|
On March 16 2015 14:54 Najda wrote:
When wass the last time you've interacted with someone that ended with you getting the impression of "wow this person is very smart" and what was it about the interaction that made you think that? What do you define as smart?
Personally I define it as the ability one has to learn something. A smart person will only need to be told something once, whereas a less smart person will need multiple explanations or more time and self study to learn the thing.
The thing about this though, is it's very hard to demonstrate or quantify, which leaves me confused as to how people get that impression about people through a limited conversation about trivial topics. I suppose factors such as vocabulary and your demeanor when talking come into play but those aren't real indicators of being smart how I define it.
I subscribe to a form of specific intelligence so I think of someone as especially smart when they have varied specific intelligence.
If someone is really smart in one area but below average in most/many other areas I don't consider them especially smart. More of an allocation of resources (intelligence) focused in a specific area.
Da Vinci is the type of person I think of when I think of especially intelligent people. Showing exemplary skill in a variety of areas.
There's got to be some caveat to address the smart people born into terrible situations so their intelligence is never harnessed (think the millions of children dying from starvation or lack of clean water before they can even speak, let alone read) Surely we have lost some of the potentially smartest people in history (based off their genetic potential) to such things. Or many great minds wasted on merely trying to survive a terrible situation.
|
I find somebody smart when they go past my explanation to the next step. They have then analysed what I am trying to tell them and moved on to the next concept and level. (I have to base it at some level and it is hard to know which one until you know the person better.)
A second definition is adaptability. If there is a mistake, you tell them and they then work the correct solution even if the info is wrong.
Stuff like the above are indicators but can also be based on previous knowledge I don't know about.
Basically, analysing data instead of getting data presented. In the long term that will give smart people due to constantly learning and challenging information.
Then there are genius level people as well but I havn't met any of those, so don't know how to tell.
|
Smart is being able to extract much understanding from little information.
|
United States7483 Posts
Intelligence describes the ability of someone to learn, utilize learned information, and rationally apply it to encountered problems to come to correct and useful conclusions.
|
On March 16 2015 14:54 Najda wrote:
When wass the last time you've interacted with someone that ended with you getting the impression of "wow this person is very smart" and what was it about the interaction that made you think that? What do you define as smart?
Obviously intelligence is multifaceted and lots of people are smart at whatever one thing or another. But I generally use the twin definitions of problem solving and synthetic capability. Being able to make connections, create useful metaphors, and the like are a lot of what is actually involved in learning or teaching something, and is a really valuable capability.
|
On March 13 2015 00:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 17:19 xM(Z wrote:yes, mostly; but the way you phrased it and then emphasized certain aspects of it, looks more like entrapment. it leads the discussion towards something like: the perpetrator being the only lay witness at his crime which would then mean that i couldn't use his testimony nor his confession given to his lawyer. that's pretty much back to where this started  . i could give you my opinion on that specific issue and it wouldn't go against what i said previously but, would your reasoning/train of thought end with something like: a flawed creature deserves and needs a flawed justice system because ...<insert reasons>?. Wherein lies the problem. We can't guarantee perfect execution. We can't guarantee perfect information. As such, we can only have a systems that is willing to risk guilty people going free over innocent people being punished. For example, a system where accusations require zero evidence and punishment is guaranteed would risk 0% of guilty people going free at the result of 0% of innocent people going free as well. The opposite is also true wherein we have no court systems and 100% of innocent people go free at the cost of 100% of guilty people going free. The various justice systems is trying to find a middle ground between both risking a % of guilty people going free and % of innocent people being punished. What those percentages should be is determined by the philosophy of each system.
innocent until proven guilty is a catch phrase politicians use to score points with the masses.
a natural consequence, in any justice system based on evidence, is that guilt needs to be proven first.
now, you can argue that the bar by which certain evidence was deemed admissible was really low(or not existent) in early times(back when people were stoned to death by virtue of subjective testimonies/word of mouth/opinions alone) but the fact remains that you'd still had to prove it.
if you think that we're at the pinnacle of what the admissible-evidence's potential is, then we're just have to agree to disagree.
(took me a while to reply with the weekend and all, but i won't continue it(pm's maybe) since i believe the point/idea/concept has outlived its purpose; especially for this thread )
Edit:
@the intelligence issue: all i'm reading is - intelligence is whatever i have unless someone has more of it.
|
When you are arrested you go to jail. Prison guards escort you too and from the courthouse. In court you wear whatever passes for prison uniforms and are handcuffed.
Can you really call that kind of system "innocent until proven guilty"?
|
On March 16 2015 19:40 Orcasgt24 wrote:
When you are arrested you go to jail. Prison guards escort you too and from the courthouse. In court you wear whatever passes for prison uniforms and are handcuffed.
Can you really call that kind of system "innocent until proven guilty"?
Particularly when if you can't make bail you may spend more time incarcerated waiting for trial than you would of if you had the funds to provide a complete legal defense.
|
Okay, so here's a Starcraft one: Fenix in Ep. 3 alludes to having fought many different species, and considered the Zerg the most formidable. As far as I know, Ep. 1 marks the beginning of human contact with alien races. Are there lots of other starcraft races running around that the Protoss (and Zerg?) have run into but the Terrans haven't? Why are they fighting the Protoss? Hell, how do you have a warrior caste in a semi-hive-minded society without generally being expansionist dickheads, which would seem to go against the standard Protoss lore?
|
On March 16 2015 14:54 Najda wrote:
When wass the last time you've interacted with someone that ended with you getting the impression of "wow this person is very smart" and what was it about the interaction that made you think that? What do you define as smart?
Personally I define it as the ability one has to learn something. A smart person will only need to be told something once, whereas a less smart person will need multiple explanations or more time and self study to learn the thing.
The thing about this though, is it's very hard to demonstrate or quantify, which leaves me confused as to how people get that impression about people through a limited conversation about trivial topics. I suppose factors such as vocabulary and your demeanor when talking come into play but those aren't real indicators of being smart how I define it.
my master's thesis supervisor. solving problems I was stuck with for weeks in under an hour. theoretical physics is a bitch. beautiful.
|
On March 17 2015 01:05 Yoav wrote:
Okay, so here's a Starcraft one: Fenix in Ep. 3 alludes to having fought many different species, and considered the Zerg the most formidable. As far as I know, Ep. 1 marks the beginning of human contact with alien races. Are there lots of other starcraft races running around that the Protoss (and Zerg?) have run into but the Terrans haven't? Why are they fighting the Protoss? Hell, how do you have a warrior caste in a semi-hive-minded society without generally being expansionist dickheads, which would seem to go against the standard Protoss lore?
Could be the Koprulu sector is like the Star Trek universe and there are the primary powers, Klingon, Federation, Romulan or Zerg, Terran, Protoss, and then minor civilizations that are kind of advanced enough to go toe to toe with the big three. There is also the fact that the Protoss have been around the longest by a mile, and are a civilization in decline, so could be long long long ago.
|
So here we go. There's pretty much a consensus that stealing is bad, and stealing a stapler for instance is immoral and understandably frowned upon. But here's a scenario: you have a pile of paper and you need to staple them together, and someone's stapler is there on the corner of a desk. The person, a complete stranger, is not there for you to ask if you can use it. Can you use the stapler?
Edit: The stapler and the staples are private property, they are not in an office where the stationery is more or less a shared good.
+ Show Spoiler +Poll: Can you use the stapler (and therefore "steal" one staple)?(Vote): Yes absolutely, it's just a staple
(Vote): Yes but first check that the person has enough staples left
(Vote): No, you can absolutely never use the stapler without asking
|
We need more info. Where is this taking place exactly? In most places in which a person might leave a stapler, it is reasonably foreseeable that someone might happen by and use said stapler in a common way. Therefore, it isn't even stealing really so long as this is taking place in a public place or ones' work or school.
|
In university for instance, where I've seen people bringing staplers to class a few times. Outside of an office setting anyway, so the stapler is the property of the person and not any company.
|
United States7483 Posts
Uh, the question basically becomes, based on my own set of morality, are you doing more harm to them by stealing a staple and using their stapler without their consent than you are gaining in utility by stapling your paper?
In general, my worldview is that you should try to maximize global happiness and minimize global harm while also not crossing the line and harming anyone too much no matter what. Using a stapler hardly crosses that line, so it's just a basic utility question.
|
On March 17 2015 01:05 Yoav wrote:
Okay, so here's a Starcraft one: Fenix in Ep. 3 alludes to having fought many different species, and considered the Zerg the most formidable. As far as I know, Ep. 1 marks the beginning of human contact with alien races. Are there lots of other starcraft races running around that the Protoss (and Zerg?) have run into but the Terrans haven't? Why are they fighting the Protoss? Hell, how do you have a warrior caste in a semi-hive-minded society without generally being expansionist dickheads, which would seem to go against the standard Protoss lore?
Animals, possibly. He may have fought against predatory animals on Protoss frontier colonies.
|
On March 17 2015 11:20 Djzapz wrote:
In university for instance, where I've seen people bringing staplers to class a few times. Outside of an office setting anyway, so the stapler is the property of the person and not any company.
how are they not there in class? are you impatient while they are in the bathroom or did they forget it there, are there witnesses? (does it matter since you asked about morality?) there are so many stapler situations.
|
Why are you sharing desks with a complete stranger? But in general, yes. Who the hell cares as long as you don't break the stapler while doing it. And even if you do, leave a note with your phone number and buy a new stapler (or run like the wind and live with yourself, you evil stapler murderer).
|
Only problem with the stapler would be if a lot of people do it (or you do it a lot), and he would run out of staples frequently. So if it only a one-time thing, np. Maybe check that you don't take the last one as you mentioned.
If you do it regularly though, or if you know/suspect a lot of other people are also using his staple, you should probably at some point point buy a refill for him. At that point you can supply him with staples as well, as you don't have to spend the money/space to keep the stapler itself.
Essentially the same principle as always returning a borrowed car with more gas than you got it with (unless the asshole gives you the car with full tank already!), as compensation for buying, keeping and maintaining the car.
|
Edit: #Acrofales (take + leave phone number just in case)
should read more
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
