A-level physics was 2 years ago, so possibly?? Im sure i studied it during the nuclear/quantum physics bit?
Think of This !
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
I would class intelligence as 'deeper understanding'. There are a lot of people who can retain facts and regurgitate them when needed but can never truly apply them.
Over physicists, I would class mathematicians as the brightest. Most headway in any field of science is brought on by its purest common language.....maths. Sure, physicists get all the glory but behind it all is a maths geek....and I use 'geek' as a term of endearment.
However there is that quote from someone along the lines of being a professor - 'the more you know about less and less'
Over physicists, I would class mathematicians as the brightest. Most headway in any field of science is brought on by its purest common language.....maths. Sure, physicists get all the glory but behind it all is a maths geek....and I use 'geek' as a term of endearment.
However there is that quote from someone along the lines of being a professor - 'the more you know about less and less'
ah a subject i can answer, and this is the reason why i don't answer on here. whilst i feel like i am a very intelligent guy, my use of the the English language whilst typing lets me down. so this stops me from saying what i want. and i get intimidated when posting. even more so when i know i have to go up againt some of the better posters.
Psychology is not really a sicence in my mind because it's only really been recently they have indulged themselves in any form of experimentation.
The heart of any true science has to rely on experimentation as a continued reference point for theory to butt itself.
By the way, I better add something here, if anybody wants to debate this point then you are jumping in the ring with Richard Feynman; I am his proxy fighting man.
And before you do start debating this point, if in fact you are silly enough, best take a time out and look up and see who Feynman is ......... I have listened to hours and hours of his lectures (ya gotta love Limewire) - yeah I know I'm sad .... but his mind is like a frikkin razor as it cuts through nature's secrets, a tour de force for sure.
Actually ...... you are skimming somewhere near the truth Ainsley but I'd beg to differ when you look at what the likes of what Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg and Newton discovered .... I agree the mathematics of what they discovered came along shortly afterwards to formalise their new thinking but their thought processes were not purely mathematical, they were scientific.I would class intelligence as 'deeper understanding'. There are a lot of people who can retain facts and regurgitate them when needed but can never truly apply them.
Over physicists, I would class mathematicians as the brightest. Most headway in any field of science is brought on by its purest common language.....maths. Sure, physicists get all the glory but behind it all is a maths geek....and I use 'geek' as a term of endearment.
However there is that quote from someone along the lines of being a professor - 'the more you know about less and less'
Is it not a matter of the concepts coming from the communications, be they poor or well versed, that excite rather than the terminology used?
Words can be exciting, but what it does in your mind/imagination/history that is the fun part, akin to words being the trasmission, the concepts the engine, the fun coming from when the two link at the wheels. You then disappear in to the distance with much squeeling and excitement.
Words can be exciting, but what it does in your mind/imagination/history that is the fun part, akin to words being the trasmission, the concepts the engine, the fun coming from when the two link at the wheels. You then disappear in to the distance with much squeeling and excitement.
In a definitive sense, language is merely the medium of communication and therefore can only be regarded as a subordinate of pure intelligence?
I like to work in metaphors/pictures, I have a visual mind
Communication and intelligence require each other, it's hard to know of the good parts of either without the other. For example, hugely 'intelligence' autistic people have amazing skills, yet most struggle to get this across due to an inability to relate socially, thus using the numerous communication mediums.
I do believe though that communication can be manipulated to give a sense of intelligence, especially by charismatic people. But true 'genius' tends to take some time for concepts to be transferred. Look at Nietzsche; very intelligent, almost prophetic, but yet found it difficult socially or getting on with people and had to pay personally for most of his books to be published.