true intelligence... how do you measure it?

[greencharlie]

Smart people... I know a lot of them. One is a contractor for our company, a Ph.D... and we have a real life Doctor in our family, a radiologist. And I'm friends with a lawyer and I know a couple MBA's...

But WHO'S the smartest guy I know? Hmmmm... I'm gonna' guess that it's my neighbor Tom. Tom's in his mid 50's...earned a Bachelors degree in the late 70's... and that was all the higher education he ever completed. Tom was in the military in the 80's... a machinist in the military AND opened up his own machinery shop after the military. He went on to build a good reputation and started doing government work, government machining contracts. He hired engineers, he hired more machinists... and by 2000 was very secure... with over 100 employees, lots of work and income...

So WHY is he so smart? How do I mean smart? The guy reads, he reads constantly. I remember seeing him at a Christmas Party a few years ago and he was reading "Harry Potter"... after exchanging a few good natured barbs, he said... I always wanted to know more about wizards. He watched the History Channel, Discovery, Science channel... and then he reads.

He's the ONE guy in the neighborhood that EVERYONE will go to to ask a question. The guy just knows it all...

How do you measure it? How can you compare it?

Well look at my cousin the Radiologist. She's smart, I guess... she knows about X-rays, CAT scans and tumors... but the other day she asked me about her new car and why she couldn't run her air conditioning when the car was parked with the engine turned off. So I proceeded to explain how the engine turns a compressor... and at the end of the explanation, with glazed eyes she said well should make a new one that works with the engine off.

Frankly she's an idiot.

And then I know this lawyer that can't count his way out of a paper bag. Even the most minor mental calculations go to the calculator.

So What IS intelligence?

Can you be truly intelligent without being educated in a general scope of things?

Not that "General Ed" crap in school, either...

But still... Tom pretty much knows it all...

Union General at Antietam? Got it. Pi to the 6th digit, got it. Changes his own brakes, got it. Knows the constitution by heart, got it. Can name all Roman emperors in alphabetical order, got it....

So WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE?

It's not a piece of paper from UCLA or Stanford, that's for sure...

[blogslut]

1. Intelligence is Adaptation

:hi:

[greencharlie]

2. I like that... nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Subjectively.

[ecstatic]

4. From wiki:

Intelligence derives from the Latin verb intellegere;<1> per that rationale, “understanding” (intelligence) is different from being “smart” (capable of adapting to the environment). Scientists have proposed two major “consensus” definitions of intelligence:

(i) from Mainstream Science on Intelligence (1994), a report by fifty-two researchers:

A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings — “catching on”, “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.<2>

(ii) from Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (1995), a report published by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association:

Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person’s intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of “intelligence” are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

[greencharlie]

5. lol... yeah that sums it up...

How many people have we all met in life that are dumb as a rock... EXCEPT at their field of interest or profession?

Can ANYONE truly be a genius if they can't change their own oil? If they can't program their GPS or their DVR?

[JuniperLea]

8. Yes, they can...

I know many that I lovingly call "Idiot Savants" because they are brilliant beyond measure when presented with difficult situations, but can't think their way out of a paper bag. My boss is like this... that's why he has me:) If it's complex, he's got it figured out right away, but he gets frustrated with the simple... I do all his Googling, for example. Simplest damn InterTube function ever, and he just can't get it. But his business advice and counsel will run you $500 - $700 an hour.

There's a big difference between street smarts and book learning... the innate ability to figure things out, and the stuff you memorize from books.

[ecstatic]

10. Yep. That's why the brightest minds in the country can't agree

on a specific definition. I'm going with the "ability to figure things out" quickly definition. It's not what you know, but how easily you can learn something you're open to learning about.

[JuniperLea]

15. That's how I see it...

I think a lot of incredibly brilliant people slip through the cracks of our education system because they are bored, their minds wander, and then they miss information they need to connect the dots.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. And there is a third - social smarts.

There are people who 'know' very little, but by gawd they can shmooze. They are the ones with the quick wit and ready reply, who are friendly and liked by everyone - you know, politicians - but their actual knowledge of 'stuff' is limited. We often elect highly charismatic people who make REALLY bad decisions because those are two very different intelligence sets. At the other end are those who really know what they are talking about but don't have any of the social skills needed to get that knowledge across. Then there are engineers who are in another world entirely, extreme knowledge in their field but clueless about almost anything else and no social skills at all.

Social intelligence is often overlooked, but it is also highly adaptive - the person may get a 'C' on a test, but can convince the scorer to give him an 'A'. If that isn't intelligence, I don't know what is.

[JuniperLea]

18. Now, that's a good point!

If my dog were human, she would be just like that! She has me trained...

I wonder if cute kids learn to use their cute to their advantage like my dog does.

[sui generis]

6. it's not monolithic

I think the smartest people are the ones who pursue their curiosity relentlessly, and have wide parameters for what interests them and a lot of connections in between.

Now think of a really smart person who is really good with logic and abstract thinking, and imagine them writing a work of fiction with believable engaging characters that you would care about. You can have very smart people who don't a have a clue to how humans interact and what motivates people to react, for better or worse, in real life or in fiction.

That ability to perceive the very complicated nuances of the human experience and relay them in a way to engage someone or tell a story or describe a milieu or an idea or an event is really a hallmark that I find more important. Following the arc of a character as they deal with the seemingly insurmountable means the story teller can convey how a character evolves their experience in a way that we can relate to, or sometimes, reject.

Artists convey their experience of a subject, logicians induce and deduce, but a good author can describe all of those things and show you how a character reacts to an imaginary (portrayed in semantic symbols on a page) world. The thing I like about literature is that a good story teller doesn't tell you what somebody feels. They show it to you through the character's actions, and let you feel it yourself. That's a hallmark of intelligence. I would rate curiosity and "emotional intelligence" as pretty good measures of intelligence.

Common sense and critical thinking are probably pretty good measures too.

[AnArmyVeteran]

7. Most people aren't very smart

I remember working at a gas station when I was 14. I could wait on 10-12 cars at a time, pumping gas, checking oil, filling up their tires, washing their windows and filling up their radiators. And I also could add up everything they bought in my head and then added tax using my brain. There wasn't even a calculator and the cash register didn't add up items. I even remembered the license plate numbers of the regular credit card customers because I was supposed to write them down on the credit card slip.

Now, you go to a store and cashiers are clueless. I have two fifty cent items and they can't add them together. They HAVE to use a calculator to figure it out. And they aren't capable of adding tax to any purchase amount either. And almost every cashier is incapable of doing one task at a time, when even at 14 I could wait on a dozen people at a time.

BTW, one night the service station I worked at was robbed. Thieves broke through the window and took the entire cashbox. It was mostly empty of cash, but it contained hundreds of dollars worth of credit card receipts. (Yes, that was before credit cards were scanned). I went right to the trash where the carbons to every credit card transaction and we used those to reconstruct each transaction for the previous day. I wonder how many cashiers would think of that today? I'm not bragging. I am just mystified by how little people know today. I have no idea how anyone can get through 12 years of school and not be able to add and subtract in their brains. If today's books are not good enough to teach kids then why don't we use books from a 100 years ago and use them to teach children?

Intelligence can be measured in a lot of different ways. But I would rather hire a person with average intelligence with a great thirst for knowledge, than be a genius with no desire to learn anything.

The US is becoming a nation of dolts. How else can you explain an idiot like GW Bush getting elected to any office? And how can you explain how easy it is to dupe conservatives like the tea baggers with complete nonsense? People ARE stupid...

[Tumbulu]

9. Boy, you hit that nail on the head!

I have also observed that many "bright" people use their quick withs to use other people in ways that make their lives easier and simpler and more profitable. They consider their greater "intelligence" to be their ticket towards a freer ride in life fueled by the harder work of people with a slower or less arrogant mind.

[surrealAmerican]

22. I'm not convinced that what you're describing ...

... is proof that the young cashiers are less intelligent. What they are is less resourceful, and that may well have to do with flaws in their educations. Too little of their education dealt with creative problem solving or critical thinking. It's not the materials, it's the approach.

Intelligence is more the ability to learn than what they have already learned.

[AnArmyVeteran]

29. I don't agree with some of what you said.

My Dad had a 4th grade education, but he knew math, he knew science, he read everything, he could do a complex crossword in minutes because he knew the English language and he had a brilliant sense of humor. The cashiers I have been exposed to have probably had 12 years of education (my dad had 4) and they still can't make change or even think about figuring how to apply tax to the total. I could do that when I started work at 14 with no problem. I suppose the 'approach' of a typical cashier is to sit trough 12 years of school and not learn anything.

There seems to be minimal desire for young people to learn anything. We were dirt poor, but out of poverty I used my mind. I thought of things to create out of nothing. I wrote, I built and I put together things to play with that didn't require $200 from a store. I made my own toys and I took pride in the fact that I could entertain myself with my ingenuity, rather than have 20 presents given to me I'd never use like a typical kid is treated today. It's obscene what children have today, and I suppose that has stripped them of any will to be creative or to learn.

Einstein said Intelligence is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. KIds today have almost no inspiration. And they won't produce very much perspiration unless they put down their latest toy's remote to do something. The past 20-25 years has been one where children have been fed a steady diet of materialistic garbage. If their parents had held back and let them get creative with the regular things around them they would have learned to be inquisitive and look beyond their latest toy.

BTW, my granddad on my Mother's side had an 8th grade education but he was brilliant. He was an engineer, carpenter, poet, writer, singer, songwriter, and the list goes on forever. He learned what he needed to learn and then he was inspired to educate himself. I don't see many young people trying to stretch beyond using one of their fingers to hit a button on a phone or a remote. Shame on parents who allow their children to become victims of things, rather than be productive people who are inquisitive and aware of the world around them.

Okay, sorry for the long answer. But our nation is becoming a nation of stupid people. And I know it could be turned around if only children were more self motivated. You can't blame a teaching system on a child's complete laziness.


Another interesting thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8319838

[surrealAmerican]

31. It sounds rather like you agree.

Your examples bare out that intelligence and education are not the same thing, and that spending many years in school will not do much good if the experience does not foster creativity and encourage an interest in acquiring knowledge. The intellectual laziness you describe is just that, laziness, not stupidity.

Young children are naturally inquisitive. If they are not discouraged by parents or teachers, they will remain that way. Many schools are inadvertently teaching that learning is dull and a chore. That needs to change.

[AnArmyVeteran]

32. I was not encouraged by parents or teachers...

I was on my own growing up. Where is the line between stupidity and laziness? People who are too lazy to learn are usually the ones with low intelligence who couldn't care less about learning. Face it, learning isn't always fun, in fact, it rarely is to most people. Learning is based on discipline. If someone is disciplined enough whether internally or externally they will be able to learn. Trying to find answers to questions or problems is hard work. If someone is truly intelligent they will also have a thirst for knowledge. They will try to find the answer or solve a problem. I used the example of cashiers who are totally incapable of even adding or subtracting. It's obvious they don't rush home to try to figure out how to do things on their own. The lack of any intellectual motivation is a huge indication they are not very bright people, or even stupid.

Teachers are the most overworked, underpaid and least appreciated profession in our country. They get attacked from both sides, from controlling administrations to parents whining about their poor little "Johnny". They are constantly put in a 'whipping boy' position always being blamed for the lack of success of their students. Parents who let their children watch hours and hours of television or play electronic games or text all day are totally irresponsible. And if a teacher does try to instill the discipline in a student they will soon feel the wrath from a hostile parent. Years ago, teachers were respected and parents trusted them to teach their children. But that has completely changed.

There is no way the US will be able to compete with people from other countries who, even though poor, are motivated and intelligent enough to do what is required to learn and succeed. But they are not surrounded by all of the material possessions a typical US kid has. If a person wants their kid to be a failure in life a good way to ensure that is to let them watch 40 hours of television a week, have cell phones where they text even during class at school and have video games they play non-stop. If all of those things were taken away they might have to rely on their own resources to entertain themselves. I remember mowing lawns to make money as young as 10 years old. But I haven't seen one teenager ask to mow my lawn in over 25 years. There is no motivation or desire with most young people. They know they don't have to do anything and they don't. That equates to stupidity in my book, because if they were smart they would understand the importance of learning and education, and it wouldn't matter who their parents where or how bad their teachers were, they would have a quest for knowledge. But they don't. Stupid IS as stupid does.

I've long thought before two people mated and produced a child they should go through parenting classes so they don't just keep passing down the same parenting defects from one generation to another. It's amazing how we need to have classes in driver's education to get a license to drive, when there is a complete absence of instruction for people who are becoming parents.

[Echo In Light]

11. Specific focus in one area tends to create blind spots for others

... however, it's one of those things that's immediately recognizable w/certain people ...or, the lack thereof is

[Dr Morbius]

12. I don't know how to qualify intelligence, but I'll tell ya this: it's overrated.

Let's suppose you want to get a job done. Is the first criterion the intelligence of your candidate, or rather the work ethic? Let's further suppose it is work of a sensitive nature; now your top criterion is integrity. Major project? You need someone with leadership qualities. You don't leave your kid with the smartest babysitter; you find a babysitter you'd trust with your own life before you leave your kids with him or her.

If you think about it, the only time intelligence is the top criterion is when we're seeking answers. And thanks to the internet, we can often find those ourselves. Intelligence is overrated. Smarter people aren't necessarily more moral, more reliable, more trustworthy or even more useful, because there are many different kinds of intelligence, and not all are useful.

I'll take an idiot who tells the truth over a genius I can't trust. Every time. Maybe I feel this way because I myself am an idiot; who can say? 'Tis truth that genius and stupidity are opposite sides of a coin anyway.

[Thirtieschild]

13. My guess is different kinds of intelligence

I don't know how we can quantify intelligence. I sometimes think we were each born with 500 pounds and distribute it in different ways.

Our son (almost 52) has a terrific 2+2 mind. He has a photographic memory, will ace any test, but has zero understanding of people, eventually fails at jobs. My own diagnosis is Asperger's, but he's in complete denial, won't get help. Very sad.

Our daughter (almost 50) is creative, will wear a napkin and hang a skirt on a wall. She struggled in school, had to start college with remedial classes because of extremely low SAT scores. She's a talented artist but a better writer. Very successful copywriter, terrific ideas, great sense of humor, senses everything about you at first meeting, and seems to be doing a good job with her 9-year-old son, who has been diagnosed with Asperger's and who has the terrific 2+2 mind and photgraphic memory of his uncle.

Who is more intelligent? Our son if you look at I.Q. scores, our daughter if you look at creativity and people sense. To each his own.

[jobendorfer]

14. ability to form new/creative connections among observed data?

That's as good a definition as I can come up with.

There's a lot of controversy about exactly what IQ tests measure, but the measurements themselves are stable and repeatable, remarkably so for the social sciences field. They are also highly predictive of your GPA and your income level. Whatever that might mean, and please understand that I am merely stating a fact, as opposed to an explanation or conclusion.

What's interesting is that our short term memory can hold 7 +/-2 "items" on average. The number of "items" that you can simultaneously track is surprisingly predictive of your IQ score.

The important thing to remember is that much of what we think of as stable characterological traits, aren't.

You can be very smart. Add some fatigue ... and you become very stupid.
Get hypothermic ... Get hypoxic ... Get intoxicated ... you can get very stupid.
A really illuminating thing is to watch cognitive tests done on Mt. Everest climbers.
At base camp, they do pretty good (despite the 19,000ft altitude).
On the summit, they're doing well just to be able to remember and repeat the questions ...

Food for thought.

J.

[Zoeisright]

17. Ability to understand logical reasoning and fallacies.

Also the ability to spell correctly and to be able to defend an argument using logic, not emotion or hyperbole.

[JCMach1]

19. Even Higher Ed. tends to be reductionist... learn as much as possible about as little as possible

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. I would say "especially" instead of "even".

Nevertheless, +1

[JCMach1]

34. I do my best to work against that in my own life and withing the ivy covered walls

[sailor65]

20. The formula is simple

The Intelligence value maintains an inverse-square relationship with the subject's level of desire to enter politics.

[Hannah Bell]

21. why do you need to measure it?

what's the point, really, except as a basis for invidious comparisons?

[Juche]

23. Social intelligence is more important than visuo-spatial for life success

That is what I've heard, at least according to Daniel Goleman. Someone who can understand themselves, understand others and relates well to themselves and others will do better in life both professionally and personally than someone who is better at math/science.

I tend to believe it. I've always been above average at academic intelligence. Not amazing, but above average. however working on my interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence is what really made my life better.

[elehhhhna]

24. Critical thinking skill is another marker..

imo

[Control-Z]

25. I don't know about "true" intelligence

but spatial and numerical skills would seem to be the best indicators of raw intelligence. Neither require prior knowledge/education.

[Coco2]

26. Intelligence: Knowledge stewed in the pot of Time! n/t

came up with that 30 years ago, and I still believe it.

[Viking12]

27. I always liked the Thomas Huxley quote..

'Try to learn something about everything and everything about something'

[Festivito]

28. As personal achievement, or interpersonal differentiation?

[ShortnFiery]

30. Simply put, Intelligence is the ability to learn.

I subscribe to the theory of multiple intelligences.

On a personal level, I'm far more "introspective" whereas my better half excels in "analytic" intellect. ;)

[cali]

35. curiosity

and that sounds like your neighbor. Curiosity is the foundation of intelligence.