Link Between Intelligence & Viewing the World in Greater Detail

[xMathFanx]

I am.

And IMO the "inflation" aspect does not limit itself to the individual's view of him- or herself, but also extends to any group's (collective) view of itself. Humankind being one of those.

Then we generally agree.

I would say, small "ups" in intelligence have been shown to have enormous changes in applicability--which can make it appear is though these "up-steps" are in fact higher than they actually are.

I could discuss this at quite some greater length if my message is deemed unclear

 

[Absentglare]

If true, it doesn’t mean all intelligent people,see the world in greater detail. It means they are more likely to. And since people with PhDs in scientific disciplines subscribe to young earth creationism in far smaller percentages than the general public, I don’t see any inconsistency.

When i saw the thread title, i thought it would be about a correlation between eyesight and IQ; something like this:

"Rather than raw processing power, the ability to focus on relevant details is what we see in really efficient brains," says neuroscientist Duje Tadin of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), who headed the team reporting the motion test results in the journal Current Biology. "It's a little like opening up your e-mail every day and zooming in on the important message and focusing on that task to succeed."
...
Rather than the test-takers with higher IQ noting motions any faster, the test revealed a larger gap between the number of frames needed to detect the motion on the small grid and their later perception of motion on the large one. "The brain is suppressing automatically the irrelevant larger motion, but zooming in on the small ones," Tadin says.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/05/23/iq-vision-brain/2354273/

Boy was i wrong!

 

[Absentglare]

I think there is beneficial aspect to belief (before I proceed, I should not I'm not saying these aspects are lacking in those that don't believe. A sense of importance, meaning. Feelings that things will work out because someone is looking after you. When your beat down, feeling that you'll be OK because someone is looking after you. This tends to put people in a frame of mind where they make improvement in their lives. And for some people, morals they get from religion. I would be willing to bet that there are people out there that if they knew religion wasn't real, they may not hold back. It's a lame reason to be good to people, that your scared of god, but I'm sure some people are like that.

Of course, there are a lot of negative aspects and history (and still today) has shown those negative aspect of religion making people destroy things, block progress, be hateful, violent, and other bad things

People don't like the idea that every life long journey has a dead end. I don't either, so i can't really blame them. I just don't want any coping mechanism to cause other problems.

 

[Chagos]

Then we generally agree.

I would say, small "ups" in intelligence have been shown to have enormous changes in applicability--which can make it appear is though these "up-steps" are in fact higher than they actually are.

I could discuss this at quite some greater length if my message is deemed unclear

No need actually, we're on the same page.

 

[Chagos]

People don't like the idea that every life long journey has a dead end. I don't either, so i can't really blame them. I just don't want any coping mechanism to cause other problems.

I'd actually be more concerned if I knew that my life would never end.

 

[xMathFanx]

I'd actually be more concerned if I knew that my life would never end.

If you had no choice, then yes. However, if my life could be extended as far as I choose while maintaining physical and mental health to that of in my twenties to early thirties--that would be amazing.

 

[Chagos]

If you had no choice, then yes. However, if my life could be extended as far as I choose while maintaining physical and mental health to that of in my twenties to early thirties--that would be amazing.

Heck, if after all these years my mental capacity would be that which I held in my thirties, I'd shoot myself already.

But I'd be inclined to make a deal on the physical thing.

 

[Absentglare]

I'd actually be more concerned if I knew that my life would never end.

If my aging body didn't seem to be slowly decaying, it's hard to imagine that there'd ever be a point in time where i preferred death to life.

 

[xMathFanx]

Heck, if after all these years my mental capacity would be that which I held in my thirties, I'd shoot myself already.

But I'd be inclined to make a deal on the physical thing.

I think this may be a miscommunication.

It is a fact of Neurology/Psychology/Biology that the Human brain is in it's most optimal state around the age of 26, maintains peak performance for a very short period of time (a few years), and then is in decline for the rest of ones life. Now, what you are referring to is the "software" our mind is operating on at later ages as superior to that of your twenties to early thirties, not the "hardware" of which I was referring to

 

[xMathFanx]

If my aging body didn't seem to be slowly decaying, it's hard to imagine that there'd ever be a point in time where i preferred death to life.

I tend to agree with you. Even if you go through significant "rough patches", you could still find a way out of such terrain into a better quality of life given time.

Now, if people experience severe bullying perpetually due to some physical and/or mental deformity that is unfixable as of yet (or some other such tragic circumstance), then I could certainly see why wanting the extreme pain to end could be deemed preferable to a life of perpetual misery/torture/despair/ect.

 

[Chagos]

I think this may be a miscommunication.

It is a fact of Neurology/Psychology/Biology that the Human brain is in it's most optimal state around the age of 26, maintains peak performance for a very short period of time (a few years), and then is in decline for the rest of ones life. Now, what you are referring to is the "software" our mind is operating on at later ages as superior to that of your twenties to early thirties, not the "hardware" of which I was referring to

Okay then, if I'd use my mental capacities today to the point I used to in my thirties, still the same picture.

 

[Chagos]

I tend to agree with you. Even if you go through significant "rough patches", you could still find a way out of such terrain into a better quality of life given time.

Now, if people experience severe bullying perpetually due to some physical and/or mental deformity that is unfixable as of yet (or some other such tragic circumstance), then I could certainly see why wanting the extreme pain to end could be deemed preferable to a life of perpetual misery/torture/despair/ect.

May I ask whether you're in your twenties or thirties?

 

[xMathFanx]

May I ask whether you're in your twenties or thirties?

Mid-twenties

 

[Chagos]

Mid-twenties

At that age I couldn't imagine ever finding life tiresome either.

Not to be misunderstood, I don't find it tiresome even now but I can conceive of finding it thus at some future time.

 

[xMathFanx]

Okay then, if I'd use my mental capacities today to the point I used to in my thirties, still the same picture.

I'm not sure I follow.

My point is:

When a person's brain is running at optimal is achieved around age 26. Thereafter, the brain is slowly but surely deteriorating. Now, conversely to this, a person is still in their intellectual infancy while 26 as it can take many years to several decades to amass significant knowledge in a given area (or various fields). So, even though a person's brain is functioning better later in life (so to speak), it actually is not in the most optimal state in regards to "hardware". This is very different than in physical strength/athleticism which is essentially reached in overlapping periods since it only takes a few years to train in order to reach high levels of athletic prowess--which is generally not the case intellectually.

 

[xMathFanx]

At that age I couldn't imagine ever finding life tiresome either.

Not to be misunderstood, I don't find it tiresome even now but I can conceive of finding it thus at some future time.

Right. I understand & appreciate your perspective. Now, I really can't resolve this as I am confined to my current perspective until time runs its course. I have no idea what it would feel like to be in the world for 50 years, as I have only been here for half that--and really have only been "conscious" for much less than that, as continuity in my personality, ect. begins from when I was about 13ish years old, and I have only been my present physical height since perhaps the end of High School, and my Frontal Lobes have just recently been developed into maturity within the last few years or so. Thus, in many ways, it is as though I'm a "new-born" still, just getting accustomed to the World as an Adult/Young Adult

 

[Chagos]

I'm not sure I follow.

My point is:

When a person's brain is running at optimal is achieved around age 26. Thereafter, the brain is slowly but surely deteriorating. Now, conversely to this, a person is still in their intellectual infancy while 26 as it can take many years to several decades to amass significant knowledge in a given area (or various fields). So, even though a person's brain is functioning better later in life (so to speak), it actually is not in the most optimal state in regards to "hardware". This is very different than in physical strength/athleticism which is essentially reached in overlapping periods since it only takes a few years to train in order to reach high levels of athletic prowess--which is generally not the case intellectually.

That's (all of it) what I was alluding to.

 

[Chagos]

Right. I understand & appreciate your perspective. Now, I really can't resolve this as I am confined to my current perspective until time runs its course. I have no idea what it would feel like to be in the world for 50 years, as I have only been here for half that--and really have only been "conscious" for much less than that, as continuity in my personality, ect. begins from when I was about 13ish years old, and I have only been my present physical height since perhaps the end of High School, and my Frontal Lobes have just recently been developed into maturity within the last few years or so. Thus, in many ways, it is as though I'm a "new-born" still, just getting accustomed to the World as an Adult/Young Adult

Your relative youth may probably even preclude you from thinking in 200 or 300 years' spans (of being in this world).

Of course it precludes everybody else as well right now, just that those being closer to a hundred than to twenty are probably more able to imagine the deficits that another 50 or 100 years might overall hold.

Not speaking of the physical deterioration here mind you, just that doing "life" all again and a couple of times at that might lose its attraction even if the body remains as sound as it was at twenty-five.

Meanwhile, so as my not being seen as an old sourpuss, enjoy your state of a new-born to its fullest extent. You'll never be that way again, not even come tomorrow.

 

[CrabCake]

@Sampson Simpson

Yes. Good post--thank you for your contribution. Your story is touching base with the central focus of this Thread.

Now, the question is, how do we attempt to make sense of this? How could one's ability to see the world in great detail be quite advanced in some area (that they have studied) & incredibly below average/infantile in other areas that they have studied? What does this say about Human intelligence (or lack-there-of) more generally?

It shows that we have a poor understanding of what intelligence means. We tend to think of intelligence as a single attribute that describes the entirety of a person's mental capacity; but this model doesn't seem to match reality. I think Howard Gardner gets a bit closer to a good model for understanding mental faculties with his theory of multiple intelligences. I think Gardner's categories are a good start; although by no means are his categories exhaustive.

I believe that we are wrong to think of intelligence as a single attribute; that there are a variety of attributes we could measure and that someone who scores highly in one area may be deficient in others.

I know a medical doctor with a PhD from Harvard who, not only believes 9/11 was an inside job, but also subscribes to a lot of homeopathic quackery. You might forgive his ignorance of 9/11 due to his degree being in medicine; but how can he promote homeopathic nonsense that has already been disproved and still have a degree in medicine from Harvard? Dr. Oz is a more famous example of this; a Harvard trained heart surgeon...and quack.

I believe such examples show that these people are highly intelligent in some areas; the areas that would help them excel in medical school, areas like memory and problem solving. Yet they are lacking in areas having to do with how well grounded in reality they are.

We just don't understand the brain. You can be smart in some ways and dumb in others. Don't you know people who are incredibly book smart but lack any common sense?


Having said all of that; I think it's also important to avoid the temptation to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is somehow mentally deficient. I think when it comes to Young Earth Creationism, it's legitimate to posit that possibility, but by no means should we assume it is always the case. It may well be that there are Young Earth Creationists far more intelligent than you. Why do they believe this despite all of the evidence? Maybe because they simply place greater faith in their beliefs than they do in science. That doesn't indicate a mental deficiency, it just indicates they made a different (subconscious) choice from you in developing their worldview.

 

[Absentglare]

I'm not sure I follow.

My point is:

When a person's brain is running at optimal is achieved around age 26. Thereafter, the brain is slowly but surely deteriorating. Now, conversely to this, a person is still in their intellectual infancy while 26 as it can take many years to several decades to amass significant knowledge in a given area (or various fields). So, even though a person's brain is functioning better later in life (so to speak), it actually is not in the most optimal state in regards to "hardware". This is very different than in physical strength/athleticism which is essentially reached in overlapping periods since it only takes a few years to train in order to reach high levels of athletic prowess--which is generally not the case intellectually.

The brains hardware starts to decline early, but the brains software continues to improve.

 

[Casper]

The More Intelligent One is, the Greater Ability they Possess to View the World in Detail

Consider, if this is true, how do we reconcile it with PhD Scientists who subscribe to Young Earth Creationism? If it is false, how would the ability to view the world in greater detail not be connected with the concept of intelligence in a logically consistent matter? Is there more to the picture than has been raised here (as of yet)?

Thoughts?

Well I would say that they are incorrect and probably being lead astray by beliefs over actual science and facts. As for intelligence, people can be Mensa qualified, even multiple times, and still be wrong on many subjects, I know this through personal experience. True intelligence, IMO, means that ones mind always remains open to new facts and thoughts, and always understands that no one knows it all, and that it is only the evidence and facts that speak the truth and that there is always something new to be learned.
That said, I believe that using an analytical mind, the Truth is that there is God.

 

[xMathFanx]

The brains hardware starts to decline early, but the brains software continues to improve.

Yes, provided that a person trains toward such an end. That is, if left to its own devices, the brains "software" will not only fail to improve, but will either remain static or atrophy devoid of further stimulation

 

[ashurbanipal]

Personally, I believe it is an evolutionary trait and people are predisposed genetically to have faith. I believe it was Dawkins theory (but I never read the booK The God Gene) that belief in higher power is genetically predisposed in humans. An evolutionary trait that allowed humans to deal with their higher intelligence, idea of self, and questions about the universe.

I've seen this view before, and I think it suffers from some obvious problems. First, it strikes me as odd to think that beliefs could have a genetic basis. It's pretty hard to figure out how beliefs could amount to a sequence of proteins, which is what DNA codes for. All the models I've ever seen that attempt to give a natural explanation for the existence of belief rely on environment, and depend on the brain being flexible in at least an unbounded way. For deep technical reasons, it turns out that if there is an innate set of beliefs, there is no way to give a coherent account of belief.

But setting that aside, if religious beliefs are "hard coded" in our genes, then surely other kinds of beliefs are as well--especially all the beliefs that compose the notion that religious belief is hard-coded. To the extent that the next step in the argument is that religious beliefs are not to be trusted because of their genetic origin, since it's difficult to imagine genetics giving us true beliefs reliably, then the same can be applied to the beliefs that support this criticism of religious belief. There would be no reason to believe what supports the argument in the first place. In short, the argument is self-defeating.

The notion that beliefs are or are possibly encoded in our genes, coupled with the view that any so-encoded beliefs are unreliable, is a general defeater for human cognition. There's no consistent way to believe anything at all after taking this position.