A man invents a fantastic supercomputer robot. Is he intelligent?

The man then gives his fantastic supercomputer robot to a dictator who holds half the world hostage with it. Is the inventor still intelligent? Or is he now stupid?

As I look at the human species, I see a lot of value placed on "intelligence", but most of what is called intelligence is mere cleverness to me. Clever monkeys. It is clever to be able to build an atomic bomb, but is it intelligent to do so? Would an intelligent man do so? Would an intelligent species do so?

What would a clever species do that an intelligent species would not? What might they do differently?

I believe this is an important question for humans to explore, particularly now as we play with genetic engineering, nano-tech, nuclear and quantum devices, weather modification, and many other potential horrors.

To me, genuine intelligence implies a more holistic awareness. A genuinely intelligent person has an open mind, sees the 'big picture', considers many angles and possible outcomes, and applies wisdom and compassion. A merely clever person may be very able in a few areas of knowledge and skill, but is often narrow-minded, misses the 'big picture', and lacks the wisdom to use his cleverness in beneficial ways.

I see a lot of cleverness in this world, but intelligence is far more rare. For example, I can go to various forums on the internet and speak with obviously well-educated, clever people. They use big words correctly. They have amassed knowledge, often beyond my comprehension. Yet after awhile I realize that these people are f---ing stupid! They lack a dimension of mind that true intelligence includes. They are very clever monkeys.

I can also go among people who are obviously uneducated, don't write well, and aren't terribly clever. Yet some of these people are clearly intelligent. They have a wisdom which defies knowledge, perhaps coming from simple experience and intuition. I realize that these people are f---ing brilliant! Their mind has a light in it, and that light is connected to their heart and soul.

I'm not trying to stereotype people - everyone, myself included, is sometimes intelligent, and sometimes merely clever. As a species, I believe our worship of cleverness and our ignorance of intelligence may doom us. One symptom of this - our technology outpacing our wisdom.

Thoughts? (And is your reply intelligent, or merely clever?? I'll be watching!)

Perhaps it should be intelligent at ... And the definition of intelligence is not straightforward either.

Besides that, honestly, i think the OP makes a variant of the True Scottishman. I do not think intelligence differs if someone has a different morality. Same for wisdom. Pretending otherwise sounds like name-calling to me. You can call people names explicitly..
Perhaps this thread was made more from the idea that people do not think consequences through enough.(Or they do, but there are many people, and someone will not think enough.)

Your question is a good one. I would use the word wisdom in the place of cleverness.

One must be intelligent to make plans, design and build things.

Wisdom is the ability to discern the value, appropriateness and/or benefit/risk of doing so.

i think your confusing stupidity with morality, a scientist, who builds a nuclear bomb is intelligent, and clever, giving it to an evil dictator doesnt make him stupid, it may just make him evil, or self serving (getting paid a helluva lot of cash for his invention by the evil dictator for example)

Well Mathew, I see your logic but what I see the Op is also pointing out and that your logic doesn’t address. It's that there are many forms of intelligence that form a holistic human where as our modern society doesn’t value them with an appropriate balance and focuses it’s attentions and valuation on a few. This out of touch valuation has many of them undiscovered by many of us. In other words, we tend to disbelieve in them as intelligences and therefor we don't understand ourselves because we are not looking with the correct eyes to see...

I found this little test about a year ago and found what it suggests very interesting.
The accuracy of the test is not the point of taking it. But the suggestion of there being more than, and or more relevant than previously thought aspects of our intelligence than our modern outlook affords us on average.

If you paste this code into the results page, you see my scores a year ago: 4nt2ht9761

hairy, he is considering morality a socially dirived intelligence.

I see your point. Interesting.

(off topic: my score on the test is gg84nx8740 )

To clarify, morality is not the issue. It's more along the lines of would an intelligent person blow himself up, add deadly chemicals to his food and actively avoid the evidence, haphazardly genetically engineer plants without carefully considering the effects on the ecosystem, design and build power plants that dump huge quantities of pollutants into the atmosphere, etc. All of these things have been done and require at least cleverness, but when you look at them from a distance they do not seem like the acts of intelligent people. In fact they seem downright stupid.

Do you apply your intelligence to the whole picture, or merely to the tiny sub-task you're working on, without regard to consequences. If the latter, can this truly be said to be intelligent?

You can use the word wisdom if you prefer. I view wisdom as knowledge experienced, which is not requisite for what I'm speaking of, but is a part of intelligence. I view intelligence as a holistic, balanced state of being, where technical skill and knowledge, consideration of consequences and the larger ramifications, and wisdom of experience all grow in tandem.

An analogy might be a person with balanced physical health and strength who uses that strength carefully, versus a body-builder with huge biceps and general inflexibility, who is overall unhealthy, clumsy and abusive.

One other aspect of clever people - they are often misused. They end up working for governments or the defense industry building bigger and better bombs. They seem drawn into such activities because of their cleverness, without absorbing the implications of what they're actually doing. If you try to discuss it with them their reasoning is shallow. It reminds me of a mentally retarded child who is misused by people because he doesn't know any better. But it would seem that a genuinely intelligent person would not lend his energies to projects which are clearly destructive and 'unintelligent'. He would see this. Why? Because he is genuinely intelligent.

With intelligence comes responsibility. Just because you CAN build that bomb, engineer that super-plant, or clone that human, doesn't necessarily mean you should. Part of intelligence involves understanding that. Yet this simple understanding often evades clever people.

Clever people are also VERY prone to ego effects, which are generally considered psychologically primitive. Read any intellectual or scientific discussion and you will find yourself hip-deep in ego battles. Would a genuinely intelligent person be so chained to the needs of ego gratification, or would their vision and insight preclude getting caught in such childish and nonproductive behavior?

It's an interesting concept - reminds me of the learning styles tests. Not all people learn the same way, so some teachers give students a test to determine their learning style. Intelligence is certainly very multi-faceted, much more than we tend to realized in current human culture (society often beats down various forms of genius at a very young age - doesn't allow it to develop).

The form of that test was a bit limited - will reflect how you view your own intelligence. A test where the questions/answers were less obvious and the results were based on statistical analysis of other test takers would yield more interesting results. Psych tests work this way - depending on how you answer seemingly unrelated questions, your profile is determined based on how other people with known diagnosed profiles answered those same questions. These can be tricky because if you try to fake the test, the test will put you in the category of people who are insecure and try to fake the test, for example.

I'm rk84dd8754m Not sure why interpersonal was lower - I consider myself pretty people smart. Must be a bug.

Or maybe you are not as people smart as you think and that is not a shot. The funny thing about people smart is that most consider themselves that way. I score low on linguistics and I was surprised about that. But that is beside the point of the test. The test is just an introduction to the freedoms afforded by learning that we often discount or disbelieve in There is always more to see if you look with different eyes. You can’t fail that test because it’s not one of valuation it is a test and a lesson of perception.

It seems to me that you may need to consider being the student as you are being the teacher. A lesson I keep having to learn time and again myself.
You bring valid and needed points to larger discussions that are generally over looked in the “normalized” mindset or the socially amalgamated intelligence of our individuals and their puny little needs posted as king.

But it seems you have dichotomized the information and remained just as out of balance and inappropriate as those aspects of intelligence as possibilities. Blame is easy, understanding why we need to is hard and never ending.

This is a very normal MISTAKE that people make when they are desperate for change, so don’t sweat it. Are you capable of leaning this? Maybe I can learn to teach you and thus experience and learn how appropriate my intelligence is.

The macro social view does allow new insight to those normally uninterested in its virtues, or seduced away from realizing them appropriately is more accurate. But it is foolish to believe that it holds all of the “correcting” answers to our problems. It is just a contrive dichotomy build in the illusion of a duality; there are more facets to examine.

There are aspects of information to consider before moving forward with condemning information’s or judgments to righteousness.
Try to step back again and understand the dynamics between the social intelligence and the personal. There is conflict to consider and to allow for in seeing new, and possibly more appropriate possibilities of reality. Hey there is ALWAYS more reality to see, but we have to be willing.

The macro social requires survival through harmonious macro methods if they are to last, the macro personals require surviving through competitions within the social if they are to last.

The social requires the competition for outwardly or progressive creativity and the personal require social harmony for this. Do you see the compounding contradictory requirements?

Another way of saying this is that socialism and capitalism are equally flawed and dangerous when considered as the only courses of understanding or if they are the only aspect of intelligence considered in our reasoning thought. The illusion that they encompass our possibilities is simply illusion and I could elaborate further, and we could, if there is enough interest.

I think it came out that way because I answered some of the social questions hesitantly. With me it all depends on the people. With some people or groups I am very social, with others I withdraw. I do have deep understandings of people's inner workings, so I am people smart in that sense (and most people who know me would easily agree). But I don't always choose to engage people or express myself that way. So to me it is more of a lack of desire than a lack of capacity. The test did not seem to make that distinction. It merely focused on how you behave, and from that concluded capacity.

I am at a genius level in some areas, and generally more intelligent than my peers. I am used to being surrounded by people who just don't get things I get, don't see things I see. As I grew up I developed various mechanisms for existing in this world, and one of them I admit is a bit of arrogance. I just need a little space from most people - I am in this world but not of it. I don't subscribe to the paradigms that most people take for granted.

Indeed - perspective creates perception. There is much we don't perceive simply because we are limited in our perspectives.

I appreciate the reminder - can always use those. I am always learning, even if it may not appear that way to you. In fact that's why I posted this question - to learn about how people perceive it. Can you show me some aspect I don't see?

The result is thus far a mixture of denial (reducing it to morality in an attempt to evade the issue) and acceptance. We are so trained to think of people who are clever as being smart, and we invest so much in our own identities as "smart", that it is very hard to consider that smart people may be doing pretty dumb things after all. In a sense my question was a friendly attack on your (collective) ego. I posted it here because the Philosophy section is where people practice being smart. I wanted to see how you handled the 'attack'. In the discussion of the forum where people seemed smart but weren't very bright after all, did you put yourself in the picture? Were you offended a little? Did it sting?

So I am always the student - I observe carefully. And like psych experiments, what I ask is not always indicative of what I am observing.

Yeah, I try to contribute an outsider's view (as a subscriber to different paradigms).

Perhaps, perhaps not. Who can say? Do you know my truth?

One of the paradigms I would say you exist in is a paradigm where a dichotomy is a falsehood - 'that which is contradictory is false'. That is not an assumption I choose to make. In fact most of life is dichotomous by nature - seemingly contradictory truths existing in the same space. This is a truer version of reality than the divisive and conclusive paradigm that most people think and live within.

So your statement that I have "dichotomized the information" may be correct, but your implication that this indicates bias may be the opposite of the truth. It may merely indicate that I am harmonizing with the discussion - singing in harmony. To sing in harmony does not mean to sing the same or in opposition. It means to develop a synergistic harmonic oneness which is transcendental.

But am I desperate for change? Many people perceive me that way because I address issues in such a way that creates desperation in them. Either they have to deny what I am saying, and thus be free of the need to change it, or if they admit what I am saying, then they have to do something about it - desperation. They miss a third alternative - acceptance.

Consider that I may perceive this differently. The analogy of the runaway train I used, for example (in another discussion)... If you were on a runaway train, you and many others might be inclined to panic - frenetic activity which yields little results, often making the situation worse. Could you simply do nothing and remain calm?

I do not believe much in trying to change the world. I do not believe the world can be changed - it is perfect just as it is - a perfect reflection of our state of being. That is not to say the world does not change, or that I am not a part of the world, and thus part of the change. In fact, to me "change" is synonymous with "life". Nothing is static, but is in continuous change. Perfectly. Just as it is. Unchangably changing, the unmovable mover.

When I speak of what may be frightening issues, I don't necessarily view them with the desperation that others do. When I address what someone else is being or saying, it is not necessarily my intention to change them. You may assign that intention or desperation to me out of habit, but that does not mean it is there.

So I would say you misperceive my state of being. But that's also not to say I am cold and removed from it all. I am a part of it all, and I throw myself into the mud to see what emerges from the process. I lose myself in the process, yet I don't. (Another dichotomy.)

Can you tell a master by observing a master? Or will the master sometimes appear the fool (BE the fool to be the master)?

When you observe this, point it out to me, and perhaps we will see some truth to it.

The macro view is merely a part, just as the micro is. The full view includes all perspectives, and thus all answers.

It is not merely a contrived dichotomy, it is a genuine dichotomy. It does not exist within the illusion of duality, but beyond the illusion in the realm of the absolute. (The absolute, being the absolute, includes all views, and is thus inherently dichotomous.)

Condemnation and judgment are aspects I seek to avoid. I consider them dysfunctional. You may think you hear judgment or condemnation in something I write, but often that is not because I put it there, but because you did (perhaps out of your judgment or condemnation, or perhaps because you assume it must be present). Words can be limited for communication. Just because a set of words is typically used in judgment, doesn't mean I am in judgment when I use them.

Take "primitive" for example. Many people would consider that a judgment or insult, but that is merely because they have a vested ego interest in viewing themselves as "advanced". Primitive simply means in an early stage of development, and it is a relative term - primitive to what?

I think you are just being clever in your denial. You don't want to see the stupidity in many smart people (and ultimately in yourself), so you are muddying the water, similar to declaring it merely a moral consideration. Any distinction between personal and social is illusory - an arbitrary division, in this case for the purpose of denial.

Conflict itself is a symptom of imbalance (or imbalanced perspective != intelligence).

Indeed! The truth comes to the hungry.

No, there I disagree with you. Competition is anathema to survival. I would say you are operating within a primitive paradigm. If you read my comments in this discussion http://joindiscussion.com/civil-libe...eball-tag.html
you'll get my basic ideas on competition, what it is, and why it isn't desirable.

Any words that come after that clause would be in error, as it contains the faulty assumption that competition is required. That is a popular social myth, nothing more. Competition is NEVER required for any desired result, and works against most desired results.

It is cooperation in the system which creates the effect you describe. What there is of competition merely reduces that effect. (I realize this runs directly contrary to the social myth you have been taught, but if you notice, this is a highly dysfunctional social system).

No, I believe you are fooled.

Neither are inherently flawed, merely incomplete. And anything undertaken in fear is dangerous - fear creates danger.

There I will agree.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Did it sting? No. Was it fun? Yes. Are you misinterpreting, and misunderstand my communications for the need of containing me in your predefined little boxes that you keep people in? Yes. Are you able to be a student and a teacher? Only when it is convenient to your lazy superiority complex, which means no.

One of the tells is how you have turned this into a contest to win rather than a conversation to enjoy and share the benefits of.
Too lazy to have the flexibility of mind in acting socially to appropriately furtherer the social intelligence rather than boasting on your own cleverness? Do I know your mind? Yes, and I can read it too. That is a summery to keep from what may be a worthless effort of correcting your lazy mistakes without having to traverse your verbose miss-representations of information unless you can show me your worth and I know you have certainly tried.
I scored genius in nature and I do understand the nature of your present mind. We all have things to learn from each and everyone of us. I am not stuck in the dichotomy I described. You have offered no progression of social information to this conversation.

Damn, thought I found a live one, just another stiff bent on validating his own person dogmas rather than living in the moment of the conversation.

If you want me to continue in this thread you’ll have to go back and read with better eyes. But I doubt you care to.

Sounds like injured ego to me. Remember when I said intellectuals tend to sink into ego battles?

What makes you think that? I believe you see it that way. I just got finished saying I don't see competition as desirable. You're not listening.

Just because I disagree with you and explain my thinking on the various subjects, doesn't mean I am competing with you. There is nothing I care to 'win' here - I don't even know what that would mean in this context. What is it you're trying to win?

I believe I understood what you were saying at least as well as you do.

If by acting socially you mean pretending you're not making errors, not pointing them out because it may offend you, etc., then I am indeed too lazy for that.

I think if you get your ego issues settled you can have a productive conversation with me. Until then, your ego seems to be throwing a tantrum.

Really? What number am I thinking of?

Now who is lazy? If you are the master teacher, I do not believe you would be sulking and running home with your toys. I'm ready to wrassle.

None that you wanted to hear.

I know you are but what am I?

I believe I understood what you were saying at least as well as you do, I merely didn't agree with all of it (though I did with some of it, but that wasn't good enough for you). Seems you have a problem with differing views. While I addressed virtually every thought you offered, you have not addressed a single thought I offered. You are merely engaging in a de facto personal attack.

Go cool off and if you have anything intelligent to say, I'm still here waiting. Apparently you may have to speak down to my level, if I'm misinterpreting everything you're saying. But the master teacher is always patient and able to speak to the student's true level, so I'm sure you'll have no trouble with we less-learned.

Have a nice day!

You really are trying hard there aren't you? Maybe ten more pages? No it won't work.

The more you are succinct in your responses the easier it will be to dominate the conversation using intellect rather than verbosity.

That is what you are trying to do right, dominant? LOL you are cleaver... but we most often fool ourselves when we are clever. LOL You are clever by your own definition.

But I am still open to the idea of both of us working this out. Let me know when you calm down and get over those needs. Till then, I am out of this bitch fest you have created.

Nah... this is just play.

You're steamed because you finally met someone smarter than you and who could follow your poor writing.

There. I spoke it. It's out in the open. Now go get some fresh air and sunshine and learn to laugh at yourself. That's what I'm off to do.

yeah, I am steamed, you sooo got me. you win.

There, now was that so hard??

I SO dominated you. You were like CRYING and stuff. I hope you recover - enjoyed the chat.

I was being sarcastic. But you are about as capable of detecting communicable tone as my toilet is. thats why you got a shitty score on music intelligence .

I have acted like you are now before. I can evolve through my limitations now by learning from you. thanks for that much, and for the Op. It was great, till you could stop talking about yourself.

Did you get your load off? Dominator?

I have met many such people in real life. They know theory inside out and backwards, but give them a practical task to do, and they are useless. In a life threatening/survival situation most of them would die.

Applied knowledge and the associated skills are another aspect of intelligence. But I wouldn't say just because a person possesses that it makes them intelligent. You could be very clever at practical skills and knowledge but still not be well-rounded in your intelligence, or wise in how you use your cleverness.

Bomb-making is a practical skill, for example. There may even be cases where you would consider it truly intelligent to use that skill for survival. But there would also be examples where a clever bomb-maker makes poor choices in using that skill, so is rather 'dumb' overall.

I've thought about this a fair amount and to help myself understand, I've created helpful definitions . I'm almost certain that Websters won't agree but if it was ironclad then we wouldn't be here.
Knowledge - Information gained from experience or learning
Intelligence - A relative measure of how one utilizes Knowledge
Cleverness - Using one's knowledge in an unexpected way to reach desired results

To place these term with the example, we must give the Scientist a motive. For the time being, lets say it was to gain money.
-His idea of building a robot and selling it would be Cleverness
-His ability to build the robot would be considered Knowledgeable
-His giving it to the Dictator would be Intelligence (albeit, Intelligence of a lacking degree)

as a side note- skill would be defined as the ability to use knowledge through a physical conveyance. Essentially the difference between knowing everything about playing tennis and being good at tennis.

Perhaps my definitions are a bit rigid, but by using them I have been able to convey qualities about everyone I have met in a simple manner. Even if some small explanation was necessary it has never taken more than five minutes to convey and guaranty understanding.