> I continue my studies of the brain.
> Here is a premise that Raymond Cattel and John
> Horn applied to Intelligence:
> If you can tolerate a one-page description of
> intelligence from Wikipedia, then you can assess
> whether a scientific base is involved, or not.
> I gave you an explanation, above, of intelligence
> to exclaim that research IS being done to assess
> intelligence in a wide range of people. Some
> people ARE CONTINUING THEIR EDUCATION IN FIELDS OF
> MENTAL CAPACITIES. I find it difficult to accept
> that those who do not, or will not, explore the
> INFINITE CAPACITIES of the Human mind are
> digressing into Narcissism. Who can learn from a
> STATIC point of view? I study to know what and how
> the brain elaborates it's faculties on an everyday
> When I reached my last two years in high school, I
> APPLIED MYSELF like never before. I was determined
> to graduate no matter what.
> Today, I study the brain and its correlate, the
> Mind. You may not accept the idea that personal
> education is paramount to a high intelligence, but
> I too am convinced that other posters here are
> INCREASING THEIR INTELLIGENCE, as you also, AS
> PROOF THAT THERE IS A VERY HAIR-THIN difference
> between the crystallized intelligence and the
> fluid intelligence described in the link above.
> Crystallized intelligence continues to learn new
> things and is EVIDENT in a person's life. Fluid
> intelligence is the ABILITY to utilize one's
> knowledge in superfluous situations, like this
> Forum for instance. It is not how much one knows,
> but how one uses what one already has.
> Your examination, above, seems to miss the point
> of my post. Obviously, I do not use the english
> language in exactly the same way that you do.
> When I said, "we cannot exclude our intimate
> participation in every test of the physical
> phenomena", I was stating that as long as we live
> in a material universe, we are participating
> throughout every second of life from birth to
> death. What you said, "We don't 'participate' in
> tests unless we choose to do so AFTER the idea,
> the hypothesis, the experiments, have been thought
> of and devised by [us]".
> I clearly was not understood by you, but I will
> say that we participate in the material universe
> whether we like it or not. That was my meaning.
> That's all I will respond to. I will not exhaust
> myself over trivialities of language use. If I
> cannot be understood, then that is the malady of
> COMMUNICATION proper. If we go on like this, we
> will get nowhere.
> The burden is on me to clarify. I know this. But
> consider the link above: crystalyzed or fluid
> intelligence. Which is prefered, the crystalized
> INHERENT knowledge that accumulates over a
> lifetime, or the fluid practical reasoning aspect
> of intelligence? I think they call it crystalized
> because each of us moves into a path of
> repetition, even though we add congruent knowledge
> to that base of personal interest. I prefer the
> fluid, reasoning aspect of mind, which is why
> there is so much misunderstanding here on this
> Forum. Not everybody is careful to present a clean
> script as I do. I use the preview function always
> to present my posts.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19-Dec-18 07:17 by Susan Doris.