CreateDebate


Debate Info

4
4
Yes, they can. No, they cannot.
Debate Score:8
Arguments:11
Total Votes:8
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, they can. (4)
 
 No, they cannot. (4)

Debate Creator

Harvard(666) pic



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.

Yes, they can.

Side Score: 4
VS.

No, they cannot.

Side Score: 4
1 point

Yes I can say that they can infact adopt easily, but what about the logical thinkers who has less creative skills?

Side: Yes, they can.
Harvard(666) Clarified
1 point

Can you name a few logical geniuses (preferably mathematicians) who have low intelligence?

Side: Yes, they can.
TheCapConKid(293) Clarified
1 point

What is your definition/standard of low intelligence?

Side: Yes, they can.
1 point

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.

Side: No, they cannot.
Harvard(666) Disputed
1 point

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).

Side: Yes, they can.
Jace(5149) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: No, they cannot.