Skip to content

On Genius, Intelligence, Productivity, Emotionality, and Feelings with Christian Sorensen

2023-01-04

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Humanist Voices)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/07/20

Christian is a Philosopher that comes from Belgium. What identifies him the most and above all is simplicity, for everything is better with “vanilla flavour.” Perhaps, for this reason, his intellectual passion is criticism and irony, in the sense of trying to reveal what “hides behind the mask,” and give birth to the true. For him, ignorance and knowledge never “cross paths.” What he likes the most in his leisure time, is to go for a walk with his wife.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Some might be thinking, “Okay, smarty pants, you’ve got this incredibly high intelligence score. But what’s in a score? It’s just a stupid number after all, right?” So, psychometrics has been around for more than a century. What is the history of the concept of intelligence before psychometrics?

Christian Sorensen: The intelligence score in itself, does not mean anything, since intelligence as such, is not observable and therefore is not directly measurable. In this sense, it could be said, that what is named as intelligence, actually is a model that supposedly represents something, and which in turn would be equivalent and indirectly measured through an arbitrary unit in terms of a certain numerical value. I consider that the concept of intelligence, before psychometrists, was more valid, since it was strictly related to what an individual was capable to demonstrate or not by means of its intellectual productivity, which is something evidently observable, and besides by contrast, directly measurable. An illustrative and paradoxical example of the aforementioned, is what occurs, when psychometrists have assigned intelligence scores to geniuses of history before the past century. In these cases, because psychometrists couldn’t apply any psychometric instruments to quantify intelligence, due to the reason that the latest did not exist at the time, they were forced as a consequence of it, to inferred scores from their own works, which despite being fictitious numbers, actually what they did without realizing what they were doing, was to emphasize the fundamental facts regarding intelligence, that is to say, that these were more tangibly related to what was done, than to what was measured from them.

Jacobsen: How does this history differ from the last century or so of research into human cognitive capacities?

Sorensen: The difference, would be equivalent to relate intelligence with scores, and compared them with intelligence linked to intellectual productivity respectively. Regarding the first case, it could be affirmed, that these are directly proportional, since these necessarily would be correlates, and tending positively to an ideal in terms of infinity. While in the second situation, it is plausible to not deduce any necessity, and therefore to predict the outcome of nothing at all, due to the fact that neither the score nor the instrument, from which the former is derived, are able to establish a direct relationship with something different than themselves as such.

Jacobsen: Why is general intelligence and its measurements so utilized in academic and professional, and cognitive high general ability and particularized disability identification, settings while denied in much of the common international cultural settings now?

Sorensen: Because culturally speaking, the intelligence and cognitives abilities are associated with the left hemisphere, which in turn are usually linked to hard and digital competences, that as such and by contrast, have been losing ground in comparison to the analogic skills, known as emotional abilities, which at the same time are grouped under what is recognized as the emotional coefficient and emotional intelligence. Perhaps in the cultural context, this supremacy given to the emotional sphere, it may be attributable to an change of Age, since not long ago we entered to Aquarium, that aims to achieve a paradigmatic shift, that goes from rationalism towards the dimensions of emotionality and feelings.

Jacobsen: Is the honest conversation still at an impasse?

Sorensen: I think that more than a conversation, it is a two-band monologue, since on the one hand psychometrists remain attached with a sort of glue to the concept of scoring and intelligence measurements, while on the other side, the cultural settings are fixed to a forced idea, according to which, in my opinion what they intend to signify and use as a means of persuasion, is the belief that there would be reasons, which the heart is not capable to understands. Therefore what really exists is not an impasse of conversation… Rather what there is, is an infeasibility of possible encounters that they wouldn’t even make a conversation thinkable.

Jacobsen: Do certain philosophical worldviews reflect certain sigmas? If so, why is the case? If not, why not? Do particular trends exist here?

Sorensen: I think some do and some do not. Concretely, there have been outstanding philosophical developments with German rationalism and idealism, and with existentialism as well. Nevertheless as a counterpart, in my opinion there have been other philosophical approaches, such as the medieval worldview, that despite it should be rather remarked with a sigma towards the left side, has been able to overshadowed, perhaps due to circumstances related to some kind of temporal or divine power, the philosophical developments aforementioned. The last is something notable, although many of its premises are anachronistic and evolutionarily primitives, since regardless of the prism with which it is analyzed, represents the ideal state of an absolute intolerance and the demonization of reason. In this manner, not only encompasses a dark period of thought, but also a sad and unfortunate transition for humanity, that pitifully even in our days continues to cause a considerable damage, regarding not only to philosophical inquiries, but also in relation to the core of culture, and society, that ultimately touches the house in which we live.

Jacobsen: How can an honest conversation here (the above) and a reflection on who individuals are start there (rather than the current focus on the image of the individual)?

Sorensen: I think that this will be feasible, to the extent that the image of the individual as such, which seems to be understood as mere individualism, is replaced by that of the subject, in which the mind, soul and spirit could symbolically converge, in order that it is appreciated the transversal piercing that comes from the intelligence towards them.

Jacobsen: Thanks, Mr. S!

Sorensen: My pleasure, Mr. S!

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: