or studies backing it up.

by Bartdavis 1 week ago

But aren't the competentes you listed just abilities too?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Agree and thank you!

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I think you are onto something here.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Aren't iq tests and g factor supposed to be designed around minimizing testing for acquired knowledge because it's not an inherent ability?

by Acceptable-Dust4772 1 week ago

What is quantitative vs fluid reasoning?

by Merritthowell 1 week ago

I mean, there are different kinds of intelligence though. Obviously athletics isn't that, but I also have literally never heard someone try to make a claim that it was before this moment, so that reads to me more in the straw man direction than anything else tbh. Some people have an excellent capacity for memorization. Is this not an area of intelligence? Some people think more laterally and are better with pattern recognition. Is this not a form of intelligence? Not all smart people are the same kind of smart. I think the issue is that you've simplified it down too far. It's not just "any skill is an area of intelligence", it's that intelligence is complex and multifaceted, and can't be easily confined to one idea of what makes someone "smart".

by Anonymous 1 week ago

OP's oversimplification of kinesthetic intelligence down to athletics, and reduction of musical capacity to 'talent' seems to be indicative of their comprehension skills.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

That part made me embarrassed for OP. Made it pretty clear why they think this way.

by Low_Wafer 1 week ago

Since classic IQ is measured through pattern recognition, let's just say that anything else is a different type of intelligence. The notion that this is false is absurd to me. Academic accomplishment and career success are correlated, but different. There are so many other aspects that play a role in success. The most important being social intelligence, but there are others as well. Academic success and social intelligence are completely different and I would guess not at all correlated, yet equallly important for climbing a ladder on your field of expertise. We have all seen unqualified people having high positions, probably because of their ability for people to like them and trust them. That extends to various abilities of being a leader. Emotional intelligence, empathic intelligence along with social intelligence, things a leader must have in order to be successful. Academic and pattern recognition play no role here. Then music intelligence, completely different that anything else. Being able to create tasteful art is just a talent. Also, your brains controls your limbs, so It wouldn't be weird that fast reflexes, good coordination, are not a part of intelligence. I can go on at on, but surely saying that academic success and pattern recognition are the only type of intelligence is just false.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Why is he wrong ?

by kshlerindasia 1 week ago

I mean, Mozart was a genius and I think most people would consider him smart, but I don't think he was good at math. Musical prodigy, sure. My memory is rubbish, but I'm relatively good at numbers and math. Smart is multifaceted

by meggiebatz 1 week ago

There is one kind of intelligence and it involved not being dumb

by PhotographSame 1 week ago

That form of intelligence is quite rare

by Anonymous 1 week ago

All forms of capability is worthy of respect. To do otherwise is evidence of a small and unkind mind.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Of course it is worthy of respect! Please don't think I am saying otherwise. But not all forms of capability are intelligence. Just like not all of them are musical talent or athletic ability.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

No one is saying those aren't talents, or that they aren't valuable/admirable/desirable. But why do we describe them all as "intelligence" rather than "athleticism" or some other word? That's my point.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

They are not talents, they are skills. It is reductive and frankly insulting to refer to years of dedication and practice as talent.

by Low_Wafer 1 week ago

I see. So your argument is that we need to use the word "intelligence" because most people are so ignorant that they wouldn't understand the use of another word? Even if I didn't disagree with that sentiment (which I do -- see my last paragraph), it doesn't answer my point. People understand the work "athletic" just like they understand the word "intelligent." So if someone is a master trial attorney, why not say, "Man! That guy shows crazy athletic skills in the courtroom"? Or a mathematician who has "incredible endurance and speed in untangling complex problems"? My hypothesis is that we couch all aptitudes in the language of "smart" because of an unconscious bias that "smart" is somehow better than "athletic" or "musically talented" or those other things. Which is absolutely insane. But it's the only working idea I have for why this weird feature has wormed itself into our language.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Yeah, my first degree was in psychology, man. That's how I know what you are saying is just empty jargon. You're using the language of intelligence to measure aptitudes that have nothing to do with intelligence. My whole point is that you are choosing to use that rather than some other frame of reference, like athletics. Yes, you *could* say a mathematician has stunning endurance and speed! But it's not a scientifically *accurate* or *precise* way of talking about their mental capabilities. It's certainly not optimal, which is why we generally don't talk about mental capabilities this way in science. So, why do it with regard to non-mental capabilities and intelligence? That's the question I keep asking and you keep circling around in favor of making childish ad hominem attacks.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I'm not using jargon, I'm speaking plainly. Jargon is specialized language intended to exclude. Did I throw Latin at you or did you do that? You need your mind to use your body. Piping hot take, I know. If you want quantifiable proof you can check out case studies of brain damaged individuals - see their capacity for learning. But you'd know allllll about that huh, Mr First Degree in Psychology. Anyway that's a big claim you're making there without any proof or even concensus. Are you going to define intelligence and why only certain forms of it count or are we working with my definition under which physicality can be included? Go off king. Mr I Totally Studied Psychology, what parts of Psychology is quantifiable, precise, and accurate? IQ tests? Lmao. They're controversial. Psychology is not that kinda science just yet, to my awareness, but please, educate me otherwise. I have the courage to face being wrong. Seems to me like you're complaining about the field not being physics. This literally is covered in Psychology 101. The capacity for growth and aptitude in doing so are commonly accepted as intelligence, it's kinda on you to prove they're not. There are many different fields one might have natural aptitudes for. You are arguing that some of these fields are better or more special. Why. Your opinion isn't scientific, it's based in your feel feels. It's your hot take, not mine, no? Go back over your most common fallacies, I think this one is "burden of proof". But noooo I'm attacking you ad hominem ad hominemime. Your claim that these aptitudes aren't intelligence requires proof. Do you have "precise, quantifiable" proof these aren't forms of intelligence or are you talking out your ass about something you know far less than you should while acting like it's more than a foolish opinion?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Visualization isn't necessary for anything. You can draw without it.

by Think-End 1 week ago

I don't know about that, chief, but I'm not a master artist.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

There are people who are literally incapable of visualizing that can produce amazing art. It is called Aphantasia and it is more common than most people think it is.

by Gbeer 1 week ago

But are all forms of capability intelligence? Like OP said, are you athletic if you are good at calculus?

by Lornaconnelly 1 week ago

Yes. Different kinds of intelligence. Some people are predisposed to quickly learn techniques. Why would that not be intelligence? Are you a rock if you're bad at thinking? Are you a square if you're a shape? That's a stupid argument not worth engaging and I'm sure there's some stupid name for it like false equivalence or oversimplification or maybe outright refusal to understand how categorization works.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I'm someone who would be considered traditionally smart, but I kind of disagree. Like I'm socially really really stupid, the logic does not compute for me in social situations. I also know a few people who are really really good at one specific thing while being pretty dumb in other areas.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Why do you include musically with athletically? Do you know how complex musical theory can get? Music knowledge goes deeper than knowing a G chord on a guitar I mean, different people are smarter at some things than others. Math and science come easier to me than English class did. Learning different languages is a big weakness of mine. I know more about music than most. Are those not different types of intelligence?

by zoey02 1 week ago

I am an audio engineer. Music is literally math. Thats kind of my point. Athletics is a skill (there's obviously theory to specific games. I'm not insulting them). It's just weird to not consider music more in with math and science. Certain notes sound good in certain chords because their frequencies reverberate at intervals of each other (440Hz and 880 Hz for a super simple example). There's over a dozen scales for each specific key and why do some work in specific situations.

by zoey02 1 week ago

I can probably think of a few bands that don't understand music theory but I'd call them the exception. And it would be genres like punk where you can memorize shapes without knowing why (but they know it works which is arguably the first lesson of music theory). People will rail against pop artists saying it's musically bland but (even though not my style) Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran, hell even Brittany Spears can probably sing you a scale off hand. Taylor can play it on a few instruments too. All of their traveling bands most likely have decades studying it if not degrees in their instruments backing it up. I bet there's a small percentage of professional musicians that don't have a pretty good knowledge. Blink 182 probably can't tell you what notes are in the e minor scale but throw a dart at a board of current touring artists and I will bet money you hit one that does

by zoey02 1 week ago

Do you know how complex musical theory can get? Music knowledge goes deeper than knowing a G chord on a guitar I mean OP didn't say that people can't be smart and musically talented. But there are a lot of artists that can put out albums of hit songs by just jamming with their buddies.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

My point is that people can write good music just based on their emotions without knowing which keys are good for evoking which moods or anything. That's what some people call "musical intelligence", or what the OP wants to call "musical talent". IMO what you're talking about is applying "classical intelligence" (pattern recognition, memory, critical thinking, etc.) to music, which can also create good results. I just think it's a different process. Thinking with your brain instead of with your ear.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Who has done it? With 0 understanding of music but just made a great song? A key doesn't evoke emotion. Just what notes you play. Chords and scales evoke emotion and you can't play either without at least knowing what notes to play

by zoey02 1 week ago

The definition of intelligence (the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills), at least the Oxford definition, says otherwise.

by Lambert26 1 week ago

It just sounds like you have a problem with people using the word "smart" or "intelligent" outside the fields of academics. But that would also mean people who failed at school, but had gifts in other fields would have to consider themselves stupid by your standards.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I don't think I said that. I said smart people often succeed in academics, not that they were limited to academics. When we talk about intelligence, we talk about things like recall and pattern recognition. That doesn't mean that demonstrably smart people can't or don't exist in other fields. Also, you use the word "stupid" like it is a zero-sum game: you're either a genius or a dummy. Reality doesn't reflect that at all. Most of us are average in most ways, including measurable intelligence. No one has to consider themselves any way, but the hard truth is that we are all more likely than not very, very average. That includes intelligence.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Depends on how you define intelligence. To me, intelligence is the ability to identify complex patterns and make the right decisions to achieve the best possible outcome.. You can apply that definition to any aspect of life, and you'll find people who are very good at that particular aspect. Academics is the obvious example. But take atheletics, for example.There are millions of football players around the world, and none of them compare to Messi. His ability to recognise and navigate complex spatial patterns faster than anyone else is what makes him the GOAT. Messi is not an academic genius by any means, but he is a genius athelet. So, yes, intelligence exists outside the academic realm.

by Few_Raspberry9466 1 week ago

You're right that it's definitional. All you did there was play a fancy word game so you could define a footballer as intelligence. That is 100% my point.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

You're just getting bent out of shape about the word "smart". Physical intelligence and emotional intelligence are real, but they don't indicate intellectual intelligence (the common understanding of the word "smart")

by Dizzy_Purple_9573 1 week ago

I know a guy from Tesla he is an engineer there, but he is extremely socially dumb, what do I call him?

by UnderstandingOdd 1 week ago

I guess socially inept or lacking social skills would be preferrable to "socially dumb" re: OP

by Dizzy_Purple_9573 1 week ago

you can. Language evolves naturally, if you redefine athletic and people start using it in that context, then that's what it means.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

basically, yeah. It's fine if you don't like it, but that's just how people use the word now. I don't think anyone is really going to attempt to change it.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

You make me think of how chess is called a sport. I mean, technically, you can play with words like this, but it is annoying. I'm with you.

by Dizzy_Purple_9573 1 week ago

That is exactly why I mean. I also get vexed about "Magic the Gathering" being on ESPN. (At least it was back when I was in college. :))

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Just let me feel smart for a little while. 😔

by Commercial_Editor344 1 week ago

Even the monkey fall from tree

by Anonymous 1 week ago

An appeal to authority by itself is fallacious. An appeal to authority without citing any authority is ... I'm not sure what. Did you have something you wanted to say?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I think they're* trolling, no one could be this obtuse.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Says the person who won't engage in reasoned debate. Also not a "she." I assume that misgendering was a 100% good-faith mistake.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

You've failed to meet your burden of proof. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Super simple. Prove this is objectively true: "We all know smart people and can identify them". I can wait.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

The assertion appeal to a personal experience we all have. It's like saying we all know musically talented people, or athletic people. Can you prove that? You really are going to just repeat your stance with no proof and call it good? There's no good faith here. Your entire opinion, and every response to my taking down of it, have been in bad faith. I think we're done here, I've clearly upset you enough,

by Anonymous 1 week ago

What on earth is a "bad faith opinion"? I am not sure you know what "bad faith" means. And setting the requirement for me to prove that you personally know and can identify smart, or musically talented, or athletic people makes my argument unwinnable. (How would I even prove that to your satisfaction?) But of course you know that. (That's what "bad faith" means.)

by Anonymous 1 week ago

oooh OPs busting out their 'big words' for more credibility!!!!

by mauriciokulas 1 week ago

If vocabulary intimidates you, then I don't think we have anything to say to each other.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Yeah, let the smart people be smart. Was there a point to your non-sequitor?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

First, the term is non-sequitur. Second, it wasn't a non-sequitur. Your response was to say, "No, authority says you are wrong." That's an informal logical fallacy. As in, not a valid response to the argument. Third, you didn't even do the appeal to authority correctly, because you didn't actually cite any authority. I feel like my point is proving itself

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Just let the smart people be smart ok? Don't hurt yourself.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

But there are many types of athleticism lol, haven't you seen videos of athletes trying to do different sports?

by Mean_Platypus_494 1 week ago

Sure. But don't we all snicker a little bit when ESPN refers to "Magic: The Gathering" as a sport?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Do you consider Chess a sport?

by CalendarTough 1 week ago

No.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

But it is a sport. So it's not weird calling Magic the gathering a sport.

by CalendarTough 1 week ago

Then what is a sport too you? Because it's not just athletic people running around or lifting things. The immense mental fortitude you need to play competitive chess is on the same level as other sports. But I guess you think sports should only be about physical extertion.

by CalendarTough 1 week ago

Your example isn't great (I would be surprised if a high-level maths professor was "completely lost" in logic), but I will grant you that there are different aspect to intelligence. My problem is defining all positive character traits as intelligence and thus concluding that everybody is intelligent.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I agree that not everyone is intelligent and some people use the word loosely to make others feel better. But your argument as i understood it was there is one type of intelligence and i disagree with that. You can be extremely intelligent in one area and be dumb as a squirrel in another.

by Schmidtpablo 1 week ago

I've got an an idea, why don't we add up all of the multiple intelligences and divide by the number of multiple intelligences, and call the result general intelligence.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I am not a sports person at all, but a lot of being a great athlete requires intelligence. Someone like Wayne Gretzky or Messi who can see opportunities that others cannot and position themselves in a place to score are extremely intelligent because they simply see and predict things that others don't. Athleticism is great, but it's far from the only thing required to be a great athlete.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

No question that smart athletes are often better at their jobs than less smart ones. But that doesn't mean athleticism and intelligence are the same thing. Quite the opposite, in fact.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I have the same take but it has indeed been unpopular when I've debated it with friends

by ProgramDefiant 1 week ago

This is why I know I'm not smart

by National-Shoe 1 week ago

The athlete who uses his body - no. Smart should need to be a brain thing. The player that has always smart ideas in his play, yes.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Ironically what if "multiple intelligences" didn't prove that people who weren't smart were actually smart in specific ways but rather that the smart people were categorically more intelligent in many different ways?

by MarzipanMajestic 1 week ago

I'm netflix smart. I can watch the shows i want to watch on netflix.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Like you have no emotional intelligence. You may think and know facts but dont know how to communicate without being confrontational. You're why people invented middle management. How do i know?...sigh

by dominicziemann 1 week ago

I honestly wish I had your level of psychic powers because you clearly know so much about me.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Sports smart is understanding different strategies, knowing when to do something for max effect, it would be the coach that needs this strategic thinking. Musical smart requires understanding musical theories, being able to write and compose music. A mere athlete or musician does not require being smart, but there is intelligence required in those fields.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Does it occur to you that you are just shoehorning in the word "smart" above in an attempt to get the better end of the argument?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I do think once you cross the smart threshold talent is distributed differently. Even if two people score above average on an iq test, when you look at the categorical breakdown one might score high in memory and one in reasoning but nonetheless average out to the same useful iq.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

My uncle can identify an engine by hearing it go by on the street and fix damn near anything and is incredible at math but don't you ask him to spell a god damn thing. Certain people are just better at retaining different types of information

by schimmelmellie 1 week ago

Maybe by the definition, but how I generally reference 'smart' is the people who have the ability to think. Now that's a simple way to put it, but those are the people I would consider Smart, and that's a lot of people.

by Mckenna72 1 week ago

Eh, Multiple theory of intelligence is somewhat popular, but it has little to do with musically smart other then potentially pattern recognition, and physically smart it has nothing with, (haven't done psych classes for a year or 2 though)

by Some_Swimming208 1 week ago

I mean, the people turning it into a pseudoscience are wrong but it's just demonstrably true that there are some different kinds of intelligence. Someone can be academically gifted but emotionally not, and someone with high emotional intelligence can lag behind academically, to name one example. It sounds like you're projecting, OP…

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I mean, I agree that muscle smart sounds like total BS, but Ó haven't ever heard that either. But this like street smarts make total sense imo, you understand the environment and know exactly how you should, and maybe more important, how you shouldn't act in certain situations

by No-Guitar 1 week ago

So if someone knows everything about a game and can manipulate his opponents accordingly, can do insane precise movements, etc. why would that not be called intelligence? Those things need alot of computing power, more than recalling certain formulas or theories you read in books.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Lots of way smarter people strongly disagree. Almost like your arguing the earth is flat at this point...

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I'm not Google but you can start here, Look up Howard Gardner, that is where multiple intelligences was first proposed in 1983. It has been well studied and written about since then. I trust the people with PHDs on their name, especially when it's lots of them...

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Well if they have PhDs, their positions must be correct.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Lots of college tends to do that to people. Weird...

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I see. So if I tell you I have a doctorate, that means I win this argument?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Sigh. No. The answer is "no" because the fact that I have a doctorate doesn't make my argument more or less correct. Also, there are lots of stupid people with doctorates. It has nothing to do with being outnumbered. Knowledge and logic aren't democracies.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Ok. Sure. No knowledge and logic are not democracies, they are studied and accepted or they are rejected. And your right just having a PHD does not make people smart. But when the vast majority agree, I take their word for it.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Howard Gardner literally admitted that the whole thing is made up and not to based on any form of empirical or experimental evidence, and therefore unfalsifiable. There are plenty of people working in pyschology who disagree with his theory. Most psychometric evidence does not support it.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I am trying to engage with you point by point. You clearly don't want to do that. Not sure why you responded in the first place if you were just going to behave like this. I suspect it's because you disagree with me but can't actually find a reason I'm wrong.

by Anonymous 1 week ago