Intelligently gathering Steem

in #communities6 years ago

I was having an interesting discussion the other day about intelligence and the person was saying that IQ tests are irrelevant as they only test if someone can take IQ tests and, people who would be classed as intelligent today would not be classed as intelligent in the past because what they are good at now would not have been something sought after then.

I disagree


Yes, IQ tests themselves (I have never taken one) are largely irrelevant but, they are an indicator of ability to think through various areas and on average, people who score higher on IQ tests perform better in socially constructed areas of success.

I also disagree with the idea that someone (they used Bill Gates as the example) intelligent now would not be classed as intelligent 200 years ago because their type of intelligence is not required. The reason I disagree is because of the nature of intelligence itself, it is an adaptive feature. It is in the ability to adapt to an environment that predicts success in that environment and the more quality mental tools one has at ones disposal, the more chance of adaption and, the better that adaption is likely to be.



Unchained intelligence


If we get out of the head and look at physical intelligence, we will see the same thing. Michael Jordan who is credited with changing the way basketball is played wasn't pigeonholed into basketball. He wasn't basketball specific. He was also a damn good baseball player and can swing a pretty mean golf club. I would posit that even at his age now, put him in just about any sport that requires a high level of hand/eye coordination and control and he will outperform the average.

Would giving a person a comprehensive physical test not be indicative of physical intelligence? Sure, they could train for it and only ever take physical tests however, if they were thrown into an environment that required physical expertise, they will likely survive much better than someone who is unable to pass the testing bars.

This is the same for mental ability as even though an IQ test is irrelevant to real life, it does give some indication to the potential in real life. Of course, there are other factors involved such as ability and openness to change but, that affects everyone, high IQ and low IQ alike. This means that the IQ test is still indicative of probability based on the average.

Essentially, when it comes to intelligence over time, when people think that is is a social construct they are mistaken as they are limiting the skillset they know of the person as the only skill they are capable of learning or exhibiting. It is not that this couldn't be true for an individual but on average, the most intelligent will be adaptive to their environment.

What and who and how


But, this isn't really what I wanted to write about so I am not going to go into more detail about it but suffice to say, there are a lot of other factors involved than just IQ when it comes to success however, intelligence itself is a large component.

Le's go back to Bill Gates 200 years ago in agrarian (farming) culture. The assumption could be made that his relatively feeble body and lack of manual skills is not cut out for success in that environment but, this is not true at all. Again, it comes down to adaptability and Bill is likely intelligent enough to be able to use it to gain advantage even if he is unable to directly have the skills himself.

When it comes to talented programmers, old Bill wasn't necessarily the best but, he was competent enough to do what was necessary at the time. However, where his real talent lay was in his ability to gather the best around him. Bill is a community builder, not just a software developer. As I see it, that skill is transportable no matter the environment except, if he had to defend for himself on a deserted island full of tigers. Even then, being wily would be advantageous to survival.

And this is what I would actually like to think about a little in this post. A lot of people look at success as either personal skill levels or, who you know and although these are part of the equation, the most important part is the combination of those things and, who you can gather around you to support goals. That is a skill, well, a large grouping of skills in combination.


It isn't just what you know, or who you know, it is how you are able to combine them to create something of value and that normally means, useful and effective for people who you don't know. Getting the right people is the ability to solve larger problems and create solutions with much more depth than any one person can provide alone.

An attractive proposal


The ability to gather people is a type of intelligence and one that doesn't appear on the IQ tests but, knowing what is required to solve various issues are skills that are indicated by IQ testing as they are problem solving areas. Being able to identify those who have the various talents to fill gaps is another set again.

One of the core factors of human domination over other life forms and environmental conditions is our ability to communicate and therefore negotiate to cooperate at all kinds of levels. This is true if one wants to build a house or, a rocket to Mars. Where we currently are is because of billions upon billions of interactions between billions of people who have combined their skillsets to solve their immediate problems.

The most successful of these are the ones who were able to identify the right people at the right time with the right skills and attitude to build well. Of course, success here doesn't necessarily mean it is beneficial for humanity as some of the greatest atrocities are performed by people who were able to gather the correct group of individuals for their harmful cause. But, that doesn't mean they weren't intelligent.

To connect this a little to Steem, let's have a look at the coming future with SMTs, communities and how they may combine in different apps.

For example, someone might be thinking of building an 'Art' based community and make it a place where artists of all kinds can hang out, create and collaborate. That would be great except, to have that space is going to require it to be built and that is going to require technical people who have the skills to build the vision. This takes organisation and planning and technical people often need to be wrangled into focusing on a project, staying on target to limit scope creep and not getting bogged down in irrelevant detail. A visionary is rarely the persona that is best suited to talent management so, other skills need to be found.


This is a very simplified version but essentially to get even the simplest community gathered is going to take a large amount of people an skills and the more complex the vision, the wider the range. Oh, then there is the promotion and the onboarding of the population required to fill the space. Who will do that?

This is one of the areas that many people are missing at the moment as they come into this space and want to have it all but, they are only engaging with people they enjoy and can relate to. An artist might love hanging out surrounded by beautiful artwork but, if one wants to build a community of artists, more talent is needed than just with a brush.

An attractive proposal


Of course, there is not just the gathering required, there is also the attracting of talent and that generally requires some kind of charisma and or offer that provides talent with a space to grow. Talent nurturing. This is something that a lot of people fail to do here when they onboard, they do not create the space for a newbie to grow, they can't offer them support nor the connection to support. Onboarding a lot of users doesn't make you a leader, developing your onboards does.

And this is a large reason retention is so poor here, there aren't many community leaders with the will and means to both onboard, provide vision and consistently support until they can run autonomously. Of course, autonomous isn't really possible in a community unless well, it is one filled with bots.

Pretty much, all of the troubles facing Steem today aren't going to be solved by anyone, they are going to be solved by many anyones as people will finally start interacting less as independents wanting to gratify themselves, and more with the intention to satisfy community needs. This of course will end up giving the individuals the best chance at getting what they want at a personal level anyway.

Community me


When it comes to intelligence, it is the understanding that the best way to solve the large problems we face is to gather the best people who can cooperate to solve them and then, do it. Each one becomes a part in the puzzle of the greater picture and although it will often be one or a small handful of individuals who will get the accolades, it is a community that has backed it.


The future here is going to be filled by communities with possibly very different ideas on what is quality, what is useful and definitely, what is considered interesting. While most people are spending their time trying to earn Steem by doing what they love, it will be the intelligent ones who are earning Steem by gathering good people around them that will build the foundation for future success here.

Those who are happy only playing where they are comfortable will be among those looking for a community later and where they will end up is connected to the nodes of the community builders now.

What I think is that if Bill Gates was sent back 200 years and put on a farm, he would likely have been successful in developing and building a network of talent connected to vision there too. One interesting thought is that what if his entire empire was built to become a charity from the start?

These days, the lone wolf entrepreneur doesn't really exist except in romantic sentiment as to be successful means to adapt to a very fast changing environment. This adaptation isn't limited to the individual though as the globalized world is too large and complex to navigate alone so, the most successful are able to adapt with others and the best chance of quality adaption is diversity of thought, skill and vision all willing to communicate and cooperate for improvement.

Would be nice to see a little more of it here.

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]

Sort:  

Success is a collection of relationships, or so they say. Making friends on the platform is everything as far as 'success' goes.

On a lighter note, what community would you say you belong on steemit, @tarazkp?

Success is a collection of relationships, or so they say. Making friends on the platform is everything as far as 'success' goes.

I think so too but the push for individualism is strong and people feel it is all them.

On a lighter note, what community would you say you belong on steemit,

Oh, I am the worst at being part of a community and ever seen I was able (maybe 13ish) I have been a social butterfly of sorts. It is part of the reason I am unable to really label myself well as it isn't just that I have many interest areas, I also have experience from many diverse groups that cross just about every boundary one can imagine.

At Steem I think I have chosen to instead of going from flower to flower, I am attempting to grow a garden of many types of flowers. A place where people from anywhere can come and interact with many types, all with the intention of growth both individually and together.

You seem to be an excellent butterfly :P

I feel you. Youre doing a good job with that, thankfully you get to build from a position of relative strength

I'm collecting Tulips along with my Steem. I hear there's a lucrative market for them.

Steem is really cheap and easy to accumulate right now, not just through writing, but through your "earned" government issued debt-bonds, too!

Thunderfoot, a YouTuber, has made an interesting video on what would person x do in y scenario, with some in depth analysis. I can't remember the exact name of the video, but it may be worth a watch, as to your point about ambitious and successful people making it in other industries or fields.

but through your "earned" government issued debt-bonds, too!

this is over my head.

I will have a look for the video in the evening. it sounds interesting. I remember a couple of statisticians doing the maths on what if this sports star played a different sport and Bradman dominated them all.

Fiat currency ;) They're just bits of paper that represent debt to most people!

There's also the fascinating thing about the names of some sportsmen being so apt for their profession. There's an Australian rules football player with the name Dangerfield, for example.

There's also the fascinating thing about the names of some sportsmen being so apt for their profession. There's an Australian rules football player with the name Dangerfield, for example.

I am just glad my wife let me name our daughter, Crypto Millionaire

Long post but i finally finished and its worth it.😁

Here is my take, Bill gate will still be found intelligent in the 200 years if he lived those years inbetween. But if he just woke up 200 years later... Mehn he's so gonna be lost at how much things have changed.

he's so gonna be lost at how much things have changed.

maybe but, how fast will he learn and adapt to the new paradigms?

Not sure but definetly not any sooner. 200 years isn't a little time at all.

@tarazkp, will you agree with me that only smart people have high IQ and not brilliant people. Brilliance means that you can reproduce what you are taught but smartness means being able to think outside the box. Would we say that brilliance isnt relevant? No, because both have aspects where they are relevant.

Talking about IQ, i have never taken one before and so dont even know what my IQ is.

My proboem with IQ tests is that it isnt qualitative. It tells you a person is smart yet fails exams. Does it add up? I used to have a friend back in high school who couldnt pass his exams. He took an online IQ test and we realised he had a high IQ from his score. I wouldnt doubt the fact that the guy is smart by the things he does and how he solves problems. But i get confuaed as to why he fails in class.

Could you throw more light as to why it happens that way with many smart guys.

Well, there are likely several potential reasons and if very intelligent, boredom is high on the list. Online tests aren't the greatest measure though.

Most likely though is that his memory is not good for certain things. Intelligence and adaptability are different to recall ability. I have a terrible memory for school but, I am relatively adaptive in the moment so even though not intelligent, I can shift my thinking faster than most knowing what I know.

Memory is a resource, not an active tool. it is what can be done with what one has that is important.

My first thought initially reading the start of this post was that I.Q. stands for Intelligence Quotient. It's not a literal measure of Intelligence per se, but it's a measure of what a standardized test TRYING to factor in mental age targets as intelligence. The fact that an I.Q. can change over time just proves your point in the fact that it's an adaptation as well as something more fluid.

I was also trying to think of a word to summarize what you were talking about in theme of the many rather than the one. I really like this part...

These days, the lone wolf entrepreneur doesn't really exist except in romantic sentiment

It's the many anyones that will make the difference in unison. The word that kept coming to mind was GRASSROOTS. I guess this would just be minus the Grass and with Digital Roots!

Perhaps it is the Aspie in me, but being non-social by nature means I tend to look at things 'differently' to most.

eg "social media", I just don't really get it. Everyone seems to want 'followers'. Does that make them 'leaders'? If everyone is following then it may appear that way.

But in my view if you wanted to start a 'movement' you would not look for followers, you would be more interested in finding 'leaders'

Perhaps that is the sign of a real leader, someone who seeks 'leaders NOT followers? Just a thought.
Here is a 3min video to express the concept a little better

The most important person in the group is the first follower, not the leader. It is they who corroborate the story and indicate to others that here is something to follow.

But, (especially here) it is not how many follow, it is the quality of follower. People worry about volume like they are at an all you can eat buffet when they should be approaching it more as fine dining.

Yes that is my point, the 'followers' are actually 'leaders'. The person who started the whole thing is no where to be seen, has no one following, just got it started & made it happen & stepped back. ie the real 'leader'

You are very correct re the 'all-can-eat' mindset of social media in general. eg a 1mm followers generally means someone is 'important' or at least they think so. True leadership imho is about empowering others, who share a like mind / concept and once aided / assisted in 'getting started' they are off & running, self motivated.

Leaving the original "concept creator" / "leader" free to start a new & different 'revolution' / idea of some sort.

My personal view summed up:

When I worked for the Blue chip tobacco company they bought in a new test to see what type of staff they had. The results were a little alarming. Under their new criteria you had to score a certain percentage to be eligible for promotion. Three of us were given the good news and the rest were told nothing. How bad is that for morale. I don't mind these tests same as an IQ test. It means very little to me and think that if i scored highly on an old test I would do similar with a new test. I remember the corporate test was a lot of code breaking etc and I am quick with figures. Some people aren't but that doesn't make them less stupid. Too much is put on tests and it would be something I would use as a guide and that would be it.

Yes. the tests don't factor anywhere near enough in but, if all other things were unknown and you were hiring only based on IQ tests, you would be crazy to say 'it doesn't matter' and randomize selection.

My dad talked often about intellect and how it cannot be taught, that a certain IQ is born and tweaked with training. That said, here we re on a platform where IQ can be put to great use building, teaching and uplifting a community. Really nice piece mate

Cheers. There is still the, it is not your resources, it is what you do with them factor and that definitely is something IQ is subject to. Being smart isn't enough, have to use it.

Well as with anything really isn't it. Not what you have, but how you use it.

what a great presentation of facts you have truly overseen all the aspect of being intelligent yeah I agree to everything that you've said and hoping more bloggers will read your blog to get and open their mind in your great thoughts.

Keep it up @tarzkp and God blessed

I don't really think IQ tests are the true test of intelligence. I have an app on my phone thats supposed to be an IQ tester but the app is total wack.

A wack app doesn't mean a useless concept. IQ tests are tests, there is nothing true in the test of skill until it is out on the field in battle. People who rely on test results for their feelings of success have missed the point of testing.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.39
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70118.22
ETH 3546.28
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.89