Do you support the notion of multiple intelligences? If so,

>>8680017
IQ tests only measure the Logical/Mathematical and Visual/Spacial I believe.

Probably Those would be my favorites since they come in handy all the time.

>>8680017
>If so, what intelligence is most important to an ever-evolving society. What intelligence is most important right now, for us humanoids.
It will always be important to have a mixture of all of these.

>>8680264
And this. This is why I don't like IQ tests even though I do well at them. I am fully aware of the type of smart I am.

>>8680264
>Probably Those would be my favorites since they come in handy all the time

That's why, in my opinion, those should be what "intelligence" is. This "musical intelligence" and "sports intelligence" should be "talents" instead.

>>8680017
whichever empathy and social/self awareness falls under

>>8680291

My only hang-up with that is that it could imply someone's unintelligent if they're only, say, musically talented, but I think legitimate musical talent is just as profound. As useful in current times? Maybe not. I don't think that means they're less intelligent, just in their own way. "Judging fish on their ability to climb a tree" sorta thing.

Depends how you describe intelligence. Because when you measure intelligence you have to already have a metric to test by.

>>8680017
>consolation prizes for brainlets

>>8680017
At the end of the day this all seems like a semantic debate. You can call these abilities intelligences if you like, or you can call them something else. At the end of the day, semantic debates are very unproductive.

File: hromedia-Small-brain-part-crucial-in-decision-making[1].jpg (32KB, 315x275px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 315x275px

"emotional inelegance" was invented by brainlets so they wouldn't feel so bad about being stupid

>b-but i'm good at knowing where my arm is! I'm a kinesthetic genius!

>>8680017
>Do you support the notion of multiple intelligences?

No.

>>8680017
not hashtaging everything means you may be intelligent. problem solving is different thing. intelligence doesnt measure ability to solve a problem, experience does.

>>8680017
>Do you support the notion of multiple intelligences?

No!
I think intelligent people would more often have the same answers to questions as they approached enlightenment through thought, emotion, spirit and experience.
Your question, however, could be interpreted in several way and I'm too uninterested to clarify.

>>8681019
Define semantic

>>8680017
The concept of human intelligence is definitely a complex multi-faceted topic but to think you can neatly organize all of it into a handful of categories is ridiculous. The only reliable measure of intelligence, depending on how you define it, is accomplishments.

it is a false premise because of the positive manifold, where all intelligence's are sourced in the g-factor which IQ reliably measures with all the caveats applied regarding statistical analysis.