Posted by Übermenschİ at 128.252.192.192 on January 16, 2004 at 12:50:50:
In Reply to: We're reaching a point of semantics here. posted by C2FThom on January 16, 2004 at 12:40:53:
: It seems Uber and yourself are associating intelligence with "book smarts" or Quadrant-A thinking (logical & mathematical reasoning), which is understandable as our educational system tends to emphasize that over the other quadrants. However, most who study intelligence (what a thing to study!) recognize that there are multiple forms of intelligence: visual/spatial, mathematical/logical, interpersonal and intrapersonal, etc.
And what are all those? Recognizing patterns. Patterns in shapes, numbers, behaviors, etc. Logical reasoning, be it conscious or unconscious. I have very little respect for "book smarts" which is simply the ability to regurgitate facts.
: So really, when you admit that a lawyer could out-debate an MD, you're bringing attention to the fact that the lawyer's interpersonal intelligence is probably greater than the MD's.
I really doubt a lawyer could outdebate a doctor. In a courtroom perhaps because law is an odious subject, but generally a lawyer wouldn't perform any better. Scientists have to justify their findings as a lawyer would and perhaps the scientist has a harder time because he has to appeal to reason rather than emotion.
: There are simply different areas of aptitudes. Trying to weigh those areas in importance is a subjective matter.
I'll buy that statement.