PDA

View Full Version : Intelligence and lack of ambition


Alchemist
May 17, 2011, 01:27 AM
I’ve seen many people in my life who’re very intelligent (with high IQ levels) but lacks the drive/ambition to climb up in their respective careers. Some of them settled for mediocrity when they could’ve gone for excellence.

Which makes me wonder, is there any relationship between intelligence and ambition? What do you guys think?

Rabz
May 17, 2011, 07:13 AM
Intelligent, people with higher IQ often tend to be lazy by nature.
Cuz things come relatively easy to them probably what makes them a bit lazy.
Those who are not are often the ones go on to do big things and reach the pinnacle of their respective fields.

samircreep
May 17, 2011, 08:31 AM
Intelligent, people with higher IQ often tend to be lazy by nature.
Cuz things come relatively easy to them probably what makes them a bit lazy.
Those who are not are often the ones go on to do big things and reach the pinnacle of their respective fields.


That's not true! I have absolutely no intelligence, and I have absolutely no drive or ambition either!

Rabz
May 17, 2011, 09:14 AM
^^ They are not necessarily correlated with each other.

Fazal
May 17, 2011, 01:52 PM
I see it this way....

Intelligence coupled with some luck and really hard work is the formula for success. You need to be inetlleigient so that your hard work is well directed. Intelligence will give you the good planning and monitoring, hard work will take you to the destination.

lack of ambition is directly related to "lack of effort" or "lack of hard work".

Ofcourse there are exceptions. but they are just exceptions.

mac
May 17, 2011, 01:59 PM
Heh, intelligence and ambition kisui nai. Follower of Bujhee_kom.

Rifat
May 17, 2011, 06:32 PM
I have a friend exactly like that....he is like that because his mom is a pharmacist and he doesn't really care much about life...however, He is simply a brilliant kid who is very resourceful and reads a lot of books. in high school I(being dumber than him) got better grades than him (Alhamdulillah) because he simply never tried...

Zunaid
May 17, 2011, 06:51 PM
You guys are all talking about an outmoded and deprecated notion of a measure of intelligence. I would recommend y'all to read Stephen Gould's, "The Mmismeasure of Man". I quote

…the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain, its quantification as one number for each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness, invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups—races, classes, or sexes—are innately inferior and deserve their status

IQ is a very narrow and limited measure of intelligence. And that is why the correlation between IQ based measure of intelligence and subsequent success is statistically not that significant as one would expect it to be.

A better and now becoming more accepted, at least in the K-12 educational setting in the US, is Howard Gardner's notion of Multiple Intelligences.

Gardner is a development psychologist and is professor of Cognition and Educationat the Howard Graduate School of Education at Harvard. His main claim is that humans have many different ways to learn and process information, but that these are independent of each other: leading to multiple "intelligences" as opposed to a single general intelligence traditionally measured by psychometric tests such as the IQ test.

Gardner proposed 9 such intelligences in his seminal 1999 paper: linguistic, logic-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal.

This notion has come to be more accepted in the educational arena and have been successfully used to provide individualized instruction in progressive schools.

The traditional IQ tests measure partially the logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligences.

There is some valid criticisms to his theory, with the most major being it to be 'ad hoc' and difficult to prove empirically.

Intuitively it makes sense. For example, Michael Jordan would be considered a genius in the body-kinesthetic intelligence and my not have scored well in the traditional IQ tests. I would hazard a guess that he was quite successful.

Going back to the original comment - no matter how you define intelligence, the drive is an orthogonal thing that dictates success. Intelligence and drive are not dependent variables. And often it is all about the effort you put in independent of your "IQ" score. Malcolm Gladwell's "Outlier" which examines factors that contribute to high levels of success.

Electrequiem
May 17, 2011, 07:15 PM
Someone had to bring this quote up eventually...
"...if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." - Albert
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Android)

Electrequiem
May 17, 2011, 07:20 PM
Plus, there is no universal measure or marker of ambition or success. An "intelligent" person can be an "underachiever" according to you and I, but as long as he is satisfied, how can we say he has underachieved?
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Android)

Bancan
May 17, 2011, 08:36 PM
I hate generalizing. Every single person is different. Lack of effort derives from a whole lot of places. Honestly most of the time I didn't try hard enough was cause I didn't give a ****. I was too busy dealing with family issues and getting laid. I have a higher ambition now and decided I love my family but if i keep worrying about them then I will get screwed. So I decided to apply myself at school. Also chicks love people that are going somewhere....

Alchemist
May 17, 2011, 10:18 PM
Heh, intelligence and ambition kisui nai. Follower of Bujhee_kom.

Typical IUTian attitude, eh? :smug:

That being said, I'm an ex-IUTian myself. You won't believe how much your ambition will grow once you're done with IUT.

Alchemist
May 17, 2011, 10:21 PM
A thread on intelligence and ambition and people like Zeeshan is still absent! What's going on?

iDumb
May 17, 2011, 10:41 PM
That's not true! I have absolutely no intelligence, and I have absolutely no drive or ambition either!

In other words, you are a bangali.

Zeeshan
May 18, 2011, 01:21 AM
A thread on intelligence and ambition and people like Zeeshan is still absent! What's going on?

Big Boss (read: girth) pretty much encapsulated everything. Michael J.Gelb, an expert on creativity, in Davinci Decoded, talks about how heart's electromagnetic field is 5000 times stronger than that of the brain.

My personal philosophy is that children should be nurtured but given maximum lateral freedom to develop naturally. The more stuff adults try to force on them, they hinder their natural ability of learning. Calligraphy, pottery, weaving, woodwork, blacksmith - each have their own intelligence and are prized dearly in the West while snickered down upon in BD paying too much emphasis on "book learning". But when there is "no food in the stomach" so to speak, only way out, may be through "bitti porikha" and scoring high on standardized tests.

Going back to the heart's field, there are many theories floating around that "intelligence" doesn't reside in brain only. Our whole body is an instrument. It's organic and evolving and intelligent. To localize intelligence by numerical parameters and citing specific neurological zones would be foolish. Einstein had more glial cells than average people while taxi drivers in London have more developed hippo-campus the part responsible for memory. Each people develops their own neurological areas as their interests and professions.

So bottom line is, as espoused by someone here in this thread, happiness isn't always dependent on success, fame, socio-economic status, etc. A rakhal or farmer can be a simpleton yet be happy. Ultimately it boils down to your relativistic litmus of success.

While everyone has (and I believe "SHOULD") have a naturalistic drive to reach zenith of Maslow's self-actualization, it doesn't always translate through academic prowess.

Gandhi, Buddha, Jesus, Socrates they are considered more than geniuses yet they weren't necessarily very "ambitious". They were more :down low: so to speak. It came naturally to them.

That's why perhaps the heart's field is emphasized just as much? Because sages and avatars of the past preached out Love, Emotion, Compassion, Forgiveness under their umbrella of Wisdom. EQ is just as important.

You can be Gates or Einstein- but at the end of the day if you aren't a good human being, what is the whole point of humanity?

Peace Alchemist and thanks for an apt thread.

iDumb
May 18, 2011, 05:33 AM
Gandhi, Buddha, Jesus, Socrates they are considered more than geniuses yet they weren't necessarily very "ambitious". They were more :down low: so to speak. It came naturally to them.



you got it wrong. they were ambitious, but not necessarily intelligent. Jesus wasn't ambitious haha. u are funny.

mac
May 18, 2011, 07:17 AM
Typical IUTian attitude, eh? :smug:

That being said, I'm an ex-IUTian myself. You won't believe how much your ambition will grow once you're done with IUT.

Oh, finally another IUTian! Which batch bhai?
Ambition will grow alright, what about intelligence??? :-p

Banglaguy
May 18, 2011, 01:58 PM
Does anyone here know of a free internet IQ test that actually works?

Alchemist
May 19, 2011, 01:48 AM
Oh, finally another IUTian! Which batch bhai?
Ambition will grow alright, what about intelligence??? :-p

CIT 98 batch (1st batch of CIT).

If you can motivate yourself to learn new things on a regular basis, intelligence will grow as well.

bujhee kom
May 19, 2011, 08:07 AM
Dearest Alchemist Iftekhar bhai,

Very good thread...right now I am touring..when back in the city I will add a lot to this post fo mine....

The reason I post now is just to say this is my way of acknowledging this thread and to let you know it is a wonderful thread and I have a lot to say and this is how I mark the thread.