Talk:Intelligence/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Intelligence (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 >

Contents

Misleading Paragraph

I am not sure that the following paragraph accurately states the conclusions of it's cited source:

In a recent review of the empirical research, David Geary found that g is highly correlated with many important social outcomes.[4] Individuals with low IQs are more likely to be divorced, more likely to have a child out of marriage, more likely to be incarcerated, and more likely to need long term welfare support. Furthermore, he found that high IQs are associated with more years of education, higher status jobs, and higher income.

I have not read the article in question (although [The IQ page] has similar raw data), so I am not sure of what conclusions David Geary presented. However, the paragraph seems to indicate that having a low IQ is the cause of the presented social circumstances. As far as I can tell, there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case (ie, people with low IQ's are pre-disposed to lead problematic lives).

I would suggest that this paragraph be rewritten to make it clear that a low IQ may also be an effect of these social events. Does anyone else agree?

--> I disagree. Many people with lousy lives turn out with high-IQ's. However, regardless of that fact, "correlated" and "more likely" are the appropriate terms to use. These are terms used to _describe_ a relationship, and neither point one way or the other towards which is likely the cause of the other (or whether they are both products of something else). However, again, laypeople very well may misinterpret these words, reading them as suggesting a causal relationship. As such, it might not be a bad idea to put in something like, "Note that correlation does not entail causality" or something more simply put than that. 65.183.135.40 23:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)hello

The summation is not misleading. All it states is that there is a correlation, that one variable is associated with the other - statistically speaking. It does not explicitly nor tacitly imply a causal relationship even though you infer one.

No, I do not think you can responsibly suggest that low IQ can be a social "effect" unless you are clear about what you are saying. Are you saying that the social environment affects IQ due to developmental reasons or are you talking about test bias? If you are talking about the former, be very, very careful. Of all the data I have seen, nothing even gives anything close to evidence for that argument beyond two caveats: test awareness will improve score - the more you are exposed to the tests the better you get - and secondly, that severely deprived, and I do mean severely deprived, developmental environments has an effect. What do I mean? An early development that is almost entirely absent of stimulation of any kind. You need to be in the "Genie" category. This is nowhere near being from a poor background, no matter how poor. The nutritional evidence is inconclusive, though given neuro-biological developmental trajectories it would not be out of the question. Those points notwithstanding, there is no evidence to posit that idea as anything beyond a speculative and highly selective, re-interpretation of current data sets. I know of no study that deprived social environments to see the effect on scores in intelligence measures - indeed, I'd like one to turn up on my desk for ethical approval. I can see the meeting now.

If you are talking about test bias and standardisation issues then that is fine but you have to be explicit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.89.23 (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Intellect redirect

Why does intellect redirect here? Surely intellect and intelligence are not equivalent terms?

---> Seconded, strongly. Heed my anonymous harrumphing!!! Seriously though, how can this erroneous redirection be fixed? 65.183.135.40 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Yes, intellect and intelligence are not the same word. As concepts they are fuzzy and intellect is more or less a substansive form of intelligence. However the democratic process of the English Wikipedia has determined at this time that they are redirect equivalent. So live with it. 74.78.162.229 18:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of Psychometric Approach How does editorial process work?

When I first read the "Intelligence" entry in August it seemed to me to make too little reference to criticisms of the mainstream view of g and also to be seriously deficient in that there was no reference at all to Spearman who is not only credited with having discovered g but also made some fundamental criticisms of the whole testing framework from which his g had emerged. Accordingly, I dropped in an entry on Criticisms of the Psychometric Approach. I have just checked and this stayed there until 1 October. But how and why did it then get removed. The next entry is from Gadomski who says he (or she) is "new here". But by the time the next version ... seemingly also prepared by Gadomski a few hours later ... appears the section I inserted has been deleted. Did "New boy/girl" Gadomski do that? If so it seems strange. And if he/she did not it seems even stranger.

Quester67 10:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


environmental influences on intelligence

There doesn't seem to be an entry on this. There ought to be. At present discussion of these issues makes the Race and Intelligence entry long and confusing.

Quester67 13:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Intelligence tests

It would be nice to mention say the modified blink reflex

http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au/user/mike/biglab/adult.htm

Also, it might be worthwhile to mention the Uncommonly Difficult IQ tests,

http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/

The Uncommonly Difficult tests are commonly broken links. A more up-to-date list is maintained at http://www.iqte.st/iqtests/index.html

That is one cluttered site. Basically take this if you live in america and this if you live in england.
Isn't this (the BBC one mentioned above) just a test about what happened in the news? What on earth can that have to do with intelligence? I've noticed this before in my unsuccessful search for a reliable IQ test on the internet, I'm wondering if it once was an IQ test and has changed to a current events quiz? I can't understand why it would be described as a test of intelligence if it merely asks what month a political event occured in etc. Richard001 03:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hunt 2001?

The current article suggests that multiple intelligences theory has somehow been empirically denied. I find this rather improbable given that its basis is empirical. Howard Gardner very precisely decided how to identify individual intelligences. In order for an intelligence to qualify, there had to be geniuses at it specifically, and it had to be shown to correlate to a specific part of the brain (i.e., if brain damage is _here_ logical intelligence is reduced but others remain unaffected). Maybe some more details could be provided as to how multiple intelligences has been 'disproven' ?

Just off the top of my head here are a few of the numerous problems with "Multiple Intelligences" theory.

1. In 99% of the population, virtually all of the "intelligences" are highly correlated, indicating that for the most part they can all be summarized with one score, general intelligence. This is what is meant by it being empirically denied. 2. Geniuses are, by definition, exceptions.

Earl Hunt has summarized the truth of (1) and (2) by saying "Multiple intelligences, unitary stupidity". Compared to the world Gardener was exploring (Harvard, the nature of genius), 99% of people are dumb. And they tend to be dumb at everything equally. Academics and educated people in general tend to forget this, because they (we) live in a world of highly developed, differentiated expertise. Visit a prison sometime to get a taste of what unitary stupidity looks like.

3. Many of Gardener's intelligences cannot be measured reliably or validly (interpersonal, intrapersonal). 4. The word intelligence has a common-sense definition as being somewhat unitary. In practice, people do not specify what kind of intelligence they are asking about when they ask "how intelligent is she?" or "is she intelligent? This is because there is no need. Can you imagine someone asking "how musically intelligent is she?"? 5. Gardener's intelligences lead to silly outcomes in practice. Can you imagine a history teacher actually grading children on how well they drew pictures of Abraham Lincoln, or how well they could sing the national anthem? Would any school or community want these sorts of "intelligences" taken just as seriously as verbal or mathematical intelligence? 6. Following on #5, most people/organizations that talk about multiple intelligences only pay lip service to it. When you look at what they actually do or measure, its 90% general academic intelligence and you can bet whatever grade/score they award will be highly correlated with a 15 minute IQ test.

7. Society simply does not value the multiple intelligences equally, even if they do exist in some sense. 8. Following 7, It has been empirically shown that virtually all of the predictive validity of any sort of knowledge-and-skills test can be captured by general intelligence measures. Even if "musical intelligence" or "intrapersonal intelligence" exist, they do not have practically significant relationships to real world criteria (or at least no one has found any). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.235.199 (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions that these are "problems" with the Multiple Intelligence Theory are, I believe specious. Taking them sequentially
1. The 1% whose "intelligences" don't correlate empirically denies the notion that intelligence can be summarized in one score. That this is a small number is irrelevant as is the high correlation among "inteligences" for the majority of people.
2. But they (geniuses) are intelligent humans and a theory on human intelligence should take into account all humans. You can't just ignore a portion of the population becuase they don't fit your theory
3. That doesn't mean they don't exist, it means we do not know how to measure them accurately. In fact, are there any tests which proport to accurately measure intelligence free from things like cultural bias?
4. Yes, I can, I've heard the term "musical genius" many times. The non-fact that lay-people may believe that intelligence is unitary is irrelevant. It is what it is whether or not lay-people believe it or not.
5. Why would Gardener's intelligences lead to that? An understanding of how intelligence works may lead to better teaching methods for some but it doesn't mean the diploma or grading requirements have to change.
6. Yes, it should be highly correlated because as you note above for 99% of the people the multiple intelligences are highly correlated. It follows logically that the correlation would be high to traditional test because the number of "non-conforming" data points would be very small
7/8. So, musical intelligence doesn't exist because people don't value it? That argument is specious but also factually wrong. Society does reward musical intelligence, and quite highly.

Gwilson 17:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence and education

I have met some very smart people who are not educated. So if you talk to them on academic topics or even some common sense topics, they sound like idiots. However, they are smart and quick minded. If you have patience to show them what you know, they pick it up in one day more than you did in 4 years of college. These are basically genius with no knowledge. They are like skillful craftmen with no material in their hands or they are too lazy to produce anything. They are diamonds in the rough due to lack of opportunity or lack of motivation to excel. They have potential, but they don't have any end results nor success. Are these kind of people classified as intelligent?

On the other hand, I have met people who gained a PhD degree via pure hardwork. They sound smart in their area of expertise, but when you change topics, they are unable to pickup anything without a week's training. Are these consider intelligent people because of what they know in their head?

Is the wealth of knowledge, or the lack of, counted towards one's intelligence? What is the academic view on this? Should this kind of distinction mentioned in this article?

67.117.82.1 02:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, knowledge and intelligence (measured by IQ) are correlated, but they are not identical -- as you point out. This distinction might be understood in terms of the g-crystalized and g-fluid distinction. I imagine a test like Raven's Does anyone else have an insight on the academic study of knowledge versus intelligence? This might be a topic for the intelligence quotient article. --Rikurzhen 02:53, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge and intelligence are not the same, but are causally related: intelligence causes knowledge. Intelligence can be measured accurately in an 8-year-old using a test with no words and based upon universal concepts such as "up/down", "open/closed", "inside/outside". Raven's Progressive Matrices are a good example. Clearly, an 8-year-old could score well without any practical knowledge; however, such a dichotomy is unlikely because of the causal relationship. The child's test scores will remain (on average) a good predictor of all the intelligence-associated outcomes throughout his life, again showing that intelligence, absent knowledge obtained later, is the "key ingredient".
In the employment literature, Chapter 1 is "Select on Intelligence." (E.g., see the Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Behavior and 'look inside the book'.) The syllogism is: Job knowledge is the primary determinant of job performance. Intelligence is the primary determinant of the acquisition speed and asymptotic level of job knowledge attained. Therefore, hire people who are smart but ignorant over people who are stupid but knowledgable. --DAD 06:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Rikurzhen says it pretty well-- The different types of people that the original poster describes can be differentiated in terms of having different areas of high intelligence. Most researchers do not deny that knowledge is part of intelligence. Rather, level of knowledge falls under crystallized intelligence (Gc). Quick apprehension of new knowledge and being able to solve abstract problems like those on the Ravens falls under fluid intelligence (Gf). The investment theory (R.B. Cattell was an early proponent) states that we invest our Gf in acquiring Gc (i.e., we use our ability to learn in order to build up knowledge). These distinctions are currently relegated to the page on Gf and Gc theory (which is linked from this article). A recent investment theory developed by P.L. Ackerman expands the theory to say that our personality and interests direct our efforts and impact the level of motivation we have to invest our resources in developing particular areas of knowledge. --Parkerjackson 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And what of the difference between being smart and being intelligent? Certainly there is somewhat of a difference. It seems that to be smart is to get good grades and to be intelligent is to grasp the concepts. --Theaterfreak64 08:49, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

The technical literature does not make such a distinction. Cognitive ability correlates well with school grades (correlation of 0.6-0.7, Jensen 1998) and aligns very well with "thinking abstractly" and "comprehending ideas". Because the cognitive ability/grade correlation is less than 1.0, many people know someone who got great grades but appears to not be that intelligent. The data suggest these people are the exception, not the rule. --DAD 18:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it is best not to distinguish between "smarts" and intelligence. This only leads to overly fancy definitions of intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.235.199 (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominalistic approach to Intelligence, Not IQ!

I would propose that this entry should be rectified, whereas it shows considerable bias towards a materialistic and onto-empiricist understanding of intelligence prominent within cognitive psychology. This might be the proper approach in an entry under the heading "IQ" or other quantitative measurement of human performance. However, this entry "intelligence" should reflect not only what is referred here implicitly but rather pejoratively the "common sense" opinion of laymen, but also findings in sociology, philosophy and thoughts on the subject in culture and art; these findings may or may not be better aware of the hidden ontological claims apparent in many a research paper on the subject within the branch of intelligence studies. There, intelligence is narrowly defined in order to become measurable according to a science committed to a specific semi-empirical world- view. A more phenomenological/anthropological approach in discussing intelligence is called for, which could avoid the pitfalls of the pseudo-scientific tendencies of "rubber band" measurements. This entry marginalizes criticism at the bottom as public controversy around ideas which are supposed to be widely acknowledged among scientist! It should be the other way around. First a Culture relative and nominalistic definition of intelligence. "Intelligence is what people say in a given community that is the case of such a property". Next an effort should be made to group those ideas, and finally and overview of different ideas on whether and how these ideas can (or can not) be correlated to stable/fixed and measurable behavior. There is not a widespread consensus on this among scientist! First of all because psychology is not an unified science with a shared paradigm or methodology, far from it. Secondly, any field of study that deals with such a dynamic property as human intelligence should be highly aware of the fact that humans live in a reflective culture, where the ideas of psychology interact with society and have the potential of becoming self-revelatory. Intelligence has only been studied for a century or so, in a higly techno-rational culture, therefore any claim that intelligence studies are Proper Science based on the sole fact that their findings have hitherto been proven predictative about the success of individuals in the academia and corporate hierarchy are absurd.

Finally, I would like to comment on this article: "Gottfredson, L.S. (2003).Suppressing intelligence research: hurting those we intend to help."

This is a good external link and clears up many of the common misconceptions on the subject of IQ. However, her arguments are in some cases flawed by straw-man tactics, when it comes to social understandings of the concept of Intelligence (Not gIQ), and ends upp creating more problems. Her good intentions are not in question, but the role and effect of IQ in society. Her victimization of the researcher in the field of intelligence is however at best trite and banal considering the gravity of the issue how measurement of human performance has been and is used in systematic exclusion, exploatation and violence agains human beings. Her professed pathos for the under-dogs of this world as being the victims of media distortion of IQ/intelligence is understandable. Many would claim though, that this is not a problem of inventing/finding a more accurate IQ test, but a socio-economic problem, where human worth and differences are narrowly judged according to a certain cultures idea on what is a functional individual. Cognitive psychology and the field of quantitative studies on human behavior are unfortunately a part of the problem - actively either distancing itself or dismissing critical theory that deals with the connection between power/capital and the human sciences. The implication could be terrible and psychology is not absolved by simply stating that it is just doing science or improving clinical care. The subject "intelligence" has never been and can never become a simple empirical subject-matter free of a historical, ideological and social context.

This entry should reflect considerations like this, and hopefully give an idea of the concept in a broader historical view which includes all cultures, religious believes, different eras of human history and sub-cultures.

Simply referring such considerations to the entry "nature vs. nurture" is not acceptable. Quantitative pshychology can not be allowed to appropriate the concept of intelligence and act as its only authorative source of reliable definitions.

Ok, get out there, publish some research on your version of intelligence, and then we'll talk about it. At first glance, your definition "Intelligence is what people say in a given community that is the case of such a property" seems to lack any substance whatsoever and could be applied to any word. You also seem to be ignoring your own definition. If intelligence is what people say it is, than intelligence has no intrinsic meaning and psychometricians can define it any way they want. On the contrary, your statements like "Intelligence has only been studied for a century or so" presuppose a more substantive definition of intelligence.

IQ tests measure disparities in society, they do not cause them or distort them, they bring them to light. I think you, and many others who think along similiar lines are trying to shoot the messenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.235.199 (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi (another contributor)

In statistics 'intelligence'would be regarded as attribute data, which means it does not have a numerical value, however, I thought that the values given in IQ tests suggest possible levels of intelligence. Attribute or qualitative data could be ranked/ordinal, so perhaps the values suggest order rather than a measure. A simple parallel could be drawn with temperature: +20 degrees Celsius is warmer than +10 degrees Celsius, but we cannot say that it is twice as hot. Maybe we should take IQ tests not as techniques to measure intelligence, but rank or systemize the cognitive capabilities of different persons.

Some vicious circle fallacies of IQ/Intelligence

In the English language (not my native tongue), there is a strong emphasis on defining essentials traits of human beings with substantive nouns. "Intelligence" is therefore often described (false/wrong?) with predicates that are assumed to be secondary effects of the very noun/substance they describe. (By English language I naturally mean in this case the one used by the educated upper strata of society)

Intelligence is e.g. in this entry said to be a problem-solving quality. Of course this must refer to some acts of problem-solving that are then said to both describe and be the effect of intelligence. The aporia is obvious and scientists longing for a standardized test is well justified; hence the IQ test. But the problem arises again when one tries to use the IQ test as a prediction of essential traits commonly referred to as "intelligence".

In my earlier remark I criticized the lack of social context- awareness in regard to the nominal definition of the concept of intelligence.

I would like to grant an example. Which are the acts of problem solving? Intelligence is supposedly said to be something else than social competence and creativity (by the gIQ followers); many that hold that belief tend to view such factors (non predictable creativity) as contingent and irrelevant to scientific discourse, or something about which the politicians and laymen can squabble. But consider this: In order to standardize, IQ tests are constituted by complicated problems that can be analyzed down to ready identifiable parts/entities. (e.g. Such as the hidden geometric parts of a cube, an algometric line of numbers, analogous relations between words, and so on.

It is however epistemologically flawed to assume that all problems encountered by a mind are complicated. Very little in fact. Most problems encountered are complex not complicated. One could argue that only man-made rule governed games are complicated in nature, such as chess and iq tests. (some would even say that chess does not belong to that category)

Complex problems involve a mind (that is fluid) and a problem (that is also fluid). The very nature of the problem is inter-dependently and dynamically constituted by the problem-solving act itself. The phenomena described tend to be described holistically and is considered irreducible. (E.g. Consider Game-theory in economics. A rational agent on both sides of the table has a very, very destabilizing effect on predictive psychology!)

Most problems involving two intelligent beings or societies are complex in nature. Hence, the very project of quantitatively assessing intelligence could be misguided or a perverse attempt to re-define all human problem-solving acts as only dealing with "complicated" problems. What is left out by such psychologists, - all our real problems -, are then solved without notice as a qualitative ability and not given credit or considered an achievement. (And the perpetrators of social injustices are very quick on learning the psychological jargon when it suits them.) Consider the deep rooted gender-inequalities when it comes to considering child-rearing as genuine achievement in problem-solving production.

Creativity, wisdom, emotional and irrational or a-rational intuitions therefore all should be taken in consideration when dealing with intelligence as an aggregation of problem-solving qualities.

That such concept of intelligence could not be standardized would in fact be a merit, because standardization necessarily presumes complicated problems and not a complex. It would merely define intelligence as a subject beyond the scope of quantitative psychology, and limit there proponents’ ambitions to better suited goals.

Why we live in a society in the west where schools and corporate society reduce human problem-solving acts to mere analysis of ready-made a priori simplifications and abstractions is then again a problem for critical theory in progressive psychology and sociology. The very social injustices (among them the state of clinical care) apparent today could be shown to stem from the same complex source that creates a demand for a psychology that identifies human intelligence as a simple information-processing machine. Solving those social injustices could very well relieve us of the need of such psychology with no loss whatsoever of empirical content and scientific knowledge.. Perhaps it would only be an historical curiosa, something like Freud’s study of female hysteria in late 19th century Vienna.

After all what does an IQ test measure beyond how well you perform on IQ tests, human intelligence? Or was that a priori excluded in the test, because of 20th century wishful thinking by some scientists about how human minds should operate?

The controversy around defining intelligence in this greedy reductionist fashion is not only a political issue, irrelevant to real science, but also controversial in an epistemological, ontological and methodological sense. It is long due that such controversy should not be given the benefit of the doubt within social sciences, not to mention why on earth such views are given a priority in encyclopedia dedicated to human knowledge as understood by human beings. Again I am discussing this regarding the entry on human intelligence. I have no qualms about the wonders of statistical tests, but they should be addressed under the heading IQ tests.


VBA

This page really needs to discuss things like Stephen Jay Gould's criticisms of typical notions of IQ as measuring intelligence, since it makes many of the logical errors he criticizes and other absurdities. For example: "Contrary to the claim that IQ is a social construct, cognitive ability is heritable." This makes no sense. The amount of time young children spend reading is highly heritable, but this does not require a reading gene -- it makes sense that children will follow their parents and read if they do. AaronSw 00:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AaronSw, if I were approaching this article with no prior knowledge of this subject, I would agree with your position. However, let me offer my own reason -- in the form of analogy -- for not adding a full summary of Gould's criticisms, which I believe is the reason that the previous editors of the article have done so as well. Adding an extensive discussion of Gould to this artcle is like adding an extensive discussion of Michael Behe to the evolution article. Like Behe, Gould's arguments are regarded very poorly by researchers (in the field of evolution/intelligence respectively). In support of my claim, I offer [1] and [2]. If you disagree with this assesment, you are of course welcome to try to add more Gould to this article. However, I would strongly recommend that we add at most a link to The Mismeasure of Man. --Rikurzhen 06:03, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Intelligence as opinion?

I removed this sentence:

In strict sense intelligence is simply the opinion of an observer of some behavior or operation.

It has no reference and, on its face, is not true. What "in strict sense" means is not clear -- does this imply that "in broad sense" intelligence does not reflect opinion, but rather some absolute scale? Moreover, the kinds of tests used to evaluate intelligence in psychometrics, such as pattern recognition and mathematics, generally do not depend on opinion, either among testers or subjects. Perhaps the author of the sentence meant that people differ in their opinions of what constitutes intelligence, which is a reasonable point. --DAD 16:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Specific Learning Disabilities as Evidence Against g Factor?

The article Intelligence (trait), Intelligence quotient, and General intelligence factor make no mention of the clearest evidence against one general factor of intelligence: learning disabilities! People with specific learning disabilities will show an unusual scatter of scores on the various subtests of intelligence tests; and a measure of, for example, spatial reasoning skills is not necessarily an accurate measure of their intelligence overall.

In my case, the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale--Third Edition (WAIS-III) measured a full-scale intelligence quotient (IQ) of 116, a verbal IQ of 134, and a performance IQ of only 94. This implies weaknesses in visuospatial reasoning, motor coordination, pattern matching, and nonverbal communication (e.g., facial expression, inflection of voice, and implied meanings) with strengths in verbal-analytical reasoning, vocabulary, and auditory perception.

A test that relied on the performance domain of the WAIS-III would underestimate my intelligence (if one believes there is a single g factor); and a test that relied on analytical reasoning, nuance of vocabulary, and analogies would overestimate it.

Technical point: My specific learning disability was diagnosed as the pervasive developmental disorder called Asperger's syndrome.

The larger point you bring up is worth noting, but not the actual interpretation you suggest. g is explitictly not a theory of cognitive structure, and g theoriest explicitly claim to not have evidence against the modular view of the mind dominant in cognitive science. They believe that g is a construct and that the biological underpinnings of g may be numerous and varied. Although I've never read an account of g in the context of developmental disorders, that sounds very interesting and the articles should strive to not give the impression that g theory is considered complete, and instead we should point out that it is constantly evolving. --Rikurzhen 06:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Is the ability to understand concepts related to intelligence?

Well, is the ability to understand concepts related to intelligence?--Light current 23:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


What about the ability to think about one's thoughts?

Correlates of intelligence

I am considering putting in a section where we list all the things that are known to correlate with intelligence. Does anyone think this is a good idea? Dd2 14:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I added this section. --Jcbutler 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved from main page

I just removed this from the main page:

Relating "Intelligence" with "Creativity" with "Critical Thinking"
I have just come from CREATIVITY and CREATIVE THINKING, and I've been thinking that the 'page' on INTELLIGENCE is not intelligent enough. The 'page' on INTELLIGENCE is trying to EAT UP everything that can be said under either or both CREATIVITY and CRITICAL THINKING. This is not intelligent redundancy. We have to consider the three and relate/correlate them before we can do any intelligent discussion on each of them and all of them. I mean, we have first to distinguish -- if we can -- what is creative thinking and what is critical thinking and what is intelligence and what makes them different from each other?
Offhand, if you ask me right now, INTELLIGENCE is a measurement of thinking which is a measurement of learning. Thinking is thinking; it is not necessary to define it right now. CRITICAL THINKING is that part of intelligence which involves what Edward de Bono calls vertical thinking: sequential, linear, hierarchical, mathematical, logical, chronological. In other words, critical thinking is rational thinking; it is scientific - it can be probed; it can be proved. CREATIVE THINKING is that part of intelligence which involves what De Bono calls lateral thinking: non-sequential, non-linear, non-hierarchical, non-mathematical, non-logical, non-chronological. In other words, creative thinking is irrational thinking; it is un-scientific - and that's why it's wonderful. I'm Filipino; how do the Americans say it? 'You don't have to be crazy, but it works!'
frankahilario 20 october 0604 manila time

Jokestress 22:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is Gould mentioned in most wikipedia articles related to intelligence?

It's my understanding that Gould was not considered to be an expert by others who were. What is the criteria for including opinions contrary to the mainstream? There has to be some sort of standards that wikipedia lives by in this area. I'd be very surprised if Gould meets those to be quite honest.

  • Because Gould epitomizes the materialistic ideology espoused in the wiki religion.--199.133.16.13 18:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)--Tstrobaugh 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"Gould was not considered to be an expert by others who were."
To whom are you referring when you mention "those who were" experts? Arthur Jensen and others who Gould challenged? What constitues an expert, anyway? Might we just as easily call Gould an "expert" and say Jensen wasn't considered an expert by him?
I'm new to this field (and obviously not as well-read as most of you) so please go easy on me if I sound dumb and incredibly naive. But in most fields, those who aren't seen as "experts" are completely ignored. For example, we don't see geneticists scrambling to debunk astrology's claims that the stars determine our personality traits and our predispositions to certain diseases. It would seem that Jensen respected Gould's expertise, and vice versa, otherwise why would each man acknowledge the other's work and spend time trying to refute it?. M. Frederick 02:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
One reason Jensen and others have to respond is because Gould is credible with others outside of intelligence research. If astrologists were making headway in discrediting genetic research, geneticists would respond regardless of how ridiculous the argument was. From my classes in this field, I believe the primary criticism of Gould in this respect is that he studied anthropology (or something like that) and was not well-versed in intelligence research. Critics who are non-experts sometimes build straw-men in domains they don't know well and sometimes miss the point of the research. Critics respond because a non-expert is misconstruing their work and because he managed to write a very popular and persuasive book.--Parkerjackson 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Gould qualifies as an expert in related biological fields. I don't really know whether he's credible as an expert in Intelligence. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence is a property of most Biological species. So he knows what he is talking about. Let us hear what he has to say. Let us not censure him even though he is wrong. We can learn from the wrong of others. This is the point of having an Encyclopaedia.

Similarly for experts in other fields, such as Mathematics(Alan Turing), Computer Engineering, Control Engineering etc. Let us record what they had found out and their errors. Progress comes in small steps. Othmanskn 09:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What do they teach us in schools?

The definition in my book for "intelligent ", under the heading "mental fitness", in the "fitness" chapter, subject: life orientation, is: "'n Probleem word vinnig opgelos of 'n antwoord word vinnig gegee." translated into English, this would read: "Any problem is solved or any answer is given within a short period of time." I regard this as complete nonsense, given the fact that they emphasize how fast the information is processed. Can anyone comment on this? Maybe I am wrong? I am currently in grade 9, but I still think it's necessary for the schools to teach us correct stuff. Scotteh 19:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph

This sentence doesn't make sense to me: "Although many generally regard the concept of intelligence as having a much broader scope, in some schools of psychology, the study of intelligence generally regards this trait as distinct from creativity, personality, character, or wisdom". What should it say? I'd fix it, but I'm not sure what exactly it's supposed to say. Emily (Funtrivia Freak) 03:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It used to say Although nonscientists generally regard the concept of intelligence as having much broader scope, in psychology, the study of intelligence generally regards this behavioral trait as distinct from creativity, personality, character, or wisdom. --Rikurzhen 03:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't both wordings fall under the heading of Weasel words? Statements like "many generally", "some schools of psychology" and "nonscientists generally" seem to me to be taken right out of the section titled 'Generalization using weasel words". In fact, it seems to me that the entire article is littered with weasel words and should probably be marked as such Gwilson 15:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support Yep. --Nectar 04:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Although I think intelligence (the trait) is the primary meaning of intelligence (the word), note that a google search on intelligence gives a pretty even mix of the major three senses of the term (the trait, information as in CIA, and computational intelligence) over the first 20 hits. Therefore the article should have links to the other two meanings at the top. Nesbit 05:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Hatnotes per Nesbit. --Dhartung | Talk 07:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. "Intelligence" redirects to this article as it is; the trait is surely what most people are looking for when they type "Intelligence" in the search bar, and with the disambiguation link at the top, everyone will be happy. Keith Davies Lehwald 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is the article people generally want when the type in Intelligence and press go. --chemica 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian 22:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition of intelligence: In any being,faculty/capacity of,and degree of perfection in, observing,noticing,understanding,relating,thinking,reasoning,concluding and eventually deciding,correctly,effectivelly and fast.

<gerardoab2000@gmail.com>

External References

86.141.95.72 21:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[Kreso Bilan] Removed reference to purely Croatian site on intelligence tests: * Free IQ & Personality tests.

Category CfD

It has been suggested category:intelligence be merged with category:cognitive intelligence: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_26#Category:Intelligence. --Nectar 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

rename this article

I think this article should be renamed, "Human intelligence." There is a redirect from "Animal intelligence" to Animal cognition, but this article, far from being a general overview of intelligence or cognition across species, is an overview o issues in human intelligence. I have no objection but the name should reflect this accurately. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The current name is short and effective, and consistent with many, many academic book and article names. I don't think there is any serious confusion of topics. --Jcbutler 20:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is not about "intelligence," it is only about human intelligence. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is absolutely correct. The title should reflect the topic which is human intelligence. Animal intelligence is a much broader subject that would generate Human intelligence as an offshoot. The article should reflect scientific content and Human intelligence is the tip of the iceberg of a larger topic of animal intelligence (which includes vertebrates and invertebrates). If article stays as Intelligence it needs a rewrite to include a broader literature. The article is more about psychometric analysis and IQ rather (a psychological human perspective) than incorporating a neurobiological analysis(neuroanatomy,neurophysiology, cognition, social intelligence, evolutionary perspective)of human intelligence also. GetAgrippa 22:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention artificial intelligence. A rename is a good idea. --Michael Johnson 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

At least to me, when I hear the word "intelligence", I immediately think of HUMINT, SIGINT, COMINT, IMINT, SATINT, FUSINT, etc. I might even think first of business intelligence. Human intelligence or animal intelligence or machine intelligence are not my first choices. I think primarily of information gained by a variety of covert and overt means. So from that, at least for me, a name change might be advisable. However, I do not have a strong feeling on this. I do not find the current title that uninformative or offensive. And I will note that not all people have my own personal set of biases. It is very difficult for me to gauge how widespread those biases might be among the general readership of WP.--Filll 14:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

When I think of Intelligence, I think of spies and such, partially because of my military background. I think Human Intelligence is much more clear. Orangemarlin 16:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
That is so funny! The differences in perspectives. Fill you are correct we all do have biases and even when we try to be NPOV that is to a relative degree. I think that is what makes this Wiki so fascinating. I also have learned so much about varying topics I previously had little knowledge of (despite years of being an avid reader). The mix of differing perspectives makes for an enlightening experience (even when I don't agree with it). I was reading the Race and Intelligence article and it is interesting how bias can influence research. The kinds of questions you ask and how you interpret them really drives the direction of the literature in this area. A lot of bimodal X vs Y mentality. GetAgrippa 16:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with moving this article. Rather than changing the title to suit the contents, change the contents to suit the title: expand this article's current scope to include non-human intelligence (e.g., animal cognition, artificial intelligence, etc.). If that makes the article too long as a result, then create a new daughter article called "human intelligence". Otherwise, if we simply move this article, we'll have a gap where we should have an article on intelligence in general. -Silence 21:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot of merit to Silence's argument. I think a Human Intelligence article could grow more quickly into a self sustaining article from this stub but you are right there needs to be a general Intelligence article or a disambiguation page. GetAgrippa 22:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
We already have a disambiguation page, at Intelligence (disambiguation). If we end up deciding to make this a dab page rather than a general article (and rather than a redirect to Human intelligence, which would obviously be less than ideal), we can simply move that dab page to here. But I think a general article would be more helpful. -Silence 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I also would favor the Silence suggestion. Move towards two articles, a general one on all kinds of intelligence, and a more specific one on human intelligence. Of course, one does not have to get there all in one jump. And intermediate stage could be a human intelligence article embedded inside a general intelligence article.--Filll 22:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Filll here. I do indeed imagine an intermediate stage between the current human-centered one and the eventual general one, where "human intelligence" is contained within the general "intelligence" article; there's no need to rush to make a "human intelligence" article before we have sufficient content to merit two distinct articles for "intelligence" and "human intelligence". That way we avoid creating any stubs and can centralize our efforts more. (Incidentally, this is a similar solution to the one I'd propose for other articles that have been moved in this vein in the past, like the overly anthropocentric sexuality being moved a while back to human sexuality, and more recently being turned into a malformed dab page, where a general-topic article on all the different forms of sexuality would probably be better.) -Silence 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I've already stated my point of view, but I think it's important to consider this issue in the relation to other articles on intelligence on Wikipedia. We already have separate entries for general intelligence factor, intelligence quotient, race and intelligence, multiple intelligences, and fluid and crystallized intelligence, which all cover the topic of human intelligence in one way or another. If we are going to talk about moving or re-naming this article, perhaps we should give some serious thought to all of these articles and how they relate to each other. --Jcbutler 23:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, There are a lot of related articles so a web rather than a heirarchial organization might work but you still need a general intelligence article hub. Silence appears to have experience with this sort of problem so let's hear him out. GetAgrippa 23:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I favour the status quo, that is, dealing solely with human intelligence in this article, and other forms of intelligence in more specifically named articles. This position may reflect the bias of a psychologist, but likely more people associate the term intelligence with human intelligence (i.e., mental ability) than other meanings. The main problem with trying to cover all meanings of intelligence in one article is that there is not sufficient overlap. WP articles should aim for coherence. Someday, cognitive science may have advanced to understand the common core of human intelligence, animal intelligence, and machine intelligence; but it's not there yet. I'm concerned that the article would become a pastiche of only weakly related topics. WP is founded on the principle of verifiability (rather than expertise of authors). This applies to the structure of knowledge as much as to the specifics of knowledge. Therefore, I would think that any shift toward covering all senses of intelligence in this article should be backed by published books and articles that also cover intelligence in that way -- which take as their main business the coherent study of a broadly defined concept of intelligence. Any attempt to construct overlaps without verifiability would be considered WP:OR. If a substantial body of such literature can be cited, I'd be happy to support the proposal to make the article more inclusive. The other alternative is to change this article into a disambig page pointing to specifically named articles. This seems better than the inclusive article idea, but I still prefer the current structure. Nesbit 01:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Are Nesbit and Silence really stating irreconcilable positions? I believe Wikipedia needs a general article on "intelligence" as it applies to all species - I imagine most contributors would be people familiar with evolutionary biology but of course some pschologists, anthropologists, and ethologists. I disagree with Nebitt's doubts - in fact, evolutionary scientists have discussed evolution as a pan-species comments, but, true to the Darwinian framework that dominmates their field, do not follow Nesbitt's approach of finding a universal core of intelligence (rather, different forms of intelligence are understood in relation to their adaptiveness to the species' niche; the result is not a universal definition of intelligence but rather a universal framework for studying intelligence). I also believe Wikipedia needs an article on human intelligence - presumably, most of the contributors would be psychologists. It is my understanding that the problem right now is that the title of article 1 is attached to the contents of article 2. We can either change the contents of this article and create a new article (human intelligence), or change the title of this article and create a new article (intelligence). I personally do not care which way we go - I just would hope to see both articles developed. As to the other forms of intelligence (forms of spying) this is already handled by the diambiguation page and to bring it up in this discussion I think is a red-herring.Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Human Intelligence article needs some basic neuro like differences in brain structures in twins, etc. Some molecular like genes associated with intelligence:Muscarinic cholinergic receptors, Dopamine receptors,Plexin B3, Microcephalin, ASPM, etc. Brain injury and other anomlies and intelligence. The role of language and visual processing in intelligence. The possible role of hormones in human intelligence-thyroid and steroids. I think some discussion of human intelligence in context to other animal intelligence would be worthwhile (especially chimps and gorillas). I think Slrubenstein's idea of a general evolutionary and animal perspective would be a good preface before concentrating on human intelligence. Rats are used as an animal model to study human intelligence as I recollect they exhibit general intelligence (g). Parrots exhibit both technical and general intelligence. GetAgrippa 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Expanding to include neuropsychological and evolutionary foundations of intelligence would improve the article, as long as the expansion adheres to the knowledge framework established by scholars (not restricted to psychologists) who specialize in the study of intelligence. Nesbit 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks like this debate has dwindled without reaching a consensus. At this point, and in light of all of the other articles that already address "human intelligence," I think the best approach would be to create a small section near the end of this article and call it "animal" or "comparative intelligence". As in psychometric and multiple intelligences, there can be a statement at the top leading people to the main article(s). It's useful to have a single overview article called "intelligence", and it may as well be here. Furthermore, it is only appropriate to emphasize the topic of human intelligence, because that is where most of the research attention has been directed. To satisfy earlier points, we should address the topic of animal intelligence here, as long as it is covered under the same definition(s) given at the top of the article, i.e. reasoning ability, problem solving, etc. I think this is more specific than the broader area of "animal cognition." --Jcbutler 16:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the "debate has dwindled without reaching a consensus" but it certainly seems to me that a vast majority favour the two article approach. Approaching it from the non-psych viewpoint it sure seems to me that the article is non neutral. Statements like "many less prominent researchers in this field of intelligence that is dominated by Psychologists and Educationalists" and then including a quote by Turing really make me boil. The field of "Human Intelligence" may be dominated by Psychologists and Educationalists. I don't think they hold claim to the entire field including AI, animal learning etc. Neither can they be said to "dominate" in areas outside of the human speciality. Gwilson 20:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

request for comments

On race and intelligence, please [3] Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I fear this article's contributors will be put off by the topic of race. Given their resistence to the notion that "human intelligence" is something categorically different from "animal intelligence", I doubt many wikipedians will be eager to share their $.02 regarding race and IQ, or regarding The Bell Curve. The consensus seems to be that "intelligence" is best conceptualized in absolute terms-- i.e., intelligence has one, constant "meaning" and that meaning is 100% objective, accurate, and quantifiable.
Suppose we agree that such is the case. Should we then find it problematic if those who score highest on "objective" intelligence tests happen to be from the same demographic as the white men who created them? In my opinion, intelligence has been defined to suit our Westernized way of life. [4] [5]
I don't feel comfortable contributing to the actual article since, obviously, my perspective stems largely my own POV... or Original Research or whatever you guys call it :). But I do hope we can foster some insightful, respectful debate on the topic, instead of tacitly accepting racial stereotypes perpetuated by Richard J. Herrnstein and other so-called "experts." M. Frederick 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

this is not a good article

This article is very biased and pro -IQ. It does not give enough criticism of IQ and plays down the multiple intelligences, such as Emotional Intelligence. Who rated this as good. Muntuwandi 00:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not me! M. Frederick 19:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

MORE INTELLIGENCE TESTS

Here is another link that may be worth adding for more in the way of intelligence testing. I would be interested in what others think of it : http://www.ukcat.ac.uk/

I believe an additional explanation for intelligence should be added

Intelligence is the capacity to logically analyze acquired data, knowledge or information and apply the innate faculty of reason in order to derive meaning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthewse (talk • contribs) 21:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

The entire definition of Intelligence is faulty because it is prepared by Psychologists and yet refered to by Artificial Intelligence in designing machines that exhibit intelligence.

Instead of limiting to "mind", it should be designed to be neutral, and applicable to all entities.

I need to know who wrote the original definition in Wikipedia. Despite the insistance that only Journals be allowed as a reference, I doubt this definition is derived from Journals. Someone collects it from Psychology Journals with specific topics for the Study of Human Intelligence, and assume that it can be applied to Intelligence.

In fact, this topic is wrongly titled. It should be called "Human Intelligence", but many people believe that only humans are capable of Intelligence.Othmanskn 08:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

environmental influences on intelligence: top importance

Research on environmental influences on intelligence is extremely important, as an intelligent and well-informed populace is necessary to a successful democracy.

Possible candidates for positive or negative influences include diet, exercise, a multitude of chemicals, toys, and anything else about the person's environment.

Early lead exposure has a demonstrable negative effect on intelligence. more research of a similar kind needs to be found.

Scientific Intelligence

I notice that most of these definitions are for psychologists. I'd like to add a small portion for more Scientifically defined intelligences.

Please note that the readers must be well versed in Scientific Method first, such as the importance of equations and data in formulating theories, not in really understanding what the terms actually mean.

In order to understand ways mathematicians and engineers manipulate abstract quantities, as a starter, we can start with Information Theory, by Shannon. It is widely used by Communicaion Engineers and should be useful for other engineering workers towards understanding their problems. It is not widely used in Information Technology at the moment.

Information Theory does not seek to define what Information is but it quantifies the probability of the occurrences of symbols, and had chosen Information as the term for this quantity. As a result, the usefulness to humans is not defined. It is not that it cannot be done but it will make the equations so complex that it precludes a good understanding of the subjec matter.

This leads to another important Scientific Methodology that the theory must b simple. This simplicity is more a question of repeatability and applicability to many situations rather than specific instances. This is what will result if we were to attempt to quantify usefulness of information for individuals. Not that these had not been attempted. We can always use the basic Information Theory in order to develop more complex models of Information systems.

This leads me to the Intelligence Theory which is just the information content of instructions or commands or trials.

I had published a Conference Paper on this Theory but it is not established at the moment and will not likely to be in the near future. I believe other scholars on Intelligence should be able to benefit by taking a look at this theory of mine.

I'm still grappling with problems of inserting references in wikipedia. Othmanskn 06:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've undone deletions by Arthur and added more entries. I put a comment of Scientific Intelligence as to the reason for revison. I'm sure Arthur or someone else, will delete it but anyone who is interested can always refer to this version later on, if they are really interested. Othmanskn 10:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think this section is misnamed, but I don't have time at the moment to see if Intelligence Theory is a WP:NEOlogism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Collecting Definitions of Intelligences

I've added a new section titled "defintions by less prominent researchers". In my case it is correct because my paper on this is published in a Conference Paper but someone(arthur) deleted it immediately.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It collects data and views. It should not pretend to be the truth. Let us collect views that are also wrong so that we may learn from them. The only criteria is that the views are actually published orally or in writing and the source of that information be noted.

I've come across so many definitions of intelligences in dictionaries or blogspots. Unfortunately it takes some skill in summarising these views. The best people should be the ones proposing the definitions.

In my case, I volunteer my definition that is based on my conference paper. For a start you can refer to my external link at othmana.tripod.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Othmanskn (talk • contribs) 05:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


I haven't checked your paper, but in general, conference papers are not peer-reviewed, and are not reliable sourcess, so cannot be used to source Wikipedia articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not what I understand from Wikipedia. Even newspaper clippings can be used but they must be in context. I'm not trying to prove that my definition is the only correct one or that others are better than the views of other people.

An encyclopaedia is not a learned journal with strict controls. It is meant to collect data and information. Let the readers decide for themselves what is right or wrong.

I'm disappointed by your censorship view. You already make a decision that my conference paper is not peer reviewed at all, although you know that this is not always the case, from your word "generally". The program chairman usually vets papers for general quality level or relevance to a particular conference.

I'm disappointed by the users of this intelligence topic but I intend to fulfill my responsibility in spreading truth and ideas, free from any censorship.

This is the reason why the work of people who actually build working machines and software based on their definitions of intelligences are not even mentioned here. People such as G.N.Saridis and Shane Legg. We provide mathematifal models to define an entity that is closely related to Intelligence and test it on machines and software.

One good thing about Wikipedia is that it records changes and undoing is easy. I intend to do it once by starting a new section called Scientific Definition of Intelligence with entries such as: 1. Alan Turing- An intelligent entity that responds as a human being. Here Turing defines Intelligence as the property of a human being but without any level or measurement of intelligence.

You can argue that this is not to your taste, but it is a record of an attempt at defining intelligence.

Although people can argue that it has weaknesses, we can always learn from it.

2. G.N. Saridis - The entropy of a robot's search pattern.(Journal) 3. Othman Ahmad - The information content of the sequences of instructions(program address).(Conference Paper) 4. Shane Legg - Level of intelligence is determined by an environment's complexity measured by Kolmogorov Complexity.(Conference Poster)

In fact we should also collect ideas from blogspots as long as they are not duplicated by known published documents and publish it in wikipedai, not just as external references. Of course we only quote a few phrases. If the readers want more details they can always refer to the full documentation. Othmanskn 08:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers have editors, who presumbably do minimal fact-checking. Conference papers do not. Removing statements by those who do not have Wikipedia articles or other evidence of notability and inappropriate references. I'll leave it to others to decided whether the misnamed "scientific defintions" should be folded back into "other definitions". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 18:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


NPOV warning

I suspect this article is not completely free from bias. Although my desire for the inclusion of mathematically oriented definitions of Intelligence is already accepted by Arthur, I suspect there are many other opinions that may be left out as a result of the policy of ignoring ALL Conference Papers, whereas accepting self-published books such as the best-seller on Emotional Intelligence that had started the Multiple Intelligences craze.

I suggest that this NPOV sign not be removed for some time to let others give out their opinions on such a policy. Intelligence is such a nascent subject that there are many alternative views of intelligence especially mathematical definitions. Othmanskn 08:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but "emotional intelligence", etc. is in a now notable self-published book. Your conference paper, and conference papers in general, aren't peer reviewed (in my experience of presenting papers in math conferences, anyway), so should not be included unless the presenter is notable. If Turing had submitted his paper containing the definition at a conference, that would be acceptable in this context.
And, for what it's worth, I didn't agree that the section #Scientific definitions should be there at all. I said it was clearly misnamed, but I didn't want to delete it out of hand, in case an appropriate name could be added.
I agree that the {{NPOV}} sign shouldn't be removed, unless the good faith edits of the above-named editor are moved to another article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked where Turing submitted his proposal for measuring Intelligence but it is widely quoted in AI textbooks. I am also not sure if the title "Scientific Definitions" is the most appropriate, however work by AI professionals must be recorded. Kurtzweil definition of Intelligence is very interesting indeed. When I looked at AI in wikipedia, it does not define Intelligence itself. You have to refer to "Intelligence" for that but in this article, it is too biased against AI.

Other aspects that I don't like is the title. Encyclopaedia is supposed to be not original research, but many people already quote articles from it,showing that these articles are original research that can be quoted. In my opinion, original research is something that is unique.

I don't like the phrase "property of the mind". It appears that only humans can have intelligence, whereas even in the main article, they also discuss Animal Intelligence.

Since only phrases are in dispute, I recommend that we remove the NPOV tag for the whole article, but instead concentrate on just the portions that are in dispute.

When I do research, I like to get as much information as possible. That is why we collect samples from ordinary people as well. Even journals quote from conferences, but they are not quoted as though they are the truth. They are just quoted for record purposes. Othmanskn 17:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence and fertility

We have several articles on 'intelligence and X' (see Category:Factors related to intelligence). I'd like to see one on intelligence and fertility, i.e. how IQ is related to how many children people have. Having a general article on correlations (or lack thereof) of various factors with intelligence might also be an idea (e.g. correlates of intelligence). Richard001 09:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, fertility is not the same as how many children people have. And good luck finding any sources for such an article!
As for the article on "correlations (or lack thereof) of various factors with intelligence ", that article would basically be a correlation matrix -- a table of numbers. Anything more (that isn't already in an article) would be edited mercilessly down to nothing because trying to interpret such correlations is just about impossible. A very fundamental principle of correlational research is that correlation is not equivalent to causality. So just because Factor X might have a mild correlation with "Intelligence" (i.e., IQ scores, another thorny issue) doesn't mean Factor X causes someone to be intelligent, or that intelligence causes someone to have Factor X. Ward3001 15:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Fertility rate, as opposed to fecundity, is exactly the measure of how many children people have. As for sources, I know virtually nothing of this topic but I still know of several papers that could be used. Regarding your argument about correlation and causation, why do we then have articles on, e.g., race and intelligence, sex and intelligence, religiosity and intelligence etc? It seems to be a popular myth that correlation means nothing at all, yet consistent correlation shows a relationship as well as anything else can be shown. That is not to say that one variable rising with another proves a relationship, but if one goes up or down together with another in a consistent fashion, we can certainly say that the probability that there is no connection at all is rather minuscule. It is only a matter of what causes what, and whether or not there are any other variables mediating the relationship. These can also be investigated scientifically to further expose the relationship.
What I am proposing would allow all such articles to be summarized, along with any other correlates that don't have their own article. Such an article could then be summarized itself here, which would be quite useful given that this article doesn't even seem to mention the topic. Richard001 07:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Fertility rate is how many children people have. Fertility, as you orginally stated it, is not.
I never said that "correlation means nothing at all". But pinning down what a correlation means is usually a difficult task, and almost inevitably it becomes very controversial when one of the variables is intelligence. You often find references to correlations in professional journals, in which you assume the reader understands the meaning and limitations of correlation. But you can't assume that with the general public (which describes encyclopedia readers). People are quick to jump to conclusions about causality and correlation. You see it done in the media often. The reason race and intelligence, sex and intelligence, and religiosity and intelligence have articles is that these have been written about (and argued about) extensively. If you want to try to dig up additional correlations and write a summary article about them that states more than the list of correlation coefficients, you certainly are free to do so. Good luck! Ward3001 16:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A universal, fundamental definition of intelligence

A universal, fundamental definition of intelligence is required, which underpins the many different ways it is used in the main article.

Intelligence is 'the ability to use knowledge'. Knowledge is 'information accessible by the system under consideration'. Information is 'any space/time/energy potential'.

Intelligence is demonstrated by many things at many different levels. The article should build from the basics up to the dizzy heights of a "property of mind". Thereafter it would be right and proper to provide an extensive catalogue of the myriad facets of human intelligence.

Having a concise definition will allow meaningful consideration of what role intelligence plays in each of the rather loose categories cited (viz. to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn .... etc.).

SteveHewitt 22:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Your definition is one of many, and it may be your opinion that it is more universal or fundamental than those many others, including some of those already in the article. But there are many other opinions. And do you have a citation? If not, it's original research. Ward3001 22:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, having read your links to 'original research' I agree that my proffered definition does indeed contravene the wiki spirit. I will attempt to locate appropriate references. 90.196.252.22 (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Focus on the basic meaning of Intelligence

This article should expose the bias related to the investigation of intelligence and explain what intelligence really is.

In the mid nineteenth century the western world began intensive investigation into intelligence. Scientists began with the obvious by measuring the brain and it's function. The results indicated intelligence did not correlate with academic achievement. For obvious reasons scientists found this unacceptable. At that time measurement of the brain and it's function all but ceased and the test developed by Alfred Binet to determine which children might not perform well in the regular classroom was put forth as a valid tool for measuring intelligence. Note: Binet denied the test measured intelligence and fought against it's use for that purpose.

Intelligence is understanding as it was first defined. It is made possible by the brain's ability to experience many memories at the same time and experience them as one. Short segments of memories of various types (visual, auditory, muscle movement, smell, emotions, body sensations etc...) are stored in the nerve cells located in the cerebral cortex. The cells are interconnected. When a cell is stimulated an electrical current causes the memory contained to be experienced and chemicals to be released from branches on the cells which form the connections between cells causing them to replay the memories contained within. The result is millions of memories being experienced at the same time as one, which allows intelligence or understanding.

Scientists have known for decades the number of connections determines intelligence. Simply google mental retardation synapes or Einstein interconnections Marion Diamond. To understand how the brain works all you need to do is review the work of Wilder Penfield.

Intelligence does not correlate with academic achievement because the classroom environment is not stimulating enough for the greater brain development of the most intelligent causing their brains to shut down.

It is important for many reasons that intelligence is understood and recognized. The bias which makes this impossible needs to cease. Jennonpress 13:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You can add a section on neurological factors studied in intelligence. But you have to do more than just tell us to Google it. You need to find and cite the sources to support your statements. Also, be careful not to jump from "Intelligence is understanding" to a discussion of brain activity. There's a lot of detail that goes between those two concepts, and making the connection between the two has always been very challenging, so be careful to cite sources and not express the information as your opinions or original research. Ward3001 18:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


This article should focus on the simple, basic, popular, common-sense notion of intelligence at the expense of more nuanced, multicultural, and idiosyncratic definitions. I'm not saying these other definitions should be excluded, but the focus should be on the core notion. The core notion of intelligence is "the propensity to make correct decisions".

Yes we can all think of specific counterexamples to this definition, but think of how the word is actually applied IN PRACTICE. This is its de facto definition. There is a tendency to romanticize the word "intelligence", probably due to its Latinate roots. Think of the words "smart" and "dumb" and you'll realize that the meaning of "intelligence" is really quite straightforward. It's meaning is relative, but only relative to one's definition of "correct" or "right". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.235.199 (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I see a contradiction in your statements. You want a focus on "the simple, basic, popular, common-sense notion of intelligence" (i.e., the layperson's view of it), yet this is the very reason for the "tendency to romanticize the word 'intelligence' ". And I disagree that the article should focus on the popular, common-sense notion of intelligence. That can be mentioned, but there is a need for the more scientific debate about what intelligence is. And that is not "'really quite straightforward". Ward3001 18:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Other Species: Genetic Engineering Paragraph

I'm having trouble with the last paragraph of the "Other Species section. There might, in the distant future, be ethical questions about what rights genetically engineered human-animal hybrids should enjoy. However, I think that's a long way off and shouldn't be a part of a general article on intelligence. Also, the paragraph makes some claims which may not be supportable by fact ("intelligence of such species would certainly came from human part of their genetic construction", "their genetically engineered intelligence could be equal or even larger than that of the humans"). I suppose I could say the paragraph should cite references, but I really think this is just sci-fi fantasy and the paragraph should be deleted.Gwilson (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Other definitions

First, I'm sorry for my poor English. When I'm translate this section for complete my article, I searched this references and I found. All of this sentences are taken for [6], of the book of: "Measuring Intelligence Facts and Fallacies, David J. Bartholomew, 2004, Cambridge University, ISBN 0521544785. Thanks for all. If you compare this 2 parts, you will can put this references. -- KRLS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.92.12 (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can see more references of this definitions, you can see ca:Intel·ligència, and the same section. And there are more references of "other definitions", we will can take. -- KRLS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.92.12 (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.253.222 (talk)

Fails to support/which would support

I changed the line in Multiple Intelligences "Thus far, no one has been able to develop a set of ability tests that do not correlate together, and this fails to support the claim that multiple intelligences are independent of each other" to "Thus far, no one has been able to develop a set of ability tests that do not correlate together which would support the claim that multiple intelligences are independent of each other". I noted that I made the edit to avoid the double negative logic in the original sentence.

I got read the riot act by ward3001 who claimed this changed the meaning of the sentence and cautioned me against vandalism. I am trying to make the sentence more readable as it presently has 3 negative elements (no one, do not correlate and fails to support) which makes the logic of the sentence difficult to resolve. Let me say, I took the sentence to mean that if someone could develop a set of ability tests which did not correlate to each other they would have supported the claim that that multiple intelligences are independent of each other. So far, no one has been able to do that, all the ability tests correlate so there is no support for the claim.

Previously the word "refutes" had been used but was replaced with "fails to support".

I wonder if the following wording might be better:

A set of ability tests that do not correlate together would support the claim that multiple intelligences are independent of each other. However, no one has been able to develop such a set of tests.

And if this is not the meaning of the sentence then I might suggest that Ward3001 or other's of "sufficient technical expertise" rewrite the sentence to be clear to those less technical readers who apparently misunderstood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwilson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

First let me address the issue. The sentence is perfectly understandable as it is now:
"Thus far, no one has been able to develop a set of ability tests that do not correlate together, and this fails to support the claim that multiple intelligences are independent of each other".
This is the sentence after Gwilson's change:
"Thus far, no one has been able to develop a set of ability tests that do not correlate together which would support the claim that multiple intelligences are independent of each other". (emphasis added) This has the opposite meaning.
The phrase "fails to support" is commonly used in science because it is more accurate than "refutes", "disproves", or "denies" (very little can be refuted, disproven, or denied in science). Gwilson may be perceiving use of "no one" and "do not correlate" as use of two negatives; tecnically that may be true, but there is no ambiguity in meaning. If "no one" does something, there aren't many alternative ways to say it. Likewise, if tests "do not correlate", there aren't many ways to restate that. It might be possible to break the sentence into two separate sentences, such as "Thus far, no one has been able to develop a set of ability tests that do not correlate together. This fails to support the claim that multiple intelligences are independent of each other." I don't really see that as an improvement, but if enough knowledgeable editors wish to make that change, I don't have a problem with it. In short, I think the wording of the sentence is quite clear to readers who are familiar with psychological research.
Now let me address the accusation against me. This is what I wrote to Gwilson: "If this was an honest mistake, I ask you to be more careful in editing technical articles in areas for which you do not have sufficient expertise". When someone edits a sentence and changes the original meaning to the opposite meaning, I don't consider it "reading the riot act" to simply point out that if it was an honest mistake (which I believe it was), please be more careful. I did not make an accusation of vandalism. I just made a suggestion that an editor who is not knowledgeable about the subject matter should be cautious not to inadvertently change the meaning of a sentence. If I made a change to an article of which I had limited knowledge, and accidentally changed the meaning of a critical point, I would not take offense if someone made that statement to me; in fact, I would appreciate it. If I offended anyone, I apologize. But I do not apologize for trying to protect the meaning of a very crucial point in the article. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me add that Ward3001 ended the note to me with "If it was intentional, let me caution you against vandalism." and so I wrote that Ward3001 "cautioned me against vandalism". I did not say that Ward3001 accused me of vandalism as is implied by "I did not make an accusation of vandalism". I will say that Ward3001 offered no opinion on whether this was vandalism or a mistake. (But those were the only two choices, that Ward3001 was in error was not an option). The posture and tone of this comes across to me as condescending. If I am being overly sensitive, I apologize.
I've read the two about 100 times now and still believe they say the same thing. The problem (perhaps) is that the "this" in the first refers to the fact that "no one has been able to develop the test" while "which would" refers to a set of uncorrelated test themselves. I believe Ward3001 may have reverted my edit thinking "which would" referred to the same thing that "this" referred to. This would change the meaning, and was not what I intended. I pointed out in the editing remarks what I was trying to achieve and would have hoped that someone who was not happy with my wording would have tried to communicate and find a better wording rather than just reverting. Those are Wiki etiquette principles after all.
While I take Ward3001's point that "the wording of the sentence is quite clear to readers who are familiar with psychological research", I would submit that those readers would already understand the point which the sentence is trying to make. My aim was to make the sentence understandable to someone less familiar with psychological research and who therefore might actually benefit from the sentence. I offered my two sentence version, not as a compromise but as a good faith attempt to find wording which is more straightforward and clear than either of the single sentence versions. While Ward3001 may not see any difference between the reverted single sentence text and the two sentence versions, I do. Are there any objections or problems we haven't anticipated with a two sentence version like:
A set of ability tests that do not correlate together would support the claim that multiple intelligences are independent of each other. However, thus far no one has developed such a set of tests.
If I offended anyone, I apologize. But I do not apologize for trying to make clear the meaning of a very crucial but convoluted point in the article. Thank you Gwilson (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind making Wikipedia more readable to non-experts, but not at the expense of accuracy. I'm curious to see what other Wikipedia psychologists think about Gwilson's suggested change. My opinion is that, although it's certainly better than the change that included the phrase "which would support", it is not as scientifically precise as my suggested two-sentence version. If other psychologists don't comment in a few days, I'm open to seeking more opinions with a request for comment.
As for my tone, perhaps I was careless in not watching how my tone might be perceived, but I still don't believe that I "read the riot act" to anyone. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I think "Fails to support" can have two meanings. I interpreted the meaning intended by the editor who replaced "refutes" to be "no corroborating evidence has been found". Another meaning is that "provides evidence counter to". For example, a quick google of "Fails to support" lead me to a journal article titled "New palaeomagnetic evidence fails to support rotation of western Newfoundland" The article continues "Palaeomagnetic results from Ordovician to late Precambrian rocks in western Newfoundland are inconsistent with Wegener's hypothesis that the island has rotated 30° anticlockwise. Previous evidence apparently supporting this hypothesis is shown to be inconclusive.". I don't pretend to be an expert in Precambrian rocks in western Newfoundland, but it certainly appears that sense of "fails to support" used here is closer to "refutes" than "no corroborating evidence has been found". I found other examples, but I think the one I gave makes the point.
This gets back to the original change from "refutes" to "fails to support" because, as that editor noted, "lack of evidence does not refute a theory". If you agree with that and accept my argument above that "fails to support" can be interpreted as a (polite) form of "refutes" then we need to come up with language that avoids both terms.
You posited earlier that there were a limited number of ways to say certain things. This is true but I don't think that should stop us from choosing the way which is most clear to most readers (as long as it presents the science accurately). While you may be able to parse these statements, most people (especially those for whom English is a second language) have trouble when a statement contains one or more negative elements. Would presenting the entire sentence in the affirmative as "All tests developed so far correlate abilities and so support the single intelligence theory." change the scientific precision?
The more complete article on Theory_of_multiple_intelligences uses the affirmative and put it this way "The second major criticism is that it is fallacious to say that someone may be good in one intelligence but not in another. Every multiple domain IQ test ever normed (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Stanford-Binet IQ test, Ronald K. Hoeflin's Mega test) has shown that all the areas tested are correlated. This trend is also shown in tests like the Graduate Record Examination, the SAT, the PSAT, the ACT, etc., on every one of which each section correlates to a high degree with the others; the correlation rarely drops below 0.6 on the -1 to 1 scale. Hence, it has been argued that persons who excel in one type of intelligence usually excel in several others; and many times in all."Gwilson (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I would just like to add that something to clarify a potential misunderstanding I believe Ward3001 may have regarding the wording he reverted to. The "fails to" wording was introduced about 24 hours earlier. For about a year the sentence had read "refutes". The length of time that "refutes" existed does not, of course, indicate that it held consensus. However, it indicates to me that leaving the "fails to" wording in place in order to first reach consensus on a new wording is misguided. It elevates it to a higher level than it deserves. Clearly, since it was only in place for 24 hours prior to my edit, there wasn't been time for consensus to formed around "fails to" either. If "fails to" had been in place for a year, that would be different. However, there is no evidence, at this time, to support the notion that "fails to" holds greater sway with the community than the wording I used or others I have proposed. In fact, "fails to" clearly does change the meaning of the original sentence (and the editor who introduced that wording indicated he did intend to change the meaning of the sentence). I guess I'm asking why my changes must be held to a greater standard.
I would also add that the sentence contains a reference to an article by Hunt. That reference was originally put in place in regards to a statement which appeared earlier in the text. If anyone has access to the article, it would be good to verify it does apply to both sentences. Perhaps a literal quote from that paper would restore the accuracy of the statementGwilson (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The more I look over this discussion, the more I am inclined to favor this suggestion by Gwilson above: "A set of ability tests that do not correlate together would support the claim that multiple intelligences are independent of each other. However, thus far no one has developed such a set of tests". It doesn't appear to have any inaccuracies, and it avoids the "fails to support" problem. I'm OK with changing to that version unless or until someone suggests a better version.
Interestingly, the Hunt article (actually a critique of a book) fails verification. I think that citation was placed in the section originally in reference to other material. But as it is right now, the material we have been discussing here is unsourced (but very likely true). I will look for a source when I have more time. Ward3001 (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I will make that change when I get some free time later today. I'm thinking I will perhaps "revert" the Hunt citation back to refer the the sentence which precedes this one in the article. That's the sentence which originally referenced it. I will attempt a 'citation needed' for the new sentence (never done that in Wiki yet so...). if you have other suggests on how to better handle the citation let me know, or if it's after I have made the change, you can always correct my attempt. ThanksGwilson (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I made the change. I also removed Hunt completely and added a citation to Gardner's book for the paragraph about his theory. Ward3001 (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)