[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.