CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Can High IQ Individuals Adopt Talent?
For example, most would agree that Mozart was a talented pianist: I would argue that a highly intelligent person could easily learn to become a proficient pianist; then use their intellectual abilities creatively to construct musical artworks such as Mozart, if they had the will, of course.
My only problem with my argument is the 'creativity'. However, I believe intelligence and creativity are linked, but not positively correlated- i.e. I don't believe the more creative one is, the more intelligent one is; but, I do believe the more intelligent one is the more creative one is.
Think Newton, Einstein, Galileo, Descartes: The discoveries and equations made by these individuals all required highly divergent/creative thinking.
Based on the aforementioned revolutionaries, I would argue that being highly intelligent comes with being highly creative, and therefore, a highly intelligent individual can adopt the sort of talent mentioned in the example.
The manner of application of both intelligence and creativity is the result of genetics, epigenetics, and environmental stimuli. Mozart did not will himself to be a brilliant pianist anymore than Einstein did not will himself to be a brilliant pianist.
With respect to the proposed connection between intelligence and creativity, I would contend that your evidence is incomplete. It is inadequate to point to a very small sample size of intelligent people and deduce on the basis of their additional creativity that all very intelligent people are also very creative. To actually demonstrate the claim, one would need a credible sample size of exceptionally intelligent people.
Mozart did not will himself to be a brilliant pianist anymore than Einstein did not will himself to be a brilliant pianist.
That is not what I implied in the description (I also did not suggest that Mozart was highly intelligent). My point was that if Einstein wanted to be a brilliant pianist such as Mozart, he could have easily done so given his high intelligence.
It is inadequate to point to a very small sample size of intelligent people and deduce on the basis of their additional creativity that all very intelligent people are also very creative.
I deduced my conclusion on the unmentioned premise that with high intelligence, one has the ability to process large quantities of information very quickly and make sense out of it- given that ability, one can easily argue that if challenged, or requested, a highly intelligent individual can utilize their intelligence in a creative fashion (sort of like Newton did when asked why the planets travel in an ellipsis).
I believe where we differ is on the type of creativity I am referring to- which is the creativity needed when writing software, coming up with mathematical models (even theoretical models), creating essential philosophical works, etc. I do not necessarily mean an 'artistic' type of creativity (though the notion of 'art' is relative- some say E = MC^2 is artistic. Moreover, one of the best artists/inventors [Leonardo da Vinci] was a highly intelligent individual who constructed his masterpieces using a highly advanced personal--meaning he thought of it on his own, but did't necessarily invent it--mathematical framework).
When I referred to the brilliance of Mozart my intention was to describe his abilities as a pianist as being outstanding; poor word choice, perhaps, but then I consider exceptional creativity to be another form of intelligence.
I understand that your point pertained to a hypothetical scenario wherein Einstein wanted to be a brilliant pianist. My point was that is this a pointless question because it is inherently the case that Einstein did not. I also doubt that it necessarily follows that he could have been even had he been inclined to, but that is largely owing to a lack of evidence rather than any stronger counter position.
I think your conception of what constitutes "intelligence" is somewhat arbitrary and unduly narrow. But in any case, even if a highly intelligent person - however we define that - might have the ability to confront a challenge that does not mean that they are actually capable of doing so if they lack the will (which I argue they may or in fact do). Aptitude in a given field is not only owing to intelligence but commitment to it, and knowledge and ways of thinking do not necessarily transfer between fields (one may be a brilliant mathematician but a mediocre philosopher).
I understand and am discussing creativity in the same regard as you are. My point absolutely still stands that you cannot legitimately draw your conclusions from such a small, self-selecting sample size as you have attempted to do. Demonstrating that your point holds true for three or four people whom you have selected precisely because they demonstrate your point does not actually validate your point.
But in any case, even if a highly intelligent person - however we define that - might have the ability to confront a challenge that does not mean that they are actually capable of doing so if they lack the will (which I argue they may or in fact do).
It is irrelevant whether they will to complete a challenging endeavor or not; the point is if they wanted to, they could, relatively quickly and easily (unlike the average person).
Aptitude in a given field is not only owing to intelligence but commitment to it, and knowledge and ways of thinking do not necessarily transfer between fields (one may be a brilliant mathematician but a mediocre philosopher).
Assuming the mathematical brilliancy derives from general intelligence: if the mathematician in question attempted to become a brilliant philosopher, he could do so in a way the average person could not. (I might also note that the best philosophers were also mathematical geniuses- simple to understand, as both domains require logic; the former being a practice that the more logically advanced you are, the more cogent your philosophical positions will be.
My point absolutely still stands that you cannot legitimately draw your conclusions from such a small, self-selecting sample size as you have attempted to do. Demonstrating that your point holds true for three or four people whom you have selected precisely because they demonstrate your point does not actually validate your point.
I can sum up an innumerable amount of scientific revolutionaries (including programmers) who were/are highly intelligent. However, I cannot find a single averaged IQ person, or mentally retarded person, who came up with a unique mathematical model/equation; coded a unique, complex revolutionary computer program; developed intricate software, etc. (But by all means list some individuals who are creative—respectively--geniuses.)
It is irrelevant whether they will to complete a challenging endeavor or not; the point is if they wanted to, they could, relatively quickly and easily (unlike the average person).
Why is it irrelevant? My argument is that will is as integral to capacity as intelligence. One cannot do what one lacks the will to do, and that inability speaks directly to capacity. I understand your argument that if the will existed then capacity would follow from intelligence, but you are sidestepping the lack of will by supposing it exists where it clearly does not. What is the point of asking whether intelligence could transfer to other tasks if it fundamentally cannot due to a lack of will?
Assuming the mathematical brilliancy derives from general intelligence: if the mathematician in question attempted to become a brilliant philosopher, he could do so in a way the average person could not.
That is quite the assumption; from what basis do you advance it as legitimate? Further, while a brilliant mathematician might be better than the average person at philosophy that is not the same thing as them being especially brilliant at philosophy by virtue of their purported "general intelligence".
(I might also note that the best philosophers were also mathematical geniuses- simple to understand, as both domains require logic; the former being a practice that the more logically advanced you are, the more cogent your philosophical positions will be.
Confirmation bias; of course two fields which engage similar skill sets will tend to produce this relationship. If we look at more divergent fields the analysis does not hold equitably true (e.g. archaeology and physics).
I can sum up an innumerable amount of scientific revolutionaries (including programmers) who were/are highly intelligent. However, I cannot find a single averaged IQ person, or mentally retarded person, who came up with a unique mathematical model/equation; coded a unique, complex revolutionary computer program; developed intricate software, etc. (But by all means list some individuals who are creative—respectively--geniuses.)
Again, this comparison does not speak to your conclusion. Your argument is that exceptional intelligence is roughly transferable between fields. This analysis demonstrates only that some exceptionally intelligent and apt in one field is more likely to perform better in other fields than someone of average intelligence, not that they would also be especially apt in the field relative to other exceptionally intelligent people whose primary focus is that field.
It is irrelevant because one who does not have will to do something does not mean that one is incapable of that which one lacks the will to do.
One cannot do what one lacks the will to do, and that inability speaks directly to capacity.
You are conflating inability with will. I may, for example, not have the will to finish school. This does not mean that I am incapable of doing so (as in the case with highly intelligent mathematicians who lack the will to get a PHD in physics - surely they can easily obtain one because of their exceptional intelligence & intellectual capacity, but just choose not to since lack of interest or will).
What is the point of asking whether intelligence could transfer to other tasks if it fundamentally cannot due to a lack of will?
Capacity is extremely important in this discourse. I understand that you are arguing from practicality, but my theoretical supposition is what you must first dispute. This is more of a conceptual topic that can be substantiated using logic in conjunction with psychology.
That is quite the assumption; from what basis do you advance it as legitimate?
My basis is mainly a logical & reasonable one: if advanced logic is necessary for mathematical brilliancy; and advanced logic is necessary for philosophy; then a brilliant mathematician can integrate their complex logically oriented cognition in the philosophical domain (this perhaps is one of the reasons that you need to score an extremely high score on a certain IQ test in order to join a prominent elite philosophy society--International Society for Philosophical Enquiry--analogous to Mensa but with much higher standards).
Further, while a brilliant mathematician might be better than the average person at philosophy that is not the same thing as them being especially brilliant at philosophy by virtue of their purported "general intelligence".
The capacity is what is important to understand. Certain people can never become mathematical/philosophical geniuses no matter how much they will and try due to their intellectual capacity, or lack thereof. However, it is the inverse for those with the intellectual capacity. Although you refuse to accept these examples due to quantity, this is seen in individuals, again, such as Isaac Newton who was exceptionally advanced in multiple unrelated fields such as writing and physics - as manifested in his linguistically advanced texts.
This is also why children with high IQs, if recognized, advance rapidly in school (relative to the average student) because each subject comes easy to them.
Confirmation bias; of course two fields which engage similar skill sets will tend to produce this relationship. If we look at more divergent fields the analysis does not hold equitably true (e.g. archaeology and physics).
Both of the subjects in question require the use of properties that constitute intelligence. Archaeology requires sophisticated problem solving skills (in the analytical aspect), which is key in determining one's IQ.
This analysis demonstrates only that some exceptionally intelligent and apt in one field is more likely to perform better in other fields than someone of average intelligence, not that they would also be especially apt in the field relative to other exceptionally intelligent people whose primary focus is that field.
Again, it is the capacity through which allows them to, if willed, become versed in a new field of their interest (I suppose the best way to render this claim false is to give an example of someone with a high IQ who failed in a specific field of their interest; or failed at developing relative intellectually-related skillsets comparable to those apt in that particular field of interest). Rene Descartes' primary field of interest was philosophy, yet he was an exceptional mathematician and writer.
On the matter of the relationship between will, capacity, and ability.
The relevance of my critique is contingent upon the resolution of our disagreement regarding the relationship of will to ability. This does actually precede any consideration of your theoretical proposition because if will is relevant then the proposition becomes moot, as it renders transference of ability impossible prior to and independent of any other considerations.
My argument does not actually conflate will and ability; I appreciate them as being distinct from one another both in concept and in actuality. I am instead observing a relationship between the two. My point is that ability is dependent upon will, whereas it could not be said that will is dependent upon ability. This perspective originates, no doubt, from my determinist perspective whereby what we can do is entirely dependent upon whether or not we will in fact apply ourselves to the effort (i.e. will). It seems disingenuous, to me, to dismiss this as a matter of mere conflation.
On the matter of the proposition, supposing concession of the preceding point.
I do not think it follows that logic is the only capacity requisite or important to excelling in different fields. Inference, creative imagination, etc. strike me as being relevant as well. I think it is begging the question, somewhat, to claim that because ISPE places equitable valuable upon logic as yourself that you are both correct in doing so. Moreover, I do not think this actually speaks to whether logic facilitates transference of aptitude between fields. Finally, and again, your reasoning is limited to equally logic dependent fields which renders your proposition conditionally accurate at best. Archaeology does require sophisticated problem solving skills, but it also requires more subjective inference than physics does; for this reason, someone who excels at physics may not excel equally at archaeology.
I have not refused to accept your examples without cause. My argument now, as it was before, is that a small sample size does not constitute adequate basis for reliable conclusions as general as the one you are advancing. Moreover, that Newton excelled in multiple fields does not mean he would have excelled at all others had he attempted them (it only means he excelled in those fields he did work within). I think examples such as these suggest that your proposition is plausible, but they are far from conclusive on their own.
I grasp the significance of capacity, and have already spoken to it. You argue, correctly, that children with high IQ advance more rapidly in school than their lower IQ counterparts. As before, my point must be that this does not mean that they excel equally in all fields relative to their own high IQ counterparts. They are exceptional relative to the average person, but I do not think this is the same as genius if it cannot be said that they are also exceptional in their field relative to the non-average person.
