Comment on Education doesn't increase intelligence by making people memorize things, but by constantly reminding people that they might be wrong.

Valmond@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

• AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Cambridge:

  intelligent, or able to think quickly or intelligently in difficult situations:

  Mirriam-Webster:

  1: having or showing a high degree of mental ability : intelligent, bright

  Oxford:

  intelligent

  Could you share your definition that somehow contradicts all the major dictionaries?

  source

  • Valmond@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

    Nah that’s about it, what’s your worry?

    source
• chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  How are being smart and being intelligent not synonyms?

  source

  • Valmond@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

    To be smart you need to be intelligent, but being intelligent doesn’t mean you’re smart.

    It has a broader definition.

    source
  • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    To me, they certainly are.

    However, many people seem to think that you can get smarter. There’s even a YT channel with a name like that, so I guess smart means something different.

    Fair enough, we can split that nebulous concept into innate intelligence which refers to your mental capacity, and being booksmart, i.e. having read many books and knowing stuff. In that sense, you can get smarter by learning more information or mastering new tools.

    Getting more intelligent happens naturally as children age, but eventually it’s all downhill. You can choose to drink alcohol and and reduce your intelligence that way, but I’m not aware of any method of increasing your intelligence. Many people seem to use this term in a very different way, so I might be in the minority here.

    Either way, I would still argue that, intelligence isn’t something you can simply increase.

    source

    • Echolynx@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I think intelligence could be malleable to a degree. Neural plasticity is pretty powerful, and we’re still on the cutting edge of figuring that stuff out.

      source

      • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip ⁨33⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

        Yeah. Psychology is still largely qualitative at the moment, just like chemistry was in 1700s.

        source
• paraphrand@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Yet again, we have difficulty having shared definitions of the most basic words.

  We really need to address this some day. So much conflict will go away once we stop arguing about the definitions of words.

  Maybe words are too imprecise, and we need something else. But on the other hand, we have precise words for lots of things. But it’s considered elitist or whatever to use them. “$10 words” are often just very precise and replace a bunch of other words in a sentence.

  source

  • kelpie_returns@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Without both perfect symbols and perfectly understanding wielders of those symbols, there is no such thing as perfect communication.

    To me, this unfortunately means that your dream will forever remain a dream because there is no such thing as perfection in any field. People will always make associations with words that were not initially intended to be made with those words, meaning that, even if we correctly define something and generally agree on that definition, through culture and more specific types of interaction with symbolic phenomenon, those true meanings will all always be open to alteration and redefinition. Making words more precise does not change the user-end of this phenomenon, meaning that no amount of accuracy will be enough to correct for human blunder and ignorance. I dont think there is a fix to this problem :(

    source

    • paraphrand@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I know. 😔

      I mostly share these feelings because it illuminates the issue a bit for some people who otherwise have not considered it.

      source