Wayward5oul
Posts: 3314
Joined: 11/9/2014
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
quote:
ORIGINAL: crumpets
Given the assignment to defend my idea of what intellect means, I'd probably argue it's more the ability to SOLVE an (often complex) problem more so than the mere SPEED at which one solves that problem or assimilates the detail inherent in understanding the problem.
Ability to solve problems shows very little, precisely because all problem solving skills in any area of life or field rely on prior acquired knowledge in order to even make an attempt. An African bushman with exceptional intelligence won't be able to solve the simplest of math problems if you hand it to him written down in algebraic form. Depending on his culture, and his culture's knowledge of numbers, he might not even be able to solve it if you present it to him in the form of four sticks in the dirt, because some cultures don't have knowledge of numbers over 3.
His inability to solve the problem won't tell you anything about his intelligence though, because his lack at ability to solve the problem is due to him not having the required preexisting knowledge necessary to solve it.
Now if you would sit down with him, and attempt to teach him the prerequisite knowledge he needs in order to solve simple math problems, the speed at which he is able to assimilate this entirely new information and way of thinking WILL, on the other hand, tell you a lot about his intelligence.
Any time you see any person solve any problem, the only indication of intelligence you get is how much preexisting knowledge they may have, which gives you only a tiny clue on their over all level of intelligence, because people who assimilate new data faster have the potential for having acquired more preexisting knowledge than those who think slower, in the same span of time. Thus, it's a fairly safe assumption that somebody who has vast amounts of preexisting knowledge in a vast area of subjects is probably rather smart, because they would have to be rather fast at accumulating such knowledge in order to have such a large collection of it (time being limited and all). The same assumption doesn't work the other way around though. Just because somebody lacks preexisting knowledge doesn't mean they're not able to acquire it. It might just mean that their focus has been somewhere entirely different, on different subjects, in different areas, that are totally not applicable to the specific problem you're putting in front of them.
Ability to solve a specific problem tells you nothing about intelligence levels, speed of accusation on prerequisites needed to solve problems does.
quote:
ORIGINAL: crumpets
However, back to the point of grammatical intelligence, given the 50 to 70+ years of an average person's life, isn't THAT enough time to assimilate the myriad details inherent in the use of proper grammar?
Said a different way, if a person, after about 50 years of writing on Collarspace for example, can't figure out how to spell "sense" or how to correctly punctuate "they're", wouldn't you say their "speed" of assimilation is glacially slow?
No, because your argument affirms the consequent. You assume that somebody who, on this message board, spells "sense" or "they're" incorrectly is unable to figure out how to spell it correctly.
My own posts are riddled with mistakes. I'm sure you can find instances of me misusing both of those examples (hell you might have pulled them from posts I've made on this thread, I don't know). That's not because I don't know how to use either correctly, it's because this boards is a recreational board on which I attach very little importance to spelling and grammar, beyond what is needed to get my point across.
I -like most touch typists- type much much slower than I think. Because of this I'm often 2-3 sentences ahead in constructing my posts while still typing out a previous sentence. Sometimes when I do this my brain puts in the spelling of the word I'm actively thinking of instead of the one I'm typing, especially in cases of your/you're and so on.
I also almost always multitask while writing on this board. Currently I've got a the tv on while writing, and for part of this post I was talking to my husband, while watching tv, while writing. As like above, sometimes when I do this my fingers end up typing out what I'm saying, or hearing, instead of the logical conclusion to the sentence I'm on. One of the funnier ways this phenomenon shows itself is when I'm writing in Flemish (my native tongue) to family. In Flemish the English word "the" is "de" and the pronunciation is almost exactly the same. Because of this I will frequently write "the" in otherwise entirely Flemish sentences while I'm multitasking in English (tv, music, conversation) when writing. According to your argument, that should be because I lack the ability to differentiate the English word "the" from the Flemish word "de". I would beg to differ.
I don't proof read on this forum, at all. Sometimes after posting I reread my post and catch errors in spelling or grammar, and when I do, I rarely bother to edit to correct them. I tend to only edit to make additions or fundamental changes to my posts. Why? Because I really don't give a hoot about spelling on this board. I don't attach important on correct language use here unless the use of incorrect language makes my posts more confusing to the reader.
Incidentally, when writing to family in casual conversation, I care about as little about spelling and grammar as I do on this board, so like here, when I catch a sentence where I replaced "de" with "the" I rarely bother editing to correct the error. My family is all fluent in English, so there is no need to edit. They will understand my meaning well enough. To go back and edit such trivialness adheres an importance of 'correct spelling' over 'not wasting time on unnecessary tasks' which I don't possess. In the hierarchy of 'things I spend my limited amount of time on', making sure that my grammar and spelling are correct on recreational writing is pretty damn low on the ladder.
I could do better. I could stop multi tasking, slow my thinking speed down, and focus on what I write. I could proofread my posts. Doing so would all but entirely eliminate mistakes in my posts. But why would I? I have better things to do with my time than focus my attention entirely on correcting my grammar and spelling on this board.
When you assume that mistakes in writing indicate a lack of ability, you assume that the person writing gives a fuck about minimizing mistakes. In any case where that's not true (and you can bet your ass that it's frequently not true on a board such as this) the mistakes give you no indication whatsoever of that person's ability to write flawlessly.
AMEN!
|
RE: Are The Messages Really True? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread