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?
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.
-
Funny that one of the questions at that link just so happens to have a Star of David, a religious symbol. Not to mention an Eye of Providence and a Dragon Ball. :laugh:
-
Funny that one of the questions at that link just so happens to have a Star of David, a religious symbol. Not to mention an Eye of Providence and a Dragon Ball. :laugh:
But the potential religious meaning behind those symbols is not relevant to working out the answer to the problem. Therefore one's culture/religion/race does not affect your ability to get the right answer. If, however, you were asked to identify the symbols, then the test would have a bias. Though one in which the typical WASP would have a disadvantage. ;P
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
-
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.
I down-voted it because you stated this as fact: "The problem with the IQ test in the past has been that it was designed to be somewhat accurate for WASP", an assertion that seems just as bigoted as what you perceive in the down-voting of that post. I provided substantiation in the example question I posted as a rebuttal.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
-
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.
Maybe my view is limited by my own experiences with IQ tests. I don't recall any questions that involved word definitions or nuances of language. Maybe I'm just biased, since I am a WAS. (no longer P, though, or even C.) :laugh:
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
-
Maybe my view is limited by my own experiences with IQ tests. I don't recall any questions that involved word definitions or nuances of language. Maybe I'm just biased, since I am a WAS. (no longer P, though, or even C.) :laugh:
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
From what I remember it was more of a frame of reference issue, nor definitions of words and such. People with very different cultures have a different way of looking at things. It was a long time ago that I saw the study.
-
I down-voted it because you stated this as fact: "The problem with the IQ test in the past has been that it was designed to be somewhat accurate for WASP", an assertion that seems just as bigoted as what you perceive in the down-voting of that post. I provided substantiation in the example question I posted as a rebuttal.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
I do not believe that it was intentionally biased. I believe the people who created the test are trying to do the best job they can. Newton did not intend to misled us with his science but he was wrong. I am also not saying that there is not value in IQ tests, any more than there is not value in Newtonian physics. Still there is a framework which the developers worked in. If you do not believe this, just look into IQ on wikipedia. There is some discussion on this problem. You also have to know that when I heard this it was many years ago, and people developing these tests are trying to eliminate bias. Part of the way they eliminate it is by adjusting scores in different regions. Social Science is far from a percise science, and expecting it to be so is foolish. This is why it is important to provide a reason for down voting.