72 replies to this topic

[Calorus]

Much is made of Rosberg's intelligence.
Largely, the supporting evidence for this that he had the highest Engineering Aptitude Test scores of any driver to have raced for Williams.
 
Hamilton on the other hand is never overtly described as 'stupid' however he and his talents are frequently contrasted with Rosberg's purported intelligence with statements like Kevin Turner's in "Was Rosberg right to move over for Hamilton?":
 

The chasm between the two in the wet could highlight one of the key differences between Lewis and Nico. When everything is optimised, the variables known and the data available, the intelligent Rosberg is a fearsome competitor. One Hamilton respects.

 
However looking at that statement; Merriam-Webster's definition of intelligence:
 

The ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations

 
Am I confused or does the dictionary imply precisely the opposite?

Edited by Calorus, 02 June 2016 - 12:53.

[Jon83]

I think they're all pretty intelligent guys.

 

I don't think they'd be in F1 otherwise.

[Newtsche]

The Three Stooges examined this issue several times and it always concluded with a pie fight.

[Marklar]

Rosberg is maybe intelligent in terms of the 'real live' (knowledge). But in terms of racing this doesnt necessary apply to him for me (at least not compared to others, including his team mate). There are differences between being a intelligent race driver and an intelligent human. And this is the case for many other drivers as well (and also vice versa). Unfortunately it is for many a very welcome narrative

The often quoted 'race craft' can be seen as a measure of race intelligence. However, a intelligent human (like Rosberg is) can use his abilities as well in terms of risk-aversion (for example he knew that taking some points in Monaco is better than trying to get more and crash out)

Edit: and from my own experience I know that having a lot knowledge doesnt mean that you are intelligent ;)

So yes, IMO the dictionary definition is accurate, but this doesnt mean that Rosberg is not intelligent at all. Nobody of them is dumb and the whole topic is overblown.

I do get what the article mean with 'intelligent'. Rosberg is someone who is trying to do everything perfect in terms of the set up, while Hamilton has the ability to drive around problems. If variables are the same Rosberg is competitive. If they are changing then he has to drive around the problems as well and thats were Hamilton is better. However, 'intelligent' is the wrong description.

Edited by Marklar, 02 June 2016 - 13:22.

[Risil]

Largely, the supporting evidence for this that he had the highest Engineering Aptitude Test scores of any driver to have raced for Williams.

 

I bet they devised that test and leaked Rosberg's results purely to irritate Nigel Mansell.

[Kvothe]

Much is made of Rosberg's intelligence.
Largely, the supporting evidence for this that he had the highest Engineering Aptitude Test scores of any driver to have raced for Williams.
 
Hamilton on the other hand is never overtly described as 'stupid' however he and his talents are frequently contrasted with Rosberg's purported intelligence with statements like Kevin Turner's in "Was Rosberg right to move over for Hamilton?":
 
 
However looking at that statement; Merriam-Webster's definition of intelligence:
 

The ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations

 
Am I confused or does the dictionary imply precisely the opposite?

 

https://willthef1jou...lewis-hamilton/
 

A lot has always been made of Hamilton’s “natural” gift and ability, and it is something that has stuck with him and formed the basis of his reputation throughout his career. But as a result of that, there’s a preconceived idea that he is a seat-of-the-pants racer who can wring the neck of a racing car like few other men on earth but who lacks any real ability to use his brain. It is a reputation that could not be further from the truth.

 

Hamilton Vs Rosberg has been billed as Senna Vs Prost II. But it’s not. These two drivers are completely unique and should take their own billing. Yes, there are shared similarities in personality and perceived strengths, but it isn’t as simple as all that. And yet, in simplifying it so much, the general opinion has been formed that Rosberg, as the Prost character, was always the more likely to prosper under the 2014 regulations. His superior intellect, so everyone had been led to believe, would carry him. His incredible mind would allow him to work with the complex cars, use the brakes, the energy harvesting, look after the tyres and moderate his fuel usage.

 

In The Usual Suspects, Kevin Spacey’s character Verbal Kint comes out with the immortal line: “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” I think of this line every time I hear somebody tell me that Hamilton isn’t as intelligent as Rosberg, or doesn’t have the capability to understand the cars.

Because, for me, the greatest trick that Lewis Hamilton ever pulled, was convincing the world that he wasn’t smart.

 

 

[pdac]

A couple of points to note:

 

1. Intelligence gives you the ability to understand something new, but knowledge is the understanding that you've already collected.

2. Intelligence gives you the ability to understand a situation better, but it's skill that is required to deal with the situation

 

I'm not saying anything about the how Rosberg and Hamilton match up in terms of intelligence, knowledge or skill.

 

I've no idea with being 'bright' is (perhaps I'm not bright enough to know).

[wookles]

I can't find any reference to this 'Williams aptitude test' that doesnt refer to Rosberg getting the highest score. Importantly, it doesn't say which other drivers have taken it and their comparable scores, therefore I would discount this as a measurement of Rosberg's 'intelligence' or others, lack of.

 

The OP's main point seems to be that he is struggling with the dictionary definition of 'intelligence' when applied to formula 1 drivers. I'd like to save him some trouble at this point and tell him that dictionary definitions are utterly irrelevant. 

 

They are modern formula 1 drivers and need to be capable of rapid analysis of data in high pressure situations,

 

I would hesitate to suggest that any of them 'stupid' or even unintelligent. (Although messrs Nasr and Erikson push the envelope there after Monaco   ).

 

I don't think there's much of a debate here.

[PlatenGlass]

This is based on a fallacy anyway - that there is a chasm between them in the wet. It's not been the case elsewhere.

[NoSanityClause]

Without a precise definition of what the OP considers intelligence this would be like discussing which one looks more like a potato chip (Rosberg does, btw).

 

Everybody will define "intelligence" in some way to prove their theory. And none of them will be wrong. 

 

Defining intelligence as "how well they perform as drivers" turns the question into a trivial: "which one is a better driver"? Any other choice will merely be a choice to explain why we like or dislike certan driver.

Edited by NoSanityClause, 02 June 2016 - 13:48.

[PayasYouRace]

I can't find any reference to this 'Williams aptitude test' that doesnt refer to Rosberg getting the highest score. Importantly, it doesn't say which other drivers have taken it and their comparable scores, therefore I would discount this as a measurement of Rosberg's 'intelligence' or others, lack of.

 

Every Williams driver must take it.

 

Now that I've added that, I'm just going to be watching this thread. If it doesn't have potential for anything other than semantic arguments, I'll consider closing it. If it's just about Rosberg and Hamilton, just use their vs. thread. If it's about intelligence, it doesn't really belong in Racing Comments.

[Calorus]

I can't find any reference to this 'Williams aptitude test' that doesnt refer to Rosberg getting the highest score. Importantly, it doesn't say which other drivers have taken it and their comparable scores, therefore I would discount this as a measurement of Rosberg's 'intelligence' or others, lack of.
 
The OP's main point seems to be that he is struggling with the dictionary definition of 'intelligence' when applied to formula 1 drivers. I'd like to save him some trouble at this point and tell him that dictionary definitions are utterly irrelevant. 
 
They are modern formula 1 drivers and need to be capable of rapid analysis of data in high pressure situations,
 
I would hesitate to suggest that any of them 'stupid' or even unintelligent. (Although messrs Nasr and Erikson push the envelope there after Monaco   ).
 
I don't think there's much of a debate here.

Williams Aptitude Test reference: The Talented Mr Rosberg (GIYF)

 

The debate is not that any are stupid, more the frequent references to the superior intelligence of someone who seems to struggle excel in dynamic situations. 

[Calorus]

Every Williams driver must take it.

 

Now that I've added that, I'm just going to be watching this thread. If it doesn't have potential for anything other than semantic arguments, I'll consider closing it. If it's just about Rosberg and Hamilton, just use their vs. thread. If it's about intelligence, it doesn't really belong in Racing Comments.

 

Really, it's not about Hamilton and Rosberg, not about intelligence; I'm most interested in press coverage, driver skill and driving styles. Senna and Prost were similarly characterised, Schumacher seemed to be one of very few who seemed to be credited both with natural ability and intelligence Villeneuve the both were allegedly naturals, Hill the younger was apparently just a good learner.

 

There's a long history of categorisation of drivers into one cadre or the other, however I'm interested what leads to such categorisation.

[HeadFirst]

An IQ Test (Intelligence Quotient) is designed to test an individuals capacity to learn. These tests (in the English language anyway) are fundamentally flawed and are often used as proof of something (knowledge) they were not designed to test. What any of this has to do with F1 is beyond me, but I have often heard some drivers, for example Lewis, are naturally gifted with the ability to race, while for others it is more of a learned behaviour. Of course even the most naturally gifted driver constantly learns, improving his skills as he goes and no driver gets to F1 without a considerable amount of natural ability.  

[fed up]

The answer is much more simple than the OP.

 

Pretty much every driver than Lewis has been paired with has been described as intelligent, cerebral, smooth etc etc.

 

Lewis is described as aggressive, emotional, rash, gifted.

 

Senna was gifted, aggressive, emotional and intelligent

 

In my humble view, Lewis is sometimes judged with stereotypical eyes.

[myattitude]

I asked this once on another forum with no expectations: What if Albert Einstein was an F1 driver?

[maverick69]

My better half is very intelligent....... But she cannot park for love nor money..........

 

IM nnot very good at spelliN..... but I teach Mech Eng at degree level.

 

It's a funny old world......

[CountDooku]

I asked this once on another forum with no expectations: What if Albert Einstein was an F1 driver?

I wonder how he would apply his theory of relativity to the turn 1 shenanigans at Barca.

[myattitude]

Montoya was "thick as mince" according to Jock Clear, buy ol' JPM was very good.

[myattitude]

I wonder how he would apply his theory of relativity to the turn 1 shenanigans at Barca.

Something about egos having their own gravitational pull..

[HoldenRT]

I don't really see what this has to do with F1 (specifically).  In life yeah, inside an F1 car, not really.

 

Driving/racing is sort of like improvising a new song with a band when playing a musical instrument.. ie "jamming".

 

It's about being in the moment, and the ones that are the best at it have an instinctual feel and a lot of years of honing their craft so that it's second nature.  They can also react very quickly to things (like car behaviour) because they almost expect it or can anticipate it.  Therefore they can tip toe closer to the edge of the cliff without falling off.

 

Intelligence can only get you so far.  Being your head too much (something intelligent people usually do) is actually a bad thing when it comes to being present and in the moment.  Super intelligent people are better suited to being designers or engineers.  It helps to understand their job if they've also driven the cars, and it helps drivers to also have some engineering knowledge but it's not crucial.  So in this case, I sort of find it a non issue.  Talking for the sake of talking, no real relevance etc.  A dictionary won't help define who the best drivers are.  All F1 drivers have reasonably high intelligence but it's not their intelligence that seperates them from each other.

[sopa]

Rosberg is maybe intelligent in terms of the 'real live' (knowledge). But in terms of racing this doesnt necessary apply to him for me (at least not compared to others, including his team mate). There are differences between being a intelligent race driver and an intelligent human. And this is the case for many other drivers as well (and also vice versa). Unfortunately it is for many a very welcome narrative

The often quoted 'race craft' can be seen as a measure of race intelligence. However, a intelligent human (like Rosberg is) can use his abilities as well in terms of risk-aversion (for example he knew that taking some points in Monaco is better than trying to get more and crash out)

Edit: and from my own experience I know that having a lot knowledge doesnt mean that you are intelligent ;)

So yes, IMO the dictionary definition is accurate, but this doesnt mean that Rosberg is not intelligent at all. Nobody of them is dumb and the whole topic is overblown.

I do get what the article mean with 'intelligent'. Rosberg is someone who is trying to do everything perfect in terms of the set up, while Hamilton has the ability to drive around problems. If variables are the same Rosberg is competitive. If they are changing then he has to drive around the problems as well and thats were Hamilton is better. However, 'intelligent' is the wrong description.

 

Yeah there are different forms of intelligence.

 

Rosberg learning lots of languages or possessing a good understanding of engineering doesn't equal having the ability to drive fast while having the capacity to analyze/adapt to everything in process.

 

Talking about different forms of intelligence... For example, from the past Jonathan Palmer seemed/seems pretty intelligent. So does Martin Brundle. Didn't make them best F1 drivers though. This also doesn't mean top drivers are/were "stupid", just it depends on what kind of qualities are you looking for in people. 

[MasterOfCoin]

So basically some drivers are Virtuoso's and some are good at memorizing. it's like comparing Mozart and Perlman, one creates the music while the other plays it.

[Szoelloe]

Much is made of Rosberg's intelligence.
Largely, the supporting evidence for this that he had the highest Engineering Aptitude Test scores of any driver to have raced for Williams.
 
Hamilton on the other hand is never overtly described as 'stupid' however he and his talents are frequently contrasted with Rosberg's purported intelligence with statements like Kevin Turner's in "Was Rosberg right to move over for Hamilton?":
 
 
However looking at that statement; Merriam-Webster's definition of intelligence:
 

The ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations

 
Am I confused or does the dictionary imply precisely the opposite?

 

 

 

You are indeed confused. It says 'or' and 'understand' too, not only 'dealing with new or difficult situations'. Furthermore, Kevin Turner's sentence you quoted does not reflect well on it's author's intelligence either. I think it is a pretty stupid comparison. You may - or may not, for what it's worth - like, and/or respect Rosberg as a person for his intelligence, but that really does not have anything to do with his qualities as a driver, strictly speaking. Same goes for LH. And again, it is really tiresome that so many people confuse lexical knowledge with intelligence, blindly deducing on one from the other. You simply have to hit a certain(high) level of intelligence to prevail in F1, let alone be a multiple winner. So, PayasYouRace is spot on, IMHO.

Edited by Szoelloe, 02 June 2016 - 15:37.

[vivafroilan!]

Every Williams driver must take it.

 

Now that I've added that, I'm just going to be watching this thread. If it doesn't have potential for anything other than semantic arguments, I'll consider closing it. If it's just about Rosberg and Hamilton, just use their vs. thread. If it's about intelligence, it doesn't really belong in Racing Comments.

Ooooooo. 

[Calorus]

You are indeed confused. It says 'or' and 'understand' too, not only 'dealing with new or difficult situations'. Furthermore, Kevin Turner's sentence you quoted does not reflect well on it's author's intelligence either. I think it is a pretty stupid comparison. You may - or may not, for what it's worth - like, and/or respect Rosberg as a person for his intelligence, but that really does not have anything to do with his qualities as a driver, strictly speaking. Same goes for LH. And again, it is really tiresome that so many people confuse lexical knowledge with intelligence, blindly deducing on one from the other. You simply have to hit a certain(high) level of intelligence to prevail in F1, let alone be a multiple winner. So, PayasYouRace is spot on, IMHO.

 

The point is not that Rosberg is not intelligent by at least two of those definitions he is - merely that there is no justification for its constant usage in discerning between drivers who a allegedly "naturally talented" and those who appear to work harder.

[Okyo]

This thread wont end well.

[Calorus]

This thread wont end well.

 

I fear you may be right...

[Retrofly]

There's no direct correlation between intelligence and the ability to drive a race car fast.

Stephen Hawking is pretty damn smart but doubt he'd be able to drive a car fast, this is an extreme comical example, but its to illustrate there's no direct correlation.

 

Although some amount of intelligence would be required to learn the basics, like most elite sportsmen at the top their game what they have is not something that can be taught.

 

I feel natural talent plays a big part in top sportsmen's games if nurtured correctly. You can see it in young kids where they just seem to excel more at particular things more than their peers.

Its not like someone taught Messi to be a better football player, he just was.

Edited by Retrofly, 02 June 2016 - 16:42.

[HeadFirst]

There's no direct correlation between intelligence and the ability to drive a race car fast.

Stephen Hawking is pretty damn smart but doubt he'd be able to drive a car fast, this is an extreme comical example, but its to illustrate there's no direct correlation.

 

Although some amount of intelligence would be required to learn the basics, like most elite sportsmen at the top their game what they have is not something that can be taught.

 

I feel natural talent plays a big part in top sportsmen's games if nurtured correctly. You can see it in young kids where they just seem to excel more at particular things more than their peers.

Its not like someone taught Messi to be a better football player, he just was.

 

Disagree. While Messi was born with the natural talent to be a good athlete, he would be nowhere near as good as he is without the many coaches and trainers he has worked with throughout his career. He was taught to be a better footballer.

[PayasYouRace]

Ooooooo.

As I typed it I realised the potential for double meaning. So obviously I left it there.

[Imperial]

The key thing to making a direct comparison impossible, is that having never been a Williams driver, Hamilton won't have taken the same test.

[myattitude]

I think I read there are something like 36 different types of intelligence. Donald Trump is intelligent in his own right, but many average clowns could out-debate him I'm sure.

[SwedeForceOne]

Many average clowns out-debating Trump, don't think so. He might be insane but everyone I've read whos made an assessment of his strengths talk about how good he is at just that, doing people over via inception 😁

[messy]

For me Alonso is the ultimate 'intelligent driver' in that he has this extra capacity while racing to think tactically, to understand what's going on around him and use it to his advantage. In terms of his wheel to wheel racing too. Stick him in a classroom and give him an IQ test and I'd not necessarily expect him to be any good. Rosberg may well be more intelligent in that respect, but I don't see that extra capacity in him when he's racing at all. Two totally different things. I think Rosberg's perceived intelligence is taken out of context because it's a good cliche in terms of the differences between him and Lewis.

Again, I don't think Hamilton is a stupid guy for a second. He's just a bit of a crazy. Settle him in front of a journo on something like Sky and he can be quite considered, quite eloquent, can make a lot of sense with regards the state of F1 etc. Compare him, y'know, with y'know, the average premiership footballer y'know like. He's got a brain.

[SR388]

Lewis is a sharp man. Probably one of the smartest on the grid.

Nico may have done better on the SAT or whatever tests, but talking up his intelligence in terms of racing is fools gold.

If anything Nico has seemed pretty inept when it comes to managing multiple tasks at the same time.

So much for this new formula favoring Nico.

[TomNokoe]

What the **** is this thread, seriously?

[LuckyStrike1]

This is ...... ehhh ... interesting ... 

[RaySpace]

We can all agree there are three distinct types of intelligence:

 

none are used to make threads like these 

[HP]

One intelligence is spatial awareness,

 

And boy, oh boy, whenever there is a clash of 2 or more drivers on the track, the discussion starts.

 

The good overtakers or good at keeping drivers behind (within the rules)  are those with better spatial awareness IMO. In that department I consider Hamilton and Ricciardo top notch of the current F1 line up.

Edited by HP, 02 June 2016 - 22:48.

[Okyo]

This whole thread, and pretty much every single response is based on speculation and speculation alone. People just taking cheap jabs against drivers, thinking that they know how smart, what kind of smart, how fast reflexes, do they prefer geography or math, what genes and natural talents or whatever they have, when they possibly couldn't know that.  

It should be closed.

Edited by Okyo, 03 June 2016 - 08:55.

[Brackets]

I asked this once on another forum with no expectations: What if Albert Einstein was an F1 driver?

 

He would drive really slow to save weight.

 

 

Anyway, wasn't it already common knowledge somewhere around 1606 that it's all claptrap to sell papers?

Edited by Brackets, 03 June 2016 - 09:04.

[Jon83]

The ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations

 

They've all had to adapt to various regulations / cars / engines etc over the years.

 

They're all intelligent.

[Joseki]

Last year Genè was comparing Alonso-Raikkonen-Schumacher-Vettel during a ultra boring FP session for Sky Italy since there was some "fan debate" on Twitter about which driver would win the WDC in a "spec-F1" and he said that Vettel is so good at setupping his car that he's probably the best driver in that aspect he saw, Schumacher-level.

He also said Fernando on the other hand is best driver he ever saw at managing the traffic, tyres, engine and he has the ability to think about what his happening at the other drivers on track. 

 

For me those are two aspect that defines an "intelligent" driver.

Edited by Joseki, 03 June 2016 - 09:20.

[ExFlagMan]

The 'intelligent' driver is the one who works out what went wrong/who to blame before the car hits the barrier...

[Ricciardo2014]

I'd say Senna was one of the most intelligent drivers of his time, but only in certain ways.

He was well renowned for his skills as far as understanding and analysing car behaviour, and communicating that with his engineers.

He was also said to use that tactically while on track, reading conditions, picking other Driver's weaknesses and all sorts of other things have been claimed.

(Maybe it's just the legend, I don't know ?)

 

But put him in the heat of battle and as often as not that all went out the window due to his hot headedness.

So does that really make him intelligent, or not ?

 

I guess you can be intelligent when your heart rate is normal sitting down doing an exam, but it all changes when your body and mind is going through what these guy do to themselves.

[myattitude]

I'd say Senna was one of the most intelligent drivers of his time, but only in certain ways.

He was well renowned for his skills as far as understanding and analysing car behaviour, and communicating that with his engineers.

He was also said to use that tactically while on track, reading conditions, picking other Driver's weaknesses and all sorts of other things have been claimed.

(Maybe it's just the legend, I don't know ?)

 

But put him in the heat of battle and as often as not that all went out the window due to his hot headedness.

So does that really make him intelligent, or not ?

 

I guess you can be intelligent when your heart rate is normal sitting down doing an exam, but it all changes when your body and mind is going through what these guy do to themselves.

Emotional intelligence is underrated.

[asdf24]

I think they're all pretty intelligent guys.

 

I don't think they'd be in F1 otherwise.

A counter example of this would be meldonardo.

[BillBald]

A counter example of this would be meldonardo.

 

Pastor drove for Williams, so presumably he passed their test...

[Marklar]

And there goes all the credibility of the Williams test :$

Edited by Marklar, 03 June 2016 - 22:38.