I believe that two people of a similar age, who both don't posses any learning difficulties, can only be distinguished in intelligence from one another through detecting psychological qualities. Example; Let's have two 20 year old male people; Person A and Person B Person A is said to be smarter than person B, scores higher academically, solves puzzles faster et cetera. Person B how ever has an unknown fear of failure and constantly sets him self up to fail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setting_up_to_fail It is easy for me to see how people would so quickly think that person B is not in fact as intellectual as person A Edit: This example does not have to be referred to throughout the discussion, the question is more important, and more examples may be used.
Nobody "possesses" learning difficulties. Everybody has more or less difficulty learning some kinds of subjects. That may be one difference. There are any number of such unknown factors. One might have attended a better primary school, or had better nutrition in infancy, or his parents spent time tutoring him, or he had an older sister one grade ahead of him in school, so that he was exposed the material before he was taught it. One may be a recent immigrant with imperfect grasp of the language; one may have taken this kind of test lots of times, while the other had never seen it before. We don't know much about the test, either. The way the questions are set out and worded can make it easier for one style of thinker than another. IQ tests are meant to measure relative intelligence, ability to learn, aptitude for different branches of study, etc: to sort out students for streaming, or university; to identify strengths and weaknesses, to choose soldiers for specialized training. They're not intended to measure the reason for the differences. Certainly, psychology affects performance on a test. It affects performance on the rugby pitch, in the office, in the kitchen, on the highway, at the pub and in bed, too. That doesn't say anything about intelligence, which, nevertheless, has a wide range, both in acuity and in style. I'll make one prediction, though: Quality of life being equal, people on the down-slope on the bell curve; say over 150, are far more likely to succumb to depression than people at low end.
Going back to the example, if Person B got psychological help, then Person B's grades would improve. You are stating your opinion as fact. This is the kind of thing people tell each other to make them feel good about them selves. In this example, it is the only difference IQ tests attempt to measure intelligence, but we are here to discuss what intelligence is.
Possibly; not necessarily. I'm stating the opinion of someone with experience in teaching and student counselling. What are the qualifications for this opinion?: [This is the kind of thing people tell each other to make them feel good about them selves.]? How do you know? You didn't even know about the fear of failure. [Person B how ever has an unknown fear of failure and constantly sets him self up to fail.] And, incidentally, a fear of failure does not necessarily or invariably set someone up to fail. It can manifest in various ways. I know what they measure. I've administered a few. By all means! I'm sure you'll do a fine job.
Well it's clear what's happening here, my use of the word 'example' rather than 'hypothetical' is really confusing things.
Your use of that particular hypothetical example might have confused "things", but you might have been able to de-confuse them by answering some basic questions. But I'm not even sure you have asked yourself those questions. I'm not sure you're quite ready to discuss the topic.
The discussion You are saying it is 100% true that everyone finds individual things harder and easier to learn, this has to at least, I hope, be down to you understanding it genetically rather than psychologically. Person A tries to learn something, person A fails to understand, person A says to them self, "Oh well, some people are not good at learning things, I'll just stop" If person A continued to study, person A would eventually get it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seeing as this is the topic of human science rather than a debate, I'm going to now explain why choosing genetics is wrong. A brain takes in and redistributes oxygen, using something called Hydroxylamino; Therefor; All a Brain is, is a vent! The space between the left and right hemispheres is a telephone switch board. I hope this clears things up. I will no longer stand for my quality of life being made worse because other people want to feel good about them selves.
Why would it mean that? By the age of 20, every individual has had different learning experiences and influences. In fact, I cited the most obvious of those variables. However, you have shifted the focus. My question: [ What are the qualifications for this opinion?] was directed at your earlier statement - not mine: [This is the kind of thing people tell each other to make them feel good about them selves.] The question has yet to be answered. So, I repeat: What are your qualifications? Perhaps. Or, person A might spend the next three years torturing himself to become mediocre in a subject for which he has no aptitude, while he could have been studying a subject he enjoyed and in which he would achieve success and satisfaction. To determine which is the better course for Person A is one application of cognitive assessment. That is, IQ, school readiness and aptitude testing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nobody chooses genetics. It's an inescapable fact of all life. I'm sure if you just go back and continue to study, you will eventually get it. There are those 'things' again. There has, thus far, been no 'discussion'. Just some incomplete grasp of a small part of a large and complex subject. And apparently, a big chip on an immature shoulder. Where does this: even come into a discussion of intelligence?
We just don't seem to understand each other Jeeves. Things = Discussion Discussion = People responding to one another I wouldn't mind if this discussion ended, to be honest.
The definition of ''intelligence'' is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. It would seem that one's genetics wouldn't be the only factor in terms of having such an ability. I'd say genetics plays a role, but how one is raised probably plays a significant factor. If you're raised in a home that encourages/discourages pursuing an education for example, that can play a role in your ability to "acquire and apply knowledge." Of course, there are those who are born with very high IQ's, but overall, I'd say that genetics isn't the exclusive precursor to determining one's intelligence.
That sounds like a "glass-half-full" issue. Thinking the glass is half full doesn't necessarily mean you can do more with it. Thinking you're as good at learning as anybody else doesn't necessarily help you learn.
