Combining Texts

Ideas for 'fragments/reports', 'Are there propositions?' and 'New Scientist articles'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


4 ideas

18. Thought / A. Modes of Thought / 5. Rationality / a. Rationality
No one has yet devised a rationality test [New Sci.]
     Full Idea: The financial sector has been clamouring for a rationality test for years.
     From: New Scientist writers (New Scientist articles [2013], 2013.10.29)
     A reaction: Many aspects of intelligence tests do actually pick out what I would call rationality (which includes 'rational intuition', a new favourite of mine). But they are mixed in with rather mechanical geeky sort of tests.
18. Thought / A. Modes of Thought / 6. Judgement / a. Nature of Judgement
If you like judgments and reject propositions, what are the relata of incoherence in a judgment? [Ryle]
     Full Idea: Those who find 'judgments' everywhere and propositions nowhere find that some judgments cohere whereas others are incoherent. What is the status of the terms between which these relations hold?
     From: Gilbert Ryle (Are there propositions? [1930], IV)
     A reaction: Ryle is playing devil's advocate, but this strikes me as a nice point. I presume Russell after 1906 is the sort of thinker he has in mind.
18. Thought / A. Modes of Thought / 7. Intelligence
About a third of variation in human intelligence is environmental [New Sci.]
     Full Idea: Possibly a third of the variation in our intelligence is down to the environment in which we grew up - nutrition and education, for example.
     From: New Scientist writers (New Scientist articles [2013], 2013.10.29)
     A reaction: This presumably leaves the other two-thirds to derive from genetics. I am a big believer in environment. Swapping babies between extremes of cultural environment would hugely affect intelligence, say I.
People can be highly intelligent, yet very stupid [New Sci.]
     Full Idea: You really can be highly intelligent, and at the same time very stupid.
     From: New Scientist writers (New Scientist articles [2013], 2013.10.29)
     A reaction: This is closely related to my observation (from a lifetime of study) that a talent for philosophy has a very limited correlation with standard notions of high intelligence. What matters is how conscious reasoning and intuition relate. Greek 'phronesis'.