Why I first said "indigenous people of the arctic." Eskimo is only acceptable in Alaska really. But this is bringing this off-topic, feel free to continue to use an derogatory term if you like.
It's not a derogatory term, it's a case once again of those who shout loudest drowning out dissenting voices.
Squeaky wheel gets the kick.........
I guess you and you alone get to choose when a person should be offended or disrespected.
As I said, continue using it if you like, I was merely attempting to enlighten you before you do offend someone with the term.
Not sure many Inuit people frequent this forum. I guess the highly intelligent ones maybe...
Why I first said "indigenous people of the arctic." Eskimo is only acceptable in Alaska really. But this is bringing this off-topic, feel free to continue to use an derogatory term if you like.
It's not a derogatory term, it's a case once again of those who shout loudest drowning out dissenting voices.
Squeaky wheel gets the kick.........
I guess you and you alone get to choose when a person should be offended or disrespected.
As I said, continue using it if you like, I was merely attempting to enlighten you before you do offend someone with the term.
As opposed to who, you?
In normal discourse if a person uses a term that another person doesn't want to be used then of course a person would desist from using it. But the arrogance you are displaying here is based on what? You and other's with the same dictatorial tendencies get to decide which terms people themselves refer to themselves with or others refer to them as or others refer to me as? And then go a step further and insinuate that there has been some judgement behind the language used.
The problem is that ANY word can be derogatory. Its all about intent and context of its use. If I use a term to refer to someone or a group and that person/someone in that group is offended, then I wont use it again. But I take claims of derogatory language from someone outside that group with a grain of salt.
Let me divide this post in two parts... first the on topic part...
A highly intelligent person does not need to be literate. As has been previously said in this thread literacy is a result of education and I would add culture, as there were highly advanced cultures in the past that apparently never developed a written language. Intelligence is you capacity to learn, analyze situations, plan. A highly intelligent barbarian could be an amazing strategist without ever learning how to read/write.
And now let me don my moderator hat.
Personal attacks are strictly forbidden by the site rules. Please do not answer personal attacks. Report them and let the moderation team deal with the problem.
This is just a friendly reminder for everyone to read the site rules.
I think being raised in groups with little or no writing makes sense. Maybe a culture would have symbols and signs for different factions that are used above buildings or on seals -- which everyone would learn to read -- but only a handful of people learn to read more than that, being scribes or mages or such. How much would a farmer need to know to read in olden times?
Eh, I never liked that argument. You need to know, because it widens your horizon - even if your day job is intellectually unchallenging*. And beyond existentional reason for education, there are also secondary benefits. Educated people are less likely to vote for scam artist politicians**, for instance, regardless of their day job. It is also a fairness thing. If certain members of society are banned from education, their chance of climbing the social ladder decrease, effectively creating a caste system.
*Which, ironically, modern farming is not, what with all the machines and animal considerations and soil properties etc. Not to forget retailers trying to scam you with underpricing and shitty contracts. I mean, yeah, it is not rocket science, but you probably need at least average intelligence to manage.
**Most politicians are scam artists, but at least you will stay away from the worst of them
Literacy requires access to education, not intelligence.
So... what's the nature of connection between education and intelligence? Is there any? Can you be highly educated, but have low Intelligence? What kind of person would that be? And how would you roleplay high Int person with no formal education?
I think the key word here was "access" - as of "availability". You have to be able to learn, sure, but first you have to have something to learn.
High intelligence allows fast learning, ability to acquire knowledge, flexibility in using said knowledge (as an opposite to following strict memorized order). Memory is a part of intelligence (like good physical shape is part of sport activities) but does not replace it (hence - educated fools). Something like this.
Let me divide this post in two parts... first the on topic part...
A highly intelligent person does not need to be literate. As has been previously said in this thread literacy is a result of education and I would add culture, as there were highly advanced cultures in the past that apparently never developed a written language. Intelligence is you capacity to learn, analyze situations, plan. A highly intelligent barbarian could be an amazing strategist without ever learning how to read/write.
And now let me don my moderator hat.
Personal attacks are strictly forbidden by the site rules. Please do not answer personal attacks. Report them and let the moderation team deal with the problem.
This is just a friendly reminder for everyone to read the site rules.
which cultures? cultures with writing are relatively more advanced, as a rule and i don't know of any culture without writing which is "very advanced".
the barbarian archetype isn't exactly known for amazing sophisticated strategy.
so yeah, if you had a barbarian coming from a very advanced culture which paradoxically outputs "barbarians" (as a warrior class) and that one barbarian is a very sophisticated and cunning strategist (highly abnormal for barbarians as it's just not their style), i'd give him INT 13 maybe
great military leaders in history aren't known for the greatest IQ. of all the famous historical figures, great generals are on average rated the lowest, significantly below non-military leaders and other categories (i read this in a book, can't find the quote now)
a barbarian may more likely have the cunning of a professional boxer than that of a military mastermind. but boxers have very low IQ, even though they have great instincts when reading the enemy. that's not intelligence i think, rather wisdom.
The kingdom of Benim didn't have a written language. There is a lot of discussion if the symbolic system of the Inca actually was a written language format and not just symbolic representation. There are others actually. Most cultures without a written form of language were rather small.
@bob_veng Both the Mongol tribes under the leadership of Genghis Khan and the Vikings could fit the barbarian "archtype", and yet both groups had exellent military tacticians. Also, both Churchill and most of the military leaders of nazi germany where exceptionally gifted, which are recorded. Wouldn't you agree that even simple people of a primitive tribe could discuss ethical, psychological, aswell as existential questions, no?
A highly intelligent Barbarian could make sense in itself. A barbarian warchief who has smart military tactics and fast adaptation to a situation he got from analysing battles he's been on would be a good example.
But the reason this Barbarian is illiterate is because his culture doesn't transmit this knowledge. His parents never taught him. That wouldn't make sense for Gorion's Ward, since he grew in Candlekeep and was educated by Gorion. There's no way he wouldn't have learnt to read unless he was unable to.
Just don't forget that for something to be considered a written language it must fulfill some criteria. such as having a structural grammar that allows the transmission of concepts in a written form.
Even if I have a symbol that represents a temple and one that represents priests, for instance, if I have no way to represent that a priest entered the temple or left it then I have a symbolic system and not a written form of language.
Soo, if an intelligent person can read his own language, but then moves to a distant land, never learning to read that language, do those people indigenous to that distant land consider him to be illiterate?
I think literacy is just a means to express intelligence. It is a vehicle. From an early age you can already see that a child is intelligent or not way before they learn to read and write in school.
High intelligence allows fast learning, ability to acquire knowledge, flexibility in using said knowledge (as an opposite to following strict memorized order). Memory is a part of intelligence (like good physical shape is part of sport activities) but does not replace it (hence - educated fools). Something like this.
Would it be correct then to say that intelectual stats represent potential?
which cultures? cultures with writing are relatively more advanced, as a rule and i don't know of any culture without writing which is "very advanced".
I think we are at risk of some kind of circular reasoning, because literacy seems to be one of traits of "advanced culture".
BTW, I find that discussion here very insightful. Thank you all for your input.
I teach young adults. I have exceptionally bright students who also suffer from severe cases of dyslexia and dyscalculia. Without their computers, they're unable to read, write, or do math. With them, they'd give most you grown-up forum fellows a run for your money.
I am quite intelligent. I am very literate. I hold several advanced degrees. I teach subjects that for 90% of human history were superfluous pointyheadnedness for more than 95% of people, and still today are luxuries when compared to feeding yourself and your children. I have few manual skills or insights. I could not survive in the great outdoors for any longer than the supplies in my bag would last; possibly I might die of misadventure or exposure before my food ran out. Am I intelligent? In the context of my time in history, my society, and my profession, yes, or least I am literate and educated in things that make sense in my societal context. Out of my context (in keeping with the OP juxtaposition of Candlekeep vs. barbarians), I'm dead in the water. Any tribesman, manual labourer, or used-car salesman would vastly outclass me, whether they are literate or not. Can't eat that there book-learnin', chump.
High intelligence allows fast learning, ability to acquire knowledge, flexibility in using said knowledge (as an opposite to following strict memorized order). Memory is a part of intelligence (like good physical shape is part of sport activities) but does not replace it (hence - educated fools). Something like this.
Would it be correct then to say that intelectual stats represent potential?
More like a degree of suitability or competence. Great physical shape remains great whether one is doing power-lifting, jogging or simply live his life and provide the same benefit - good health. Intelligence can be used better than for simple hunting, but it sure gives an edge to some hunter over his less smart buddy.
And I am afraid we do come back to the eternal question "do stats mean anything besides bonuses/penalties to rolls".
@rrchristensen I think you give yourself too little credits. Even if you do not know now how to hunt or build a fire in the wilderness, it would be much easier and faster for you to learn how to do such things, than for a stupid barbarian to get fraction of your education. Your are not only prepared to learn, you know how to do it and you know what you need and how to get it efficiently.
I would just like to remind everyone that Einstein never managed to learn how to drive. Intelligence seems to be compartmentalized and not general as most people think. You may be a mathematical genius and unable to do manual labor, for instance.
I would just like to remind everyone that Einstein never managed to learn how to drive. Intelligence seems to be compartmentalized and not general as most people think. You may be a mathematical genius and unable to do manual labor, for instance.
I once heard a comedian (Nick Griffin, I think) say:
"Einstein was divorced, did you know that? They should put that in wedding vows. 'Do you promise to love, honor, cherish, and obey, and do you think you're smarter than Einstein?'"
Just don't forget that for something to be considered a written language it must fulfill some criteria. such as having a structural grammar that allows the transmission of concepts in a written form.
Even if I have a symbol that represents a temple and one that represents priests, for instance, if I have no way to represent that a priest entered the temple or left it then I have a symbolic system and not a written form of language.
Pretty sure that if you add an arrow between the priest and the temple it would work and remain a symbolic system
You would also assume that a language would have a structural grammar by logic or else it would be almost incomprehensible weather it is written or spoken, but yeah I got interested in your post coze I have watched recently a doc on the Sumerians who were considered to be the first to have developed a written language. In fact it is a bit ambiguous but it seems that what they call a written language is symbols that are translated by words, phrases or sounds, so you can read it the same way you speak it.
Now to get back on topic, can you tell if somebody is intelligent while being illiterate? Sure you can, look at Floyd Mayweather.
You would also assume that a language would have a structural grammar by logic or else it would be almost incomprehensible weather it is written or spoken, but yeah I got interested in your post coze I have watched recently a doc on the Sumerians who were considered to be the first to have developed a written language.
Then you would assume wrong! According to a (popular) science article I read (so take it with a grain of salt), intelligent animals such as dogs and dolphins best (only?) understand 3 word sentences with agent-action-subject, such as Fido-Fetch-Ball. Changing this order of words or adding grammar cause confusion. Assuming animals could read, the same would probably be true of written instructions. Ergo: grammar just adds unnecessarily confusion.
Intelligence seems to be compartmentalized and not general as most people think. You may be a mathematical genius and unable to do manual labor, for instance.
It seems like we treat "Intelligence" much broader now, and Intelligence as a stat represents less than the word. I think this kind of practical knowledge would be matter of Dexterity, as Dex is also responsible for eye-hand coordination. We also have "interpersonal Intelligence", and that clearly is Charisma.
More like a degree of suitability or competence. Great physical shape remains great whether one is doing power-lifting, jogging or simply live his life and provide the same benefit - good health. Intelligence can be used better than for simple hunting, but it sure gives an edge to some hunter over his less smart buddy.
That makes sense. IIRC, 3e allowed sometimes to apply different stat bonuses to tests than usual and I can imagine low Wisdom, high Int hunter that uses his wits to track his prey, rather than Wisdom.
According to a (popular) science article I read (so take it with a grain of salt), intelligent animals such as dogs and dolphins best (only?) understand 3 word sentences with agent-action-subject, such as Fido-Fetch-Ball. Changing this order of words or adding grammar cause confusion.
But fixed order of words in sentence *is* a grammar, as it has rules on how to generate sentences, and breaking them makes is babble.
Comments
@Calmar
Given all those kits - would it be the least plausible Charname?
This is interesting remark. I think it fits nicely with what @DrakeICN said about unrealised potential.
In normal discourse if a person uses a term that another person doesn't want to be used then of course a person would desist from using it.
But the arrogance you are displaying here is based on what?
You and other's with the same dictatorial tendencies get to decide which terms people themselves refer to themselves with or others refer to them as or others refer to me as?
And then go a step further and insinuate that there has been some judgement behind the language used.
No, you don't get that power.
A highly intelligent person does not need to be literate. As has been previously said in this thread literacy is a result of education and I would add culture, as there were highly advanced cultures in the past that apparently never developed a written language. Intelligence is you capacity to learn, analyze situations, plan. A highly intelligent barbarian could be an amazing strategist without ever learning how to read/write.
And now let me don my moderator hat.
Personal attacks are strictly forbidden by the site rules. Please do not answer personal attacks. Report them and let the moderation team deal with the problem.
This is just a friendly reminder for everyone to read the site rules.
*Which, ironically, modern farming is not, what with all the machines and animal considerations and soil properties etc. Not to forget retailers trying to scam you with underpricing and shitty contracts. I mean, yeah, it is not rocket science, but you probably need at least average intelligence to manage.
**Most politicians are scam artists, but at least you will stay away from the worst of them
High intelligence allows fast learning, ability to acquire knowledge, flexibility in using said knowledge (as an opposite to following strict memorized order). Memory is a part of intelligence (like good physical shape is part of sport activities) but does not replace it (hence - educated fools). Something like this.
the barbarian archetype isn't exactly known for amazing sophisticated strategy.
so yeah, if you had a barbarian coming from a very advanced culture which paradoxically outputs "barbarians" (as a warrior class) and that one barbarian is a very sophisticated and cunning strategist (highly abnormal for barbarians as it's just not their style), i'd give him INT 13 maybe
great military leaders in history aren't known for the greatest IQ. of all the famous historical figures, great generals are on average rated the lowest, significantly below non-military leaders and other categories (i read this in a book, can't find the quote now)
a barbarian may more likely have the cunning of a professional boxer than that of a military mastermind. but boxers have very low IQ, even though they have great instincts when reading the enemy. that's not intelligence i think, rather wisdom.
But the reason this Barbarian is illiterate is because his culture doesn't transmit this knowledge. His parents never taught him. That wouldn't make sense for Gorion's Ward, since he grew in Candlekeep and was educated by Gorion. There's no way he wouldn't have learnt to read unless he was unable to.
Even if I have a symbol that represents a temple and one that represents priests, for instance, if I have no way to represent that a priest entered the temple or left it then I have a symbolic system and not a written form of language.
From an early age you can already see that a child is intelligent or not way before they learn to read and write in school.
Would it be correct then to say that intelectual stats represent potential?
@bob_veng
I think we are at risk of some kind of circular reasoning, because literacy seems to be one of traits of "advanced culture".
BTW, I find that discussion here very insightful. Thank you all for your input.
So yeah. Intelligence does not equal literacy.
I am quite intelligent. I am very literate. I hold several advanced degrees. I teach subjects that for 90% of human history were superfluous pointyheadnedness for more than 95% of people, and still today are luxuries when compared to feeding yourself and your children. I have few manual skills or insights. I could not survive in the great outdoors for any longer than the supplies in my bag would last; possibly I might die of misadventure or exposure before my food ran out. Am I intelligent? In the context of my time in history, my society, and my profession, yes, or least I am literate and educated in things that make sense in my societal context. Out of my context (in keeping with the OP juxtaposition of Candlekeep vs. barbarians), I'm dead in the water. Any tribesman, manual labourer, or used-car salesman would vastly outclass me, whether they are literate or not. Can't eat that there book-learnin', chump.
And I am afraid we do come back to the eternal question "do stats mean anything besides bonuses/penalties to rolls".
@rrchristensen I think you give yourself too little credits. Even if you do not know now how to hunt or build a fire in the wilderness, it would be much easier and faster for you to learn how to do such things, than for a stupid barbarian to get fraction of your education. Your are not only prepared to learn, you know how to do it and you know what you need and how to get it efficiently.
"Einstein was divorced, did you know that? They should put that in wedding vows. 'Do you promise to love, honor, cherish, and obey, and do you think you're smarter than Einstein?'"
You would also assume that a language would have a structural grammar by logic or else it would be almost incomprehensible weather it is written or spoken, but yeah I got interested in your post coze I have watched recently a doc on the Sumerians who were considered to be the first to have developed a written language. In fact it is a bit ambiguous but it seems that what they call a written language is symbols that are translated by words, phrases or sounds, so you can read it the same way you speak it.
Now to get back on topic, can you tell if somebody is intelligent while being illiterate? Sure you can, look at Floyd Mayweather.
ok im out
It seems like we treat "Intelligence" much broader now, and Intelligence as a stat represents less than the word. I think this kind of practical knowledge would be matter of Dexterity, as Dex is also responsible for eye-hand coordination.
We also have "interpersonal Intelligence", and that clearly is Charisma.
@Mirandel
That makes sense. IIRC, 3e allowed sometimes to apply different stat bonuses to tests than usual and I can imagine low Wisdom, high Int hunter that uses his wits to track his prey, rather than Wisdom.
@DrakeICN
But fixed order of words in sentence *is* a grammar, as it has rules on how to generate sentences, and breaking them makes is babble.