I don't really think any of you are intelligent at all...

[magickyleo101]

...because there's no such thing as intelligence!


More seriously, though, I'd like to have a discussion about the general concept of intelligence and whether the concept should be replaced by the concept of "ability." In other words, I'd like to have a discussion about the kind of intelligence that would have to exist in order for:

1. Person A to be more gifted than person B in one area (e.g. math); and
2. Person B to be more gifted than person A in another area (e.g. writing); and
3. Person A to be more intelligent generally than person B.

So I'm not attacking multiple intelligence theories, since those theories pretty much deny that there's intelligence too. Rather, we're talking about the theory of intelligence which insists that there's some underlying general capability which helps to explain the other, specific abilities a person has.


I'll start with some arguments:


First, I'm skeptical of the concept of general intelligence because I don't think there's any way to non-arbitrarily weight the mental abilities which are supposed to display intelligence. So, for example, if you're good at writing and I'm good at math we need some way to infer from those (or other) skills whether I'm smarter than you, you're smarter than me, or we're equally intelligent. If we say that being good at writing is really important to intelligence but being good at math isn't, we'll get that you're smarter. If we say that being good at math is less important than writing, I'll be smarter. Likewise if we say they're equally important. But in any case, we have to decide ahead of time how much each skill "counts" for and that strikes me as arbitrarily aggrandizing one ability at the expense of others. [Note: writing and math, here and below, are stand ins for whatever ability we're inferring intelligence from. Substitute whatever other skills you like and the argument still works.]

Second, I think the concept of intelligence is suspect because the skills that people tend to associate with intelligence also seem to be arbitrarily chosen. Thus, being good at chess, math, formal logic, or writing are often taken to be indicators of intelligence but traits like the various interpersonal skills, natural artistic ability, or spatial sense are not. I can't see any real justification for gerrymandering abilities like this.

Finally, I don't think intelligence actually does any explanatory work that can't be done by the concept of "having a natural ability at X." General intelligence is often posited as an explanation for the fact that many of the abilities associated with intelligence correlate with each other. But there are other obvious explanations for this. For example, we know that intelligence is supposed to correlate with various environmental influences. Why not just say that the abilities in question also correlate with those influences. Intelligence seems like a needless middle step.


In any case, responses?






[Note to Mods: I went back and forth on whether to place this here or in the science section. I've placed it here because I mostly want this to be about the concept of intelligence rather than about various studies, etc. Also, I'd like to bring in considerations about whether the concept of intelligence is socially harmful, which isn't really a science thing. Nonetheless, if you feel compelled to move this, feel free to do so.]

[gambit]

Common sense = knowledge that is considered sound judgment and reasoning by a vast majority of the human populace = general intelligence

[Ciabhán]

...because there's no such thing as intelligence!


More seriously, though, I'd like to have a discussion about the general concept of intelligence and whether the concept should be replaced by the concept of "ability." In other words, I'd like to have a discussion about the kind of intelligence that would have to exist in order for:

1. Person A to be more gifted than person B in one area (e.g. math); and
2. Person B to be more gifted than person A in another area (e.g. writing); and
3. Person A to be more intelligent generally than person B.

So I'm not attacking multiple intelligence theories, since those theories pretty much deny that there's intelligence too. Rather, we're talking about the theory of intelligence which insists that there's some underlying general capability which helps to explain the other, specific abilities a person has.


I'll start with some arguments:


First, I'm skeptical of the concept of general intelligence because I don't think there's any way to non-arbitrarily weight the mental abilities which are supposed to display intelligence. So, for example, if you're good at writing and I'm good at math we need some way to infer from those (or other) skills whether I'm smarter than you, you're smarter than me, or we're equally intelligent. If we say that being good at writing is really important to intelligence but being good at math isn't, we'll get that you're smarter. If we say that being good at math is less important than writing, I'll be smarter. Likewise if we say they're equally important. But in any case, we have to decide ahead of time how much each skill "counts" for and that strikes me as arbitrarily aggrandizing one ability at the expense of others. [Note: writing and math, here and below, are stand ins for whatever ability we're inferring intelligence from. Substitute whatever other skills you like and the argument still works.]

Second, I think the concept of intelligence is suspect because the skills that people tend to associate with intelligence also seem to be arbitrarily chosen. Thus, being good at chess, math, formal logic, or writing are often taken to be indicators of intelligence but traits like the various interpersonal skills, natural artistic ability, or spatial sense are not. I can't see any real justification for gerrymandering abilities like this.

Finally, I don't think intelligence actually does any explanatory work that can't be done by the concept of "having a natural ability at X." General intelligence is often posited as an explanation for the fact that many of the abilities associated with intelligence correlate with each other. But there are other obvious explanations for this. For example, we know that intelligence is supposed to correlate with various environmental influences. Why not just say that the abilities in question also correlate with those influences. Intelligence seems like a needless middle step.


In any case, responses?

So you just want to change the word 'intelligence' to 'ability'. Then you just have people abitrarily decide that because they do better at math that they are more able than someone else. It doesn't change anything.

You also didn't account for situations wherein someone is better at both math and writing(or whatever you choose). I think general intelligence makes more sense if you think of it as someone's ability to learn and absorb things completely and quickly rather than what they have already absorbed. Hard to measure....impossible really but some people truely are more 'intelligent' than others.

[magickyleo101]

So you just want to change the word 'intelligence' to 'ability'. Then you just have people abitrarily decide that because they do better at math that they are more able than someone else. It doesn't change anything.

No, I'm saying there are multiple abilities that are independent of each other and that can't be weighed against each other. I'm not proposing one "mega-ability" that explains all other abilities - that would just be switching the word out.

You also didn't account for situations wherein someone is better at both math and writing(or whatever you choose). I think general intelligence makes more sense if you think of it as someone's ability to learn and absorb things completely and quickly rather than what they have already absorbed. Hard to measure....impossible really but some people truely are more 'intelligent' than others.

Yes I did. See my third argument.

Gambit:

Common sense = knowledge that is considered sound judgment and reasoning by a vast majority of the human populace = general intelligence

I don't think this is quite right. Common sense is something you gain over time, where as intelligence is something you're supposed to be largely born with.

[gambit]

Gambit:



I don't think this is quite right. Common sense is something you gain over time, where as intelligence is something you're supposed to be largely born with.

Nay, you can not be born with intelligence because intelligence requires some form of knowledge or understanding. You can be born with the potential for intelligence, but no one will ever be born already knowing how to tie their shoes or that 2+2=4.

I know this for fact, I'm the professor!

[Jabberwock]

Intelligence is just perspective. It's how you see the world, how you see a particular problem and the solution to that problem. Take Einstein for example and his perspective of physics or Richard Feynman.

Anyone can be considered intelligent when they begin to see things a certain way.

where as intelligence is something you're supposed to be largely born with.

I would say people are not born with intelligence at all.

[Juvenal]

Although we do indeed have a set of abilities of different types in different amounts, this doesn't explain everything. Our abilities are not fixed, we have the capacity to improve them (or conversely they can also decline).

If there is such a thing as general intelligence, then perhaps it is a kind of meta-ability. A mixture of how well we can combine our existing skills in effective ways, with our efficiency in improving those skills based on life-experience.

Sadly our educational system tends to encourage people to specialise, which I think reduces the opportunities for synthesis and general improvement of effectiveness.

I don't think that IQ tests are a good way to measure general intelligence at all because they actually measure individual skills rather than general effectiveness.

[magickyleo101]

Although we do indeed have a set of abilities of different types in different amounts, this doesn't explain everything. Our abilities are not fixed, we have the capacity to improve them (or conversely they can also decline).

Yes, but you could have a "natural affinity for one area" to explain that sort of thing without appealing to a broad overarching ability.

If there is such a thing as general intelligence, then perhaps it is a kind of meta-ability. A mixture of how well we can combine our existing skills in effective ways, with our efficiency in improving those skills based on life-experience.

I don't know. What about a guy who's really brilliant at math but has a hard time applying that ability to other areas. I think most people would say he's very intelligent [on the traditional theory], but he would lack the meta-ability you're identifying with intelligence.

Sadly our educational system tends to encourage people to specialise, which I think reduces the opportunities for synthesis and general improvement of effectiveness.

I don't think that IQ tests are a good way to measure general intelligence at all because they actually measure individual skills rather than general effectiveness.

I agree with you.

@ Gambit:

Nay, you can not be born with intelligence because intelligence requires some form of knowledge or understanding. You can be born with the potential for intelligence, but no one will ever be born already knowing how to tie their shoes or that 2+2=4.

I know this for fact, I'm the professor!

Fair enough. But even if the "at birth" thing isn't enough to distinguish the two concepts, there are still other things. For example, most people know someone who they think is smart but who doesn't seem to have a lot of common sense (e.g. the common professor stereotype).

[gambit]

doububle post

[gambit]

Fair enough. But even if the "at birth" thing isn't enough to distinguish the two concepts, there are still other things. For example, most people know someone who they think is smart but who doesn't seem to have a lot of common sense (e.g. the common professor stereotype).

Well right, thats my point with general intelligence=common sense. Someone with common sense wont necessarily know when the Battle of Crecy took place, or how many electrons are in hydrogen; but they probably know hydrogen is an element, or that battles are major conflict between factions. Specialized intelligence is a.. well specialized amount of knowledge or understanding in a particular field. So if you're simply questioning the idea of saying someone isnt intelligent because they dont know about historical facts or the such, it's the same as saying no one can be strong because not everyone has particularly strong legs or biceps.

[magickyleo101]

Well right, thats my point with general intelligence=common sense. Someone with common sense wont necessarily know when the Battle of Crecy took place, or how many electrons are in hydrogen; but they probably know hydrogen is an element, or that battles are major conflict between factions. Specialized intelligence is a.. well specialized amount of knowledge or understanding in a particular field. So if you're simply questioning the idea of saying someone isnt intelligent because they dont know about historical facts or the such, it's the same as saying no one can be strong because not everyone has particularly strong legs or biceps.

I think my example wasn't clear.

I mean that there are cases where someone is extremely good in some field, not just because they know a lot but because of some innate talent for it. Nonetheless, the person might have little common sense (e.g. they might not realize that a job interview is a bad place for racist jokes or that it's a bad idea to punch a cop).

I think a lot of the difference comes from the fact that common sense is generally associated with a certain emotional stability while intelligence is not. So you can be a "hot head" or "eccentric" and still be thought if as intelligent, but the same thing doesn't go for common sense.

[Poach]

Yes, there is such a thing as general intelligence. Abilties exist alongside intelligence, and it is possible to be not very intelligent but still be brilliant at something. For example, "booksmart" students who can get good grades but outside that they're extremely dull.

Your standard chav, for example, who doesn't attend school often and drinks a lot will find grasping of any concept difficult be it maths, english, sciences, philosophy or reasoning. Someone who is considered to be intelligent, whilst perhaps not excellent in all these areas, will be able to understand most concepts and give reasonable attempts on the subjects.

You tend to find "booksmart" pupils are good at what they can learn from a textbook but when it comes to ideas like philosophy, reason and logic they're incapable of performing very well. Those with intelligence will be able to process the complex ideas presented in these subjects which cannot be very easily taught using a standard textbook and worked examples teaching method.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

NO< YOUR STUPID

[magickyleo101]

NO< YOUR STUPID

I can't tell if your bad grammar is ironic...


@ Poach:

Yes, there is such a thing as general intelligence. Abilties exist alongside intelligence, and it is possible to be not very intelligent but still be brilliant at something. For example, "booksmart" students who can get good grades but outside that they're extremely dull.

Your standard chav, for example, who doesn't attend school often and drinks a lot will find grasping of any concept difficult be it maths, english, sciences, philosophy or reasoning. Someone who is considered to be intelligent, whilst perhaps not excellent in all these areas, will be able to understand most concepts and give reasonable attempts on the subjects.

You tend to find "booksmart" pupils are good at what they can learn from a textbook but when it comes to ideas like philosophy, reason and logic they're incapable of performing very well. Those with intelligence will be able to process the complex ideas presented in these subjects which cannot be very easily taught using a standard textbook and worked examples teaching method.

This just repeats the general understanding of intelligence. It's not an argument or a response to my arguments.

[Manoflooks]

To use your own example, if you are good at writing, and i am good at math, and lets just say we are equally good in our respective subjects, it would be determined by who is better at the other person's subjects.

[magickyleo101]

To use your own example, if you are good at writing, and i am good at math, and lets just say we are equally good in our respective subjects, it would be determined by who is better at the other person's subjects.

What does it even mean for you to be as good at math as I am at writing? How many multiplication tables is an essay worth? How many well written sentences make a calculus problem? There's no way to compare those sorts of things so that we could even begin to talk about the kind of equivalence you're assuming.

@ Playfishpaste

With neurologists and psychologists speak of "intelligence" they mean cognitive ability. This is human ability to recognize patterns and adapt to them, reactivity and perception basically. This is an easily measurable quantity and IQ tests are a fair way of doing it. Intelligence however has no bearing on whether or not you are smart or dumb. Smartness or stupidity has to do with how much knowledge you have and your specific "abilities" as you'd put it. A good writer is gifted at story telling because his mind is pre-disposed to it genetically. His intelligence helps him to specifically be good at story telling because he's meant to recognize patterns in words and letters. At the same time, he can take advantage of this special thought process and adapt it to other things. For this reason we have polymaths. A skilled writer can very easily become a skilled mathematician if he plays his cards right.

This topic comes up often? A quick review of the subforum didn't turn up anything.

In any case, I think you're glossing over some of the problems here.

First, it doesn't do much good merely to point out that psychologists use their own definition when you're in a thread about the ordinary meaning of the term. Lots of fields appropriate terms from the broader society and give them a field-specific definition, but that doesn't change the meaning of those terms in ordinary discourse. What you're doing is rather like showing up in an atheism thread and saying "well I think God is everything!" You haven't resolved the issue, but instead failed to engage the question.

But, second, even we were going with the meaning used by psychologists, I fail to see how the problems disappear. (If it were that simple intelligence would hardly be the controversial topic that it is.) For example, people aren't equally good at recognizing every sort of pattern. As you point out, someone can be good at recognizing (say) verbal patterns without having a similar aptitude for recognizing spacial patterns. Defining intelligence in terms of pattern recognition, then, seems only to push the issue back.

[Playfishpaste]

What does it even mean for you to be as good at math as I am at writing? How many multiplication tables is an essay worth? How many well written sentences make a calculus problem? There's no way to compare those sorts of things so that we could even begin to talk about the kind of equivalence you're assuming.

Sure there is, it's called empiricism.

For instance, we take two people with the same IQ, and then see how long it takes them to do things in different areas and how much mental energy they expel while doing it, looking at different receptors going off in the process. Let's say it takes 250 calories for the average college student to write an english 101 essay, and it takes a different college student who is majoring in math 250 calories to complete a math 101 problem. We now have an approximation as to the conversion factors of units between two people with different strengths. 1 math 101 problem=1 english 101 essay.

[magickyleo101]

Sure there is, it's called empiricism.

For instance, we take two people with the same IQ, and then see how long it takes them to do things in different areas and how much mental energy they expel while doing it, looking at different receptors going off in the process. Let's say it takes 250 calories for the average college student to write an english 101 essay, and it takes a different college student who is majoring in math 250 calories to complete a math 101 problem. We now have an approximation as to the conversion factors of units between two people with different strengths. 1 math 101 problem=1 english 101 essay.

PROBLEM ONE:

Since when did "few calories burned" come to equal "better at"? You're simply misusing (and cruelly abusing) the term "good at." Just because you burn half the calories I do at a given task doesn't mean that you're twice as good at it as I am.

PROBLEM TWO:

Even if we managed to clear that major hurdle, you're arbitrarily picking one of the inputs as the metric. Why aren't you looking at, say, the amount of time it takes? If it takes you 30 minutes to write an essay and another person with the same IQ does 3 math problems in that time, why English essays 3 times as hard as math problems?

PROBLEM THREE:

You're only holding IQ constant. What about the amount of training someone's had in math? I could very well have one math major solve the math problem with 120 calories, an English major solve the math problem with 260 calories, an English major write the essay at 120 calories, and all of them could have the same IQ.

PROBLEM FOUR:

You're assuming that the two people have the same IQ when the whole argument here is about the sorts of things you can use to measure IQ. You're trying to lift yourself by your own bootstraps or, in other words, begging the question.

@ Phier:

Though I think the issue is we don't understand how to quantify intelligence very well, not that we can't have a general intelligence.

The closest I would use for general intelligence is logic problems. If you can't use your skills and knowledge to find logical answers then you are in general less smart than someone who can. When the GRE removed the logic section from their exam I believed MENSA stopped accepted it for an intelligence test. I agree with their assessment.

Now I may be biased because such problems are where I always excel. My math is decidedly grad level average, so I give it less weight, but I think my reasoning is sound.

But isn't this the whole problem with the ordinary concept of intelligence - that you're picking some mental abilities and aggrandizing them without any real argument in favor of doing so?

Not that I can complain. I got into law school only on the strength of my test scores, but that doesn't mean those scores mean anything.

[Playfishpaste]

PROBLEM ONE:

Since when did "few calories burned" come to equal "better at"? You're simply misusing (and cruelly abusing) the term "good at." Just because you burn half the calories I do at a given task doesn't mean that you're twice as good at it as I am.

It means you use more effort to come to your conclusion. This means you work harder, which means you are worse at your task then I am. If skill at writing and mathematics were to become evolutionarily relevant (which it is becoming so quickly) natural selection would eliminate you for burning more calories to do the same task.

PROBLEM TWO:

Even if we managed to clear that major hurdle, you're arbitrarily picking one of the inputs as the metric. Why aren't you looking at, say, the amount of time it takes? If it takes you 30 minutes to write an essay and another person with the same IQ does 3 math problems in that time, why English essays 3 times as hard as math problems?

It takes the same amount of time because of the quantity of calories burned, calories are a unit of energy, they take into account time. Again, if 250 calories were used for each, 1 math problem is equal to one english problem in energy used.

PROBLEM THREE:

You're assuming that the two people have the same IQ when the whole argument here is about the sorts of things you can use to measure IQ. You're trying to lift yourself by your own bootstraps or, in other words, begging the question.

The first post in the thread doesn't have anything to do with IQ, it's talking about several different things, smartness, creativity, and adaptability. I actually agree with you on these subjects and think they can be very subjective entities.

PROBLEM four:

You're only holding IQ constant. What about the amount of training someone's had in math? I could very well have one math major solve the math problem with 120 calories, an English major solve the math problem with 260 calories, an English major write the essay at 120 calories, and all of them could have the same IQ.

That's why I said one's a math major and one's an english major. The English major is skilled at english and the math major is skilled at math. We're seeing if they are equally skilled. If they are, then since they have the same IQ they must both use 250 calories on their respective tasks. If they burn a different amount that means one of two things or both:

1 math problem does not equal one english essay

OR

The math student isn't as good at math as the english student is at english.

[Phier]

Not that I can complain. I got into law school only on the strength of my test scores, but that doesn't mean those scores mean anything.

Would you think of yourself as smarter than 'average'?