Deep Thoughts
- Thread starter Danoff
- 1,099 comments
- 78,686 views
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
I was at a cocktail party over a year ago and I was asked a direct question, in front of a dozen or so people, that invovled the word "exigency". I didn't know how to answer the question because I didn't know what the word meant, and I looked stupid.
It prompts me to ask why people associate intelligence with rote memorization - like that required to have an extensive vocabulary. Anyone on the planet can memorize a pattern of facts. But not everyone can identify the pattern. Intelligence is more than being able to cram memorized tidbits into your brain. Being able to pull up dates and names from historical accounts is not intelligence, it's knowledge. Being able to recite medical ingredients or call up the cure for a particular disease requires no intellgience, only pure knowledge.
Intelligence is about problem solving, creating something - a solution, or an abstract concept - where none existed before. Intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge, but knowledge itself is base. It's perhaps even trivial, yet mankind seems to revere knowledge more than intelligence.
I find this to be interesting, and it's the reason that large vocabularies don't impress me. When I evaluate two of the favorite professions out there, doctors and lawyers, it leads me to think that lawyers are more intelligent. Both fields require knoweldge, but lawyers have to apply that knowledge creatively, whereas doctors can simply recall a set of facts and be finished.
It prompts me to ask why people associate intelligence with rote memorization - like that required to have an extensive vocabulary. Anyone on the planet can memorize a pattern of facts. But not everyone can identify the pattern. Intelligence is more than being able to cram memorized tidbits into your brain. Being able to pull up dates and names from historical accounts is not intelligence, it's knowledge. Being able to recite medical ingredients or call up the cure for a particular disease requires no intellgience, only pure knowledge.
Intelligence is about problem solving, creating something - a solution, or an abstract concept - where none existed before. Intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge, but knowledge itself is base. It's perhaps even trivial, yet mankind seems to revere knowledge more than intelligence.
I find this to be interesting, and it's the reason that large vocabularies don't impress me. When I evaluate two of the favorite professions out there, doctors and lawyers, it leads me to think that lawyers are more intelligent. Both fields require knoweldge, but lawyers have to apply that knowledge creatively, whereas doctors can simply recall a set of facts and be finished.
- 38,930
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
danoff
Precisely why Dentists must be morons for real.
It's unfair to say that lawyers are more intelligent than doctors, though. Like all professions, there are fair shares of smart and dumb (using your definition) included with both.
- 4,822
- Concord, CA
- kylehnat
That's always confused me as well. People seem to associate the ability to use big words with intelligence.danoff
I'm intelligent, yet my vocabulary leaves something to be desired. I don't like to read, so I never really developed that "smart man's" grasp of big words. Also, I hate memorizing things (and am not particularily good at it). Yet, so much value is placed on these two skills, which ironically do nothing to improve one's employability or usefulness to society.
I think that as human beings, we wrongly translate "this person has the ability to confuse me" with "this person is smart".
OZZYGT
Premium
- 3,716
- NYC
- OZZYGT
danoff
Yup, that's exactly why most people celebrate "memorizing" as the epitome of intelligence. The ability of someone solving a problem is mostly due to bringing back stuff that you have learned in the past. Past experiences are the ones that remind you of a similar task that you had before.
And this is an example of why people think of doctors as the more intelligent one, as compared to a lawyer that is. But the lawyer, like an architect or engineer, use their knowledge creatively to solve issues or to create something. And docotrs, like you said, simply recall concrete exact facts that they have learned top be fionished with a patient; and this is why they are known as being "very smart", because it's very obvious that they use their college experience to prescribe a particular medicine to you.
Ciao!
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
nic_brix
Obviously the answer is yes. The only question is how we get there. I remember dealing with this paradox in philosphy class in college. The professor was certain that it was unsolvable. I walked up to her after class and told her the answer, but she didn't understand what I was saying.
The answer is this. Yes the distance is divisible into an infinite number of pieces. But if you divide the distance, you must also divide the time it takes to go that distance (assuming the person is travelling at a constant velocity). The result is that while you can divide the distance to an infinitely small number, you must also realize that it takes almost zero time to travel that distance. Once you realize that you've divided the time, you'll realize that you've actually done NOTHING by mentally dividing the distance.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
live4speed
That's a little more fundamental. Our measurement of time is, of course, our own doing. We invented values to keep track of the natural movement of time. But the non-human-invented time, physical natural time isn't discrete. It isn't like movement where you can stop and observe and then move further and stop again. Time goes by with one velocity (apparent to you anyway). You can't speed up or slow down time within your own perception. So the question about moving through the door frame can't be expressed the same way in terms of time.
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
[edited out]
Anyway, it’s easily solvable even without Calculus. Just use geometric infinite series (Algebra II fun!):
∞
∑ a(1/2)^(i–1), where a is equal to the first distance (10m)
i=1
Then solve it using S=a/(1–r)
So, S=10/(1–0.5)
Which means it’ll take 20m of walking before you walk through the door frame.
Anyway, it’s easily solvable even without Calculus. Just use geometric infinite series (Algebra II fun!):
∞
∑ a(1/2)^(i–1), where a is equal to the first distance (10m)
i=1
Then solve it using S=a/(1–r)
So, S=10/(1–0.5)
Which means it’ll take 20m of walking before you walk through the door frame.
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
Erm, there’s a flaw in your reasoning… 
Much of calculus is based on the study of infinite series (the entire notion of a limit is based on understanding convergence); thus, understanding infinite series is a prerequisite to understanding calculus.
Much of calculus is based on the study of infinite series (the entire notion of a limit is based on understanding convergence); thus, understanding infinite series is a prerequisite to understanding calculus.
- 4,822
- Concord, CA
- kylehnat
Ouch...I just got pwnedSageErm, theres a flaw in your reasoning
Though I will argue a subtle point. In most of calculus, we deal with functions, which are much easier to conceptualize and manipulate. Now, you can argue that these functions can be expressed as infinite series (Taylor, McLauren, Power, or whatever) and that any operation on the function requires a fundamental understanding of the infinte series as well.
So, here's another deep thought...Is it possible to grasp a concept without understanding the pre-requisite to that concept? Is a pre-requisite really required, or is it just a helpful suggestion?
I hate infinite series, yet I have no problem with the rest of calculus. The first month of Math 126 (Calculus III) in college was the worst time of my life (as soon as we moved on to vector calculus, it was all good). The first part of the course was all about infinite sequences and series. I never did figure it out. These same series came up a few times in engineering (heat transfer and process dynamics, mainly), yet I never had any problems with series in these contexts.
- 30,007
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
I understand the idea that if it takes 5 seconds to cover half the distance, 5 seconds later your through the door. But time can still be measured and divided infinitely, so even if both you and time are moving at a constant rate, it can still require infinite points to reach the doorway. What I would theorise is that there isn't infinite points between you and the doorway, I would say that one point is equal to the smallest object known to man, the electron. And because the distance between you and the doorway is a limited number of electrons in lenth, it is possible to make it. At the end of the day, there isn't infinte space there, and the only way to have an infinite number of points would be in a distance covering an infinite ammount of space.danoff
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
live4speed
In theory there is an infinite number of definable points. But it's not a countable infinity. It's true that man-made time can be broken down into an infinite number of points. But each of those points requires less and less natural-physical time before it occurs. In the limit, you're talking about infinitesimal quantities of time - essentially nothing.
If time didn't get divided as you divide the distance to the door, you'd never acheive the distance. If you assume it takes 10 seconds to get to the door, and you assume that it takes the same quantity of time to achieve any division of that distance, you'll add an infinite amount of time to the travel (though not distance). If, however, you assume a constant velocity, you can divide the distance into a million pieces, but you'll divide the time as well until you're talking about nothing at all. In the end the distance and travel time that you're considering goes to zero.
Pink_the_Floyd
(Banned)
- 4,041
Why did Syd Barrett ever started to take drugs?
- 386
- ozyran
Ok, I'll take a stab at this one:
Do you see the world around you? If you seem to see a lot of negative, you're not alone. It's something that we all see clearly, whether we want to avoid it or not. Really, we have no choice but to at least cast a glimpse at the negative, because it would be foolish not to understand what the reality of the world we live in really is. Now, understanding what the negatives are while focusing on the positives should be my goal - lofty, though it may be at times, but while I'm focusing on the positives, I need to look deep into my heart and find my strength, something I like to represent to myself as a white tiger. What is this white tiger capable of accomplishing? Will it lie around, waiting for an injured antelope of dreams, so easy to mangle and destroy, to straggle out and be eaten? Or will it be spurred on to tackle the buffalo of changable circumstance - and not merely my own, but of some thing, even in my own neighborhood? Will it rise up and defend the poor, the weak, and the truly helpless in our society? If I look to the Lion - let the reader understand this one - I will see power, radiance, strength, and nobility. From this, I can look on to the future, a bold a bright one, where I've put forth my best effort to alter one thing that is horrible to think about...and make change for the better.
Do you see the world around you? If you seem to see a lot of negative, you're not alone. It's something that we all see clearly, whether we want to avoid it or not. Really, we have no choice but to at least cast a glimpse at the negative, because it would be foolish not to understand what the reality of the world we live in really is. Now, understanding what the negatives are while focusing on the positives should be my goal - lofty, though it may be at times, but while I'm focusing on the positives, I need to look deep into my heart and find my strength, something I like to represent to myself as a white tiger. What is this white tiger capable of accomplishing? Will it lie around, waiting for an injured antelope of dreams, so easy to mangle and destroy, to straggle out and be eaten? Or will it be spurred on to tackle the buffalo of changable circumstance - and not merely my own, but of some thing, even in my own neighborhood? Will it rise up and defend the poor, the weak, and the truly helpless in our society? If I look to the Lion - let the reader understand this one - I will see power, radiance, strength, and nobility. From this, I can look on to the future, a bold a bright one, where I've put forth my best effort to alter one thing that is horrible to think about...and make change for the better.
I, Me, Mine.
For everyone it's all about them. Companies and Industries convince them that "Its all about you" and "You You You" so the average Joe starts thinking "Me Me Me!" Joe gets pissed off because it's supposed to be all about him when a funeral procession for an infant is keeping him stuck at the light. What does Joe Ego do? Drives right thru it because it's all about HIM.
He goes home and watches his freakin big fat plasma supersonic nana tele with all the channels. Little does he know that HIS channels are the same as Plain Jane down the street. In fact there the same for everyone who ordered that package. But it's personalized. Yeah, just keep watching TV Joe.
Also, Joe does not realize that even though he thinks it's all about what ever the hell makes him happy, it's really all about The Boss, The CEO, the guy sitting at the top floor of some huge company raking in millions off of these dips who think they're getting somehting special.
For everyone it's all about them. Companies and Industries convince them that "Its all about you" and "You You You" so the average Joe starts thinking "Me Me Me!" Joe gets pissed off because it's supposed to be all about him when a funeral procession for an infant is keeping him stuck at the light. What does Joe Ego do? Drives right thru it because it's all about HIM.
He goes home and watches his freakin big fat plasma supersonic nana tele with all the channels. Little does he know that HIS channels are the same as Plain Jane down the street. In fact there the same for everyone who ordered that package. But it's personalized. Yeah, just keep watching TV Joe.
Also, Joe does not realize that even though he thinks it's all about what ever the hell makes him happy, it's really all about The Boss, The CEO, the guy sitting at the top floor of some huge company raking in millions off of these dips who think they're getting somehting special.
danoff
First of all, it's not his boss. Next, take a look at this: My Network TV. Is that really yours? Is it really all that personalized? Does the name even fit to YOU in particular? No. But peaople think things plastered with stuff like "you" and "my" are for them. But is it really made for them?
It's kind of hard to explain.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
HACKr
I see, your beef is with the advertising technique associated with personalized, customized products when you think the product isn't all that customized. If it were true that the products were not customized, but they were sold as though they were, it would be deception on the part of the company.
But you have to keep in mind that TV, especially with the advent of DVRs is highly customized. I watch what I want to watch when I want to watch it. That's more customized to my likes and dislikes than it has ever been before. Not only that, I voluntarily pay for it - because I want it. Not because someone tricked me by telling me they were going to sell me one product and then selling me another.
Yes, "My Network TV" is made for the customer. All products are made for the customer. They have to be made with the customer's mind in mind or the business will go out of business and the CEO won't get his fat paycheck. Getting people to voluntarily give you their money in exchange for services forces you to give them what they want.
Similar threads
