Can intelligence be measured?

[The_Radiation_Specialist]

This topic has been coming up a lot around BAUT and I thought it was a good idea to see what it's about.

The controversy comes in the IQ tests. Some think it is an inaccurate way of measuring intelligence. I think the only good thing intelligence can be used in is to solve a problem. For this a lot of pattern recognition, data processing, abstract-thinking, creativity, etc is needed. Since IQ tests involve usage of these skills, they cannot be too much off as a reasonable measure of intelligence.

Of course, a base definition of intelligence itself is required for this question to have any meaning.

[Delvo]

Of course it can, obviously; those who say otherwise are just denying reality because reality happens to be unfair and they prefer to project an image of a fair world even though it's false. It's no different from filling kids' heads with that tired old "everybody's got some special talent" crap and telling them that "there's someone for everyone", as if that could seriously protect them from the realities of uneven talent distribution and unequal romantic prospects.

[astromark]

To further complicate this already impossible task is this. Who decides?
The Wall Street banker needs a set of very different survival skills than a Tropical rain Forrest inhabitant. That tropical Forrest dweller has the ability to adapt does the other...? well yes. He might have. Will he ever need to? No. So two very different skill levels emerge. With breding and culture we polarize our point of view. It does not measure inelegance.
The survival of humanity is perhaps a direct result of our ability to be flexible. The want to survive is very strong and we adapt very well to all of Earths extremes.
For me the standard IQ test is tainted with irrelevance..
I too, agree with the point we should not tell children lies. Life is hard. Get used to that. Its true.

[Noclevername]

Some aspects of inteligence can be measured. How accurate those measurement are is an open question at this point.

[The_Radiation_Specialist]

To further complicate this already impossible task is this. Who decides?
The Wall Street banker needs a set of very different survival skills than a Tropical rain Forrest inhabitant. That tropical Forrest dweller has the ability to adapt does the other...? well yes. He might have. Will he ever need to? No. So two very different skill levels emerge.

True, different skills. But both of these professions involve use of problem solving skills.

For me the standard IQ test is tainted with irrelevance..

What type of irrelevance?

[Swift]

To echo aspects of what others have said (this is just my opinion, I'm no expert), some quality or qualities called "intelligence" can be measured, and given that the tests are testing fairly specific things (like certain facts and certain things like pattern recognition), they are probably pretty accurate. But, that leads to the question, so what? Are those measures good predictors of anything, beyond how one does on an intelligence test? The measures that make you a good computer programmer or brain surgeon are not necessarily those that make you a good farmer or a hunter-gatherer, or for that matter a good parent, spouse, or citizen.

[MentalAvenger]

Just having a debate about this on another forum. The question is a matter of precision. It would be rather easy to tell the difference in intelligence between someone with a (measured) IQ of 60 and someone with a (measured) IQ of 120. And that without even having to define intelligence precisely. The problem is with differences that are a lot closer than that.

Between widely different IQ tests, there may be small variations in results, but generally, the results will be close. The precision of the results from the tests depends upon the precision of the definition of intelligence.

[publius]

On a somewhat lighter (and maybe heavier) note concerning this subject, a student writer for a high school newspaper got in a lot of trouble, causing the principal to confiscate the newspaper. :lol:

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/town-talk/entries/2007/10/23/ruckus_over_e_c.html

He wrote a piece in the spirit of Swift, noting that stupid people seem to reproduce more than smart people and something needed to be done. He suggested just putting the lower 1/4 out of their misery.

Principal had a cow at that, even knowing it was an obvious joke.

The editor of that paper wrote another piece criticizing the school's beauty pageant, which also didn't go over too well.

-Richard

[Ivan Viehoff]

Just having a debate about this on another forum. The question is a matter of precision. It would be rather easy to tell the difference in intelligence between someone with a (measured) IQ of 60 and someone with a (measured) IQ of 120. And that without even having to define intelligence precisely. The problem is with differences that are a lot closer than that.

Between widely different IQ tests, there may be small variations in results, but generally, the results will be close. The precision of the results from the tests depends upon the precision of the definition of intelligence.
Accuracy is one problem, a very serious problem when you are making decisions about one individual, because at the level of the single individual they can be exceedingly inaccurate.* If someone panics when doing a test under time pressure, it won't be just a couple of points they are down. But statisticians looking at the results for many individuals may believe that these errors tend to average out, over the populations.

But unfortunately they don't. There are systematic differences between population groups in accuracy of the tests. We might say that the differences between individuals according to their experience of doing problems written on paper, their experience of doing tests under time pressure, their ability to understand the problems in the manner presented to them, etc, will average out. Practice in doing the tests also seems to increase scores. But the reality is that there are systematic differences in these things between groups of the population. The disadvantaged are less literate, not because they are less intelligent, but because they are disadvantaged. And this will substantially impact on their ability to perform in the test.

As Stephen Pinker points out, it seems likely that people who live in difficult, complex environments with a high selection pressure are more intelligent than people who live in protective societies with low mortality. He says that in his experience New Guinea natives are a lot more switched on than typical Americans. I wonder what kind of test would be a reasonable measure of the intelligence of a New Guinea native with no formal western-type education. Nor does it surprise me that Jews perform so well, they have had very strong selection pressure on them.

* I was especially unamused by the result of a test which said that I wasn't clever enough to go to a [high] school I was already at, where I was top of the class and advanced a year group. We used to do systematic intelligence testing in Britain in order to select which school people would go to at age 11.

[farmerjumperdon]

Yes.

Very simple answer, but it does depend on how you define intelligence.

If you define it as the ability and speed with which information is aquired and put to use; then yes, intelligence can definitely be measured.

If you define it with all kinds of goofy, new age, pop psych, fluffy politically correct terms and ideas, (such as emotional intelligence and similar garbage) then it becomes impossible to get a handle on the definition, much less measure it. Which is really what proponents of such gibberish want; so everybody can be equal and noone is offended by having the fact that they are dumb as rocks called out.

Next question please.

[Moose]

We can't conveniently measure intelligence, no. But as Noclevername suggested, we can measure aspects of intelligence. Problem solving (Mensa/IQ), general knowledge (SAT type tests), ability to take tests (all of the above).

Where "we" trip up is by equating testing ability (of various kinds) with intelligence. There may well be a correlation between tests and intelligence, but they're not equivalent.

[Spock Jenkins]

I think we can make a fairly accurate measure of intelligence.

However intelligence by itself cannot accurately predict success.

Intelligence alone does not account for self-motivation and drive and a willingness to take risks - which are all pretty significant factors in the success of an individual. Far stronger factors than basic pattern recognition.

[farmerjumperdon]

I think we can make a fairly accurate measure of intelligence.

However intelligence by itself cannot accurately predict success.

Intelligence alone does not account for self-motivation and drive and a willingness to take risks - which are all pretty significant factors in the success of an individual. Far stronger factors than basic pattern recognition.

Very good distinction. I think a lot of people so strongly resist the measurements because of what they think it says about them. All it says is you have x ability to assimilate and process information. It does not make you a winner or loser or most likely to succeed or most likely to live in a van down by the river.

But people make it mean so much more, then out of fear of how it might apply to them, obfuscate/complicate the issue to the point of paralysis.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Ilya]

On a somewhat lighter (and maybe heavier) note concerning this subject, a student writer for a high school newspaper got in a lot of trouble, causing the principal to confiscate the newspaper. :lol:

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/town-talk/entries/2007/10/23/ruckus_over_e_c.html

He wrote a piece in the spirit of Swift, noting that stupid people seem to reproduce more than smart people and something needed to be done. He suggested just putting the lower 1/4 out of their misery.

Principal had a cow at that, even knowing it was an obvious joke.

Are you SURE principal knew it was a joke?

Some people have no sense of humor. Some others check theirs in when they arrive to work.

[mike alexander]

One of my questions concerns the decoupling of a general concept of intelligence from the evolutionary idea of differential reproductive success in a local environment. Intelligence, no matter how you slice it, is like a lever; to estimate it you need a fulcrum, whose position will vary depending on the local conditions, or may not exist at all. As a homely example, if two people (one can swim well, one has never learned how) fall out of a boat in the middle of a storm in a lake, it is much more likely that the one who knows how to swim will survive to get to the shore. 'General problem solving ability' is much less valuable in this instance than strength and previous experience. All I mean by this is that intelligence is not necessarily a universal positive; there are times when the selection process can look right through it, or even select against it.

I also have a question about the determination of IQ itself, stemming from my ignorance of the minutae of its measurement. While looking at articles here and there I ran across mention that written IQ tests are designed to produce a normal distribution of outcomes. Is there any a priori reason (beyond the central limit theorem) to assume that such measurements are inherently closely related to the normal distribution? I mention this because I have seen arguments about intelligence ranking among populations and the distribution of 'geniuses', using the small difference in mean scores to extrapolate the numbers of smarties out four or five standard deviations. Looking at the size of those statistical tails is critically dependent upon the actual population following a normal distribution. If it does not, then such extreme extrapolations are unjustified.

[Doodler]

One of the reasons that IQ tests try to focus on pattern recognition and generic computation is to try and isolate as much of the cultural background out of the picture as possible.

Comparing skillsets is trivial, intelligence can be derived from how well those individuals mastered those skillsets from the time of their first exposure to them to the time they learned to put them to use.

[mike alexander]

Doodler wrote:
Comparing skillsets is trivial, intelligence can be derived from how well those individuals mastered those skillsets from the time of their first exposure to them to the time they learned to put them to use.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Not a cut, by any means, it just isn't penetrating my noggin.

One of the reasons that IQ tests try to focus on pattern recognition and generic computation is to try and isolate as much of the cultural background out of the picture as possible.

This, on the other hand, does go back to my first question, which asks if the mere fact of such isolation skews the results, since success takes place in a local time and place, not some abstract space.

[Doodler]

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Not a cut, by any means, it just isn't penetrating my noggin.

The result is less important than the process. How quickly, and how ably can a person learn to assimilate, immitate, and then innovate, skills that they're exposed to.

How well do they absorb information, how well do they process and apply it, and how well do they do when the time comes to improvise with those skills based on circumstances to which they weren't expressly trained to handle.

[Larry Jacks]

Very simple answer, but it does depend on how you define intelligence.

If you define it as the ability and speed with which information is aquired and put to use; then yes, intelligence can definitely be measured.

If you define it with all kinds of goofy, new age, pop psych, fluffy politically correct terms and ideas, (such as emotional intelligence and similar garbage) then it becomes impossible to get a handle on the definition, much less measure it. Which is really what proponents of such gibberish want; so everybody can be equal and noone is offended by having the fact that they are dumb as rocks called out.

Most common forms of IQ testing tend to focus on fairly limited definitions of intelligence. However, despite the psycho-babble component, there are different forms of intelligence. I've known people who are geniuses when it comes to dealing with mathematics and/or science who are morons when it comes to dealing with people (a stereotype that is sometimes true). Some people couldn't solve a calculus problem if their life depended on it but have a high degree of mechanical aptitude. My brother in law can fix just about anything (he's a retired pipefitter) even though he never finished the 10th grade.

Solving math problems, dealing with people, and mechanical aptitude represent different types of intelligence, IMO. No one test or number is going to measure that.

Not long ago, I was watching Yo Yo Ma play a complex cello piece with an orchestra. He played this piece entirely from memory. Musical ability on that level is, I suspect, more than rote memorization. I'd say that Yo Yo Ma is a musical genius whether he can fix things or solve math problems or not.

[mike alexander]

Maybe an analogy is picking the best baseball player. What statistic do you use? Or what blend with what weightings? How about a 25 game winner with a 2.5 ERA but a .124 batting average? Do you put him in to pinch hit?

If you define it with all kinds of goofy, new age, pop psych, fluffy politically correct terms and ideas, (such as emotional intelligence and similar garbage) then it becomes impossible to get a handle on the definition, much less measure it. Which is really what proponents of such gibberish want; so everybody can be equal and noone is offended by having the fact that they are dumb as rocks called out.

It is also possible that a simple definition does not exist. Wishing it to be so does not necessarily make it so.

There are a lot of scientific types around here, quite a few who sound bright as heck to me. My guess is that most of them make a lot less money than Donald Trump, or wield much less power than George Bush. If a practical measure of intelligence is set as how rich you are, or how many people you control, ussins ain't too bright. I've noticed that lots of people who actually run the show seem to be of strictly middlin' brains on the Mensa scale, but relatively few Menses are turning civilization's crank. So to speak.

[Noclevername]

<snip!> ...but relatively few Menses are turning civilization's crank. So to speak.

But they keep the whole world flowing along!

...Sorry.

[Swift]

There are a lot of scientific types around here, quite a few who sound bright as heck to me. My guess is that most of them make a lot less money than Donald Trump, or wield much less power than George Bush. If a practical measure of intelligence is set as how rich you are, or how many people you control, ussins ain't too bright. I've noticed that lots of people who actually run the show seem to be of strictly middlin' brains on the Mensa scale, but relatively few Menses are turning civilization's crank. So to speak.
Which just proves I, for one, ain't all that bright. If I was, and really wanted to make money, I would have been a plumber or an auto mechanic, not a chemist.

And by Mike's money-IQ test, professional athletes and Hollywood actors must be real smart!

[Disinfo Agent]

Yes.

Very simple answer [...]

Next question please.O.K.: Have you read Gould's book?

And by Mike's money-IQ test, professional athletes and Hollywood actors must be real smart!Paris Hilton must be a genius! :eek: :lol:

[Noclevername]

There are a lot of scientific types around here, quite a few who sound bright as heck to me. My guess is that most of them make a lot less money than Donald Trump, or wield much less power than George Bush. If a practical measure of intelligence is set as how rich you are, or how many people you control, ussins ain't too bright. I've noticed that lots of people who actually run the show seem to be of strictly middlin' brains on the Mensa scale, but relatively few Menses are turning civilization's crank. So to speak.
Just because someone winds up in a position of power, doesn't necessarily mean they'll be good at it, or got it by being smart. All that takes is popularity, which often comes unearned.

[Disinfo Agent]

All that takes is popularity, which often comes unearned.So you think becoming popular is easy?

[Noclevername]

So you think becoming popular is easy?

Depends on how you get that way. For some, it's just a side-effect of the way they look, what family they're born into, etc. Others work at it. Mostly unsuccessfully.

[Delvo]

Popularity depends on behavior, so it takes skill and work, but that doesn't mean the only way to learn the skill and do the work is with conscious effort. You also naturally get better at anything you do often, even to the point that it "comes naturally", and an outgoing personality will do what amounts to practicing its people-skills more just because (s)he likes doing it, thus building up more skill than someone doesn't spend so much time that way. Other explanations (such as "looks" and "family") don't explain people whose "popularity" is too high or too low for the attribute in question. Saying it's about anything other than just being good at dealing with other people usuallyseems to be deflection due to jealousy.

About incomes, actually, higher ones do go to more intelligent people, to a greater extent than income is related to education level or parental wealth. Of course examples to the contrary are famous, but famous also mean rare; anecdotes don't dictate population statistics.

[Noclevername]

Saying it's about anything other than just being good at dealing with other people usuallyseems to be deflection due to jealousy.


Damn right I'm jealous! But I've also observed people who act like total <word removed>s, but because of their looks, wealth, family name or other nonbehavioral factors the crowd lets it slide. So it's not just behavior.

[laurele]

It's clear there are many different types of intelligence, which is a good thing in terms of survival of the species since it results in division of labor and incredible diversity in creative endeavors. However, linking intelligence to income is a very tricky thing because societal values are involved here. Why do professional athletes make more money than scientists? The answer is because society--wrongly, I believe--makes value judgments establishing a hierarchy determining which skills are most and least valued. The highest paid are not necessarily those contributing the most to humanity. Also, sometimes there is a necessary give and take, such as with the stereotypical genius who is very unskilled in getting along with other people. Some of that may come from the fact that the genius thinks in a manner inherently different from most other people and therefore has trouble relating to them and vice versa. Mozart died penniless partly because he had trouble relating to other people, yet he produced some of the greatest music of all time. Would it be better if he had been "better adjusted" but didn't give the world that music? We also need to realize there is a huge amount of unrecognized talent and intelligence out there. I know many very creative types like myself who just are no good at business and finance. In many cases, especially Hollywood, the people who make a lot of money are the ones with skills in marketing more so than those with skills in performing.

I happen to be one of those people who can act in "word removed" type ways and get away with it, largely because I have actively cultivated a reputation as an eccentric. It's not due to looks or wealth so much as the freedom that comes with branding oneself as a creative type. Whether that constitutes a form of intelligence--I have no idea.

[The_Radiation_Specialist]

The popularity and intelligence discussion reminds me of Paul Graham's essay on why nerds are unpopular (http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html). He concludes it is because they have bigger (intellectual) things to be concern of rather than divert all their intelligence on being popular.

Concerning why scientists get earned less than a football player, I think that is a byproduct of a Capitalist system. It is not entirely based on who does the most important job, but rather which job will be most needed (i.e. demand). Also, keep in mind there are way more scientists than professional athletes. In the case of an aspiring athlete and an aspiring scientist, the scientist will probably have a higher chance of fulfilling his/her goal.

[Maksutov]

As a general, qualitative attribute, intelligence can no more be measured than beauty or good.

Certain aspects of beauty can be determined quantitatively and evaluated, ditto re what constitutes good. In these cases though, there are reams of scholarly material proposing various approaches and many differences of opinion on which are valid.

Similarly, certain aspects of intelligence, either attributes or effects, may be tested, but these will always be but a small part of the picture. A definitive test that completely encompasses a human's intelligence in a quantitative fashion appears at this time not to be possible.

I get a lot of other Mensans very upset by taking this position, BTW. Popping their pompous ego bubbles is fun.

[Disinfo Agent]

I agree entirely with Maksutov. Keep popping those bubbles! :D

[laurele]

Beauty is even far less measurable, as it is largely a construct of culture. During the Renaissance, for example, round women were considered the ideal of beauty. Look at paintings from that time period. Today, culture, or rather the industry and Hollywood moguls who shape culture, have decided that super thin is beautiful. Most people do not realize that their views of what constitutes "beautiful" are largely the result of cultural conditioning. This same phenomenon must be taken into account when considering intelligence as well.

[Spock Jenkins]

Today, culture, or rather the industry and Hollywood moguls who shape culture, have decided that super thin is beautiful.

Chicken or the egg. Does Hollywood produce what people want to see or do people only want to see it because it came from Hollywood?

If Victorian era appearances were popular - Hollywood would hire actors and actresses in that mold. Jennifer Aniston wouldn't hit the beach as often and would be less likely to avoid the buffet line.

[Paracelsus]

Beauty is even far less measurable, as it is largely a construct of culture. During the Renaissance, for example, round women were considered the ideal of beauty. Look at paintings from that time period. Today, culture, or rather the industry and Hollywood moguls who shape culture, have decided that super thin is beautiful. Most people do not realize that their views of what constitutes "beautiful" are largely the result of cultural conditioning. This same phenomenon must be taken into account when considering intelligence as well.


Actually, physical attractiveness is, to an extent, measurable. There are a few studies out there that have reported that the most important qualities a man evaluates when looking at a woman are: overall appearance of health and youth, bilateral facial symmetry, and waist-to-hip ratio (the lower the ratio the better). Women who score well in those three areas are rated as significantly more attractive than low-scorers. There are also studies reporting that women whose features are closest to the population average for women are rated as more attractive than women with 'distinctive' features for that population.

Note that the appearance of youth and health are valued, thus excluding extremes of weight on either end of the spectrum.

Bear in mind for the above, that these are generalizations. There are fat-admirers and cougar-hunters out there too. About every woman can find her 'niche market' with men if she looks hard enough.


Similarly, certain aspects of intelligence, either attributes or effects, may be tested, but these will always be but a small part of the picture. A definitive test that completely encompasses a human's intelligence in a quantitative fashion appears at this time not to be possible.

I get a lot of other Mensans very upset by taking this position, BTW. Popping their pompous ego bubbles is fun.

:lol: :clap:

[Cougar]

Bear in mind for the above, that these are generalizations. There are fat-admirers and cougar-hunters out there too.
Er, what's a "cougar-hunter"? :confused::)

[Delvo]

Beauty isn't the subject of this thread, but don't confuse what art or pop culture shows a lot of with what people in that same culture are actually attracted to. When the former changes, it doesn't mean the latter does.

[Tucson_Tim]

In some CTers, intelligence can't be detected, much less measured.

[Noclevername]

Er, what's a "cougar-hunter"? :confused::)

Not that kind. Cougar means an "attractive and sexually aggressive older woman". There's another acronym but I'm not sure it's allowable under the board's clean language rules.

[Paracelsus]

Er, what's a "cougar-hunter"? :confused::)

Young men who prefer older women, although cougars are huntresses themselves. ;)

[Noclevername]

I've even heard the term used that way in a TV commercial-- I forget what for, which means it wasn't a good commercial no matter how much I remember the premise and jokes.

[mike alexander]

But definitions, definitions....

Note that 'beauty' may not mean the same thing as 'attractive'; think of the real meaning of the latter.

I recall reading about that 36/24/36 study many years ago (SciAm, maybe?). I wonder if, in terms of initial interest, a narrow waist is a crude indication of whether a woman is already pregnant? (I also don't remember any such results from an experiment under gender reversal, for that matter). The use of cosmetics and clothing by women suggests that certain traits enhance initial attraction (smoothness of skin, enhanced apparent eye size, color emphasis for the lips). Also girdles and corsets.

This goes back to the definition of beauty. I always keep Bacon's observation on the subject in the back of my mind. Not to mention Lieber's musings in his story "Coming Attraction".

But there is beauty beyond the human male/female externals that precede the goombah, if you will. Listening to some of the survivors of the California wildfires, they said they lived (and would if possible return) to their place because they 'loved the mountains'. Why? Mountains are about as lumpy and asymmetrical as a thing can be. If smoothness and symmetry are the criterion for attractiveness, Kansas should be full to bursting with people instead of crops. This suggests that not only was Bacon correct, but that there are different kinds of beauty as well, that there is no reifiable essence that makes something inherently beautiful (or ugly, for that matter).

Eye of the beholder. Apply as necessary to intelligence.

[publius]

There are aspects of attractiveness that are hard wired -- those are what Paracelsus refers to -- and then there are those that vary culturally and with the individual.

If you want to see how it varies, look at "Bathsheba" by Raphael (I think). That was a painting of the ideal female form of the day, what turned Raphael on. You will note she is *very* different that the ideal today. But, you'd note that the basic proportions Paracelsus mentions will be there.

You'll note that baby's got forehead with Bathsheba. That used to be considered quite hot. Today, a woman with a receding hairline is not an ideal, not to me and not to most. But back then, it was hot. Women would actually pluck the hairline back just to get that effect.

And Bathsheba would be a fat little piglet by today's standards, as well.

And if Raphael would probably be repulsed by what is considered the standard of hotness today.

-Richard

[Noclevername]

I'm thinking of the scene inThe Gods Must Be Crazy where the Bushman sees a Barbie-like white woman for the first time, and thinks she's a giant monster.

[publius]

Argghhhh -- that's *Rembrandt*, not Raphael. You can tell art ain't my forte. :lol:

I would give you a link to a image of Rembrandt's "Bathsheba", but it's a nude. It is certainly "art" in every sense of the word, standing tall over the centuries. Just but Rembrandt's Bathsheba in Google and you'll find it.

Now, understand that was the ideal female form of the time. You remember the story of King David and Bathsheba. He saw her nekkid, and had her husband murdered so he could have her. So, when one imagines a Bathsheba, one images a woman that would drive a king mad with desire.

The modern mind would conjure a very different look indeed.

-Richard

[Tucson_Tim]

The only thing I know about Raphael is that he likes pizza.

[mike alexander]

What we know from Raphael's painting is what turned Raphael on - or his patron, just as likely. Meaning a person of wealth and power, which excluded just about everyone else extant at the time.

I remember a scene in Clarke's "A Fall of Moondust" where the physicist recounts his Australian aboriginal grandfather's explanation of an eclipse: "Kerosene lamp bilong Jesus Christ He bugger up finish altogether." He notes that Grandpa couldn't solve a differential equation, but that the physicist couldn't survive a week in the Outback.

I think his point was that intelligence doesn't exist as some independent entity, but is a suite of abilities that are used to survive in different environments. Kind of like a genotype. There are some genetic traits that are harmful if not lethal. Then there are those that depend on extragenetic factors to realize their potential. Size of an organism comes to mind. Then there are cultural factors (especially in humans); Fred Pohl's story "Mute Inglorious Tam" also comes to mind. Given the variety of individuals and the multiplicity of internal and external factors involved, by the time you shake out some vector of inherent intelligence as the 7th factor in your analysis it seems quite reasonable to ask whether it means anything in the realityof existence.

That some people are smarter than others seems as obvious as the observation that some are taller than others. For the large majority clustering around the mean the cause of that looks, to me, to be impossible to sort out from the different contributing factors.

[Noclevername]

The only thing I know about Raphael is that he likes pizza.

"Radical!...Gnarly!...Excellent!...Reaganomics!"

[Noclevername]

Considering the great variety of women that I find attractive... and some of the popular Supermodels whom I don't... I can't say there really is any one predictable standard of beauty.

I am, however, sure that there are true Geniuses; not the I.Q. sense of the word, but in the change-the-world-with-their-ideas sense.

[mike alexander]

Noclevername wrote:
I am, however, sure that there are true Geniuses; not the I.Q. sense of the word, but in the change-the-world-with-their-ideas sense.

And there ya go. We talk a lot about geniuses, but examples are not only individualistic, but also depend on the judgement of society.

Our particular society seems to center on that 'problem-solving ability' concept, possibly because a series of right/wrong answers can be easily ranked. But how do you relatively rank "Don Quixote" and "Macbeth"? Cervantes and Shakespeare were rough contemporaries; which was the 'better' writer? Both were geniuses by any definition I can come up with, but I'm damned if I can figure out which was smarter (probably because the very cobcept doesn't apply).

[Tucson_Tim]

OT: Just noticed your signature Noclevername. LMAO! Thanks to Fazor for saying it and thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. -Fazor

[Noclevername]

OT: Just noticed your signature Noclevername. LMAO! Thanks to Fazor for saying it and thank you for bringing it to my attention.

:D:rolleyes:

[farmerjumperdon]

I've known people who are geniuses when it comes to dealing with mathematics and/or science who are morons when it comes to dealing with people (a stereotype that is sometimes true). Some people couldn't solve a calculus problem if their life depended on it but have a high degree of mechanical aptitude. My brother in law can fix just about anything (he's a retired pipefitter) even though he never finished the 10th grade.

Solving math problems, dealing with people, and mechanical aptitude represent different types of intelligence, IMO. No one test or number is going to measure that.

All that is needed is a more comprehensive test. Being facetious there.

Seriously, intelligence is not content dependent. If a person depends on a certain content, then they are a subject matter expert. They may or may not be highly intelligent.

[Tucson_Tim]

Some people couldn't solve a calculus problem if their life depended on it but have a high degree of mechanical aptitude. My brother in law can fix just about anything (he's a retired pipefitter) even though he never finished the 10th grade.


Yes, but given different opportunities in the past, maybe your brother-in-law could have achieved a B.S in Math from MIT.

[mike alexander]

Farmerjumperdon wrote:
Seriously, intelligence is not content dependent. If a person depends on a certain content, then they are a subject matter expert. They may or may not be highly intelligent.

This may be getting down to the nub of it. There seem to be at least two camps here; those that think there is some essential thing called intelligence, more or less independent of any other factors, and those who think intelligence is a more diffuse concept, not a unitary ding an sich.

I think this may be the noumenon vs. the phenomenon, but I really just enjoy tossing ding an sich out every so often.

[Tucson_Tim]

Considering the great variety of women that I find attractive... and some of the popular Supermodels whom I don't... I can't say there really is any one predictable standard of beauty.


I'm going to borrow a line from the movie Free Enterprise: My ideal woman would be the character Nova (Linda Harrison) from the movie Planet of the Apes: Beautiful, scantily clad, mute. :)

[Noclevername]

I'm going to borrow a line from the movie Free Enterprise: My ideal woman would be the character Nova (Linda Harrison) from the movie Planet of the Apes: Beautiful, scantily clad, mute. :)

<3 Nova.

[laurele]

This may sound very politically incorrect, but sometimes, you just wonder about someone's intelligence. I'm thinking specifically of one episode in "Survivor Africa" where the tribe had a lot of heavy items, including food and water, to carry on a long walk to their shelter. At the recommendation of what I consider the dumbest player ever on this show, they decided to pour out the water because it was too heavy, and after all, the food had water in it anyway. There were no natural sources of fresh water nearby. Needless to say, they lived to regret this decision.

[Noclevername]

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it.

[Paracelsus]

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it.


Another quotable from Noclevername to add to my sig line! :clap:

[Larry Jacks]

Yes, but given different opportunities in the past, maybe your brother-in-law could have achieved a B.S in Math from MIT.

Probably not very likely, but then, I wouldn't want your typical MIT Math undergrad fixing industrial plumbing (or just about anything else), either.

[Gillianren]

Cervantes and Shakespeare were rough contemporaries . . . .

More than just "rough," in fact; they died on the same day. (Granted, they never could have met, given that Shakespeare never left England and Cervantes, to my knowledge, never went there, but still.)

[farmerjumperdon]

This may sound very politically incorrect, but sometimes, you just wonder about someone's intelligence. I'm thinking specifically of one episode in "Survivor Africa" where the tribe had a lot of heavy items, including food and water, to carry on a long walk to their shelter. At the recommendation of what I consider the dumbest player ever on this show, they decided to pour out the water because it was too heavy, and after all, the food had water in it anyway. There were no natural sources of fresh water nearby. Needless to say, they lived to regret this decision.

I had a similar thought in the dilemma of defining intelligence. It sprang from looking at the idea that what is being measured is defined by the test.

Some ages ago, some ancient creatures, specifically human, must have noticed that some came back from the hunt empty handed while others came back with a feast. At some point in time, somebody must have started thinking about those that seem to generate results versus those that don't and wondered why.

So maybe one day they noticed it was different approaches to the same problem and decided they would start assessing individuals for good decision-making. They devised a set of exercises and decided to call the results intelligence. (Play along with me for just a bit more).

Devising a sufficiently nuetral test, they assigned each person a rating based on how long it took them to use given information and solve a problem. That's all it is, with the variety of problems and the speed at which they are solved being the basis for the rating. The more comprehensive the test, the more valid the results because it decreases the chances of a bias towards any one person's subject specific experience or knowledge.

It's one of the reasons I consider genius attached to other qualifiers as invalid. A genius is a person with all around high level thinking skills. If a musician is very good, then they are a very good musician - but not necessarily a genius. Most people could easily develop certain very narrow skills if they just put in the effort. Saying someone is a musical genius reminds me of the high school band competitions where they have so many categories and hand out medals down to 10th place. Going to state doesn't mean much, and getting a 3rd place medal for the best Non-Marching Over 50 Piece Band With No Percussion That Only Plays Late 50's Jazz is pretty watered down.

How many narrow categories would we need to create to satisfy everyone who claims there are all kinds of intelligence? I could be a genius in the category of People Who Grew Up In Big Cities But Now Live In Small Towns And Coach Basketball But Don't Like Listening To Disco Except On Tuesday Nights Between 7 and 7:15 PM. Sure, an extreme example, but to me genius is a way of thinking; no qualifiers attached, and is measured by a comprehensive test that measures the ability to assimilate and use information.

The test defines the result, and I call that result intelligence.

[Noclevername]

Another quotable from Noclevername to add to my sig line! :clap:

Thanks! :)