|
Trying to make sense of human emotion through mathematics is a flawed premise entirely.
The 'positive' sense of a personality trait is nothing but an opinion really. Where as the mathematical sense of positive cannot be disputed, (ie. it is clearly defined)
Although it's an interesting observation it does not always hold true.
Social Intelligence vs Social Ability
(My own definition)
Your social intelligence is entirely based on how well you pick up on other people's emotions. This is not to be confused with 'introversion' or 'extroversion' in people as it has nothing to do with personality, but rather to do with how much social information is perceived by an individual.
Your social ability is not always proportional to your social intelligence. For example, those with very little social intelligence (autism) may find it difficult to be successful socially (maintain friends, meet new people, relationships, etc).
Yet somehow those with too much social intelligence find it very difficult to be around people, as they are too in sync with the emotions of those around them. This stunts their social ability and deters them from being honest, and open.
In your case, the line "...even acknowledging the fact that some remarks are critical and could offend"...
This shows honesty trumping empathy. If the 'recipient', as you put it, finds this favorable (your honesty), then this will be a positive trait.
If the recipient finds your honesty offending, they do not like the lack of empathy expressed towards them and this will be a negative trait.
The spectrum of human personality is too vast to be put on positive/negative as there are too many variables which decide whether it is a good or bad trait.
|
EDIT: embarrasingly, this mostly a reiteration of what is said directly before/above me... yikes/sorry! still:
mathematics is built around a framework we invented/discovered to create a sense of objective we can grasp onto... 1+1 will always be 2 (disregarding convoluted/silly loopholes, just talking simple, traditional, straightforward mathematics). arguably this framework is an invention and so is our "rule" that positives add to positives. still, within the framework (invented or not), it remains that, a rule.
i do not think any adjective descriptive of human traits/personality can be considered within an objective framework, at least not simply so. as you began to imply, words when it comes to subjective human experience, are just that: words. honesty does not imply how forward or reserved you are with that honesty, nor is either condemnable (i dont think). persistence is positive, stubborn is negative, but they are essentially the same trait.
that being said, i do think its true that in a more general and less technical sense that what we consider our and each others strengths can very easily become or seem to become flaws in the context of other areas usually considered strengths as well... a loosely logical analogy of two people who are skilled in different ways butting heads comes to mind; its not precise, certainly, but i think the idea is at its heart.
|
If any1 is offended by your personality, by the way you act or by the believes that are hidden deep inside your ego - you could't do possibly anything more stupid than trying to be friengs with some1 who just can't get along with your way of living
you see, live is just too short and have too much crazy events waiting just for you to boost you up or bring you down.
when you live your life with satisfaction, is there really any good purpose for taking so many others feelings into consideration? i sure don't think so
and after all. if others are irritated or embarressed - why on earth would you like to spend your short time here, helping them to get out of their intelectual sewage?!
|
On April 19 2012 01:40 thedeadhaji wrote:<p>1+1 = 2. A positive number plus a positive number is a greater, positive number. This seems indisputable in mathematics [1]. But is this the case with people and our characteristics? Could two personal traits, both positive when in isolation, combine to become a negative behavior? I think it's possible, and perhaps even common. Here is a personal example. </p><p>I am, according to friends, unusually honest and forthright. But put a different way, I am simply <em>blunt</em>. It's a product of my upbringing, both my family and my friends I had and still have. Taken alone, honesty is a trait that is certainly accepted as positive. </p><p>I am also, by my own measure, fairly social. I am quick to accept people I just met as friends, and interact with them as if I've known them for some time. Again, friendliness and trust are widely accepted as positive values in our society. </p><p>But what happens when these two values are combined and used together? Some of the effects can, as I've found, in fact be quite negative to the recipient. </p><p>Here's <em>John</em> , a fellow I've "befriended" just a few months ago [2]. Because I have the propensity to rapidly uptake someone as a good friend, and because I speak my mind (even acknowledging the fact that some remarks are critical and could offend), believing in its (supposedly) inherent virtues, the two traits combined can spur me to behave in a way which irritates, offends, or even embarrasses <em>John</em>. </p><p>If I were more judious in my forthrightness, or more careful in my trustfulness, then this effect would not occur. The blunt truths would only be directed at the closest of <a href="http://blog.hkmurakami.com/post/19575059194">confidantes</a>. As a result of having this particular combination of <em>positive</em> traits, I spawn a propensity to offend. </p><p>I can imagine that there are many other combinations of traits that can result in negative consequences. What is the proper response to these possibilities?</p><p>The only lesson I've been given, is to understand and acknowledge who we are, and to <em>think ahead</em>, considering the consequences of our words and actions before they are acted upon. </p> <p><hr>[1] Though I suppose that this could perhaps not be the case in higher mathematics?</p><p>[2] A pseudonym, of course. </p> Crossposted from my main blog
I think you mix up honesty and lack of tact or diplomacy. Speaking your mind without thinking what your words are going to do has nothing to do with honesty, and is really not a quality. I have and I have had many good friends who have been like that and I always considered it as a really serious flaw.
I have a friend who always answer the "right" thing and everybody praise his "honesty". I think he just lacks tact and doesn't consider the fact that sometimes, you don't have to answer like a machine and can take other people's feeling into account. That's not dishonesty, that's not hypocrisy, that's the basis of sociality.
You can be very honest and master the art of saying the right thing or finding the right formula, or just not saying what you shouldn't say. You can be very dishonest and just throw hurtful stuff you randomely think at the face of people.
If for example, your friend just played a concert, and you didn't like it, it's not a lie not to tell him you thought it was outrageously crap. In fact, saying it, even if it's what you thought, would just mean being a dick. There are countless way to avoid being both rude of a hypocrite.
The analogy with math is a bit doubtful.
Oh, also... The doctor saying his patient he has cancer is a really bad analogy. When you own the truth to someone about something he should really know, of course you should have the courage to say it. That's not speaking out your mind, and you do it in his interest. Your friend, on the other hand, maybe shouldn't know that you thought his concert was crap, to go back to my analogy.
My two cents
|
>>> What is the proper response to these possibilities?
If you want to make friends with someone, you should be keeping in mind what they like and what will make them feel welcomed and comfortable. If you're doing something that embarrasses someone and you still want to be friends with them, then consider not doing that. It's not rocket science.
Edit: You might want to ask yourself why John was embarrassed or hurt, whether it was necessary to embarrass or hurt him, whether you were looking out for him when you said whatever you said, whether you might owe him an explanation, whether you should do something different next time... these are things that John's friend would think about! You seem a bit mystified as to what's tripping you up --- I say this because the "two rights make a wrong" explanation is completely hokey --- so if you haven't already, try to see it from his perspective before you congratulate yourself on how honest and friendly you are.
|
Withholding yourself because someone may get offended is a cowardly move, even tho most of us do it.
A mature person with no insecurities will appreciate you for speaking your mind.
I wish everyone just said it like it is, but of course I'm the first guy who will not do it in all circumstances.
|
On April 19 2012 21:12 niteReloaded wrote:
Withholding yourself because someone may get offended is a cowardly move, even tho most of us do it.
A mature person with no insecurities will appreciate you for speaking your mind.
I wish everyone just said it like it is, but of course I'm the first guy who will not do it in all circumstances.
Well not really. Demonstration:
- Hey what are you thinking about?
- I was just thinking that you are ugly, you can't dress for shit and you have yellow teeth.
A: - Oh, thanks for your honesty, I appreciate your courage to not withholding yourself.
B: - You really are an unsensitive son of a bitch.
Of course it's easy to go into the "not afraid to offend = real man", even if it's completely dumb.
|
On April 19 2012 21:12 niteReloaded wrote:
Withholding yourself because someone may get offended is a cowardly move, even tho most of us do it.
A mature person with no insecurities will appreciate you for speaking your mind.
I wish everyone just said it like it is, but of course I'm the first guy who will not do it in all circumstances.
That's a very simplistic way of looking at things. Speaking ones mind with no thought of consequence is not very mature either.
|
Don't entirely understand the mathematical analogy. I guess the point is similar to the economic case of goods that don't have free disposal so that when you have 1 good you're happy, and when you have another good you're happy, but when you have both, they form a doomsday toxic catastrophe and everybody dies.
|
On April 19 2012 10:07 GloryOfAiur wrote:
Couples are usually opposites of each other in personality for the most part. If you are dating someone extremely similar to you in personality, chances are its not going to go long-term.
This is almost entirely wrong, both empirically and theoretically - the one exception being high scores on neurosticism. In this case it's not so much due to dissimilar personalities - at least theoretically - as due to neurosticism simply being counterproductive to close and longlasting relationship by how it's defined and meassured empirically.
What's the logic behind your reasoning?
|
On April 19 2012 11:41 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:37 Forikorder wrote:
is honesty and forthrightedness a good traight though?
sure everyone saids that it is when people are looking at them, but in there mind do people really want to be told an inconvenient truth over a lie?
perhaps honesty is only a good traight when your telling someone something good Daut44, an old poster here (think he went by BigBalls), used to say that when marking mathematical proofs he'd look for words like "certainly" and "obviously" and "definitely" because that's usually where the writer is trying to pass an assumption as true without evidence. I noticed that in the OP, with "honesty is certainly a positive trait." That premise needs to be supported.
From what I know, honesty is usually not conceptualized as a trait in most trait theories, but rather a behavioral outcome.
Honesty and positive are etymologically linked, and while this might not intentionally have been taken into account, I don't see a reason to be especially skeptical about this premise.
Honesty refers to being truthful. In sentential logic, a truth function would consist of two sentential variables encompassing a logical functor and give the binary outcome 1 (truth) or 0 (false). Thus, truth equals 1, which is mathematically positive by being "a number greater than 0".
Positive could mean "stated definitely", in which case truth applies.
It could mean "fully assured in opion", and while this opinion could be globally false, from the internal perspectiv it's truth.
It could mean "characterized by constructiveness or influence for the better". This is perhaps the definition you're most skeptical about? Where truth corresponds to enlightenment, wisdom or insight, the corresponding attributes could be clarity of perception, reason and knowledge. Since all of these are positive for optimization of utility and decisionmaking, they are constructive by definition for a situational outcome. "better" resembles "that which is prefered over that which would have occured under other circumstances, namely lack of truth.
Example:
In the game of starcraft, having full vision of the map would be positive for optimization of utility (what you got) and decisionmaking (what you will do with it), and is thus constructive (leading to the better) to the outcome of the game, regardless of whether you want to win or lose it.
I do, however, believe that there are many reasons to be skeptical about the paradigm of traits altogether, as it seems to have counterproductive implications for, for instance, optimization of utility and decisionmaking - namely because traits (or the intrapersonal belief in the existence of latent traits) seems to limit the amount of behavioral outcomes one perceives in a given situation by being deterministic in nature.
|
On April 19 2012 12:43 Zedders wrote:
Trying to make sense of human emotion through mathematics is a flawed premise entirely.
The 'positive' sense of a personality trait is nothing but an opinion really. Where as the mathematical sense of positive cannot be disputed, (ie. it is clearly defined)
Although it's an interesting observation it does not always hold true.
Social Intelligence vs Social Ability
(My own definition)
Your social intelligence is entirely based on how well you pick up on other people's emotions. This is not to be confused with 'introversion' or 'extroversion' in people as it has nothing to do with personality, but rather to do with how much social information is perceived by an individual.
Your social ability is not always proportional to your social intelligence. For example, those with very little social intelligence (autism) may find it difficult to be successful socially (maintain friends, meet new people, relationships, etc).
Yet somehow those with too much social intelligence find it very difficult to be around people, as they are too in sync with the emotions of those around them. This stunts their social ability and deters them from being honest, and open.
In your case, the line "...even acknowledging the fact that some remarks are critical and could offend"...
This shows honesty trumping empathy. If the 'recipient', as you put it, finds this favorable (your honesty), then this will be a positive trait.
If the recipient finds your honesty offending, they do not like the lack of empathy expressed towards them and this will be a negative trait.
The spectrum of human personality is too vast to be put on positive/negative as there are too many variables which decide whether it is a good or bad trait.
Social intelligence and social ability seems to be mostly nebulous surface phenomena. All the recent brainreseach I know of points to neuroplasticity and neglects existence of multiple types of underlying forms of intelligence aside from differences in learned skills. The whole concept of multiple intelligences seems to be leftovers from Howard Gardners theory of multiple intelligences (which he, btw, opposes today).
You're also stating that people with autism have very little social intelligence. Autism is a behavioral defined disorder, and while this sometimes does mean impairment of neural development (and thus intelligence), one can also get the diagnosis "autism" while scoring high on tests of intelligence. In this case, very little social intelligence resembles only very little social abilities, as defined by what is socially expected of the society you inhabit. Since abilities are unevenly distributed, the correlation between social abilities and intelligence is low. In fact, in many countries IQ tests are given people whom are being diagnosed with autism to account for the fact that the diagnosis itself correlates very well to intelligence, as defined by score in IQ tests (high IQ scores lowers odds of being diagnosed with autism).
You're stating that some people with very high social intelligence find it difficult to be around people. If that's the case, your definition of social intelligence seems to be inconsistent.
Finally you state that the spectrum of human personality is too vast to be put on a positive/negative as there are too many variables which decide whether it is a good or bad trait. I would argue quite the opposite: there are simply no or few variables which decide whether a trait is good or bad, because being good or bad merely reflects perceptions of the situational and behavioral outcome.
|
On April 20 2012 00:51 buldermar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 12:43 Zedders wrote:
Trying to make sense of human emotion through mathematics is a flawed premise entirely.
The 'positive' sense of a personality trait is nothing but an opinion really. Where as the mathematical sense of positive cannot be disputed, (ie. it is clearly defined)
Although it's an interesting observation it does not always hold true.
Social Intelligence vs Social Ability
(My own definition)
Your social intelligence is entirely based on how well you pick up on other people's emotions. This is not to be confused with 'introversion' or 'extroversion' in people as it has nothing to do with personality, but rather to do with how much social information is perceived by an individual.
Your social ability is not always proportional to your social intelligence. For example, those with very little social intelligence (autism) may find it difficult to be successful socially (maintain friends, meet new people, relationships, etc).
Yet somehow those with too much social intelligence find it very difficult to be around people, as they are too in sync with the emotions of those around them. This stunts their social ability and deters them from being honest, and open.
In your case, the line "...even acknowledging the fact that some remarks are critical and could offend"...
This shows honesty trumping empathy. If the 'recipient', as you put it, finds this favorable (your honesty), then this will be a positive trait.
If the recipient finds your honesty offending, they do not like the lack of empathy expressed towards them and this will be a negative trait.
The spectrum of human personality is too vast to be put on positive/negative as there are too many variables which decide whether it is a good or bad trait.
Social intelligence and social ability seems to be mostly nebulous surface phenomena. All the recent brainreseach I know of points to neuroplasticity and neglects existence of multiple types of underlying forms of intelligence aside from differences in learned skills. The whole concept of multiple intelligences seems to be leftovers from Howard Gardners theory of multiple intelligences (which he, btw, opposes today). You're also stating that people with autism have very little social intelligence. Autism is a behavioral defined disorder, and while this sometimes does mean impairment of neural development (and thus intelligence), one can also get the diagnosis "autism" while scoring high on tests of intelligence. In this case, very little social intelligence resembles only very little social abilities, as defined by what is socially expected of the society you inhabit. Since abilities are unevenly distributed, the correlation between social abilities and intelligence is low. In fact, in many countries IQ tests are given people whom are being diagnosed with autism to account for the fact that the diagnosis itself correlates very well to intelligence, as defined by score in IQ tests (high IQ scores lowers odds of being diagnosed with autism). You're stating that some people with very high social intelligence find it difficult to be around people. If that's the case, your definition of social intelligence seems to be inconsistent. Finally you state that the spectrum of human personality is too vast to be put on a positive/negative as there are too many variables which decide whether it is a good or bad trait. I would argue quite the opposite: there are simply no or few variables which decide whether a trait is good or bad, because being good or bad merely reflects perceptions of the situational and behavioral outcome.
You read my post under the assumption that I see intelligence as a genetic predisposition or something.
I should have stated my definition of intelligence first.
"An intelligent human being has a high IQ."
This sentence makes no sense because IQ doesn't represent anything but how good they are at writing IQ tests.
A person's IQ determined by an IQ test doesn't tell us anything about their 'social IQ'. It doesn't really tell us anything about their intelligence EXCEPT for the ability to write tests with the common questions that an IQ test would give. Even if those tests were to try to analyse social IQ somehow it wouldn't really make a whole lot of sense right?
So yeah the whole intelligence or multiple intelligence's thing is "mostly nebulous surface phenomena" as you would put it.
You can't measure social IQ, plus why would you want to? Would someone with a high social IQ have more successful relationships?
But this mean intelligence doesn't have any meaning at all, and shouldn't exist. Intelligence is a word that we mainly use to describe understanding, or the manifestation of elevated mental activity. When the intelligence of a human being is being determined by his peers, it's merely the display of his abilities that is judged, not his intelligence.
I think intelligence is developed, and intrinsic. Intelligence is the level of understand that one has in a certain field (social, math, plumbing, sex, hair-cutting..etc). This level of understanding (intelligence) can never be truly determined. In society we can only be empirically compared with that of another. The empirical comparison is the examination of the ABILITY demonstrated in that field, and as such is an improper projection of what is truly going on.
So back to that post about Social Intelligence vs Social Ability
Keep in mind...we're posting on a thread saying 1+1 = -3.... which tried to tie personality traits to mathematics.....
I was merely trying to interpret the fact that if something like honesty as a positive trait could be compared to intelligence as a positive trait. In displaying the ability (or getting along with John) his honesty turned negative.
If this were to be true then we could also include social intelligence as a positive trait, or more simply empathy = good, no empathy = bad. Social ability is meant by the success (or illusion) of maintaining friends, meet new people, relationships, easy to get a long with..."Social butterfly" to coin a phrase.
TLDR
I don't think that the people you see who are the life of the party, have lots of friends, or are exceptionally witty, able to carry on interesting conversations (High Social Ability), have any correlation with the amount of understanding or empathy that the individual feels (Social Intelligence).
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
your example has nothing to do with '2 positives sometimes ='ing a negative'
it's just you being unable to identify someone's insecurities and not being more cautious with your words lol
you can't just blanket always being honest, open, and forthright about how you think and feel into one big 'positive trait' either
|
On April 20 2012 00:51 buldermar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 12:43 Zedders wrote:
Trying to make sense of human emotion through mathematics is a flawed premise entirely.
The 'positive' sense of a personality trait is nothing but an opinion really. Where as the mathematical sense of positive cannot be disputed, (ie. it is clearly defined)
Although it's an interesting observation it does not always hold true.
Social Intelligence vs Social Ability
(My own definition)
Your social intelligence is entirely based on how well you pick up on other people's emotions. This is not to be confused with 'introversion' or 'extroversion' in people as it has nothing to do with personality, but rather to do with how much social information is perceived by an individual.
Your social ability is not always proportional to your social intelligence. For example, those with very little social intelligence (autism) may find it difficult to be successful socially (maintain friends, meet new people, relationships, etc).
Yet somehow those with too much social intelligence find it very difficult to be around people, as they are too in sync with the emotions of those around them. This stunts their social ability and deters them from being honest, and open.
In your case, the line "...even acknowledging the fact that some remarks are critical and could offend"...
This shows honesty trumping empathy. If the 'recipient', as you put it, finds this favorable (your honesty), then this will be a positive trait.
If the recipient finds your honesty offending, they do not like the lack of empathy expressed towards them and this will be a negative trait.
The spectrum of human personality is too vast to be put on positive/negative as there are too many variables which decide whether it is a good or bad trait.
Social intelligence and social ability seems to be mostly nebulous surface phenomena. All the recent brainreseach I know of points to neuroplasticity and neglects existence of multiple types of underlying forms of intelligence aside from differences in learned skills. The whole concept of multiple intelligences seems to be leftovers from Howard Gardners theory of multiple intelligences (which he, btw, opposes today). You're also stating that people with autism have very little social intelligence. Autism is a behavioral defined disorder, and while this sometimes does mean impairment of neural development (and thus intelligence), one can also get the diagnosis "autism" while scoring high on tests of intelligence. In this case, very little social intelligence resembles only very little social abilities, as defined by what is socially expected of the society you inhabit. Since abilities are unevenly distributed, the correlation between social abilities and intelligence is low. In fact, in many countries IQ tests are given people whom are being diagnosed with autism to account for the fact that the diagnosis itself correlates very well to intelligence, as defined by score in IQ tests (high IQ scores lowers odds of being diagnosed with autism). You're stating that some people with very high social intelligence find it difficult to be around people. If that's the case, your definition of social intelligence seems to be inconsistent. Finally you state that the spectrum of human personality is too vast to be put on a positive/negative as there are too many variables which decide whether it is a good or bad trait. I would argue quite the opposite: there are simply no or few variables which decide whether a trait is good or bad, because being good or bad merely reflects perceptions of the situational and behavioral outcome.
On April 20 2012 05:21 Zedders wrote:
You read my post under the assumption that I see intelligence as a genetic predisposition or something.
No, I do not. What makes you draw this conclusion?
On April 20 2012 05:21 Zedders wrote:
"An intelligent human being has a high IQ."
This sentence makes no sense because IQ doesn't represent anything but how good they are at writing IQ tests.
I never wrote this - you're misquoting me, quoting your own interpretation of what I wrote, instead of actually quoting what I wrote. This type of argumentation is called straw man, and is an informal fallacy based on misinterpretation of an opponent's position.
On April 20 2012 05:21 Zedders wrote:
A person's IQ determined by an IQ test doesn't tell us anything about their 'social IQ'. It doesn't really tell us anything about their intelligence EXCEPT for the ability to write tests with the common questions that an IQ test would give. Even if those tests were to try to analyse social IQ somehow it wouldn't really make a whole lot of sense right?
A person's IQ is 'exactly' what's meassured in an IQ test, because that's how IQ is manifested. However, whether there is a discrepancy between that an intelligence is a different discussion.
IQ tests does tell us a variety of things. For instance, study shows that IQ tests is a better meassure of how well a person will be doing his/her job than job interviews. This, however, is widely ignored, partly because of the misconception that IQ tests doesn't allow for any kind of predictions aside from how well that person will complete similar IQ tests.
However, i will say that the only certainly of a meassured IQ is that the person made a specific score in a specific test, as is the case with most other types of test, if not all.
As for your distinction of social IQ and IQ in general - I find this more conceptual than practical and empirical. I don't think any internal distinction of IQ's can be made aside from unevenly distributed abilities, which I consider to be due to other parameters - such as amount of time a person has been spending on the task.
On April 20 2012 05:21 Zedders wrote:
Would someone with a high social IQ have more successful relationships?
My point is that social IQ is an endomorphism of IQ. Someone with a high social IQ has a high IQ because IQ is holistically defined. Someone with a high intelligence (to avoid the IQ-intelligence debate) is better than someone with a lower intelligence at everything, all other parameters equal, because this is what high intelligence does for you - it allows you to hold more things in your mind simutanously, and alter all of their interrelationships.
On April 20 2012 05:21 Zedders wrote:
But this mean intelligence doesn't have any meaning at all, and shouldn't exist. Intelligence is a word that we mainly use to describe understanding, or the manifestation of elevated mental activity. When the intelligence of a human being is being determined by his peers, it's merely the display of his abilities that is judged, not his intelligence.
Insofar that intelligence is neccessarily manifested phenomenally, I agree with this. However, I disagree that it makes the term useless altogether, and that it means intelligence can't be ontological.
If I am talking to someone, and that person is capable of understanding my productions or thoughts whilst I'm incapable of understanding his, I'd argue that he's more intelligent than me by definition. In that sense, I guess there is a link between intelligence and mental activity, but mental activity itself can't fully account for intelligence. Everything is manifested in cognition and perception, and to that extent, an element of judging is required for the term intelligence to have meaning, but it doesn't neccessarily mean that intelligence has no meaning aside from individual judgements.
On April 20 2012 05:21 Zedders wrote:
I think intelligence is developed, and intrinsic. Intelligence is the level of understand that one has in a certain field (social, math, plumbing, sex, hair-cutting..etc). This level of understanding (intelligence) can never be truly determined. In society we can only be empirically compared with that of another.
I should have stated my definition of intelligence first.
I disagree that genetic predispositions can be excluded entirely from the equation, but agree that, for the most part, intelligence is developed intrinsically.
I disagree with the level-of-understanding definition, tho, as this will always be a function of time spent on an arbitrary field. If that was the case, my juggling-intelligence would be minimal when I might in fact be able to learn juggling faster than 99% of all people, and after 1 month of practice, maybe would be better than 99.99% of all people. On that same token, someone who is currently better than 99% of all people might improve slower than 99% of all people and just have this ability developed due to time spend. If intelligence is defined this way, no distinction of intelligence and abilities can be made, and as such, I oppose this definition. This is also why you can't test intelligence by testing ablities. For instance, how well you write a language is an exceptionally poor estimate of your intelligence, because if you grew up in a country talking that language you're so much more likely to write it well than someone who never tried it before. The tricky part, then, is how well IQ tests reflect that which does not reflect an uneven distribution of abilities, i.e. that which determines the speed by which you learn and understand in general.
On April 20 2012 05:21 Zedders wrote:
The empirical comparison is the examination of the ABILITY demonstrated in that field, and as such is an improper projection of what is truly going on.
Yes, to the extent that you're actually examination an ability of a certain field, but this is not what IQ tests seeks to do - and in my opinion not what it does, at least for the most part. As long as one is examining an ability of a certain field, it neccessarily will be an inaccurate projection of actual intelligence. This is why people have no business connection the academia bureaucracy with intelligence, or money with intelligence for that matter.
On April 20 2012 05:21 Zedders wrote:
So back to that post about Social Intelligence vs Social Ability
Keep in mind...we're posting on a thread saying 1+1 = -3.... which tried to tie personality traits to mathematics.....
I was merely trying to interpret the fact that if something like honesty as a positive trait could be compared to intelligence as a positive trait. In displaying the ability (or getting along with John) his honesty turned negative.
If this were to be true then we could also include social intelligence as a positive trait, or more simply empathy = good, no empathy = bad. Social ability is meant by the success (or illusion) of maintaining friends, meet new people, relationships, easy to get a long with..."Social butterfly" to coin a phrase.
That's a good point, I think. However, I don't think the 1+1=-3 metaphor is justified. Hence, I didn't find the analogy all that interesting compared to some of the other content you and OP presented. I'm sorry if I went too much into details about something you find irrelevant to the overall message of your post, which I, in turn, did find interesting.
|
I just checked your ban history and if you have a propensity to offend, you would've been banned multiple times in TL by now. Clearly you know what posts are civil and acceptable. What's so different about your social life apart from TL?
|
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - Shakespeare
They way I think about it now is that there isn't really much you can do about other people's preferences and such but as long as you can express yourself clearly then there usually isn't an issue. Its simple but it's actually not quite so easy. You have to be able to express the meaning behind your words and actions and make it so the other person truly understands what you trying to do or where you are coming from so that you both have the same intellectual understanding of the situation.
If you can do this then people shouldn't, in my opinion, take offense to what you have to say, blunt or otherwise.
Just my opinion though.
|
On April 21 2012 04:34 polgas wrote:
I just checked your ban history and if you have a propensity to offend, you would've been banned multiple times in TL by now. Clearly you know what posts are civil and acceptable. What's so different about your social life apart from TL?
From my experience, aside from a very limited set of strict rules, bannings on TL happens ad hoc. Being civil and acceptable by ones own standards, respecting other peoples opinions, extrapolating well on your own and submitting to the written rules does not guarantee that you remain unbanned. In fact, very little emphasis seems to be put on freedom of speech or the degree of internal logical consistency in your statements relative to the emphasis put on the degree of similarity between your opinion and that of a mod, or that mods opinion of you in general. This is well examplified by the fact that almost any type of arguing with a mod justifies a ban - regardless of the content of the arguments. To this extent, your analogy is justified.
However, being an organization that makes money from traffic, emphasis is also put on how much traffic a respective person generates. Having made over 20k posts means not only that you're likely to make more, but that when you do so, people tend to read and respect what you write. Hence, there is a degree of correlation between the amount of posts one has made, and the likelyhood of getting banned.
Furthermore, being blunt means being more persuasive on avarage. Being perceived as intelligent also leads to a higher degree of persuasion on avarage. This, in conjunction with the fact that mods can ban ad hoc, makes mods fall victim to persuasion frequently.
|
On April 21 2012 16:51 Flyingsnow wrote:
They way I think about it now is that there isn't really much you can do about other people's preferences and such but as long as you can express yourself clearly then there usually isn't an issue. Its simple but it's actually not quite so easy. You have to be able to express the meaning behind your words and actions and make it so the other person truly understands what you trying to do or where you are coming from so that you both have the same intellectual understanding of the situation.
If you can do this then people shouldn't, in my opinion, take offense to what you have to say, blunt or otherwise.
Just my opinion though.
I really liked how you phrased this. On that same token, being blunt also entails sincere questioning. For instance, if I become aware that my opinion on a subject differs from that of another person, rather than being blunt about my own opinion, I could ask questions the answer to which I currently expect to lead to the highest level of enlightenment. If the answer is unaccounted for, I'd have to review my perspective by integrating it. If not, elaboration of my own perspective is at least now shown to be sincere, and thus potentially more productive. Either case seems to lead to a mutually greater gain intellectually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
