The Athletics Version over the ETI of Mine

The Original text of ETI is as follows:
The Encumbrance Theory of Intelligence (ETI) - Philosophy of Psychology?
Posted 07/23/09 - 10:13 PM; forums.philosophyforums.com

I'm not against operationalism of intelligence expressed as I.Q. I think it can be very useful and I also like the fact that the systems are continually reviewed and improved.

This theory assumes that the mind continuously considers objects of interest, both necessary and optional. When one puts the mind to something this process runs until the mind deems it finished, temporarily or finally.

The ETI is the notion that people who are caught in struggles in life scores lower on I.Q.-tests than their non-trifled counterparts. The premise is that those who are caught in difficult struggles have to devote resources of their consciousness to the problem so when these are tested, their mind is simultaneously considering other issues as well on some level. In a sense they are not truly free, enjoying freedom.

Unencumbered people are free to be as aggressive on intellectual challenges as much as their hearts can pump blood through the brain. They have no serious worries occupying their minds.

Besides, in this, I assume that people are made up of "souls" and are initially equally perfect. It's the environment that hooks up their processes of consc. to the level of their current picture of intelligence, say I.Q. That is, reality is detriment to the ideal, "soul" condition. Obviously, I don't argue from the premise of souls which I find rather distasteful at the present moment. Nurture can do a lot to people, I find. I say this so that you may get a clue from where I'm coming from. In a sense, people are perfect as reactions from the factors of life. Edit: "That is, reality is detriment to the ideal, "soul" condition." Don't get me wrong! It's apparent that you build your intelligence through the course of life and that death, of what we know for sure, extinguishes both life and intelligence.

Alright! This is the start. There will be more.

I look forward to your opinions! Feel free to throw in what you think is appropriate! There is a book on the other side of "The Bell Curve" that I'm looking for, but it's not "The Bell Curve Discussion". Any suggestions?
Posted 07/24/09 - 04:17 PM; forums.philosophyforums.com

I agree that my theory doesn't account for physical (genetic) defects or brain diseases. It's the case that I don't intend to make it that way. I can however interpret you to mean also the physical structure that is supposed to make the impression of qualia or whatever and in this respect also, my theory is flat. I hold that if the brain is relatively healthy, my theory says something despite relatively small differences. Two people who score 170 in IQ are analogous to two people who bench 150 kg. I see no important differences between those two sets. I agree that intelligence is a complex issue (therefore operationalism), but I also have the impression that smart people in science are quite open to talk about intelligence and what makes them good. Access to data is plentiful in other words.

For the athletics part, one now adds, in addition to good physical stats like height in basketball and other and the actual exercise in the athletics of one's choice, one needs to care for the stress parts from a suitable age, 14 perhaps and all the way up to elite performer, whether ice-hockey or something else!

It's important to remember ALL the stress that affects your performance and drop the (false) super(wo)man-psychology in order to identify the negative stress factors that may get in your way altogether.

Then is my suggestion for the bottom issues in athletics performances as well! Cheers!