What is the difference between verbal and logical/mathematical intelligence?

[Marc Leonard]

One is being able to spot patterns and derive information from words, and the other is being able to spot patterns and derive information from numbers.

But surely, there is no difference between words and numbers - they are both just symbols that stand for arbitrary things.

So, if you ask someone to spot the pattern in the following sequence;

One, two, four, five, seven, eight, ten...etc...

...then it's a verbal intelligence question.

But if you ask them to spot the pattern in the following sequence;

1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10...etc...

...then it's a logical/mathematical intelligence question?



Surely there's no difference between verbal and logical/mathematical intelligence - if you're able to spot patterns within words, then you should be equally able to spot patterns within numbers.

Can someone explain the fundamental difference between these two types of intelligence?

[Brandon Woodson]

I am writing this in passing; so I apologize that don't really have time to contribute to serious discussion or give too much input. But I would like to offer the following constructive criticism which might aid discourse.

It looks as though there is more than a hefty share of "logical equivocation" going on. E.g., the verbal vs. logico-mathematical distinction is applied to the "form" of the words themselves, while simultaneously contrasting the characters of mental processes. This is a trick of nomenclature that creates a nearly intractable muddling of what is really meant by, for example, "verbal intelligence" or "mathematical intelligence". In other words, are we discussing the processes used on the words or the words used in the processes?

We ought not put the cart before the horse. If we did want to attribute the tags, "verbal", "mathematical" and "logical", to "intelligence", I would think we first need to pinpoint (with isomorphic consistency) singular targets from among the semantic diversity of lexical doppelgangers stumbling about.


--Brandon

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Brandon Woodson]

I am writing this in passing; so I apologize that I don't really have time to contribute to serious discussion or give too much input. But I would like to offer the following constructive criticism which might aid discourse.

It looks as though there is more than a hefty share of "logical equivocation" going on. E.g., the verbal vs. logico-mathematical distinction is applied to the "form" of the words themselves, while simultaneously contrasting the characters of mental processes. This is a trick of nomenclature that creates a nearly intractable muddling of what is really meant by, for example, "verbal intelligence" or "mathematical intelligence". In other words, are we discussing the processes used on the words or the words used in the processes?

We ought not put the cart before the horse. If we did want to attribute the tags, "verbal", "mathematical" and "logical", to "intelligence", I would think we first need to pinpoint (with isomorphic consistency) singular targets from among the semantic diversity of lexical doppelgangers stumbling about.

--Brandon

[Pontus Granström]

I don't know if there's much difference or at least it's very minimal.
I can imagine that the g-load for mathematical tests and "verbal
tests" are very similar.

>>> But surely, *there is no difference between words and numbers* - they
>>> are both just symbols that stand for arbitrary *things*.