Wait -- no one is trying to win an argument. I must not be communicating my point well, so I apologize.
If you meet someone who is quick on the uptake, who learns quickly; and contrast them with someone a bit slow; what are you to call that quality of them if not intelligence?
I would call that "quick uptake" and "a bit slow." That's it. Einstein learned to talk at 5. So he was stupid? This is a poor way to define intelligence.
When Dr. Kay says IQ, he also means this "innate cleverness." And my response is that if two people lift weights, one has to work at it more than the other, but both can lift the same weight, which one is stronger? Neither. They're equally strong. Mental acuity is very much like physical strength: it is what you make it. So, I say, it makes no sense to define a predisposition to mental acuity, since that is impossible to define, is easily misunderstood and doesn't reflect the end reality. I'm not switching terms on this: it's a useless, and potentially harmful, distinction.
And I still think that if you use the words as Kay meant them, you would not disagree with him.
I think that knowledge is a basis for intelligence but not as important as Dr. Kay asserts. For me, knowledge, in-and-of-itself is only the vertices upon which to build the graph of true understanding. How that graph is built is fascinating and I think deserves more examination, which is why we can't leave it a single term called "outlook," in my opinion. But that's just my opinion; I'm not trying to win points or arguments.
Further, Dr. Kay's goal was not to give a lecture on intelligence, but to get the audience to think harder about what they value. Which is incredibly important and is just one of the reasons he's a hero of mine.
If you meet someone who is quick on the uptake, who learns quickly; and contrast them with someone a bit slow; what are you to call that quality of them if not intelligence?
I would call that "quick uptake" and "a bit slow." That's it. Einstein learned to talk at 5. So he was stupid? This is a poor way to define intelligence.
When Dr. Kay says IQ, he also means this "innate cleverness." And my response is that if two people lift weights, one has to work at it more than the other, but both can lift the same weight, which one is stronger? Neither. They're equally strong. Mental acuity is very much like physical strength: it is what you make it. So, I say, it makes no sense to define a predisposition to mental acuity, since that is impossible to define, is easily misunderstood and doesn't reflect the end reality. I'm not switching terms on this: it's a useless, and potentially harmful, distinction.
And I still think that if you use the words as Kay meant them, you would not disagree with him.
I think that knowledge is a basis for intelligence but not as important as Dr. Kay asserts. For me, knowledge, in-and-of-itself is only the vertices upon which to build the graph of true understanding. How that graph is built is fascinating and I think deserves more examination, which is why we can't leave it a single term called "outlook," in my opinion. But that's just my opinion; I'm not trying to win points or arguments.
Further, Dr. Kay's goal was not to give a lecture on intelligence, but to get the audience to think harder about what they value. Which is incredibly important and is just one of the reasons he's a hero of mine.