A Holmesian Approach to the Study of Intelligence: (Identity as it pertains to Intelligence?)

Premise/hypothesis/Theory/ponderance: I am proposing that there is a correlation between the types of identity that a form chooses or falls into and levels of perceived, measurable intelligence. There's also the possibility that intelligence is not well defined and there are unconsidered factors or I'm ignorant of those who have considered it. At any rate, what needs to be considered is not within the purview of the mass awareness and/or what is referred to as "popular opinion".

Is logic considered intelligence? What if most people are not born with logic, then is logic something that is developed? Is logic an ability or are there instances where we need to consider that logic should also be defined as a form of intelligence?

What if I was born with innate logic that was much harder to flaw then the majority? It WAS & IS harder to lie to me; yes, even as a child. At least if something did not compute I did not value it. Many children will accept what their parents tell them but I did not. I never believed in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or any gods. I told my mom she was putting money under my pillow and that family put presents under the tree. I also knew that a God was not logical even though I was not thinking in terms of language. I also ran away from home at 5 years old because I knew my mom didn't know what she was talking about. I couldn't articulate why but I could smell the error in logic. As I grew up I question the conformity in all levels of our so-called civilization. I still do.

Is conformity evidence for mental weakness? What is "conformity" in general?

Perhaps I'm an anomaly? (This is why I sometimes refer to myself as a perceptual savant... This label "perceptual savant" is an observation of what I'm doing, using a language/vocabulary the majority use and understands; this is not a "self-affirmation" or an "identity".)

What I am trying to do is draw a connective line in the form of hypothesis and/or stratifying theory to political/religious identities, (I don't see much difference) and the bell curve. Keep in mind, of course, there are apparent, partial failures, in regards to intelligence testing. Regardless, a general stratification can be observed between those who "choose" to fill in the blanks with a particular identity and a particular level of IQ.

Dangerous thoughts indeed. Certainly not "politically correct". Ask me how many fucks I give? Muhahaha (the majority will hate me anyway so I will say whatever the fuck I want).

At any rate, I suspected complexity would curb the simplicity of that hypothesis and as expected expansion has & continues to occur.

Fear to ask certain questions = failure to efficiently identify what needs to be researched = a failure to arrive at understanding = weakness of overall intelligence?

That leads me to ponder as to whether or not there's any connection between the lack of "intelligence" and the presence of what we call "mental disorder" or "insanity"? (Or which mental disorders are more commonly attached to which IQ levels?)

From the perspective of the "perceptual savant", it would be difficult to be delusional when nearly infallible logic is present within a neurological structural array and thereby being expressed in regards to understanding or the acknowledgement/understanding.. of the lack of understanding. (Chuckles)

Is perception something to be considered in regards to measuring intelligence?

Reality is not subjective. Those who claim that it is are lacking a particular form of intelligence? Reality is what it is, structurally, no matter what our subjective opinions of it are.

There is irony/hypocrisy to be observed here.

A certain perspective will assert that intelligence must be quantifiable in order to be valued, (those who create intelligence tests and Mensa as well as a large percentage of the population who value language-based intelligence above all else). Yet people who score highly on IQ tests can frequently insert a false perception of reality that is not quantifiable and demand that we respect it? (I'm referring to religious beliefs and political identity.) The same people pretend to know what they are, (which displays a lack of logic and arrogance as well as naivety, yet these are whom can be recognized as the smartest of the population. This is an example of getting the wrong answers in regards to extremely important facets of physical reality. (not to insinuate that I know whether there is a God or not but I am realistic and logical, intelligent enough not to claim to value either approaches.)

Good thing perception of reality and the removal of cognitive bias isn't tested on IQ tests, right? How convenient. Furthermore, what of emotional intelligence? What of innate inference and abstract puzzle-solving?

(Keep in mind, of course, the ability to change is evidence for intelligence. Stephen Hawkings... I wink at to whomever this may concern.)

Can people who self affirm identities change very easily? Can Mensa change?

In regards to a balanced perspective. I was considering the possibility that filling in the blanks with an opinion about perception of self could be a matter of efficiency. Filling in the blanks or conforming to some status quo driven, bandwagon cultural identity could be equated to the path of least resistance in regards to expenditure of kilocalories = ease of social survival.

This tendency to conform for the sake of social survival could be perceived as an intelligent choice or directive. Although, I perceive the choice to conform as an immediate reward while actually being a failure to examine cause and effect at a more complex level, a failure to perceive the consequences of this act of conformity, both in the immediate environment and into the future; which could be perceived as a lack of intelligence.

Comparably, to be honest or real, is more efficient than pretending to know what we are because a delusion must be maintained. This maintenance is a cumulative upkeep in both calories and kilocalories. Even more wasteful is that a perceived individual with a false perception of reality of whom is spending calories and kilocalories to maintain the validity of their delusion, perceptually, also demands that other perceived individuals waste calories in acknowledging or respecting one's identity and the waste produced by this chain of cause and effect could be exponential, from the perspective of the biosphere.

If we are not going to place a combination of all these factors within the realm of intelligence than a new category for the purpose of measuring overall value in an intellectual capacity must be outlined.

How many varieties of intelligence are there and should we be testing someone in regards to every variant or only the variance of which neurological structure of a particular form supports or has specialized for?

("Everyone is a genius but if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree then it will spend its entire life thinking it's stupid." Albert Einstein)

Well, Einstein didn't have the internet, nor was neurology or the study of cognition in general as advanced as it is today when he made the statement above. In a way he is right and it is a completely valid point to assert and in other ways it is not applicable. Just depends on how we define "genius" and "intelligence" but clearly there are reasons to distinguish between different levels of overall mental complexity. Clearly stupidity does exist and by default, acknowledging that stupidity exists means that we acknowledge that intelligence must also exist. Not everybody can be a genius but perhaps many, most or, less likely, all can become a virtuoso of some sort?

What is the value of mental complexity? Perhaps mental complexity is different than logic and intelligence but in tandem all of them equate to an overall level of intelligence?

What do I mean when I say "mental complexity"?

I define "mental complexity" as how complexly we perceive the bulk of physical structure and the far-reaching cause & effect in multiple directions.

How many puzzle pieces do we collect before we acknowledge we have a valuable theory?

When do we decide we have arrived at understanding of a given issue?

Is the process of our deduction at a complexity level that reflects the actual complexity of reality?

There's also the rabbit holes of detail we fall into in regards to perceiving things at sufficient complexity levels; then compensate for how trap like some of these 'detailed rabbit holes' can be, (failing to see the forest past the trees). In some cases we look at a particular thread or one equation of a multi-dimensional analytical philosophical equation and fail to see many of the other lines of equation of which meet at the focal point of understanding. (I reference the Crosshair of Understanding, which is the "Bayesian Theory" I reinvented out of necessity.)

"Every living being is an engine geared to the wheelwork of the universe. Though seemingly affected by its immediate surroundings, the sphere of external influence extends to infinite distance." Nikola Tesla

Nikola Tesla was right. Additional acknowledgement is required,.. as the distance expands, intensity wanes.

Then there is wisdom. How do we define "wisdom"?

If wisdom is achieved then it is evidence that the highest echelon of the manifestation/solidification of intelligence. Everything being expressed in these writings displays the definition of wisdom. Wisdom is a combination of many things...

Let's not forget about experience with failed thought equations and learning from those failures.

We must identify the failures in regards to the "proof is in the pudding". We must identify what factors and what neurological structures are responsible for which failures in order to arrive at an accurate understanding of an array of factors in the future or to lessen wasted time on erroneous conclusions.

Before we get to interpreting evidence; I have past entertained that there was neurological structuring that is responsible for how much emphasis we put on the analysis of risk or how we analyze cause and effect with a combination of neurological structures, a neurological array, (of which is formed by a certain phenotype expression and/or developmental factors as well as different thought oscillations in regards to reactive chemical exposure = neurochemical state = "State of Mind").

Is there a part of the brain responsible for deciding how many kilocalories to allocate to the analysis of a certain array of puzzle pieces and environmental stimuli?

Perhaps cognitive biases occur from the lack of analysis or whatever neurological structuring determines the unconscious assignment of kilocalories to risk assessment and this is not a matter of "intelligence"? At least not how society-at-large currently, arbitrarily defines "intelligence"...

Perhaps these innate neurological structures and assignment of kilocalories, of which produce erroneous assessments, of which produce cognitive biases and failures in regard to the "proof is in the pudding" of understanding suggest certain failures of intelligence testing.

What does it mean if a form can score genius level on an IQ test by displaying a comparatively pristine memory retention to the majority of the population also typically displays as well as apply what has been retained with productive/quantifiable outcomes but at the same time be delusional or so very wrong in regards to their insertions of religious, political or other cultural identities?(there is no argument; pretending to know what we are or pretending to know where "matter" and "energy" comes from IS logically flawed. Pretending to know means that we will not ask a wide range of questions, which means we won't do the research, which means we won't arrive at understanding. This is the Blindfolded Children of the universe Running With Scissors and no matter how we Define intelligence, this approach will not fit any of those definitions.)

Theorizing & suggestions: the majority of the population has virtuosity confused with intelligence. Without logic, without the removal of cognitive bias delusions can take hold and erroneous opinions can be formed about a great many things. If that state is present within a neurological structure and also being expressed then there is a clear lack of intelligence which needs to be incorporated into the overall assessments.

Currently, the majority of intelligence testing and our perceptions of intelligence will dock someone for having weaknesses in regards to language and/or math skills while not docking those who have strong language skills for having failures in regards to logic and the presence of cognitive bias as well as failures in regards to risk assessment and cause and effect analysis or what I am referring to as mental complexity.

(It would serve the majority of the population greatly to study, the study of intelligence.)

Mensa, for example, seem to only value certain types of "intelligence". (The easily quantifiable varieties of intelligence of which have tremendous usefulness to the industrial world. Mostly memory retention and language skills. Math is very memory reliant and a language, mind you.) 🤓😉🤔

Memory is not the be-all of intelligence, it is a support factor. What is referred to as a G factor in the study of intelligence.

The majority of the population, myself included, up until the past five or six years have had a very flawed definition of what intelligence is. What has been popularized as displays of intelligence was compounding that misunderstanding. This popularization has created a status quo driven illusion in regards to what intelligence is perceived as.

Even today I continue to refine my understandings. I don't pretend to know the things I do not. It's important to flow with neuroplasticity so that we can arrive at understanding. This process may not be efficient at first but it is efficient in the long run as the wrong answer is inefficient.

A Holmesian approach to science.

There are no IQ tests that are capable of testing for what this particular fish has specialized to hunt for. The only way to test for it is to observe my well-fed belly and the fact that I don't completely sink or go belly-up, (balance).

Now for a broader, overarching, super-organismal perspective...

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We are energy. We are in a state of constant transmutation. The forms we take are the fruit on the ends of the branches of the Tree of Life. Species and phenotypes are the way that biology quarantines itself in the microbiological arms races of different sorts.

Awareness is beneficial for biological survival. The variance in neurological structures expressed by certain phenotype expressions of our biology fill niches in the layers of systems we refer to as "politics, jobs, specializations" etc. In this way we are all equal but not in the same the ways.

The variance in intellectual abilities has grown in difference and have become factors of divergence in our so called "species". Anything that furthers these divergent states has inherent risks in regards to failures to compensate for the spectrum of cause and effect that, we, as the life of the biosphere, face.

We are failing to identify where certain abilities have value and where those abilities should or should not be applied or how they are applied.

We all fill niches yet divergence is clearly being expressed within the species labeled "human". Despite divergence occurring and being presently expressed within the biosphere, we must go find a way to gel.

While some aspects of divergence are unequivocally structural; others are constructs. Identity is one of these dangerous false constructs that layers over the top of the unequivocal structural divergence. Culture emerges due to locality and emulation in regards to playing out the imaginative facade of identity. Holding up these lies perpetuate division of our super-organismal structure and it is likely a threat to overall survival. Anything that supports these kind of divisions or walls that must be torn down.

I propose that neither Consciousness nor actual intelligence is something that any of us achieve alone. Everything that we considered to be conscientious and intelligible in the past was far too simple of a criteria.

If we are to presume the above statement has any value, then we devalue identities and erode the separation between demographics.

Consciousness expands if not bounded. Currently there are apparent boundless Bindings. Walls on top of walls up which inhibit the expansion of consciousness and intelligence.

WE are standing in OUR own way.

I could go on further but I will stop now as the availability of calories has reached a limit. More to come in the future. This work is subject to change for the sake of improvement and to display arrival at understanding. I also met polish this gem of thought and never revise it again.

Signed, The trivialized innate inference genius and/or the psychological as well as abstract puzzle-solving virtuoso? The perceptual savant? Arbitrarily Adam? Surely a Metaphysical Axiom

(Do what must be done with this!)