Well first of all the the first derivative represents velocity and not speed. More importantly though is that velocity is just an example of what derivatives are used for. That is why I'd consider it "low-level thinking". It's just an example of what is being used and not the actual definition of derivative.
My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14) http://www.revoltingvegetables.com
Sorry for bumping this but I think that the following needed to be posted.
You are currently in an intense Ti struggle, trying to make sense of why this ESFJ/P has injured your feelings. Through reading your posts it isn't tough to notice that you are an intellectual person, however, intelligence does not guarantee that your rationalization is correct. Your Ti function is incredibly strained at the moment and is allowing your Ne function to go wild. Being under stress, your Ti function isn't able to analyze the information being handed to it from Ne in a rational manner and you are becoming increasingly radical and irrational in your last few threads. In other words, you are overthinking so much that you are accepting ideas that you come up with through your Intuition that would normally be dismissed using the Sensing function (which allows you to actually observe the world around you correctly instead of just theorizing.) To relieve Ti stress you have actually allowed yourself to believe that you are a superior organism to that of which has hurt you. Your post is subconsiously trying to alleviate your pain by basically saying "Its okay, I'm a more evolved human being that him/her". Subconsiously you are trying to make sense of your pain by any means necessary and coming to rather deluded conclusions in doing so.
As Randomnity noted, your post is very similar to the reaction of White supremists regarding Evolution. They believed that people of the Caucasian race were superiorly evolved compared to all other races which (to them) explained why they had come to dominate the world. In reality, Guns, Germs, and Steel more accurately describes how it happened.
If you understood Evolution correctly, you would understand that Typology, which in and of itself is a pseudoscience only capable of broadly defining the complexity of human beings, has no correlation with Evolution/Natural Selection whatsoever.
Intelligence itself cannot be very well defined, and in your post you are basically giving yourself an Epeen enlargement by posting which types you believe are more "highly evolved" according to "intelligence", and of course listing INTP as the "most evolved". Taking this Evolution cant into account Bluewing, INTPs aren't very well adapted to our environment are we? I'd say that ESTJ is the most well adapted to modern society and therefore the "most intelligent", wouldn't that make more sense in Evolutionary terms? "Intelligence" only has meaning when it can be applied in a manner that benefits the survival of the organism, not good news for us lazy, unmotivated "thinkers" whose "intellectual ideas" very often have little basis on reality and no practical purpose in terms of increasing our standard of living or ability to survive. Also, as INTPs we only make up a small portion of the population and aren't growing in numbers. The types with the largest percentage of the population could be said to be more 'evolved' than the smaller percentages, correct? (this is all assuming that "types" are genetically inhereted and therefore a type which makes up a larger portion of the population is reproducing more). Unless we find some groundbreaking information that indicates that INTPs are growing in number due to our superior survival ability and highly developed intelligence, then we have no reason to believe that we are superior. If the latter was correct, than wouldn't you assume that us INTP's would outgrow the Human race and become our own superior species? See how rediculous these assertions are? As human beings we currently are of too large of a population to Evolve any further (until our carrying capacity is reached). The potential beneficial mutations and genetic differences between us are flattened out by our population being so large (interbreeding these benefits without an isolated environment does not efficiently 'naturally select'). Unbeneficial mutations are being passed around more often than the beneficial ones but the people who have these bad mutations are usually kept alive via modern medicine and allowed to live a full and prosperous life and reproduce, potentially passing the malicious trait onto further generations. I for one am colorblind and have 20-80 vision, but I'm INTP, am I more evolved? Only once Population is severly decreased or Carrying Capacity reached while maintaining a large variety of genetic differences/mutations will we know which human beings are more adapted to their current environements than others, then we'll see some humans evolving into different beings compared to other humans according to environment. /end rant
I'd like to see a response to my psychoanalysis of your behavior lately and of my refutation of INTP superiority.
While I don't necessarily agree with the hierarchy that Bluewing came up with (I'd have a slightly different order, possibly by functions rather than dichotomies), I find it impossible to think anything positive of the criticism. It is obvious even without looking at this thread that people on MBTIc would prefer to be considered intellectual rather than passionate (it's a particular point of interest for those who use the internet) but among the types that appear near the top of the list, I imagine it is not such an important quality. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, those on either end of the spectrum will think their description to be the preferable one.
Why is N strictly "intellectual"? Ni, for instance, seems like it belongs more in the passionate column. Beyond that, it seems certain dichotomies are given more weight when their positions on the list are decided. Either that or you simply grouped it by temperament which is a bit of an easy way out. I find the concept of this list very interesting, but it does need a little work.
What I don't get is why "passion" and "intellect" are being seen as opposites, like right/wrong, good/bad, crunchy/chewy. Some of the most intellectual people I know are ridiculously passionate about what they do - which is why they're intellectual in the first place. We pursue our passions and therefore become intellectual about said passions. The only time that passion and intellect don't match up (from a social standpoint) is if someone's passionate about beer and hockey.
I also don't know why so much credit is being given to evolution. Evolution is strictly about who is better adapted to (or can adapt to better) environmental changes. With that definition, I'd give it to the ESPs. However, in terms of the long, continual stream of evolution (i.e. genetics and the like), I'm not sure if I'd want to be considered "most adapted". Think about it: the smartest, most respected people, who never stray from their watchtower of knowledge to find a mate, will die out before their genes are ever passed on. However, their obnoxious, lazy next-door-neighbours will be too busy sleeping with their wives (or wives' best friends) to care about anything deemed intellectual will ensure that his genes are passed down for generations. The "intellectual" people are anomalies, and according to biology will die out long before the "passionate" people you keep insulting.
Oh, and I know an INTP (you know, a super being) who is extremely knowledgeable about stamps. She has one of the most impressive stamp collections I've seen so far, and she can pretty much determine the rarity of a particular stamp without having to look it up. However, if I asked her to explain the world around me, or to come up with a unifying mathematical formula, she'd run the other way screaming. Intelligence is highly subjective. No one can deny how much she knows about stamps, as she is highly passionate about them for whatever reason, but if you put her in the same room as a mathematician she'd look downright stupid. Then again, the mathematician would also look downright stupid when it came time for the Which Stamp Is the Rarest? (tm) contest. Oh, and I'm fairly certain that same mathematician is passionate about math. And he's an ESFJ. Go figure.
Intelligence is highly subjective. No one can deny how much she knows about stamps, as she is highly passionate about them for whatever reason, but if you put her in the same room as a mathematician she'd look downright stupid.
Knowing a lot about something is not indicative of intelligence.
Knowledgeable =! Intelligent
"Intelligence: capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc."
Ah, good point. Okay, that voids my entire example. Still, that definition doesn't specify where a person must be intelligent, which was what I was trying to get at.
True. However, it is very uncommon to find a person who excels at one mental ability that is defined as "intelligence" without excelling at the others. While most have something they are especially good at, their other abilities are usually not far behind. An oft-cited exception would be savants, although they are arguably NOT intelligent. Their skills fall into the same category as...stamps.
What I don't get is why "passion" and "intellect" are being seen as opposites, like right/wrong, good/bad, crunchy/chewy. Some of the most intellectual people I know are ridiculously passionate about what they do - which is why they're intellectual in the first place..
Passionate about what they DO. Exactly. Not passionate for the sake of being passionate. Their passions are subjugated to the intellect. They are passionate as a result of intellectual breakthrough, not the other way around. They are intelligent because, as stated by Mr.Galt they have a high cognitive ability. Of course we all need passion in order to advance at any field, as without passion we would be flat out listless. However, there is a need for very little passion to motivate us. Even the least passionate of us have more than enough to master any intellectual endeavor. Even activities that require more passion like physical labor, still even the least passionate of us would have more than enough. Consider how the greatest athletes and craftsmen are STPs, especially ISTPs, who tend not to emotionalize and romanticize their tasks.
"Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain
“No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson
You shouldn't build some construct on baseless assumptions you just made up in your head and which have no connection to reality. None of what you assert has been proven or is supported by empirical evidence, and is therefor nothing but irrelevant drivel, like most of what you post.