Is There One Intelligence and Can it be Measured?
-
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 may not be able to define intelligence but Merriam Webster has this:
Definition of INTELLIGENCE
1a
(1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason
(2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind
c : mental acuteness : shrewdness
2a
: an intelligent entity; especially : angelb : intelligent minds or mind 3
: the act of understanding : comprehension4a
: information, newsb : information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area; also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information
5
: the ability to perform computer functionsIntelligence Defined I'm particularly fond of the 5th definition! :-D
-
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 :)
KerimF wrote:
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 :)I once wrote a phone billing program that if the program couldn't figure out the bill, a human couldn't either. I made the program "smart", it adapted to the flow of information so it did not require maintenance (my design goal). After I left the company I got a call from the person who inherited my program and he told me the company had wanted to expand the program to be able to handle another facility. He had been approached to estimate the time required to modify the program. He was busy and had said to run the program anyway and he's look through the error report to base his estimate on. He was calling to tell me the program had not required any change, it figured out the expanded dataset by itself. I about flew around the room in happiness. Critically, the inbound data did not exceed the parameters I had programmed it to respond to. But I had seen other programmers in my department at the time having to do monthly maintenance on their programs and some were reaching the point where they were spending almost all their time doing maintenance, rather than writing new programs. I vowed never to fall into that trap. When I interview programmers now that I am a manager, I stress that I am looking for people who can make their programs "smart". I want my minions to be writing new programs, rather than maintaining the old ones.
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11 Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
-
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:
Presumably there would be a limit
Obviously :laugh:
AspDotNetDev wrote:
keep taking the test so long as you can afford the fee.
Most people don't take one, and most of those who do take only one. You did after all ask:Have you come across an IQ test which you think accurately measures intelligence? As far as I know they haven't figured out what exactly intelligence is, or at least it can be said that they are disagreeing - so how can it be measured. I think an 'IQ' test shows one thing only, and that's how good you are at 'IQ' tests.
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS My LinkedIn Profile
Espen Harlinn wrote:
I think an 'IQ' test shows one thing only, and that's how good you are at 'IQ' tests.
And hence the reason I disagree with the argument regarding the culture related "IQ test" and the standard tests that are generally issued. The culture related tests, to me, represent general knowledge rather than mental gynastics. There is some degreee of general knowledge in the verbal sections of standard tests. I put more value on the spacial recognition and numeric relationship sections.
I'm not a programmer but I play one at the office
-
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?
Disclaimer: The statements here are my opinion only. They are not based on any scientific studies and reflect only on my life's experiences and how I perceive the world.
AspDotNetDev wrote:
Is there such a thing as a single type of intelligence
I'm gonna say this with very strong feelings about it: "No". There many types of intelligences, some are more valued than others, some are more evident than others, but not, there is no such thing as one type of intelligence. Haven't you ever heard of mentally impaired people that actually are math geniuses? There are several types of intelligence I can notice on a day to day basis: 1 - Logical intelligence: People with high logical intelligence actually score pretty good on IQ tests. Logical thinking can be really mind boggling to some people and come naturally to others. 2 - Social intelligence: Some very "smart" people who do great at math and logical thinking, simply have no skills when dealing with people. When they don't have enough social intelligence they have a hard time making friends, hitting girls or influence other people's idea. In this case they usually fail to convince others or to drive a conversation. 3 - Math intelligence: Some see numbers and formulas naturally. Calculus classes are just a breeze. 4 - Artistic intelligence: I'm specifically very stupid at this intelligence, I can't draw a square in straight lines. Creativity, visualization skills and ability to work well with the hands drive this type of intelligence. 5 - Linguistic Intelligence: Some people are just really good with languages. They have the ability to learn several languages without much hassle. Can communicate well and in several forms. 6 - Leading Intelligence: I think everyone knows about this one. Some people are just born to lead and others to follow. 7 - Tutoring intelligence: Some people are very good at transmitting to others what they know. Some people can know a lot, but do not have the ways to transmit the knowledge. You might confuse with what I said here to skills, but it is not that really. Skills can always be taught and learned. Some skills are related to one or more areas of intelligence. Being intelligent on that area will determine how well one will do on learning and performing those skills. For example: Programming: People with good logical thinking intelligence will do good at that. Management: People with social and leading intelligence will do good at this. Painting:
-
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 believe the definition of intelligence changes all the time. Some say it’s the ability to adapt to the environment, but the environment changes all the time. During World War I and II computers were people good at doing lots of mental math calculations quickly. It was a fairly mechanical skill which didn’t exactly advance the field of mathematics, but they could earn a good salary with that skill. It was an aid in their specific environment. Someone who we would call a savant today would be really useful back then, but they are not useful anymore because today we have computers which are machines. I think the more advanced we become the more it will be all about the deepest of deep thoughts like “P vs NP”. So quality thoughts and not quantity will be important. And I think creativity is related to this and it doesn’t get enough attention because it’s even more difficult to measure than traditional intelligence because you can’t test it with multiple choice. What uses can you think of for a sock? Foot wear, glove, water filter, weapon (if a stone is inside), rope (if tied together), fishing line (if unravelled), purse, mask (if holes cut in), the list goes on. How do you evaluate such a list? It’s very fluffy stuff (no pun intended). If the power goes off permanently tomorrow, who will be the intelligent ones if not those who can build tools, hunt, trap, build shelters and recognize patterns in plant and animal behaviour? Not much use for “P vs NP” anymore…
-
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 can be measured by whether someone goes into (U.S.) politics or not. If they do, then the absence of such is prominent. Wait, politicians "earn" more pay than the people they serve, including the U.S. Congress and their free life-time health insurance, 80% of their base pay of the last 3 years of service [after 5 years of such], and other benefits... h Hmmm, (U.S.) voters keep voting politicians back into office. Hence, (U.S.) voters are the stupid ones. Yes, there is a quantifiable measure of intelligence. Case closed. It's That Simple. Really.
The best way to improve Windows is run it on a Mac. The best way to bring a Mac to its knees is to run Windows on it. ~ my brother Jeff
-
Clifford Nelson wrote:
The problem with the IQ test in the past has been that it was designed to be somewhat accurate for WASP.
I have seen that statement for more than 40 years. The reason that I doubt that statement is that no one has yet devised a test that WASPs do worse at than others.
Nick
I believe when I saw the statement it was associated with a reputable journal. It was many years ago. The tests may have been fixed since then. It has also been a very long time since I have taken the test. In any case, any test is going to have some sort of bias.
-
I believe the definition of intelligence changes all the time. Some say it’s the ability to adapt to the environment, but the environment changes all the time. During World War I and II computers were people good at doing lots of mental math calculations quickly. It was a fairly mechanical skill which didn’t exactly advance the field of mathematics, but they could earn a good salary with that skill. It was an aid in their specific environment. Someone who we would call a savant today would be really useful back then, but they are not useful anymore because today we have computers which are machines. I think the more advanced we become the more it will be all about the deepest of deep thoughts like “P vs NP”. So quality thoughts and not quantity will be important. And I think creativity is related to this and it doesn’t get enough attention because it’s even more difficult to measure than traditional intelligence because you can’t test it with multiple choice. What uses can you think of for a sock? Foot wear, glove, water filter, weapon (if a stone is inside), rope (if tied together), fishing line (if unravelled), purse, mask (if holes cut in), the list goes on. How do you evaluate such a list? It’s very fluffy stuff (no pun intended). If the power goes off permanently tomorrow, who will be the intelligent ones if not those who can build tools, hunt, trap, build shelters and recognize patterns in plant and animal behaviour? Not much use for “P vs NP” anymore…
This has only to do with the skills that are valuable at the time. When everything was manual labor, there was little need for many of the skills today.
-
Intelligence can be measured by whether someone goes into (U.S.) politics or not. If they do, then the absence of such is prominent. Wait, politicians "earn" more pay than the people they serve, including the U.S. Congress and their free life-time health insurance, 80% of their base pay of the last 3 years of service [after 5 years of such], and other benefits... h Hmmm, (U.S.) voters keep voting politicians back into office. Hence, (U.S.) voters are the stupid ones. Yes, there is a quantifiable measure of intelligence. Case closed. It's That Simple. Really.
The best way to improve Windows is run it on a Mac. The best way to bring a Mac to its knees is to run Windows on it. ~ my brother Jeff
Gary Noter wrote:
If they do, then the absence of such is prominent.
I beg to differ. They are so intelligent, that they are capable of getting there. Once they do get there, they know they don't need to use their brains anymore so they start using it for something else, not politics, as they're settled for life.
"To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" - Homer Simpson
-
This has only to do with the skills that are valuable at the time. When everything was manual labor, there was little need for many of the skills today.
Yeah, that's what I’m trying to say, because most definitions say it’s related to the environment. That’s why we sometimes look back at people and say they were “ahead of their time”, meaning that we appreciate their insight more today than their peers did back then. So they didn’t appear very intelligent back then but today we think of them as highly intelligent.
-
Gary Noter wrote:
If they do, then the absence of such is prominent.
I beg to differ. They are so intelligent, that they are capable of getting there. Once they do get there, they know they don't need to use their brains anymore so they start using it for something else, not politics, as they're settled for life.
"To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" - Homer Simpson
Try reading the full post...
The best way to improve Windows is run it on a Mac. The best way to bring a Mac to its knees is to run Windows on it. ~ my brother Jeff
-
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
I think Walt is the most intelligent person in this forum. ;)
-
Try reading the full post...
The best way to improve Windows is run it on a Mac. The best way to bring a Mac to its knees is to run Windows on it. ~ my brother Jeff
I did and it was a joke ;)
"To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" - Homer Simpson
-
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?
Somebody has a bee in their bonnet. Of course intelligence can be measured. Just not perfectly. An I.Q. test does not perfectly measure intelligence, and anyway has to be continually recallibrated. You may not be able to distinguish a person with an I.Q. of 100 from one with an I.Q. of 101. However, practically everyone finds a person with an I.Q. of 130 to be subjectively "smarter" than a person with an I.Q. of 100, and that person in turn "smarter" than a person with an I.Q. of 70. So yeah, I.Q. tests do measure a very general kind of intelligence. We can argue that there are more precise or easier to administer measures of specific aspects of intelligence (and there are many well-calibrated tests of such measures). Give it up. We can successfully measure something as general as intelligence, just like we can measure something as general as length. We can use a stick or we can use a micrometer or an interferometer, and they produce different degrees of precision.
-
Any test is going to have an accuracy, and somebody how is very smart may not score well because just because there is going to be a bell curve associated with true intellegence and the test. The problem with the IQ test in the past has been that it was designed to be somewhat accurate for WASP. Then there is a lot of variation in people's skills. There are people know for having perfect memory, and those that can solve complex equations in their heads. That is a special skill, and the IQ test is not designed to capture specific abilities.
-
The Eskimos have many words for snow. That means that they are able to communicate the differences a lot better than could be done in english, which means that it is easier fo translate the types of snow. There is only one word of Love in English, which means that there is a lot more misunderstanding of what the word means than a culture that has many words for love.
-
Any test is going to have an accuracy, and somebody how is very smart may not score well because just because there is going to be a bell curve associated with true intellegence and the test. The problem with the IQ test in the past has been that it was designed to be somewhat accurate for WASP. Then there is a lot of variation in people's skills. There are people know for having perfect memory, and those that can solve complex equations in their heads. That is a special skill, and the IQ test is not designed to capture specific abilities.
Love the bigotry that is shown by voters. Are my comments so obnoxious for votes of 1, Three people hate my comments, but do not seem to provide any substantiation. Would have thought better of people in this forum.
-
Somebody has a bee in their bonnet. Of course intelligence can be measured. Just not perfectly. An I.Q. test does not perfectly measure intelligence, and anyway has to be continually recallibrated. You may not be able to distinguish a person with an I.Q. of 100 from one with an I.Q. of 101. However, practically everyone finds a person with an I.Q. of 130 to be subjectively "smarter" than a person with an I.Q. of 100, and that person in turn "smarter" than a person with an I.Q. of 70. So yeah, I.Q. tests do measure a very general kind of intelligence. We can argue that there are more precise or easier to administer measures of specific aspects of intelligence (and there are many well-calibrated tests of such measures). Give it up. We can successfully measure something as general as intelligence, just like we can measure something as general as length. We can use a stick or we can use a micrometer or an interferometer, and they produce different degrees of precision.
Member 2941392 wrote:
Somebody has a bee in their bonnet
I've been caught! :-O
-
Wasp == White Anglo Saxon Protestant. Probably should also include Male. One of the American biases.
So what is the problem with telling somebody what WASP means. Deserve a vote of 1. Somebody is a creap.