Is There One Intelligence and Can it be Measured?
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
Did that all in my head. ;-P
:thumbsup: Some would say that that statement shows another kind of intelligence, valuable in and of itself :-D
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS My LinkedIn Profile
My parents never found my wit and sarcasm very impressive. Though, they didn't seem to appreciate intelligence at all. They always said "smart ass" like it was a bad thing. :rolleyes:
-
Yes, there is one overriding intelligence and it can be measured: Don't piss off my wife!! Even the dog knows that.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
-
My parents never found my wit and sarcasm very impressive. Though, they didn't seem to appreciate intelligence at all. They always said "smart ass" like it was a bad thing. :rolleyes:
AspDotNetDev wrote:
They always said "smart ass" like it was a bad thing
Or perhaps they were just pretty sure your teacher wouldn't appreciate it... ;)
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS My LinkedIn Profile
-
Yeah, and sometimes smarter than me!! :(( ;P
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
-
There seem to be a lot of different ideas of what intelligence is. Some define intelligence with respect to ability, others with respect to potential. Some include knowledge as a major component, while others define it as ability to tackle new problems. Many insist speed is a of paramount importance, yet others champion depth of thought. It might be said that one's capacity to remember in the short term is a clear indicator, but it might be argued that is just a common trait among the intelligent and is neither necessary for it nor ensures it. Even more difficult than defining it is measuring it. Must there be a time limit? Should the test taker be given a dictionary or other reference material? Should complicated terms be avoided? And what of complicated mathematical concepts (e.g., what if the test taker has never heard of "prime number"?)? Maybe specific domains (science, math, language, philosophy, and so on) are the only thing which can be accurately measured. Or maybe greater intelligence can't be achieved without knowledge of many domains. In my estimation, intelligence can't easily be measured. If one is to measure how a person can solve problems novel to them, you must first measure their knowledge of the domain. If they have inadequate knowledge of the domain, an advanced problem within that domain would probably be beyond them if they don't know enough to interpret the problem correctly. And if they are so familiar with a domain that they already are familiar with problem solving strategies for most problems in that domain, any problem given to them will not require novel solutions. I think the best that can be readily done is to measure how much ability a person has achieved of their potential. You can test them in the areas they are familiar with to see how far they've come in their life so far. The more abstract the problems, the more generally applicable they can be. What do you think? Is there such a thing as a single type of intelligence (rather than, say, mathematical intelligence), and is it possible to measure? Have you come across an IQ test which you think accurately measures intelligence?
I think intelligence is overrated, enthusiasm and research is underrated!
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
-
Clifford Nelson wrote:
WASP
What is WASP?
Clifford Nelson wrote:
those that can solve complex equations in their heads
I can do that. 1 + 1i + 2 + 2i = 3 + 3i Did that all in my head. ;P
Your ability do solve complex equations is nothing but imaginary.
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
Have you come across an IQ test which you think accurately measures intelligence?
Take four ‘IQ’ tests – let’s say one each week – and it’s pretty likely your score for the last test will be significantly better than the score you got for the first. I think it’s pretty unlikely that your intelligence has improved as much over the same time span.
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS My LinkedIn Profile
Espen Harlinn wrote:
Take four ‘IQ’ tests – let’s say one each week – and it’s pretty likely your score for the last test will be significantly better than the score you got for the first.
I know people to whom that this approach won't help even with driving theory test*, let alone IQ test.
* - until recently, driving theory test here was complete joke:
for more then 30 years there were only 6 combinations of questions,
IIRC each combination had ~20 questions
and still there were people who manage to fail it more then 10 times. -
There seem to be a lot of different ideas of what intelligence is. Some define intelligence with respect to ability, others with respect to potential. Some include knowledge as a major component, while others define it as ability to tackle new problems. Many insist speed is a of paramount importance, yet others champion depth of thought. It might be said that one's capacity to remember in the short term is a clear indicator, but it might be argued that is just a common trait among the intelligent and is neither necessary for it nor ensures it. Even more difficult than defining it is measuring it. Must there be a time limit? Should the test taker be given a dictionary or other reference material? Should complicated terms be avoided? And what of complicated mathematical concepts (e.g., what if the test taker has never heard of "prime number"?)? Maybe specific domains (science, math, language, philosophy, and so on) are the only thing which can be accurately measured. Or maybe greater intelligence can't be achieved without knowledge of many domains. In my estimation, intelligence can't easily be measured. If one is to measure how a person can solve problems novel to them, you must first measure their knowledge of the domain. If they have inadequate knowledge of the domain, an advanced problem within that domain would probably be beyond them if they don't know enough to interpret the problem correctly. And if they are so familiar with a domain that they already are familiar with problem solving strategies for most problems in that domain, any problem given to them will not require novel solutions. I think the best that can be readily done is to measure how much ability a person has achieved of their potential. You can test them in the areas they are familiar with to see how far they've come in their life so far. The more abstract the problems, the more generally applicable they can be. What do you think? Is there such a thing as a single type of intelligence (rather than, say, mathematical intelligence), and is it possible to measure? Have you come across an IQ test which you think accurately measures intelligence?
AspDotNetDev wrote:
an IQ test which you think accurately measures intelligence?
Number of ounces of commercial USian beer consumed -- lower numbers indicate higher intelligence.
-
There seem to be a lot of different ideas of what intelligence is. Some define intelligence with respect to ability, others with respect to potential. Some include knowledge as a major component, while others define it as ability to tackle new problems. Many insist speed is a of paramount importance, yet others champion depth of thought. It might be said that one's capacity to remember in the short term is a clear indicator, but it might be argued that is just a common trait among the intelligent and is neither necessary for it nor ensures it. Even more difficult than defining it is measuring it. Must there be a time limit? Should the test taker be given a dictionary or other reference material? Should complicated terms be avoided? And what of complicated mathematical concepts (e.g., what if the test taker has never heard of "prime number"?)? Maybe specific domains (science, math, language, philosophy, and so on) are the only thing which can be accurately measured. Or maybe greater intelligence can't be achieved without knowledge of many domains. In my estimation, intelligence can't easily be measured. If one is to measure how a person can solve problems novel to them, you must first measure their knowledge of the domain. If they have inadequate knowledge of the domain, an advanced problem within that domain would probably be beyond them if they don't know enough to interpret the problem correctly. And if they are so familiar with a domain that they already are familiar with problem solving strategies for most problems in that domain, any problem given to them will not require novel solutions. I think the best that can be readily done is to measure how much ability a person has achieved of their potential. You can test them in the areas they are familiar with to see how far they've come in their life so far. The more abstract the problems, the more generally applicable they can be. What do you think? Is there such a thing as a single type of intelligence (rather than, say, mathematical intelligence), and is it possible to measure? Have you come across an IQ test which you think accurately measures intelligence?
This is just my opinion but I believe intelligence is difficult to measure. Everyone has ability, I've known engineers that didn't know which end of a screw driver was which but I am very adept with a screw driver but can't do differential equations.
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
an IQ test which you think accurately measures intelligence?
Number of ounces of commercial USian beer consumed -- lower numbers indicate higher intelligence.
That only confirms an IQ above 70.
-
There seem to be a lot of different ideas of what intelligence is. Some define intelligence with respect to ability, others with respect to potential. Some include knowledge as a major component, while others define it as ability to tackle new problems. Many insist speed is a of paramount importance, yet others champion depth of thought. It might be said that one's capacity to remember in the short term is a clear indicator, but it might be argued that is just a common trait among the intelligent and is neither necessary for it nor ensures it. Even more difficult than defining it is measuring it. Must there be a time limit? Should the test taker be given a dictionary or other reference material? Should complicated terms be avoided? And what of complicated mathematical concepts (e.g., what if the test taker has never heard of "prime number"?)? Maybe specific domains (science, math, language, philosophy, and so on) are the only thing which can be accurately measured. Or maybe greater intelligence can't be achieved without knowledge of many domains. In my estimation, intelligence can't easily be measured. If one is to measure how a person can solve problems novel to them, you must first measure their knowledge of the domain. If they have inadequate knowledge of the domain, an advanced problem within that domain would probably be beyond them if they don't know enough to interpret the problem correctly. And if they are so familiar with a domain that they already are familiar with problem solving strategies for most problems in that domain, any problem given to them will not require novel solutions. I think the best that can be readily done is to measure how much ability a person has achieved of their potential. You can test them in the areas they are familiar with to see how far they've come in their life so far. The more abstract the problems, the more generally applicable they can be. What do you think? Is there such a thing as a single type of intelligence (rather than, say, mathematical intelligence), and is it possible to measure? Have you come across an IQ test which you think accurately measures intelligence?
-
There seem to be a lot of different ideas of what intelligence is. Some define intelligence with respect to ability, others with respect to potential. Some include knowledge as a major component, while others define it as ability to tackle new problems. Many insist speed is a of paramount importance, yet others champion depth of thought. It might be said that one's capacity to remember in the short term is a clear indicator, but it might be argued that is just a common trait among the intelligent and is neither necessary for it nor ensures it. Even more difficult than defining it is measuring it. Must there be a time limit? Should the test taker be given a dictionary or other reference material? Should complicated terms be avoided? And what of complicated mathematical concepts (e.g., what if the test taker has never heard of "prime number"?)? Maybe specific domains (science, math, language, philosophy, and so on) are the only thing which can be accurately measured. Or maybe greater intelligence can't be achieved without knowledge of many domains. In my estimation, intelligence can't easily be measured. If one is to measure how a person can solve problems novel to them, you must first measure their knowledge of the domain. If they have inadequate knowledge of the domain, an advanced problem within that domain would probably be beyond them if they don't know enough to interpret the problem correctly. And if they are so familiar with a domain that they already are familiar with problem solving strategies for most problems in that domain, any problem given to them will not require novel solutions. I think the best that can be readily done is to measure how much ability a person has achieved of their potential. You can test them in the areas they are familiar with to see how far they've come in their life so far. The more abstract the problems, the more generally applicable they can be. What do you think? Is there such a thing as a single type of intelligence (rather than, say, mathematical intelligence), and is it possible to measure? Have you come across an IQ test which you think accurately measures intelligence?
Words are just words. We don't understand the fabric of reality, so you might as well ask if there really is such a thing as a chair, marvel at the incredible difficulty of accurately defining a chair, of drawing the line between a chair and similar objects that are maybe chairs, but maybe not quite. In the end a chair and intelligence are both abstract concepts we humans have created. Plato was wrong; reality is not our "perfect ideas", but a deeply mysterious thing that is perhaps impossible even in principle to "understand". And yet, you're sitting in a chair aren't you? That's good enough for me.
-
There seem to be a lot of different ideas of what intelligence is. Some define intelligence with respect to ability, others with respect to potential. Some include knowledge as a major component, while others define it as ability to tackle new problems. Many insist speed is a of paramount importance, yet others champion depth of thought. It might be said that one's capacity to remember in the short term is a clear indicator, but it might be argued that is just a common trait among the intelligent and is neither necessary for it nor ensures it. Even more difficult than defining it is measuring it. Must there be a time limit? Should the test taker be given a dictionary or other reference material? Should complicated terms be avoided? And what of complicated mathematical concepts (e.g., what if the test taker has never heard of "prime number"?)? Maybe specific domains (science, math, language, philosophy, and so on) are the only thing which can be accurately measured. Or maybe greater intelligence can't be achieved without knowledge of many domains. In my estimation, intelligence can't easily be measured. If one is to measure how a person can solve problems novel to them, you must first measure their knowledge of the domain. If they have inadequate knowledge of the domain, an advanced problem within that domain would probably be beyond them if they don't know enough to interpret the problem correctly. And if they are so familiar with a domain that they already are familiar with problem solving strategies for most problems in that domain, any problem given to them will not require novel solutions. I think the best that can be readily done is to measure how much ability a person has achieved of their potential. You can test them in the areas they are familiar with to see how far they've come in their life so far. The more abstract the problems, the more generally applicable they can be. What do you think? Is there such a thing as a single type of intelligence (rather than, say, mathematical intelligence), and is it possible to measure? Have you come across an IQ test which you think accurately measures intelligence?
IMHO, Buddha is the most intelligent one ever on the universe (or any other enlightened for that matter), yet he did not spend time accumulating knowledge on any of the domains you've mentioned. At some point, he just saw through them! Like how Neo sees everything in greenish matrix numbers. ;) Intelligence is like an engine. You can build anything over it. People have preferences over it. For example, if you have forced Einstein to become a doctor, he would have certainly tried his best out there too. He wouldn't have sat like a dumb doctors that knows only to write pages of prescriptions. But his preference & love for Physics brought the best out of him. Passion drives intelligence. If not driven, it wouldn't die off. it's still there in "some" form.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
-
There seem to be a lot of different ideas of what intelligence is. Some define intelligence with respect to ability, others with respect to potential. Some include knowledge as a major component, while others define it as ability to tackle new problems. Many insist speed is a of paramount importance, yet others champion depth of thought. It might be said that one's capacity to remember in the short term is a clear indicator, but it might be argued that is just a common trait among the intelligent and is neither necessary for it nor ensures it. Even more difficult than defining it is measuring it. Must there be a time limit? Should the test taker be given a dictionary or other reference material? Should complicated terms be avoided? And what of complicated mathematical concepts (e.g., what if the test taker has never heard of "prime number"?)? Maybe specific domains (science, math, language, philosophy, and so on) are the only thing which can be accurately measured. Or maybe greater intelligence can't be achieved without knowledge of many domains. In my estimation, intelligence can't easily be measured. If one is to measure how a person can solve problems novel to them, you must first measure their knowledge of the domain. If they have inadequate knowledge of the domain, an advanced problem within that domain would probably be beyond them if they don't know enough to interpret the problem correctly. And if they are so familiar with a domain that they already are familiar with problem solving strategies for most problems in that domain, any problem given to them will not require novel solutions. I think the best that can be readily done is to measure how much ability a person has achieved of their potential. You can test them in the areas they are familiar with to see how far they've come in their life so far. The more abstract the problems, the more generally applicable they can be. What do you think? Is there such a thing as a single type of intelligence (rather than, say, mathematical intelligence), and is it possible to measure? Have you come across an IQ test which you think accurately measures intelligence?
Intelligence isn't a thing to be easily measured like horsepower was. Because we can't give intelligence the same test twice and get the same answer consistently. That alone should tell us we're dealing with something very different. Consider that; we can test the amount of muscle power in something by giving it a thing to measure itself against. If we test it again, even if we get a different reading we still accept that that is a real value from the return. An object was lifted this many feet and had this much weight. But give the same person the same IQ test over again? If the test really measured intelligence wouldn't you get the same result? It would if it were a simple measure of how 'strong' the intelligence was. So the tricky bastard adapts to the information that it acquired during the first round of testing and uses that against the test in future rounds. And if it didn't; what if you give the same test over and over and get the same score from the same person- in other words they aren't learning or don't think about it between rounds? Wouldn't that just show a lack of interest? And how is the level of interest in intellectual pursuits NOT a measure of intelligence? No. No current test is measuring it. Because we don't know what we are measuring yet. Do we consider those who like to play with the intellectual toys in the world to be smarter? Or do we consider that others might be smarter but have fallen outside the motivational patterns of those we consider to be smart? In other words; if I don't like to play with chess or wordplay or IQ tests, am I automatically not as smart? Or could I be smart but I consider those trivial and not worth achieving in? Some of the smartest people I know are some of the dumbest people I know. And some aren't. And I can't tell you why the people in the first category are 'broken' when it comes to certain situations and the others aren't.
_____________________________ A logician deducts the truth. A detective inducts the truth. A journalist abducts the truth. Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug...
-
There seem to be a lot of different ideas of what intelligence is. Some define intelligence with respect to ability, others with respect to potential. Some include knowledge as a major component, while others define it as ability to tackle new problems. Many insist speed is a of paramount importance, yet others champion depth of thought. It might be said that one's capacity to remember in the short term is a clear indicator, but it might be argued that is just a common trait among the intelligent and is neither necessary for it nor ensures it. Even more difficult than defining it is measuring it. Must there be a time limit? Should the test taker be given a dictionary or other reference material? Should complicated terms be avoided? And what of complicated mathematical concepts (e.g., what if the test taker has never heard of "prime number"?)? Maybe specific domains (science, math, language, philosophy, and so on) are the only thing which can be accurately measured. Or maybe greater intelligence can't be achieved without knowledge of many domains. In my estimation, intelligence can't easily be measured. If one is to measure how a person can solve problems novel to them, you must first measure their knowledge of the domain. If they have inadequate knowledge of the domain, an advanced problem within that domain would probably be beyond them if they don't know enough to interpret the problem correctly. And if they are so familiar with a domain that they already are familiar with problem solving strategies for most problems in that domain, any problem given to them will not require novel solutions. I think the best that can be readily done is to measure how much ability a person has achieved of their potential. You can test them in the areas they are familiar with to see how far they've come in their life so far. The more abstract the problems, the more generally applicable they can be. What do you think? Is there such a thing as a single type of intelligence (rather than, say, mathematical intelligence), and is it possible to measure? Have you come across an IQ test which you think accurately measures intelligence?
-
I can't tell you what is a valid test of intelligence, but I can tell you that it is definitely not something that came from the pen of Daniel Goleman.
I see he has done work with emotional intelligence, an oxymoron. ;P
-
There seem to be a lot of different ideas of what intelligence is. Some define intelligence with respect to ability, others with respect to potential. Some include knowledge as a major component, while others define it as ability to tackle new problems. Many insist speed is a of paramount importance, yet others champion depth of thought. It might be said that one's capacity to remember in the short term is a clear indicator, but it might be argued that is just a common trait among the intelligent and is neither necessary for it nor ensures it. Even more difficult than defining it is measuring it. Must there be a time limit? Should the test taker be given a dictionary or other reference material? Should complicated terms be avoided? And what of complicated mathematical concepts (e.g., what if the test taker has never heard of "prime number"?)? Maybe specific domains (science, math, language, philosophy, and so on) are the only thing which can be accurately measured. Or maybe greater intelligence can't be achieved without knowledge of many domains. In my estimation, intelligence can't easily be measured. If one is to measure how a person can solve problems novel to them, you must first measure their knowledge of the domain. If they have inadequate knowledge of the domain, an advanced problem within that domain would probably be beyond them if they don't know enough to interpret the problem correctly. And if they are so familiar with a domain that they already are familiar with problem solving strategies for most problems in that domain, any problem given to them will not require novel solutions. I think the best that can be readily done is to measure how much ability a person has achieved of their potential. You can test them in the areas they are familiar with to see how far they've come in their life so far. The more abstract the problems, the more generally applicable they can be. What do you think? Is there such a thing as a single type of intelligence (rather than, say, mathematical intelligence), and is it possible to measure? Have you come across an IQ test which you think accurately measures intelligence?
According to my intelligence, a measurement should be made for a purpose. May I know what could be the purpose of measuring my intelligence? I am afraid I can’t find any which could be useful to me. (1) I have never looked for a paid job (salary). (2) I had the chance to create, since long, my private business with a starting capital of about $100. (3) I had never the intention to show up as being more intelligent than anyone I met in my long life. (4) No one can convince me that he is more intelligent than I because anytime I can’t answer one of his questions; he will find himself not being able answering 10 of my questions in return :) Conclusion? People who cannot work independently should present, in a way or another, something that shows/proves what they have as abilities much like a specialized computer is checked out if it is good or not for one job in the least. Therefore, in real life, there is no need to measure intelligence from all possible angles unless it is done for fun. Have Fun :) Added: I wonder to which extent the following is true: Any job that any machine cannot do needs the human intelligence. Therefore intelligence evolves otherwise there would be no difference between the human race and their machines... someday in the future :)
-
There seem to be a lot of different ideas of what intelligence is. Some define intelligence with respect to ability, others with respect to potential. Some include knowledge as a major component, while others define it as ability to tackle new problems. Many insist speed is a of paramount importance, yet others champion depth of thought. It might be said that one's capacity to remember in the short term is a clear indicator, but it might be argued that is just a common trait among the intelligent and is neither necessary for it nor ensures it. Even more difficult than defining it is measuring it. Must there be a time limit? Should the test taker be given a dictionary or other reference material? Should complicated terms be avoided? And what of complicated mathematical concepts (e.g., what if the test taker has never heard of "prime number"?)? Maybe specific domains (science, math, language, philosophy, and so on) are the only thing which can be accurately measured. Or maybe greater intelligence can't be achieved without knowledge of many domains. In my estimation, intelligence can't easily be measured. If one is to measure how a person can solve problems novel to them, you must first measure their knowledge of the domain. If they have inadequate knowledge of the domain, an advanced problem within that domain would probably be beyond them if they don't know enough to interpret the problem correctly. And if they are so familiar with a domain that they already are familiar with problem solving strategies for most problems in that domain, any problem given to them will not require novel solutions. I think the best that can be readily done is to measure how much ability a person has achieved of their potential. You can test them in the areas they are familiar with to see how far they've come in their life so far. The more abstract the problems, the more generally applicable they can be. What do you think? Is there such a thing as a single type of intelligence (rather than, say, mathematical intelligence), and is it possible to measure? Have you come across an IQ test which you think accurately measures intelligence?
Intelligence has nothing whatsoever to do with how much knowledge you have but everything to do with your ability to apply it. As far as time is concerned if you want a 100% accurate assessment then there shouldn't be any time limit however the time taken is relevant as that is a measure of your ability to apply knowledge also practical implications will come into play here as well so a lower accuracy of the assessment will always be needed. Similarly memory relates to your ability to retain knowledge which again has nothing to do with intelligence.
-
There seem to be a lot of different ideas of what intelligence is. Some define intelligence with respect to ability, others with respect to potential. Some include knowledge as a major component, while others define it as ability to tackle new problems. Many insist speed is a of paramount importance, yet others champion depth of thought. It might be said that one's capacity to remember in the short term is a clear indicator, but it might be argued that is just a common trait among the intelligent and is neither necessary for it nor ensures it. Even more difficult than defining it is measuring it. Must there be a time limit? Should the test taker be given a dictionary or other reference material? Should complicated terms be avoided? And what of complicated mathematical concepts (e.g., what if the test taker has never heard of "prime number"?)? Maybe specific domains (science, math, language, philosophy, and so on) are the only thing which can be accurately measured. Or maybe greater intelligence can't be achieved without knowledge of many domains. In my estimation, intelligence can't easily be measured. If one is to measure how a person can solve problems novel to them, you must first measure their knowledge of the domain. If they have inadequate knowledge of the domain, an advanced problem within that domain would probably be beyond them if they don't know enough to interpret the problem correctly. And if they are so familiar with a domain that they already are familiar with problem solving strategies for most problems in that domain, any problem given to them will not require novel solutions. I think the best that can be readily done is to measure how much ability a person has achieved of their potential. You can test them in the areas they are familiar with to see how far they've come in their life so far. The more abstract the problems, the more generally applicable they can be. What do you think? Is there such a thing as a single type of intelligence (rather than, say, mathematical intelligence), and is it possible to measure? Have you come across an IQ test which you think accurately measures intelligence?
My personal idea: There isn't "one" intelligence, or maybe there isn't even any intelligence at all. There is abstraction, there is creativity, there is adaptability, there is lateral thinking, there is empathy, there is communication, there is method and there is memory. What most people call "intelligence" is actually a mix of these things, and what other experts call "different intelligences" are actually different balances of this mix. For example, a good mathematician has a high level of abstraction, a good skills in lateral thinking, fair memory, is methodical, and usually little to no empathy, communication and creativity :P Abstraction is a key "intelligence" for programmers too, lateral thinking is important for every task that consists in solving problems quickly (Sherlock Holmes would be your example of lateral thinking master) and so on... So, no, I have yet to find an IQ test that measures "intelligence". I've seen tests that focus on memory (even "mathematical" tests often just test your ability to remember a lot of theorems), or focus on abstraction, a few rare tests focus on lateral thinking... so, they are good to compare how good you are in one aspect compared to the rest of those who take that test, but not more than that.
-
There seem to be a lot of different ideas of what intelligence is. Some define intelligence with respect to ability, others with respect to potential. Some include knowledge as a major component, while others define it as ability to tackle new problems. Many insist speed is a of paramount importance, yet others champion depth of thought. It might be said that one's capacity to remember in the short term is a clear indicator, but it might be argued that is just a common trait among the intelligent and is neither necessary for it nor ensures it. Even more difficult than defining it is measuring it. Must there be a time limit? Should the test taker be given a dictionary or other reference material? Should complicated terms be avoided? And what of complicated mathematical concepts (e.g., what if the test taker has never heard of "prime number"?)? Maybe specific domains (science, math, language, philosophy, and so on) are the only thing which can be accurately measured. Or maybe greater intelligence can't be achieved without knowledge of many domains. In my estimation, intelligence can't easily be measured. If one is to measure how a person can solve problems novel to them, you must first measure their knowledge of the domain. If they have inadequate knowledge of the domain, an advanced problem within that domain would probably be beyond them if they don't know enough to interpret the problem correctly. And if they are so familiar with a domain that they already are familiar with problem solving strategies for most problems in that domain, any problem given to them will not require novel solutions. I think the best that can be readily done is to measure how much ability a person has achieved of their potential. You can test them in the areas they are familiar with to see how far they've come in their life so far. The more abstract the problems, the more generally applicable they can be. What do you think? Is there such a thing as a single type of intelligence (rather than, say, mathematical intelligence), and is it possible to measure? Have you come across an IQ test which you think accurately measures intelligence?
I think everything or most of the things can be measured.. measure is just a convention of having a unit for let's say a quantity.. the problem why we don't measure or we think we can't measure some entities is because first we don't have a clear definition that entity. Well that's what I think. Just the other day I was thinking of how to write a class for freedom. If I define freedom as the collection of dependencies then it could be easy(let's say dependent of parents, social restrictions and judgment..etc.) Then people can come to a convention that this person is 45 azad free (let's say azad is the unit for freedom, which stands for let's say 3 dependencies having their value as false) But the problem is that everyone has a different instance of freedom in mind (his own personal comprehention of freedom) that might contain a different set of dependency list, or a completely different structure even anyways.. what were we talking about? yeah..defining stuff is important.. after all words are just sounds or writing that express our thoughts, if we dont know what they stand for, how can we communicate?what are we saying? defining