Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Weight]

There are many different types of intelligence's that a person can posses. Fluid intelligence is the ability to think through a problem that one has never been introduced to before. Crystallized intelligence is the type of intelligence that one gains from experience and learning. There are different models of intelligence that say successful or practical intelligence (the smarts to get ahead) is the best type of intelligence while others say that interpersonal (The ability to understand other peoples motives, thoughts and desires) or intrapersonal (Ability to be aware of ones own thoughts, motives, feelings) are more important.
What is the most important type of intelligence a person can posses? I think it is a mixture between the two intelligence's (Successful and intrapersonal) because then you would have control of your own inflictive emotions and would generally be more of a happy person, as well as being able to achieve more balance in your life and get ahead in what you do in your life (philosophy, work,studying or whatever).
Being able to find peace of mind and happiness for yourself and people you know is one of the most important things to do in life. The most important type of intelligence's are the ones that help achieve that in my mind.
Thoughts?

[ThomasHobbes]

When the **** hits the fan, there is nothing more important than practical intelligence.
Without that you are dead.

[Hereandnow]

You could approach it like this: the most "important" (a loaded term) type of intelligence is that which is inclined toward inquiry. It stands in distinction to dogma. Now, dogma is certainly not therefore the worst kind, it is just at odds with what will contradict it, and is fundamentally important, for without dogma, there is no inquiry, but this is ahead of the game.
Inquiry opens doors to possibilities, for one thing. One could not have knowledge in the first place unless inquiry had been brought to bear upon presumptions of knowledge, prior to it inception. to know means having inquired, and inquiry is inherently destructive, which is required in order to bring new possibilities to light. For another, inquiry has no limits. it is quite an amazing phenomenon, for once it starts, it never ends by its own nature, but keeps going into any proposition that would make a claim to knowledge, and such claims are always forthcoming. Paradigms, Thomas Kuhn called them. Beliefs is another word, short of knowledge. Then knowledge, more secure but provisional. Third, inquiry shows us our own nature, for since every knowledge claim is subject to inquiry, and it is knowedge claims that are, as with all things, at the basis for understanding what we are, what I am, then, it follows that there is no finality to the quest for the identity of the self. This makes for the most interesting thing a person can do: shut up and let the world speak. To do this, we must give up the pretense to knowing.

[Burning ghost]

The OP is fault here in misunderstanding the terminology.

It is not a question of “fluid intelligence” or “crystalized intelligence”. They are both aspects of the g factor (general intelligence.) As an analogy we could perhaps say that “crystalized intelligence” is basically what a computer is.

Basically when it comes to psychometrics (from what I understand) there are reasonably well defined aspects including General Intelligence (IQ is one measurement and the most reliable and studied of all) and the Big Five personality aspects. The empirical data for anything else is either too flimsy or absent - and even the above mentioned measures are far from infallable.

[LuckyR]

Certain intellectual skills help in the avoidance of large negatives whereas others assist in furthering the acquisition of positives. Personally, the latter helped more in my youth, but the former ended up more valuable in the long run.

[jlaugh]

I think there can be no definitive answer to this question. At best, one can only provide a persuasive argument, which is still no mean feat. As it goes without saying, one may or may not agree with another's persuasive argument.

Here's my 2 cents' worth: I think intuition is highly important and largely misunderstood. All of us possess and exercise intuition on a daily basis. Yet, we hesitate to call it a faculty. It is often associated with the irrational. To be sure, it can't be defined very well, but it can be felt and nurtured nonetheless.

Anybody here read Gadamer's "Truth and Method"? There's a very interesting account of the phenomenon of artistic understanding in it. That could be considered quite a good definition of intuition.

In short, I'd say intuition is important.

[Frewah]

I think it's social intelligence. It neatly explains why the neanderthals are gone wile we are not. Archaeology shows that what you find where there were neanderthals were local only while ours came from places very far away. This skill made it possible for us to get new ideas and to be part of different groups which can be very useful when times are hard. It could mean the difference between survival and starvation.

[Papus79]

I'm stuck thinking about this in terms of society and public weal, and the best form of intelligence to be common among people might simply be good common sense and in line with that the ability to make a balanced and cohesive picture of people, places, and events. Without that you get people buying into demagogues and all sorts of strange Manichean and utopian visions. Seems Steven Pinker may be right about our trajectory but we have to hold ourselves together long enough to cross the particular finish line he's thinking of.

[ThomasHobbes]

I think it's social intelligence. It neatly explains why the neanderthals are gone wile we are not.

No it does not. Neanderthals are thought to have a high level of social intelligence. They were wiped out by a lack of technology, which would indicate that practical intelligence were far more important.

Bone analysis indicates that N would care for their crippled fellows well beyond their usefulness to society. Too much social intelligence might be more accurate.

[Frewah]

I had to look this up. What I read is that they were more intelligent than we give them credit for and that they were unable to adapt. A smithsonian paleonthropologist remarks that humans had long distance trade networks which could have provided some buffering when the preferred food wasn’t available. The neanderthals did not. Therefore, I still think that social intelligence is really important.

https://insider.si.edu/2015/08/why-did- ... o-extinct/

[Steve3007]

What I read is that they were more intelligent than we give them credit for and that they were unable to adapt.

Speak for yourself. I've always given them lots of credit but they just got a bad press. They probably needed a new agent.

A smithsonian paleonthropologist remarks that humans had long distance trade networks which could have provided some buffering when the preferred food wasn’t available.

And yet now it seems to be fashionable to say that globalism is a bad thing.

[Papus79]

The thing that's given globalism a bad name is the lack of planning for the reciprocal effects that it would have in the west. Even though we technically have to drop in wealth to some degree and move toward equilibrium with the rest of the world we're still on a 20th century economic model which only plans gracefully for growth and its crushing the working class, which in turn inspires both left and right-wing populism.

[oliverzhang]

Let's say we have a person Bob.

If Bob is straight up missing any intelligence (emotional, social, intrapersonal, practical, IQ), then his life probably sucks. In that sense, a little bit of all intelligence is important. Okay, so let's say that Bob has average intelligence of all types, and he has a choice to get smarter in one area.

I would say that he should chose intrapersonal intelligence (the intelligence of knowing yourself) because it leads him to other intelligence as well.

Let's say Bob wants to be successful, surely Bob should chose practical intelligence right? Not quite; with practical intelligence Bob might be able to get ahead in a field, but choosing the right field is not that easy. Bob might wake up one day as a very successful doctor and realize that he's unhappy. Instead with intrapersonal intelligence, Bob might be slower than average doctor, but he's sure that this is the right path for him.

But since Bob understand himself well, Bob knows how to motivate himself. So Bob might not be as smart as a normal doctor, but Bob, with his powers of self-motivation, can work a little harder than the average doctor.

Furthermore intrapersonal intelligence teaches Bob social intelligence. Let's say that Joe's unhappy. Bob, with his average empathy, can place himself in Joe's shoes. Bob can then reason how Joe might be feeling based on what Bob would feel himself. This won't be a perfect match of course, since Bob isn't Joe, but in most circumstances its a good enough match.

[LuckyR]

Let's say we have a person Bob.

If Bob is straight up missing any intelligence (emotional, social, intrapersonal, practical, IQ), then his life probably sucks. In that sense, a little bit of all intelligence is important. Okay, so let's say that Bob has average intelligence of all types, and he has a choice to get smarter in one area.

I would say that he should chose intrapersonal intelligence (the intelligence of knowing yourself) because it leads him to other intelligence as well.

Let's say Bob wants to be successful, surely Bob should chose practical intelligence right? Not quite; with practical intelligence Bob might be able to get ahead in a field, but choosing the right field is not that easy. Bob might wake up one day as a very successful doctor and realize that he's unhappy. Instead with intrapersonal intelligence, Bob might be slower than average doctor, but he's sure that this is the right path for him.

But since Bob understand himself well, Bob knows how to motivate himself. So Bob might not be as smart as a normal doctor, but Bob, with his powers of self-motivation, can work a little harder than the average doctor.

Furthermore intrapersonal intelligence teaches Bob social intelligence. Let's say that Joe's unhappy. Bob, with his average empathy, can place himself in Joe's shoes. Bob can then reason how Joe might be feeling based on what Bob would feel himself. This won't be a perfect match of course, since Bob isn't Joe, but in most circumstances its a good enough match.

Well put. That's what I was referring to in post #5

[Burning ghost]

But where is the evidence for those so called “intelligences?”

By this I mean “social,” “intrapersonal,” “emotional,” and “practical.”