UKC

Basically, does it help or hinder?

I can see how a bit of cognitive nous could help you problem solve your way out of a tight spot, but at the same time might you not succumb to crippling Elvis leg after planning a VS for about an hour. Or can more brains control the fear more?

Would Dick Chaney climb more instinctively and confidently than Albert Einstein, only too die shortly after from forgetting to tie in?

Would doing a bit of Sudoku be better training than a pull up bar?! What aspects of your psychology give you a natural edge when climbing?

In reply to TheHorroffice:

I'm not sure about intelligence, per se, but I think that the ability to manage one's thoughts is a strength, in the same way that any sort of ability to focus is likely to bring about more positive results.

In reply to TheHorroffice:

Intelligence - worse. Most people make the simple complex. Intelligent people tend to make it highly complex. This is not a recipe for longevity in climbing.

Conversely being street-smart and being in touch with your subconscious will keep you alive - well, at least a lot longer.

Spend most of the summer writing about exactly this subject. Some hoary lessons dragged up from my memory!

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

A bit of a contentious response there, and one not really borne out by the evidence... unless you're saying Macleod, Dawes et al are a bit dim? I'd have thought dangerous trad particularly rewards the sort of long-term insightful introspection and creativity that only comes with a fairly bright mind. Not necessarily academically-orientated (though with obvious exceptions), but definitely sharp.

In reply to quadmyre:

Andy Kirkpatrick also falls into this camp, to my mind.

In reply to Mick Ward:


Really? I thought that there are some very intelligent climbers out there. I'd be interested in your examples. Many university mountaineering clubs have a historical reputation for turning out some excellent climbers. I also disagree with your assertion regarding complexity - in my opinion the most intelligent people know how to make complex situations simple.

I would think that intelligence is good for climbing - I would think that there are very few climbers with a low IQ. They may not all be academics in ivory towers, but I don't think that top climbers lack intelligence.

Having said that, I think that a practical bent and an ability to control your mind are far more beneficial than out and out intelligence.

All responders to this thread please tick one of the following boxes:

[] i am stupid
[] i am a crap climber

In reply to Mick Ward:
Excellent, another excuse to add to my arsenal.
"The only reason I failed to get up that route is I'm too intelligent. Well done on making it look easy."

In reply to TheHorroffice: I think it has little or no effect. People have all sorts of different mental skills that can be applied to make them climb better. For example, tenacity to train hard will go a long way.

I reckon confidence (in ones own abilities) will have a much greater effect than intelligence. But perhaps knowing your own abilities really well is a sort of intelligence...

As for what aspects of my psychology give me a natural edge? I stay safe (while doing lots of soloing, highballing, bold trad) by assessing risks pretty well and knowing when to back off. But I'd climb loads better if I could always climb the way I do when I'm feeling confident and 'in the zone'. It rarely happens - I'm very often racked with self-doubt and unwilling to push myself hard.

In reply to TheHorroffice:
Second-hand anecdote, made a bit vague on the off-chance that the person involved reads this: novice climber goes on course and is taught various rules of thumb, but does not *understand* them. Later when climbing without instructor, applies them blindly and ends up doing some incredibly dangerous things.

To me it's not quite about intelligence, but about having the sort of inquiring mind to understand the reasons behind *why* some actions are safe and others aren't. That way you can react to the infinite variety of situations you are presented with on lead and handle them in a safe manner.

In reply to TheHorroffice:

An interesting question & one that I have pondered in the past . I am an idiot (any less brain cells & I could be a hardwood) & I'm shyte at climbing .

But what about somebody like Alex Honnold ? Apparently very intelligent and an exceptional climber , curious . . .

In reply to TheHorroffice:

'intelligence' is a bit of a broad term. To be a good climber I think you need either to have naturally or to cultivate an emotional detachment from the climbing situation, i.e. the ability to focus on the moves required rather than the consequences of getting pumped and falling off. I would not think anybody who has this ability is necessarily better or worse than me at sums or drawing or spelling or playing the bagpipes or any other activity requiring intelligence.

In reply to TheHorroffice: Like others have said, intelligence is a rather broad term. I mean, you can get someone intelligent enough to take calculated risks, to analyse each move and visualise their route before they do it.

Or, you can get intelligence whereby someone has "done it all." That is intelligence, sure, but it's mixed with complacency and cockiness, and that's where mistakes are made.

In reply to TheHorroffice:

Boulderers are not intelligent but they seem to climb quite hard.....








Runs away :0)

In reply to Monk:


We'll have to agree to disagree. The most intelligent people I've encountered have been academics, IT people (especially), lawyers and management consultants. I'll give you just one example of their love of complexity:

'An organisation is a body of thought, thought by thinking thinkers.' A Nobel prize for tautology?


I agree - and there are increasing numbers of fundamentally unsafe climbers. Been to a climbing wall or low-grade sport crag recently?



I've known lots of top climbers. None lacked intelligence. None were the most intelligent of climbers either. Their success was due to other factors. Motivation and dedication got them up routes. Listening to and heeding their 'inner voices' kept them alive.


There we agree!

Mick

In reply to quadmyre:

Please see the reply to Monk as it (hopefully) deals with your point.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

Are you confusing the capability of memorising dissociated data with intelligence?

In reply to Mick Ward:

Anyone who issued a sentence such as that would not score highly on my intelligence rating. That is the sort of statement issued my management consultants who are desperately trying to appear to be intelligent (and failing, in the eyes of anyone outside their weird little world).

As we both agree, I don't think that academic intelligence is a measure of climbing ability, but I think that intelligence is multi-faceted. Some aspects of intelligence are important for climbing, whereas the more abstract versions of intelligence may be less beneficial - we've all heard stories of brilliant minds who are unable to safely cross a busy road. I can't think of a single good climber who I wouldn't rate as being relatively intelligent.

In reply to quadmyre:

Methinks Dave MacLeod has a degree (or maybe two)-if that counts as intellegence?

In reply to Sl@te Head: I managed to resist that temptation!

But bloody hell, the difference in the conversations I've had with fellow climbers at Bosi, Gogarth, Mother Careys, etc compared to those I've had at the Plantation on a winter's day...there's definitely some sort of correlation.

In reply to TheAvenger:


Hopefully not.

Mick

In reply to Monk:


The writer of that sentence wasn't a management consultant. He was a top academic with, I was once assured, an IQ which was stratospheric.



I think intellect is multi-faceted.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:


Were the above-mentioned people climbers?


I'm not sure I've ever met a climber who wasn't of average-or-above intelligence. I've seen a few stupid and unsafe things done, but generally by people I wouldn't call climbers, more people who occasionally climb or who happened to be climbing, or who happened to be at a climbing wall. I've never seen someone I'd call a climber do something fundamentally unsafe, unless of course you count getting on a bold route in the first place!

To answer the question we'd have to pin down the definition of "intelligence" anyhow, as well as the definition of a "better" or "worse" climber.

On a general level surely intelligence is just a measure of how "good" someone is at "stuff". IQ tests for instance are supposed to test a range of applicable skills such as numeracy, spatial awareness etc. I find it hard to believe that, on average, being "good" at "stuff" would not equate to being "good" at "climbing". I grant you there will be obvious exceptions where people have a very narrow form of intelligence (for instance extreme numeracy but with no spatial awareness). Your assertion that people who are generally good at the things measured by our casual concept of intelligence are generally lacking in other areas does not match my experience. In fact I find most of the good climbers I've met to be intelligent and sickeningly well-rounded over-achievers.

As for your last point, whether intelligence makes for the best climber, that was not the question asked, and again it's unanswerable, who is the best climber anyway? You could probably train an ape to redpoint, for example, but to me the best climber is probably the all-rounder, and they need the full gamut of skills that make climbing both so taxing and rewarding, and for me those skills are most often found where intelligence is also.

In reply to Mick Ward:
Mick, you need to get out more!


Yeah, that's horrible. That was not said by an intelligent person. I think you are mixing up intelligence with BS. I think good, safe climbing, comes from the ability to analyze situations quickly and accurately and then respond appropriately.
Is this intelligence? I've no idea. Ants do this.

In reply to TheHorroffice:

Albert would have burnt Stephen Hawking off

In reply to Mick Ward:

Mick, by and large I think that's rubbish.

One of the things that makes climbers stand out to me is that they tend to be on the more intelligent side of the equation. At least in the circles I've mixed (largely trad climbers...). I would agree that a certain kind of intelligence might not be helpful but, on the whole, the ability to understand the "technical" side of climbing and manage risk should be very valuable. I do not believe that having the intelligence to appreciate and manage risk, for example, would make you any less able to switch off and commit at the appropriate time.

In reply to Mick Ward:
>
>
>

I see. Although I'm not wholly surprised as I earn a living deciphering the words of highly intelligent people.

>
>

Interesting. I agree, although now you have opened a can of worms which I think works in favour of my argument. Intellect is the power of reason and understanding, whereas intelligence is the ability to learn and apply knowledge and skills. Therefore, I would say that climbers would value intelligence over intellect. I maintain that great climbers are always intelligent but are not usually intellectual.

In reply to TheHorroffice: I think it makes little or no difference, climbing doesn't require classical intelligence. Some thick people are brilliant climbers, some are crap. some brilliant people are thick climbers, some are brilliant.

Its more to do with movement intelligence, in fact I think Andy KP wrote something about this...

DC

In reply to TheHorroffice:

Many years ago I used to teach Paragliding in Snowdonia, It occurded to me back then that many very intelligent and successful professional people (who came for fly lessons) really seemed to lack in the common sense department.


PS It was just a joke about boulderers earlier just in case I've offended anyone I know!

In reply to Sl@te Head:


It's a different sort of intelligence but having one and not the other (whichever way around) seems noteable at the time. Yes, someone clearly very bright but who can't work out how to do something practical but complex might make you laugh. But how many practical builders, for example, would be able to obtain a PhD? Both are noteable and common, it's just the former seems funnier.

In reply to TheHorroffice: Climbing requires the ability to process a lot of information and form rapid judgements, often in stressful situations. This applies even more when you move away from crags into mountain environments. I'd say this requires a degree of intelligence.

In reply to Mick Ward:

What's simple?

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Whew! Too many posts to reply to properly. But, let's try a couple:


'What can be said at all can be said clearly.'

I'd say that's pretty simple.

Mick

In reply to Monk:


I think we'll have to agree terms. Would you be happy with:

Intellect: The power of reason and understanding

Intelligence: The ability to process information efficiently.

Intellectual: The ability to deal with abstract ideas, i.e. comprehend them and (probably) reform them.

Mick

In reply to Sl@te Head:


This is exactly what I'm getting at. Thank you.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

I think that we may be lost in semantics and definitions here. I suspect that I actually agree with you. Some of those whom we describe as great thinkers do definitely lack common sense, perhaps as their faculties are directed elsewhere, and I doubt that they would make good climbers. I do think that it is wrong to put all intelligent people into this category, though. There are many examples of very clever people who are also 'do-ers' and careers where practical skills must be paired with intelligence and physical ability. Astronauts, for example. These are the sort of people who I think can, and do, excel in climbing.

In reply to Mick Ward:

Mick,

I don't think I've seen reference to 'imagination' thus far. My view is that I use my imagination to anticipate what's ahead, both before I set off and during the climb; the moves, gear, pro, rests, crux/es and what could go wrong etc, and my intelligence (such as it is ) to figure solutions to these eventualities. Anything overwhelming I put try to put out of my mind and focus on the task at hand.

For me thinking it all through is an important precursor, and the process for trad is quite different than for sport, where you focus on the mental rehearsal of the moves (mind you I don't really redpoint so after 30' or thereabouts it's all improvised for me).

For all I know the two ( what I call imagination & intelligence) are inextricably linked? But in my mind I sort of separate the two.

And I tie my own laces.

Regards,

Steve

In reply to Mick Ward:
I suppose what i was getting at was that you're defining climbing as simple? If so that is questionable

In reply to TheHorroffice:

Hmmm, I know someone who climbs hard (or claims to), who is probably one of the most stupid people I've ever met. You can almost watch the cogs turning in very slow motion when he has to think about something difficult.

In reply to TheHorroffice:

Monkeys are pretty good at climbing. Don't know of any with a degree though.

In reply to TheHorroffice:

In terms of setting up achors, ropework, etc, I think intelligence is a good thing and an advantage.

In terms of actual climbing, I think less so. The ability in a tight spot to say to the cognitive part of your brain (which is currently gibbering unhelpfully)

"Either work out a way out of this or SHUT UP"

is, however d@mn useful at times.

In reply to Monk:

Agree, there are all kinds of exceptions. The very best climbers are highly skilled thinkers and highly skilled doers, able to calculate risk to the nth degree.

Mick

In reply to TheHorroffice: I think it makes no real difference. As long as you think clearly about safety and are not reckless, you can be either above average intelligence or average or below average.

In reply to SteveSBlake:

Hi Steve,

I completely agree with imagination - but it's a highly controlled imagination. (For instance, we tend not to imagine the consequences of serious injury.)

I think that imagination's sister is intuition. At the back of our minds is a huge database of experience, alerting us to what we can get away with and with what we can't.

Again the intelligence which you're using is highly focussed and task specific. The possessor of such intelligence may or may not have a similar degree of more academic intelligence. But academic intelligence is, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, I'd argue unhelpful.

Mick

In reply to Bulls Crack:


Well, I'd argue it was wrong. I think climbing's anything but simple.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward: Why is academic intelligence unhelpful?

In reply to SteveSBlake: I think my imagination is one of the things which is currently holding back my climbing - I wish it weren't so vivid!

In reply to TheHorroffice: Two people who I have climbed with represented both ends of the intelligence spectrum, yet both were equally gifted and impressive climbers, who I would, and did happily climb anything with.

One was a scientist, with an IQ on a par with Mr Spock, the other had the intellect of Les Battersby.

Of course, intelligence can be measured in so many ways - I've known people with a masters from Oxbridge who were amongst the most stupid people I've ever known when it comes to practical common sense, and people who with no qualifications, who were incredibly bright.

However, I do think that sometimes, we are in danger of putting the sport of climbing on rather to high a pedestal - because at the end of the day, it actually isn't rocket science.

In reply to Mick Ward:

So intelligent people might have an advantage? I'm not saying they do but you did propose that intelligent people make the simple complex so they may make the complex simple!

In reply to Goucho:

That, my friend, is one of the best posts on UKC ever.

In reply to TheHorroffice:

Interesting topic.

Though I suspect you have a bit of a self-selecting survey here of (a) climbers and (b) people who think they're intelligent.

Would anyone on this thread own to thinking that they're not very intelligent?

My personal broad definition of intelligence would be 'the ability to see/understand the best way to act in any particular context'.

To my mind education/experience/erudition therefore plays a part in intelligence, as a greater experience of a variety of contexts will allow a greater understanding of the best way to act in a new context (though intelligent people can extrapolate intuitively).

A person who is broadly intelligent might make a better climber, as they would be able to problem-solve effectively from past experience, and have creativity to apply solutions from other contexts to the present.

Mind you, perhaps a large amount of intelligence-based success precludes being a good climber, as you've spent all your time using your intelligence on other things, and not enough time climbing...

I'd also add that I've met a considerable number of climbers who I'd say lack 'social' intelligence - an ability to know how to act in a social context! In fact, just reading UKC reveals any number of threads showing lack of empathy/social intelligence...!

In reply to TheHorroffice: It's irrelevant.

In reply to Mick Ward:
In reply to Bulls Crack:




Anyone performing complex tasks and making them appear simple.

(Does not require any speech but is an equally valid viewpoint.)

Just watch how a good climber makes complex and difficult moves appear simple.

It does not mean climbers are simple, but it may mean they are intelligent

In reply to teflonpete:
Exactly! What got me thinking about this was watching Alex Honnald (as someone else has mentioned, a very clever chap) working his way up El Cap and wondered if a monkey could do the same. He froze when he started to over think the situation and had to spend some time shutting those thoughts off.

I really believe that intelligence is your self awareness, not the amount of knowledge or your work ethic. If this is true maybe 'intelligence' (cognitive agility and awareness of external stimulus etc) is a curse in climbing, but with strong self awareness we can turn it to an advantage by being able to think up a clever way through a route as well as control fear. I remember Dave Mac once said he did not have enough time to get strong (!) so 'thought' his way up routes instead. Could a monkey do that?

In reply to RockSteady:

Your broad definition is interesting, but it is not turnkey as it misses out of the most important aspects: Delivery.

That’s another reason to support why Mick Wards opening gambit is correct. Experts often see and understand a particular complexity by using their experience, so they think everyone else should understand any solution they present, which is often even more complex.

Delivering a simple solution for others is actually difficult and demonstrates a more thorough use of intelligence.

In reply to TheHorroffice:

He may have not had time to get strong in the particular muscle groups that people normally associate with strength.

But I think you will find he did have time to develop and recruit strength in a broader range of muscles groups throughout the body than most UK climbers.

That’s using his intelligence.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

Because, in climbing, it's not relevant. And, when people think it's highly relevant, they're cruising for a bruising.

Mick

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Please see the above post.


>...but you did propose that intelligent people make the simple complex so they may make the complex simple!

They may... but, in reality, they rarely do.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward: Ah, ok, I misunderstood your meaning. I think intelligence is neutral, not unhelpful or helpful, but this is perhaps splitting hairs over terminology.

In reply to Goucho:

Intellect (and application) can be measured in many ways. Intelligence is measured by IQ.

Mick

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

Agreed, I think intelligence is neutral. But possession of intelligence is rarely neutral. We live in a society where the blithe assumption is made that intelligence (as measured by IQ) and consequent academic ability will solve any problem. On a mountain, this blithe assumption can get you killed.

Mick

P.S. My partner's making noises for me to get my ar*e in gear, so I'd better employ what little intelligence I possess by sodding off until tomorrow! Bye, all.

In reply to Mick Ward: You know what I meant, but if you're feeling pedantic, then I concede to incorrect application of a noun

In reply to TheHorroffice: I left school straight after my gcse's and am pretty much as thick as a castle wall and have climbed at a fairly high level, I also know some pretty dim people too and they climb well too .

In reply to TheHorroffice: I think intelligence can help in understanding the less intuitive aspects of the sport - structuring training and stuff like that, understanding ropework and analysing situations quickly.

An over-active imagination can be a negative factor, but this sort of mental issue in climbing can be addressed through the research and application of research findings more characterised by intelligent people than less intelligent people.

I think when actually moving on the rock trying to apply conscious thought processes can be counter-productive.

In my limited experience climbers seem to be more intelligent than average.

In reply to Sl@te Head:


Hay Im a Boulderer, I just cant work if this is an insult or not

By the way with a 162 IQ, verified by Mensa. It helps me plan the routes/problems easier, If only I had the technique to make it work

In reply to Mick Ward:

No, IQ is measured by IQ.

In reply to TheHorroffice: intelligence helps the intelligent climber. Lunatics and idiots might on occasion climb higher and better, but they won't do it for long. Knowing how to come down is a lot more important than having the drive to get up.

In reply to Talius Brute: Knowing how to come down is not the preserve of the intelligent though.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains: How true. I can get down a mountain faster than Roadrunner when I need too, but I can also be thicker than a piggy in a mud pit!

In reply to nickinscottishmountains: Yes, agree. Maybe it's knowing how to judge the situation well.

And I cannot think of any situation where stupidity is a benefit.

Moderate intelligence, especially when coupled with high self-esteem, is definitely a weakness; but intelligence in itself is never a bad thing. When I look back on my youth I am glad that I had the brains and fear(courage?) to say "no" to a lot of situations my peer group didn't.

In reply to Talius Brute:

You don't tie on properly and don't find out until your mate tells when you are on the top

In reply to wayno265:

Wayno, in response to your comment about the application of conscious thought, and to others who have mentioned the what the 'instinctive' element in climbing can achieve. Check this out....

youtube.com/watch?v=42Px9N7jV7w&

No thought here, no awareness (it seems) of the consequences of an error. All about uninhibited movement.

Steve

In reply to SteveSBlake:
Wow, I guess that answers it. I'm putting down the books and heading to the gym!

In reply to ashley1_scott:

Thought so

In reply to TheHorroffice: My, my - intelligence does indeed have many facets and general intelligence is not, per se, related to high standard climbing (tho' many high standard climbers have a high level of general intelligence). At a guess very good climbers are agile (as in gymnastics), have a high level level of kinaesthetic awareness (look it up), an ability to read the rock and a heightened sense of self-awareness (which allows them to put themselves in positions of potential difficulty/danger without freaking out. I come to this view without much by way of any of these attributes but having watched those who have. Oh, and strong fingers.

In reply to Stone Idol:
Sounds about right. I also think that getting into climbing takes a fair bit of intelligent - the joys of it are somewhat more subtle than lobbing a ball at each other. More akin to soft martial arts than ufc.

In reply to TheHorroffice:

I wonder if intelligence levels vary between rock types/venues:

In reply to Tall Clare:

Unfortunate choice of words maybe.

In reply to Mick Ward:

Talk about making the simple complex...

In reply to TheHorroffice: I can certainly think of a fair few British mountain guides with a PhD or medical degree, although being a guide isn't the same as just being a good climber.

More generally, I'd expect to find a correlation between climbing ability and some measure of intelligence. Both are improved by being organised and motivated enough to ask questions and put in the hard work. I'd be surprised if there was a causal relationship though. Despite the fact that being a quick learner helps you pick up the basics of climbing, it's not like there are any particularly abstract idea involved!

In reply to anonymouse:


I really don't think so. But, if you're struggling with that...

Mick

In reply to TheHorroffice: Does intelligence make for a better or worse climber?ask your self this Does intelligence make for a better or worse footballer, some of the best footballers are thick as pig shit!some people are just born to do sport(thick or clever).

In reply to Mick Ward:
I'm struggling with the question of why you would bother trying to redefine perfectly sensible words

In reply to anonymouse:

Enjoy your struggle. You might even learn something.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward: How utterly condescending of you. Maybe, just maybe, he's got a point?

In reply to TheHorroffice:

I think this is linked to an acceptance of deferred gratification, which is a mark of some intelligence but is definitely associated with high achievement and drive. Surely becoming really good at climbing says more about your motivation and dedication (not to mention opportunity) than your IQ (whatever that measures).

In reply to Dave Garnett:
I was thinking more about the enjoyment of moving on rock rather than getting to the top. Its not much like driving a fast car or shooting things and I think you have to be fairly in tune with yourself (and therefore at least a bit intelligent) to really get into it?

In reply to Mick Ward:

Not from you it would seem.

In reply to TheHorroffice: Duhh..wouldn't be knowing that. One just bumbles around and occasionally, up...

In reply to TheHorroffice:

It's generally accepted that Apes are less intelligent that humans but they can outclimb us all.

In reply to anonymouse:

'Not from you, it would seem.'

I rest my case. Goodbye.

Mick

In reply to TheHorroffice:

Yes it does.

Im brilliant in all sorts of ways, only one of which is climbing.







So my mum says.

In reply to Mick Ward:

How wrong you are, this demonstrates how little you have researched intelligence. There is no definite definition of intelligence and it is something much argued over by psychologists. IQ tests measure certain aspects of our mental capacity but you are a fool if you think they are perfect tests of intelligence, they are just the closest thing we can think of. The U.S. government used to give IQ tests to immigrants to see if they were clever enough to be let into the country. The tests included "spot the mistake" questions asking people to say what was wrong in a picture of tennis being played with cricket bats. Obviously those from cultures where tennis is not played failed on a question like this and were declared less intelligent, this is a good example of how IQ tests tend to have element of cultural bias and rarely measure anything that could really be agreed on as true intelligence. Although if you have figured out the answers to these problems, as your posts suggest, then I recommend you alert the relevant academic journals to this ground-breaking information. I look forward to hearing your name next time I buy a textbook on cognitive psychology.

In reply to 2PointO:

Nice rant.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

I already know there are pedants on the web.

In reply to TheHorroffice: Perhaps being wise enough to climb smart would be the key. Not neccessarily intelligence, but being switched on enough to really make the effort to go and find out what makes other good climbers good and learning from this. Good training focused on eliminating weaknesses etc will allow people to get ahead of the curve. As Eric Horst mentions several times: you don't get to be better than 90% of climbers by doing what the other 90% are doing.

In reply to Mick Ward:

This video proves that baboons are both more intelligent and better climbers youtube.com/watch?v=42Px9N7jV7w&

In reply to TheAvenger:

I always knew I'd fall foul of baboons!

Mick

In reply to 2PointO: IQ tests are good for measuring IQ. That is they concern themselves with the specific attributes of intelligence which tend to correlate closely with the academic success of individuals (although motivation can clarly make a huge difference). This of course only respresents a narrow range of the whole spectrum of abilities which comprise intelligence, but that is not the fault of the IQ test. We don't complain about vision tests being terrible at determining how good people are at hearing or using other senses

And just to reiterate what was said by myself before it is perhaps necessary to split the discussion into the impact of intelligence in two ways: firstly on climbing itself and secondly onto the metagame of training to climb and actually organising everything else that goes on in ones life. Now I am not sure of the role of intelligence whilst on an actual route (although does technique fall under its domain?) but as I have said intelligence will clearly affect how people train and other key decisions they make as to climbing. Reading the blogs/books of the likes of Mclure and Macleod and it is clear that they have a very analytical approach to what gets them ahead and I suspect that part of Ueli Steck's incredible performances is down to being able to use his experience etc to decide what he needs to do to reach that next level. That and some form of black magic.

In reply to Mick Ward:


It's interesting though that you can't or haven't refuted any of the arguments in it, neither toreadors similar point about iq not being the one measure of intelligence. Whilst it probably makes your argument easy to say iq=intelligence, and therefore leap from the specific example (everybody knows someone who is very bright in a narrow field but has no common sense) to the general case (intelligence is a disadvantage for climbing)), it's a lazy strawman argument.

In reply to AJM:

I didn't reply to the rant because it was nasty and abusive. Quite clearly the perpetrator had closed his mind to anything I might say.

I'm afraid that Toreador gave me a rather self-serving tautology (if I remember correctly).

Although this thread has long-ago descended into vitriolic personal attack, out of courtesy I will reply to all those who give their real names (e.g. you know who I am; I haven't a clue who you are) and make what I think are pertinent points.

I may not be able to reply promptly however because of other stuff in life, such as work, new routes, etc.

Fair enough?

Mick

In reply to TheHorroffice: I don't think there's any such thing as general intelligence. If you're good at sudoku or a maths professor it won't make you good at the cognitive part of climbing. Only climbing will do that - the same way that doing a lot of sudoku or studying maths a lot will make you good at those things.

In reply to TheHorroffice:

I doubt there's much of a correlation either way, it's not like you actually need to be especially smart or creative* to climb well. Dedicated is a lot more important.

*not to imply the two are mutually exclusive

jk

In reply to Mick Ward:

Toreador said, as several others have pointed out, that IQ isn't as you claimed the measure of intelligence. Which causes some difficulties,, you might say, for an argument that seemed to rely on being able to say that people with high IQs can have no common sense and so wouldn't make good climbers. As an aside, I sometimes wonder if this isn't such a common thing for people to say just because it stands out - you don't notice the clever people with sense or the not so clever without it but you notice those who have one and not the other.

Regarding your desire to only reply to those who give their real names, it's an interesting one. Actually, despite your claim that I know who you are, all I know is that whatever your name happens to be you use the screen name Mick Ward in the same way that I use the screen name AJM - actually you don't know me from Adam and I don't know you from Adam. All we can both go on really is the other persons posting history, which even then may not really give any clues whatsoever (if you can be bothered to craft a separate online persona, personally it would all be a bit much like effort to me!). It's the way with the Internet I'm afraid - you know people by screen names and reputations rather than by names.

Anyway, if you do choose to answer the challenges that have been posed now to that pillar of your argument I shall read them with interest.

Andy

In reply to AJM:

Andy, your full name, please. I can assure you that Mick Ward is mine.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward: Why not respond to the meat of his reply, rather than pushing this name nonsense?! Nick

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

To repeat:

Although this thread has long-ago descended into vitriolic personal attack, out of courtesy I will reply to all those who give their real names (e.g. you know who I am; I haven't a clue who you are) and make what I think are pertinent points.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward: Is there such a thing as a climbing savant ? A bit random in the thread, but this would provide some evidence either way to your thesis

Intelligence has a part to play. I think the trick is to go with the theory which says there are there states of ability -

1. Unconscious incompetence.
2. Conscious incompetence.
3. Conscious competence.
4. Unconscious competence.

Think about it in terms of driving. And maybe even driving fast. The best people disengage higher thought (intelligence ?) and let the subconscious get on with it. They just "feel", they don't rationalise.

The problem comes when the conscious mind pops in with "sh1t, you are very high and the gear is very low". So the best climbers are the feelers rather than the analysers. But then what happens when you get to the limit and have to analyse ? In comes visualization and training the subconscious.

When I climb at my best, it is a zen like state where I am not aware of anything but the movement. Doesn;t happen very often at the mo.

God I sound like an old hippy.

Intelligence is key in one area though. Rationalizing failure in the cafe/pub afterwards

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

It's avoidance I think.

Mick, I could assure you that AJM is my name if you like - it would probably carry as much weight as your assertion does.

If you can explain why you feel it would be useful I might consider it. And "knowing who you are speaking to" doesn't cut it for me - either way you're talking to a stranger but with an established persona - what label the persona has doesn't help you know who you are addressing.

In reply to Mick Ward:> To repeat:


You are sounding like a bit of an arse which isn't like you. AJM hasn't made a personal attack. If he does I can give him a kick next time I see him at Malham if you like.

Sir Walter Raleigh

In reply to Mick Ward:

Mick, it is perfectly reasonable for people not to want to put their real name on the internet. Why is that a condition of a reply to a question? There isn't a vitriolic attack here on anyone - I suppose the other thing about UKC is that if people come across as being unreasonably difficult about something, well, funny old thing, they get treated like someone being unreasonably difficult!

In reply to TheHorroffice: Crikey. I can't think of a less offensive person than Mick Ward. He is one of the most pleasant, least offensive characters that I know. I think there might be a case of mis-communication going on here.

Al

In reply to shark:

I'll watch my back next time I'm on the Catwalk Walter

Still hoping to get up there again before the year is out... I've a day I might be able to head over in November. Have routes I want to tick after all!

In reply to TheHorroffice:

It has to help. Having the ability to work out the best sequence quickly has to be an advantage, especially with onsight climbing.

I guess it still comes down to training your weakest links. I'd imagine that training new movement schemas into your brain would be more benfitial than sudoku! But maybe when you have every schema nailed then sodoku could be the next step???

>What aspects of your psychology give you a natural edge when climbing?
I'm so thick that I'm not able to concentrate on climbing & be scared at the same time. The problem is that I'm usually too dumb to remember to concentrate on the climbing....

In reply to Mick Ward:

Ah yes, from the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, that masterpiece of simplicity. Down my village pub we speak of little else.

In reply to AJM:
>

Just got back on here. Sick laptop.


Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But in my six(?) years of posting history on here, I challenge you to find one instance where I've avoided anything.

Should you meet me in person, you will very quickly find that I don't do avoidance.



No. It's your initials. Full name please. And full names for Nick, etc.



Pretty normal on threads which have become abusive. Although you have not been abusive, others have. So, as far as I'm concerned, it's a condition for all.

If you're willing to consider it, then why not just do it - and let's see how much avoidance there is.

Mick

P.S. We're changing over broadband to Talk Talk today (should have listened to Al!) so may be cut off. Hopefully not though.

In reply to Mick Ward: If you can give me a decent reason why I should give you my full name, I'd be quite prepared to, by email, but not by public post. Besides, you have to start somewhere - you may or may not be Mick Ward in real life.

In reply to Mick Ward:

I think you've missed the point somewhat - of course AJM isn't my real name. But like I've said, I've no proof that Mick Ward is actually your name either. It looks like it might be a real name more than mine does, but that's about it.

And I find it very odd you would answer the post if it was from a poster called "Joey Antonio" who claimed to be called "Joey Antonio" - you've no proof that Joey is his name either, so why make the distinction?

You can argue you don't do avoidance if you like, and you can say that I should give my name because someone else has been rude to you. That's entirely your prerogative. But I'm afraid that the "pretty normal" thing to do on these forums when you haven't got an answer to the argument is to somehow make it about the poster instead. And that's how it's looking right now I'm afraid.

Personally I'm not too bothered about whether you have an answer or not - I'd like to hear a comeback, but if you haven't got one to give then I'm happy to leave the discussion with my response. I'm not normally that fussed about sharing my name, since my name is quite common, but it winds me up when people somehow claim a moral high ground because of their choice of username on the Internet. It's a tag that identifies you, and it doesn't actually mean anything beyond that.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

Just got back on here...


And why is this, Nick? Why is your name in private OK but your name in public isn't OK? This is a public debate, not a private one.

It looks like you have something to hide. I certainly haven't.



Oh, for ffks sake! I've already said:



Nick, do you really honestly not believe that this is my real name? If you think I'm telling lies about my name, then please have the decency and courage to say so - publicly.

Put up or shut up.

Mick

In reply to AJM:


Andy, I think you're playing games too. And I think that you're being just as evasive as Nick - which does not do you any credit.

Through your efforts (and Nick's), this thread has descended into 'proof that Mick Ward is actually your name'. Unbelievably pathetic.

Your friend 'Shark' has known me since 1987 when I stopped him getting beaten up by some nasty dudes near Buoux. And he's just one...

My original condition still applies. Full names please.

If you want a proper debate you know exactly what you have to do. (Although, given the descent of this thread, I'm beginning to despair of a proper debate.)

I'm tired of this crap. It's about 10.00 am now. You've got until the same time tomorrow to test my avoidance - or prove yours'.

Make your choice.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

Um... having watched this trundling on over the last few days, it does appear in this instance that you've driven the debate in a particular direction, away from the more interesting conversation that started the thread, and now you're getting confrontational. I can't see why AJM or Nickinscottishmountains would bother to respond.

In reply to Tall Clare:

p.s. the post above and this one were written by Clare Danek, d.ob. 03/04/76, and I don't have my National Insurance number to hand, though I could give you my Huddersfield hospital number if that helps.

In reply to Tall Clare:

He is not being confrontational you stupid woman.

In reply to Mick Ward:

I'm making a point to you about the pointlessness of claiming the higher ground by virtue of a screen name. Since you seem happy to let a mutual acquaintance vouch for you, I wonder why you don't accept a level playing field on that front, since Simon has obviously met me too? It seems a bit chilldish point scoring to keep demanding a piece of information that adds nothing to the argument and isn't actually verifiable one way or the other

Anyway, as far as I see it I made the last on topic reply, so the ball is in your court on the subject of an on topic response. I've said my piece on the matter so if you won't reply then there's precious little more I can add really. I've got nothing to avoid, there's no response I've left unanswered.

You can argue I've pushed the thread down hill if you want. But the whole thing started with your refusal to answer critiques of your argument unless people revealed their personal information on a public forum. It's hardly a minority position to be reluctant to do so, especially for something so ultimately pointless as to hear a counter argument that someone seems keen to avoid giving.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Your advice is probably far wiser than my response

The way i see it is that when debating online, all you really have is the quality and logic of your argument. I guess you have a username, but that just helps me know I'm talking to the same person each time, and maybe gives a posting history to give you a feel for the person.

It just kind of bugs me when people try and take it beyond that, because unless you intend to discuss it face to face at some point there doesn't see any need. If I've got a strong argument and I'm confident in it then I don't see a distinction between replying to Tall Clare, Mick Ward, Groucho_Marx or ali4646. And the only difference in myposts would be due to the quality of their argument and the points they raise.

In reply to AJM:
I've decided that I won't argue with this so-called "Mick Ward" until he adopts a pseudonym.

You'll notice that upthread he was perfectly happy to discuss with pseudonymous anonymous posters, but then things changed. I hesitate to suggest this coincided with the point at which his arguments were starting to look dubious because a certain wilting petal might consider it abusive.

In reply to anonymouse: And if someone insists on only conversing with people who give their name on a forum, they're in for a rather lonely time here to say the least.

In reply to Duncan Campbell: Yeah but movement intelligence is as much a form of intelligence as say language or mathematics. It's just that we, as a society, seek to measure (and esteem) certain narrow forms of intelligence rather than others. At society's and individuals' expense unfortunately.

My 2p is that I suspect that climbers of a certain type (experience, application and drive) are relatively intelligent as a group v population at large. Quite how you define that intelligence I am unsure but I'm not talking only about climbing related skills or thinking.

Wow, this thread has taken a bit of a left turn at the lights since I was last on here. I apologise to Mick if I offended him with my previous post, in retrospect it could have been worded better. Although I was writing it from a hospital 2 days after breaking my spine so I would like to think I can be excused being a little grouchy and I can assure you I was being just as grumpy in person as on the net. Regarding my real name I personally do not like the idea of there being any readily accessible info about me on the internet, call it paranoia if you like but that is a preference I hold strongly I'm afraid. On a note more relevant to the original argument I think one point made that deserves reiterating is that people who are very clever but have no common sense stand out more and thus people get a warped view of the very intelligent. You wouldn't necessarily know that someone is a veritable genius even after knowing them for years. It might thus be a misrepresentation of the more intelligent that leads to the idea that they are intrinsically better or worse at activities such as climbing.

In reply to TheHorroffice: What a peculiar thread!