- About AQ (adaptability quotient).. - 1 Update
- Read again, here is my final post about what is it to be smart ? - 1 Update
- What is it to be smart ? - 1 Update
| aminer68@gmail.com: Jul 15 07:27PM -0700 Hello, About AQ (adaptability quotient).. "There are rigid geniuses," she says.Having IQ, but no AQ (adaptability quotient) would leave you struggling to embrace new ways of working using your existing skills – and low AQ makes it harder to acquire new ones. AQ (adaptability quotient) involves flexibility, curiosity, courage, resilience and problem-solving skills too. AQ is now increasingly being sought at the hiring level. According to the IBM study, 5,670 executives globally rated behavioural skills as most critical for the workforce today, and chief among them was the "willingness to be flexible, agile and adaptable to change". One thing we do know is that the workplaces of the future will operate differently. We may not all be comfortable with the pace of change – but we can prepare. As Edmondson says: "Learning to learn is mission critical. The ability to learn, change, grow, experiment will become far more important than subject expertise." Read more here: As workplaces change, is it enough to be smart? Enter AQ, the capacity to adapt that may well determine your future career success. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20191106-is-aq-more-important-than-intelligence Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Jul 15 06:06PM -0700 Hello, Read again, here is my final post about what is it to be smart ? I am a white arab, and i think i am smart like a genius , since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will speak about what is it to be "smart".. So i will start it by inviting you to read carefully the following webpage from a Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice: Why are humans smarter than other animals? https://www.edge.org/response-detail/12021 So as you are noticing he is saying the following: -- "The idea of human superiority should have died when Darwin came on the scene. Unfortunately, the full implications of what he said have been difficult to take in: there is no Great Chain of Being, no higher and no lower. All creatures have adapted effectively to their own environments in their own way. Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy among many others, not the top of a long ladder. It took a surprisingly long time for scientists to grasp this. For decades, comparative psychologists tried to work out the learning abilities of different species so that they could be arranged on a single scale. Animal equivalents of intelligence tests were used and people seriously asked whether fish were smarter than birds. It took the new science of ethology, created by Nobel-prize winners Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch, to show that each species had the abilities it needed for its own lifestyle and they could not be not arranged on a universal scale. Human smartness is no smarter than anyone else's smartness. The question should have died for good." -- So i am smart like a genius and i say that the above webpage is not so smart, because the logical reasoning defect is that he is first saying the following: "Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy" This is the first logical defect, since he is like using boolean logic by saying that human smartness is only a particular survival strategy, and this is not correct logical reasoning, because we have like to be fuzzy logic and say that not all humans are using smartness for only survival, since we are not like animals, since we have not to think it only societally, but we can also say there is a great proportion of humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition than only survival. So now we can say with human smartness (and measure it with human smartness) that the humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much human condition have a much superior smartness than animals, since we can measure it with human smartness, and here is the definition of surviving in the dictionary: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/survive So as you are noticing that survival is only to remain alive, so i am logical in my thoughts above. The second logical defect of the above webpage is the following: Notice that the above webpage that he is saying the following: "Strangley enough, even evolutionary biologists still get caught up with the notion that humans stand at the apex of existence. There are endless books from evolutionary biologists speculating on the reasons why humans evolved such wonderful big brains, but a complete absence of those which ask if a big brains is a really useful organ to have. The evidence is far from persuasive. If you look at a wide range of organisms, those with bigger brains are generally no more successful than those with smaller brains — hey go extinct just as fast." So i think that the above webpage is not right. So notice again that he is saying that the brain must be successful in survival, and this is not correct reasoning, since as i said above smartness is not only about survival, since we have to measure it with our smartness and notice that from also my above thoughts that we can be humans that are much more smart than animals even if we go extinct. So the important thing to notice in my above logical reasoning , is that you have to measure smartness with smartness, it is the same as my following logical proof about: Is beauty universal ? , here it is , read it carefully: I will make you understand with smartness what about the following webpage: Look at the following webpage from BBC: The myth of universal beauty https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150622-the-myth-of-universal-beauty So notice in the above webpage that it is saying the following about beauty: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to understand that the above webpage from BBC is not smart, i will make you understand with smartness that beauty is universal, so if we take the following sentence of the above webpage: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to put it in the context of the above webpage, and understand that the way of thinking of the webpage from BBC is not smart, because it is saying that since in the above sentence starvation is a risk , so heavier weight can be more attractive, but this can be heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes, so it makes a conclusion that universal beauty is not universal, but this is not smart because we have not to measure beautifulness with only our eyes and say that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is not beautiful, because we have to measure it with smartness and say that smartness says that in the above sentence that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is beautiful for smartness because starvation is a risk, so then with smartness we can say that beauty is universal. So we have to know that that the system of reference of measure is very important, by logical analogy we can say that measuring beautifulness with the eyes is like measuring individual smartness with only genetics, but measuring beautifulness with both the eyes and smartness is like measuring individual smartness with both the genetical and the cultural. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Jul 15 05:50PM -0700 Hello, What is it to be smart ? I am a white arab, and i think i am smart like a genius :), since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will speak about what is it to be "smart".. So i will start it by inviting you to read carefully the following webpage from a Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice: Why are humans smarter than other animals? https://www.edge.org/response-detail/12021 So as you are noticing he is saying the following: -- "The idea of human superiority should have died when Darwin came on the scene. Unfortunately, the full implications of what he said have been difficult to take in: there is no Great Chain of Being, no higher and no lower. All creatures have adapted effectively to their own environments in their own way. Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy among many others, not the top of a long ladder. It took a surprisingly long time for scientists to grasp this. For decades, comparative psychologists tried to work out the learning abilities of different species so that they could be arranged on a single scale. Animal equivalents of intelligence tests were used and people seriously asked whether fish were smarter than birds. It took the new science of ethology, created by Nobel-prize winners Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch, to show that each species had the abilities it needed for its own lifestyle and they could not be not arranged on a universal scale. Human smartness is no smarter than anyone else's smartness. The question should have died for good." -- So i am smart like a genius and i say that there the above webpage is not so smart, because the logical reasoning defect is that he is first saying the following: "Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy" This is the first logical defect, since he is like using boolean logic by saying that human smartness is only a particular survival strategy, and this is not correct logical reasoning, because we have like to be fuzzy logic and say that not all humans are using smartness for only survival, since we are not like animals, since we have not to think it societally, but we can also say there is a great proportion of humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition than only survival. So now we can say with human smartness (and measure it with human smartness) that the humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much human condition have a much superior smartness than animals, since we can measure it with human smartness, and here is the definition of surviving in the dictionary: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/survive So as you are noticing that survival is only to remain alive, so i am logical in my thoughts above. The second logical defect of the above webpage is the following: Notice that the above webpage that he is saying the following: "Strangley enough, even evolutionary biologists still get caught up with the notion that humans stand at the apex of existence. There are endless books from evolutionary biologists speculating on the reasons why humans evolved such wonderful big brains, but a complete absence of those which ask if a big brains is a really useful organ to have. The evidence is far from persuasive. If you look at a wide range of organisms, those with bigger brains are generally no more successful than those with smaller brains — hey go extinct just as fast." So i think that the above webpage is not right. So notice again that he is saying that the brain must be successful in survival, and this is not correct reasoning, since as i said above smartness is not only about survival, since we have to measure it with our smartness and notice that from also my above thoughts that we can be humans that are much more smart than animals even if we go extinct. So the important thing to notice in my above logical reasoning , is that you have to measure smartness with smartness, it is the same as my following logical proof about: Is beauty universal ? , here it is , read it carefully: I will make you understand with smartness what about the following webpage: Look at the following webpage from BBC: The myth of universal beauty https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150622-the-myth-of-universal-beauty So notice in the above webpage that it is saying the following about beauty: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to understand that the above webpage from BBC is not smart, i will make you understand with smartness that beauty is universal, so if we take the following sentence of the above webpage: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to put it in the context of the above webpage, and understand that the way of thinking of the webpage from BBC is not smart, because it is saying that since in the above sentence starvation is a risk , so heavier weight can be more attractive, but this can be heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes, so it makes a conclusion that universal beauty is not universal, but this is not smart because we have not to measure beautifulness with only our eyes and say that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is not beautiful, because we have to measure it with smartness and say that smartness says that in the above sentence that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is beautiful for smartness because starvation is a risk, so then with smartness we can say that beauty is universal. So we have to know that that the system of reference of measure is very important, by logical analogy we can say that measuring beautifulness with the eyes is like measuring individual smartness with only genetics, but measuring beautifulness with both the eyes and smartness is like measuring individual smartness with both the genetical and the cultural. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment