Does having a higher intelligence equate to ring smartness?

As it has been said before, IQ does not equal intelligence, it merely measures the potential intelligence of a given individual. On top of that, recent science confirms that the mind is like a muscle. With repetetive excersises it can be reshaped and sculpted, its limits can be stretched and pushed.

We would need complicated long term studies to confirm this, but my guess is that a vast majority of elite level boxers (and atheletes of any kind) probably have a combination of high IQ, Natural Atheletic Ability, and a series of good teachers growing up. Seems like common sense actually doesn't it?

 

My way of thinking isn't flawed, I just didn't read his second post. In the first post, he seemed to equate knowledge with intelligence, which are not the same thing. I'm saying actual intelligence (I.Q.) is about mental quickness and that can help your in ring intelligence, along with skill and experience. The ability to adjust and react quickly shows true boxing intellect which would include real intelligence, boxing experience, and skills. I agree as far as book smarts meaning nothing in-ring.

 

Listen, studies have shown that thing like doing crossword puzzles every day, musical training and maybe even breast feeding can increase your IQ. Do you know by how much? Try a point or two. People don't go from having average IQs to being geniuses...it has never and will never happen. So, if you want to claim that nature has some affect on IQ...Fine, but it very, very small. Basically, and any expert would agree with this, you IQ remains the same for better or worse for all of your life. Yes, it might go up by a point or down by a point due to external factors, but it will never change all that much.

 

That's not true at all with regard to IQ. You can raise it by a point or two, but there has never been a case of someone with an average IQ becoming a genius simply because he studied a lot. It's a nice dream, but it's still just a dream. Generally speaking, your intelligence remains the same no matter what you do.

 

yes

 

I think you should go back and read some of the posts on here again. You and I are actually making the same point.

As far as my "dream" goes. You are getting intelligence mixed up with IQ again. IQ measures potential for intelligence, not intelligence itself. I guarantee you that 99% of people on this Earth don't quite live up to their full potential with regard to their IQ.

 

Now why are you arguing against points that I never made? My original point was simple. Intelligence is a function of both nature and nurture. We are all born with the abillity to reach a certain level of intelligence. Some people obviously have a higher potential than others. However, you will never reach your full potential without proper nuturing. A similar concept applies to height. Some people are born with the potential to be taller than others. However, things like impropper nutrition can prevent you from reaching your full potential.

 

I didn't read a couple of pamphlets, friend. I act like I know what I'm talking about because I actually know what I'm talking about, unlike you. My mother does this for a living. She is school psychologist and it is her job to administer IQ tests to children in elementary school. SHe has also adminstered tests to teenagers and adults. And what she tells me about IQ tests, whether you believe in them or not, matches everything I have read. Namely, IQ does not change very much over a lifetime. IQ does not measure aquire knowledge, not at all. And IQ is slightly higher when you are very young.

 

intelligence is too hard to pin down. Hopkins is a very clever man. difference between being clever and being knowledgable

 

No, it's almost entirely nature. That was my point. I'm throwing you a bone here with the whole nuture has an effect admission. Fact is, we don't know if it does. And even if it does it is extremely, I mean miscroscopically small. Also, you're making the mistake of thinking the intelligence is some goal that one might reach. As I said, and you can look this up for yourself, your intelligence or IQ does not change over a lifetime. An interesting side story. A few years ago I read an article in People magazine about the 10 most intelligent people in the nation. The man with the highest IQ (205) was a retired mechanic who now belongs to a motorcyle gang. He admitted to never having much ambition, nor did he want success in mainstream society. Again, he never went to college, private school, and his mother did not play him Mozart in-utero. He was born smart. That's it.

 

And right there, you directly contradict yourself within the space of one single sentance. This makes you impossible to argue against, I must bow out.

 

IQ does measure acquired knowledge. They test your vocabulary, geography, use of language etc. But if your saying its hard to define intelligence i would agree with you

 

i don't think it helps that much. boxing is a lot simpler than say, trigonometry

look at floyd. one of the smartest fighters in the sport today. would you let him do your taxes?

 

Again, you're arguing points I never made and you're changing your own arguments. You do realize that you've stated that nurture has nothing to do with intelligence which is wrong and that you could achieve the same IQ score whether you were raised by Wolves or went to Harvard which is definately wrong. Saying nuturing is involved in developing intelligence is not the same as saying you need an extensive educational background in order to reach your full intellectual potential.