The theory of intelligence is very intrigueing to say no less. Intelligence as I have often heard it defined is what you know. While knowledge is the ability to apply and use what you know. On the other hand you often have common sense, morals, beliefs (ingrained or otherwise), religion, and a miriad of other human conceptions and truths.
I think there is a big problem with intelligence. If intelligence is what you know then how could you truly test this? For example, there are many people who stress themselves to the limit on tests and as a result do horribly. Also, how could one test all facets of intelligence? To do this wouldn't one have to decide on a specific set of morals, beliefs, and religion that is right? I don't believe it's possible, when it comes to beliefs I think that there is no definite right or wrong. As long as your beliefs are not causing people or animals around you to get hurt, physically or mentally abused.
My point is this, isn't it impossible to truly test what people know, to decide who is more intelligent than the person next to them. Once you have considered all or at least a few variables, it would seem to be an impossible feat. Also, if we were to decide that someone was more intelligent, wouldn't we also need to know how they use it to decide if it is logical or not? Shouldn't knowledge factor into the intelligence equasion.
An example is this, if a said most intelligent man in the world could solve our energy crisis, they might not be able to put thier idea into use. This is because they would run into problems that might not make sense such as moral ethics of employees. That is a problem the said most intelligent person could not solve because it involves a knowledge that the said person may not have and as such could not apply it.
Standardized tests, like SAT, generally speaking aren’t designed to tell the intelligence of a person, they are designed to discover the knowledge of said person, how well he or she will perform in further education.
In the case of standardized tests, I can’t agree with the idea. In order for everyone to test well on something like the SAT’s, you would have to standerdize the students taking the test. To standerdize all students is physically and mentally impossible.
Yet, if tests such as the SAT are illogical and impractical, then what is? How exactly could you properly test intelligence and knowledge?
It’s all a question of effort versus gain. It is much better to correctly identify the potential of 90% of all students for one million dollars, than to correctly identify 95% of all students for three million dollars (The numbers are obviously fictional, and just intended as an example).
Clover, are you a Pragmatist? Your topic is Questioning the IDEA of Intelligence, but what you’re writing about is Questioning the MEASURING of Intelligence.
It’s funny how alot of ‘genius’’ (in terms of IQ) are usually in fields like physics, math, chem etc… it you claim to be a genius… and your field is art, you may not be taken as seriously. For the most part I think it’s safe to assume that if you are helping to contribute towards society… then you are a genius.
I don’t think actual intelligence is even close to this scenario. For example con artists… who are masters at reading emotion and picking up on the smallest details can work their magic. Magicians, who can somehow do the stuff that David Blane can do (I still believe he sold his soul or something to get ‘powers’). Why must intelligence be refined to things like specific reasoning, and spacial adeptness etc.
I think the term ‘IQ’ is probably a good indication that such a person at least excels in a certain area… but I know some people who are genius’ when it comes to math, but near mentally handicapped when it comes to dealing with people and society. Who’s to say that the guy you meet downtown that can talk his way into bed with any woman in the city isn’t a genius? With this new system we now see our original view column like view (deductive, math, spacial etc) explanding to a more comprehensive system.
Now… if I get a little ridiculous and extrapolate on this a little more, we can consider the following. Imagine for a moment that we were to develop our system of evalutation in which we could in fact say things like ‘Based on these results… we’d say you’re most adept in something like… darts’ With this info, this confidence we could start to see truly huge leaps in our social and biological evolution. Because since we know pretty much from the get-go what a person would be most adept at doing (I’m not saying we should force them to… after all someone might be something like basketweaving… which isn’t fun… or all that productive )
we’ll see more of a ‘right puzzle peice in the puzzle type effect’ which will sort of supercharge our progress.
We’d see proof in this in things like sports… there would be more naturally talented players… then those who got there by hard work alone.
It 's puzzled me since reading Plato’s Meno that a horseman’s son may not be trainable to be adept at being a horseman. Have the sons of kings always been as good choices for leaders/administrators as their parents?
What evidence is there to think talent is strongly hereditary? I think if it were so, we would have many more “dynasties of talent” than we do. Sure you could pass on a business to a son, but what if only if it’s a job which takes no highly specialized talent?
But I realise on either side of the argument there may be issues of chosen (re)incarnations (pro-talented kids) and maternal genetics (randomising or encouraging talented kids).
I thought about that too… I imagined that certain people would just simply have to make due with whatever genetic blessings they got. Until their offspring develop something useful or worthwhile. Sort of the way with the comic x-men… certain people got cool powers and certain people got like… control of their body hair or something like that.
Nothing has caused the human race more trouble than Intelligence - Rear Window (Hitchcock, 1958)
Intelligence has to be demonstrable, it is a skill of being able to think quickly and effectively in a given way. That intelligence may be arithmetical or logical or whatever, it’s all intelligence.
Speed is usually the defining factor, hence the time limits on exams.
I don’t think intelligence is a thing, but rather a category. Any form of measurable or demonstrable performance above the median involving any form of thinking whatsoever. That covers a lot of ground…
Who is more ‘intelligent’? The great philosopher that is completely inept at mathematics?
Or the great mathematician that believes in God because he is philisophically inept?
Is a savant, while totally incapable of dealing with life, intelligent because of his one ‘gift’?
I supose intelligence, just like stupidity, has been over objectified; as is the custom in our society.
It is a highly subjective idea, this ‘intelligence’.
I think you find intelligence too broad and abstract because it really doesn’t exist. Someone who is intelligent is only in the eye of the beholder. We know nothing therefor how can anyone be “intelligent”? But, again, at least we are able to know nothing. Is that something?
Jerry
Does he/she honestly get to you that easily? Remember, he/she wins when you react to him/her.
Thanks, Kolibri. Yes, Murdoc, it wasn’t so much a reaction as a sincere request for him to try to move onto some other theme. Every topic is, for him, another excuse to name-call those of us who believe in God. It’s getting old and when I see it, especially in a topic which isn’t even dealing with the question of God’s existence, I’m going to call him on it.
Yes, I understand your problem, Jerry. You didn’t have to explain yourself, my friend.
I, personally, wouldn’t waste my energy on such a small thing. If that is what floats his/her boat, then why not? In otherwords, is it so hard to ignore it?
P.S. By winning I mean he/she has taken your time and energy. You are now playing his/her foolish game. Rise above it.
)