210 IQ Is Not Enough

Who is babbling? The number of concepts in human language that have no mathematical formalization far outnumber the ones that do, lol.

Yes, we can, obviously, come up with shared, mathematically precise definitions for certain concepts. Keep in mind that:

A. These formal or scientific definitions are not the full exhaustion of the concept. Linguistic usage is varied and wide. Anyone who has bothered to open an introductory linguistics textbook understands this.

B. The scientific and mathematical definitions still change over time and can also change across cultures and contexts.

I can assure you that someone who has scored very high on an IQ test would not be considered "intelligent" in a group of film snobs if they were not aware of the history of film, up to date on the latest greats, etc. etc. These people would probably use the word intelligent to describe what they mean (knowledge of film) and not the precise technical definition we've come up with, if any, whether you like it or not.

My point is not that it is impossible to come up with definitions, my point is that for socially fluid concepts like intelligence, which are highly dependent on the needs and circumstances of the people employing the word, we will likely never pin it down. There is an asterisk on every use of the word. This is the case with basically every word to more or lesser degree, that's why language and ideas evolve in the first place.

My whole point is that people that don't realize this and put faith in IQ as though it is some absolute, or final, indicator of intelligence are dumb and probably just egotists who are uncomfortable with uncertainty and want reassurance that they are smart so that they can tell other people they are "babbling" and feel good about themselves and their intellectual superiority complex (read: self justified pride in being an asshole).

My claim is that this high variability and contextual sensitivity is a core part of this word and the way we use it. That's what I mean when I say I don't think we'll ever have a good definition.

EDIT: Or, to make it a little easier to understand. We will never have a universal definition of "moral good" because it is dependent on value claims, people will argue morality forever. My position is that "intelligence" is equally dependent on value claims which I think anyone who has spent more than five minutes with people not like themselves or trained in different forms of knowledge intuitively understands this.

I find that when people associate money with happiness, what they fail to observe is that they actually want the presumed stability such money would afford them, at their current lifestyle. Failing to acknowledge and plan around that leads to “lifestyle creep” as income rises, which simply perpetuates the same grievances they currently have around instability or insecurity, just with higher price tags and consequences for failure. I strongly suspect that billionaires engage in wealth and asset hoarding for this very reason: a terror of status, security, and stability collapse.

Once I let go of lifestyle creep and found contentment and gratuity in what I had, I began realizing that stability is shockingly affordable even under modern policies and economics. Releasing yourself from this forced societal obligation to “Keep Up with the Jones’” is a key step towards objectively reflecting on your life as it’s lived, and identifying what’s of genuine import to you. Only by doing that do you find what is actually needed for personal fulfillment, and thus, happiness.

There's surely more to comedy than subverting expectations. Someone else who cares more about comedy in particular can figure that out for themself, but surely I gave enough of the general idea to make it clear how you could go about measuring the intelligence necessary for comedy.

> A story is believed because a listener "wants" to believe it. Some listeners have more or less complex criteria for acceptance.

Yeah, that's the sense of "better" I was going for. I could have been more clear here, so I'm glad you figured out what I meant.

> Couldn't I say the same about your use of Introspective? Surely a more detailed phrase exists to describe what you mean.

It was a not-so-kind way of saying, "don't point at vague ideas to obscure what you really mean and make it difficult for others to understand what you mean to keep your opinion unassailable."

> Why exactly do you say this skill [resolving conflicts] is not intelligence-based?

Most people have more time to think than they actually use during conflicts, so I expect most of the time conflicts come from people preferring to not think than because they lack the ability. That or a fundamental value difference (you want my food, I want my food).