What is the nature of intelligence?

My whole life I have always thought of myself as intelligent; indeed as a genius. I have done pretty much nothing with my life so far aside from learn, but I am still young.

What is intelligence? Is it innate, learned, or both?

Am I more intelligent than you, and if so, how can we prove or disprove that?

Are there really several types of intelligence, as wishy washy psychoanalysts claim?

Would the ultimate test of intelligence being two players playing a game they have never played before (involving principles they have never encountered before?)

Intelligence in my view is the rate in which we learn. You can take this and relate it to any subject.

For example, a person who becomes adept at selling cars and persuading people is intelligent in this area.

Normally, people wouldn't include that in their definition of intelligence. They would say: A person who quickly grasps an abstract philosophical concept is intelligent.

They are (wrongly) applying one specific subject to the broad concept of intelligence.

Certainly that person is intelligent, too. But you've only stated what he is intelligent at.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
What is intelligence? Is it innate, learned, or both?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a term that reflects an abstract concept we thought of long ago and now realize that it is a lot more multifaceted and complex than we initially realized.

IQ tests tell us how "intelligent" someone is, if intelligence is defined by how well one does with IQ tests. Intelligence is as hard to measure as it is to define. It also correlates very, very weakly with success and happiness, to the best of my knowledge.

So don't worry about it.

Now, let's discuss the meaning of dfggkjsdgf. How do we measure dfggkjsdgf?

[SunOfBeach]

alot of evidence is presented in 'the bell jar' on the reliabilty of IQ testing, regardless of the bad rap it gets from the liberal mainstream media.

[bearly]

at m.i.t the real noam might suggest that none of us here has any............b

[ QUOTE ]

Are there really several types of intelligence, as wishy washy psychoanalysts claim?


[/ QUOTE ]

What's wishy, washy about it? And it's not all psychoanalysts. Have you ever read the works regarding Gardner's 8 intelligences? It might do you some good. I'm not saying it's right. But if you're going to say it's wishy, washy, it's on you to prove it wrong.

The book that SunofBeach is onto here is an excellent read. Its called "The Bell Curve" rather than jar /images/graemlins/smile.gif

In that book the authors talk about all kinds of things that effect measures of general intellegence. Parents, schools etc. They say that to them it appears that if you have a large enough sample size then general intelligence is 60% genetic and 40% environmental factors. For any one individual it can be all one or the other factor though.
On the different types of intelligence most experts would say that there is a difference between verbal skills and mathematical skills. But many believe there is also a general intelligence factor for people.
When the authors commented on racial differences of general intelligence (ie Jewish race scoring higher, and certain minorities lower) that got some controversial press even though they also said that some of those differences could lessen over time.

[blackize]

In my mind there are clearly different types of intelligence. I have come to believe this primarily because I can write well , grasp math very easily, and solve abstract problems quickly, but for the life of me I can't play music, compose music, or even hear the subtleties of musical composition. For some people these musical things come very easily and naturally. This is just one example of a different kind of intelligence.

I would say that the defintion of intelligence in broad terms is the rate at which you learn.

No that would not be the ultimate test of intelligence. Einstein, one of the greatest minds in recent history, could be pitted against William Faulkner, a great literary mind. Even using principles they haven't encountered before, they are likely to weigh towards one of their skillsets and not the other.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The book that SunofBeach is onto here is an excellent read. Its called "The Bell Curve" rather than jar /images/graemlins/smile.gif

In that book the authors talk about all kinds of things that effect measures of general intellegence. Parents, schools etc. They say that to them it appears that if you have a large enough sample size then general intelligence is 60% genetic and 40% environmental factors. For any one individual it can be all one or the other factor though.
On the different types of intelligence most experts would say that there is a difference between verbal skills and mathematical skills. But many believe there is also a general intelligence factor for people.
When the authors commented on racial differences of general intelligence (ie Jewish race scoring higher, and certain minorities lower) that got some controversial press even though they also said that some of those differences could lessen over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

We reviewed that book in one of my psychology courses. There is an error in the racial component, that being that it seems likely to reflect an environmental factor. Blacks and hispanics, for example, often come from a poorer socio-economic status than jews, whites and asians. Accordingly, results reflective of SES manifest.

As for the genetic component, it dilutes greatly with the disparity of the genes. A study was done on identical twins separated at birth, raised in different environments. A high (85%ish) correlation exists in their IQ scores). Fraternal twins in similar conditions were much, much lower (50%), and siblings' correlations were almost irrelevant.

[man]

[ QUOTE ]
Intelligence in my view is the rate in which we learn. You can take this and relate it to any subject.

For example, a person who becomes adept at selling cars and persuading people is intelligent in this area.

Normally, people wouldn't include that in their definition of intelligence. They would say: A person who quickly grasps an abstract philosophical concept is intelligent.

They are (wrongly) applying one specific subject to the broad concept of intelligence.

Certainly that person is intelligent, too. But you've only stated what he is intelligent at.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the application of knowledge is just as important in quantifying intelligence as learning. there are plenty people who do well in school but can't apply what they've learned. maybe you're willing to accept that. but I think it provides a fairly narrow picture of intelligence.

that said, I have no idea how to define intelligence. I think that so many aspects of what we consider intelligence cross over into other aptitudes that it makes the task nearly impossible. for example, spatial intelligence crosses over into athletic aptitude, which we don't consider part of intelligence.

as for how intelligence develops, I think the underlying factor is mental energy. the way our minds develop is determined by what and how much we spend our idle time thinking about. A lot of child geniuses have ADD, because their minds have three tracks going at the same time. whatever way we choose to define intelligence, and whatever areas we choose to define it in (math, literary, music), the people who are the most intelligent are the ones who've spent the most mental energy on it. the more frequently thoughts run through the mind, the more brain circuits are reinforced.

I don't think this provides a complete account for what determines intelligence, but I think it plays a larger role than most realize.

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
The book that SunofBeach is onto here is an excellent read. Its called "The Bell Curve" rather than jar /images/graemlins/smile.gif

In that book the authors talk about all kinds of things that effect measures of general intellegence. Parents, schools etc. They say that to them it appears that if you have a large enough sample size then general intelligence is 60% genetic and 40% environmental factors. For any one individual it can be all one or the other factor though.
On the different types of intelligence most experts would say that there is a difference between verbal skills and mathematical skills. But many believe there is also a general intelligence factor for people.
When the authors commented on racial differences of general intelligence (ie Jewish race scoring higher, and certain minorities lower) that got some controversial press even though they also said that some of those differences could lessen over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This book is good, but dated. There are many new books on multiple intelligences.

I like this one

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465026...ks&v=glance (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465026117/102-7321049-3055346?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glanc e)

its dry but gets you through the concepts.

blake

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]

I think the application of knowledge is just as important in quantifying intelligence as learning. there are plenty people who do well in school but can't apply what they've learned.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that this example isn't learning. These people you speak of have an ability to regurgitate information, but not to apply it. To me learning includes the ability to apply the information, if you can't do that you haven't really learned anything.

[purnell]

How about: "Intelligence is the ability to make and use tools to acheive one's desires"?

This is purely about the definition of intelligence. I read that if a class of school children (or 6th formers/college) who know each other well are asked to "rank the class in order of intelligence" their results will correlate with an IQ test. I don't know for sure whether this is credible, but it sounds right.

While musical ability may be impressive, I don't think that a musical expert who couldn't spell or do basic maths would be described as "intelligent" by most people.

I'm not intending to comment on the value of artistic abilities. But I think that calling them "intelligence" when most people don't intend this as a meaning of the word, is something done by people with low IQ scores.

On a metaphysical basis, I submit that intelligence consists of two things:

1) The ability to observe and recollect external events;

and;

2) The ability to make determinations (or predictions) of ongoing events based upon your recollection of previous observations.

I don't necessarily agree that there are several types of intelligence. Yes, some of us have a musical ear, and some of us are good at persuasion. IMO, these are all aptitudes derived from different peoples' ability to percieve, recollect and apply different sets of stimuli better than others.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't necessarily agree that there are several types of intelligence. Yes, some of us have a musical ear, and some of us are good at persuasion. IMO, these are all aptitudes derived from different peoples' ability to percieve, recollect and apply different sets of stimuli better than others.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in the end it's a matter of semantics. You think there is only one intelligence but that it is better at applying itself to different stimuli in different people. To me this isn't really different than saying there are different intelligences.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't necessarily agree that there are several types of intelligence. Yes, some of us have a musical ear, and some of us are good at persuasion. IMO, these are all aptitudes derived from different peoples' ability to percieve, recollect and apply different sets of stimuli better than others.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in the end it's a matter of semantics. You think there is only one intelligence but that it is better at applying itself to different stimuli in different people. To me this isn't really different than saying there are different intelligences.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is semantics. I just wanted to point out that I thought all skills came from those two things.