Intelligence

>What makes someone intelligent or stupid?
I would post this in Veeky Forums but there they will tell me if I don't manage X advance field of abstract mathematics I'm a brainlet.

Genetics and environment.

If your parents are intelligent, you are more likely to be.

If you are brought up in an environment conducive for learning, you are more likely to be intelligent.

Neither of these are guarantees.

I was asking what are the characteristics of those people.

Also, early development. Malnourishment as a child is bad

Sure, there are rather obvious measures of intelligence like being able to think on your feet and learn from your mistakes, but I'd wager that a lot of what "makes" you intelligent depends on where and when you are alive.
Sure, a medieval monk or Han bureaucrat wouldn't have been able to do advanced calculus, but they would have been judged on a different metric than we judge today's intelligent people.

Just making shit up but:
>Curiosity
>Persistence

That is included in environment.

The characteristics of 'intelligent people'?

Intelligence.

They have high scores on IQ tests. They take less time to learn complex concepts, can do it more independently, understand them better and apply them better into practice than average people.

>They have high scores on IQ tests.
Meme
>They take less time to learn complex concepts, can do it more independently, understand them better and apply them better into practice than average people.
True

Name a better way to assess intelligence quantitatively.

If you take intelligence as "the ability to gain and apply knowledge," then it's immesurable. There are far too many factors beyond the individual, (such as peers, upbringing, and opportunities,) which affect a persons ability to learn and apply it.

Someone could be extremely intelligent but have access to shit or no education and live in subpar conditions, which keeps them from ever displaying such intelligence.

I honestly don't know.

Not him, but being the best way to measure it doesn't make it good.

If I didn't have a ruler and the only way to measure something was estimation with my fingers, then while that's the best I got, it's still bad.

Shitting on IQ tests is a meme. They're academically well-accepted and carefully created. You're gonna have a real hard time finding a top tier physicist with an IQ under 130-135.

First ask what is intelligence and what is stupidity.. a hunter gatherer would be violent and stupid in our society as much as a newton would be dead in an hunter gatherer society

Except iq is not science.

Mainly common sense

Brain structure, nurture is a meme as someone who has no frontal lobe will always be stupid.

Newton would be an asset to hunters since he could formulate strategies to acquire food more efficiently. The meme that smart humans were useless in the stone age is just that a meme. It took smart guys to invent farming.

Yes. That's why natufians were better than those subhumans from the north.

>brain structure is not affected by the environment
Spotted the frontallobelet.

It most definitely is.

the capacity to adapt to your enviroment makes you intelligent, so it's not being the best at maths if it doesn't land you a great job with a nice chick to start a family, etc

Often hte people that you'd label as retards but are super sociable and adapt to the enviroment really good, those are the intelligent people, I mean my IQ is high, I'm very creative, but I'm lazy and antisocial, so I'm a retarded piece of shit in the practical terms

This. Despite any personal opinions one might have about IQ, it most definitely is a valid construct

My iq is not that high but i can understand why iq is not a solid intelligence meter.

The abillity to understand complex concepts is literally what an IQ test measures.

No, an IQ test measures your ability to take Iq tests

Funny how the ability to take IQ tests is closely correlated with intelligence, level of education and professional success.

If there is only one way to measure something, it is automatically the best way to do it.

Which correlates well with actual intelligence.

>correlation=causation
Wrong. Iq is not science, user.

>t.layman
Always nice when a non-scientists emphatically declares what is and what is not science.

Wrong.
It's up to iq supporters to demonstrate iq is science.

No one equated anything with anything.

Intelligent people do well in IQ tests. And IQ tests accurately identify intelligent people.

They have, repeatedly, and for decades.

I think everyone who has an interest in pursuing knowledge and understanding should be considered intelligent. Most stupid people you see are stupid precisely because they don't care about that.

I think that this is a good mindset (and a trait intelligent often have) rather than a definition of what makes one intelligent

Also what no.one mentioned before that in modern science there is this approach on defining intelligence by deviding "crystaline" intelligence from "fluid" intelligence
"Fluid" is supposed to be the abillity to create "crystalline" intelligence and "crystalline" is the knowledge you have aquired
Therefore the concept of the IQ is linked to the "fluid" intelligence
To make one person intelligent I'd say that both "crystalline" and "fluid" both take a part but I would favor the "crystalline" intelligence over the "fluid"
It matters more that you get to the right results rather than you being a slow thinker/reader
I don't say that "fluid" intelligence doesn't matter any more than the speed of understandment though
The "fluid" intelligence also matters at how you understand things
Dumb people will/might misinterpret things or can't understand things more than the desired result, etc.

+1

>they have
>intelligent
How so?

True. Both are usually correlated to some extent but the balance between the two can vary substantially from one individual to another. One can be average in working memory/processing speed but still be capable of very deep thinking and abstraction given enough time ; an extreme example of the opposite is Kim Peeks who displayed cyborg-tier capability in some areas of cognition while being of below-average intelligence overall. Also fluid intelligence is supposed to decrease with age starting in early adulthood while crystallized intelligence can be maintained or increased for a much longer period, which makes sense since it is closely related to experience.

Also true and good example

>fluid intelligence is supposed to decrase with age
Yes though this can be maintained as well as crystalline intelligence can
There are old people who are pretty awake indeed (my grand-grandma died at 95 and still was able to tell us the stories like when she ate a tomato for the first time (inb4 that's crystalline intelligence) for example)
I don't know if this applies to crystalline int. too but fluid intelligence can also be maintained as well
The reason a lot of old people are senile I think is because their lifes weren't that demanding and therefore I state that this generation right now will be less senile in the old age
This is because of the mental demandements and the amount of information we are able to access (the Internet for example in comparison to the (in comparison) little amount of media there was back then)
Of course this very subjective and applies not to those who decline recources of information

And I have to elaborate my statement on a bit
People who are in pursuit of knowledge will inevitable produce more crystalline intelligence (as far as I can say produce)than people who just live by their instincts so this is not only a trait of intelligent people but
also a thing what makes people intelligent (like OP asked) therefore I endorse this statement

The objective way to determine intelligence is how good you are at problem solving.

This is true in a general sense, but "problem solving" is very vague as a concept. A chessmaster can excell at problem solving in his field while being totally incompetent in social relationships (which also qualifies as problem solving) ; a painter can be extremely good at evaluating colors, contrast and perspective and still fare poorly in abstract algebra.