General Intelligence

[cjs55]

I raise objections to those that believe there is no such thing as general intelligence.

First:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_intelligence_factor

Second, what I believe to be the most obvious factor: In language there is a word for intelligence that is easily understood by all. I would imagine that this cuts across various languages, however, I can't be sure about that. However, I can be sure that in english, there is little confusion when someone says "He is bright." or "She is smart." No one thinks, "Oh, do they mean musically intelligent?" or "Oh, do they mean spatially intelligent". So what precisely are we referring to by that word?

It may or may not be 'g'. I think it probably would be correlated with it however. Simply have students rate each other on a scale of how intelligent they think the others are, and then test for g. Easy test to do, and it probably has been done, I just haven't seen it.

[PenguinHunter]

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea but I don't think I agree with part 2.

I could say someone is hot. People say it all the time. Rarely does someone say, "What? where? Like face? How do you mean hot?" Does that mean "general beauty" exists?

(I would also say a debate about how someone is hot happens about as often as a debate about how someone is smart. Ass, hair; math, art.)

[cjs55]

Just to clarify generally: I don't mean to say that simply because a word is used makes the concept exist empirically. I mean very specifically, when it comes to the word 'intelligence' there is a lack of ambiguitity concerning the usage that implies a recognition of a specific ability.

You make a good point concerning the cultural aspect of language however. The word hot in California may mean something different than it would in Iowa. The word intelligence may also have transitive meaning. I don't believe that linguisitic evidence can give 'objective' proof of something. I would instead state that linguistic evidence can give an idea of what a culture thinks of something.




(I would also say a debate about how someone is hot happens about as often as a debate about how someone is smart. Ass, hair; math, art.)

I'm not sure where you are going with this precisely.

However, I have never heard people ask "What, do you mean she has a nice ass?" When saying someone is hot . I have also never heard someone ask "You mean she is good at art?" after someone mentions that said person is intelligent. (I believe you do agree with me here...I think...)

More clarification: I had a conversation about this subject with a friend of mine, and he pointed out that the word 'smart' has different connotations than intelligence. While smart is used in a variety of context: 'street smart', 'book smart', 'people smart', intelligence is more constricted and abstract in it's use. I don't know how much I agree with him. If I say, 'she's smarter than me', I mean the exact same thing as 'she's more intelligent than I am.' I think the word 'smart' simply became a term to qualify to imply different concepts. This is an adaptive feature of language, to use part of two words and mix them together to represent a new concept. The part of smart that is being used is 'ability'. Smart != ability if unqualified.


Back to your point (finally):

I would definitely say in the end that there is a general concept of hotness, but much of it is cultural in basis. Sticking to what I know, in utah, there IS a general concept of 'hot', otherwise, the word would not be used as it is. If it was a more ambigious term, it would require clarification in order for meaning to be conveyed. I will make a final jump here: The specifics of this term are cultural, the general concept of 'hot' is more universal to humanity in general. The general concept of 'hot' is basically 'something that inspires lust'. Just because in America today the manifestation of that concept is malnurished models, and in some tribes it was corpulence, doesn't change the general conception.

This is why we can have disagreements between who is hot or not, but we rarely clash on what the concept of hotness means: Different tastes.

Can we have the same disagreements concerning intelligence? How often do they occur compared to the 'hotness' example? I would certainly argue that intelligence is a case where there are more universal factors at place than 'hotness'. While the (99.99%+ agreement) universals of hotness are at the least healthy skin and facial symmetry, the universals of intelligence I would wager are more overwhelming. Which is to say, there can be less subjective argument concerning who is intelligent.

You may say: Isn't the trend of 'multiple intelligence theory' undermining your argument here?

No. This goes back to my point about the word 'smart' before. The biggest problem I see conerning that objection is that intelligence has been reinterpreted by some who view it as equivalent to 'ability'. This is not the usage of the word in real world situation. If you want to call it interpersonal 'intelligence', then the word intelligent is totally different than it would be unqualified. Because no one is thinking interpersonal ability when they use the unqualified word --intelligent-- in conversation. Multiple intelligence theory is totally changing the meaning of the word in our current linguistic system. If this doesn't occur, I argue there would be little argument concerning who is intelligent.

This is obviously meaningless if it doesn't correspond to a real world occurance. I think it does. Again, I have nothing to back me up, but my intuition and experience strongly tell me that it does, and are one piece of the puzzle. Linguistic evidence is another possible piece of the puzzle. The testing done by psychometricians is another one.

[kuranes]

I need to do more research on this "G" concept. And I have a huge file on it that I've only gotten partway through on so far.

A person possessing interpersonal intelligence doesn't necessarily have to lack a great deal of the other kinds of intelligences, is what I'm assuming. They just have IT as their strongest asset. Not their ONLY asset. So it might tend to compensate for having a little less in some other department.

The word "intelligence" can refer to a number of things. It can point to military code breaking, strategizing, and creating propoganda etc. It can refer to a type of "academic" knowledge, which is not applicable in all spheres. And yes, it CAN refer to "street smarts" IMO. Just as "bright" can. Just a word.

"G" refers to something measured by a test, I think. From what I understand, they are constantly adding and updating this test, as new info comes along. So what the test meant 20 years ago is a bit different today, it would seem. No one, including Mr. Gardner, has devised a test yet for the other intelligences; but they're working on it. We had a link to a site on that on the board the other day, I believe.

[joft]

this is kind of ofn but the mismeasure of man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man) by stephen jay gould makes some valid points about the notion of "unilinear" intelligence

[cjs55]

It's not that I don't think 'multiple intelligences' exist at all.. I just think that general intelligence does exist. They aren't mututally exclusive in the least.

My problem with 'multiple intelligence' is not it's real world existance, but rather it's labeling. I don't like calling it intelligence, because the word used in an unqualified manner means something completely different than in this qualified manner. On that note, my question I am proposing is simply this: What do we mean when we say someone is intelligent? Since we don't have to clarify which kind of intelligence, it seems we are refering to a general concept, not one of the 'multiple intelligences'.

[cjs55]

demonstrating how in several occasions researchers such as Samuel Morton, Louis Agassiz, Paul Broca used their expected conclusions as part of their reasoning (a clear logical error)

Oh certainly Gould couldn't be guilty of the same thing.

Everyone sees what they want to see. The only question is whether what you want to see is in accordance to reality or not.

I haven't read Gould's book, although it seems that Jensen does a good job of arguing against him.


Philippe also charges that Gould fails to mention new discoveries made from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which show a .4 correlation between brain-size and IQ.

This is a pretty big deal. Of course, in anthropology/human evolution the increase of encephalization (cranial capicity relative to body mass) is recognized as an increase in cognitive capacity as well (intelligence). For some crazy reason, some people decided that concept didn't apply to homo sapiens (but it applied for every other species, including earlier homo)

[eyebyte_atWork]

this is kind of ofn but the mismeasure of man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man) by stephen jay gould makes some valid points about the notion of "unilinear" intelligence


Glad you pointed out this book - I will most likely read it.

[Zephyrus055]

I prefer Keirsey's theory on intelligence. I think Howard Gardner's theory on intelligence is wrong because, for example, mathematical intelligence and linguistic intelligence are products of human societies, not anything natural. It's like saying that you have mechanical intelligence because you're a good mechanic or you have good physics intelligence because you're good with physics.

Keirsey's list of multiple intelligence is natural and encompassing for various tasks, not specifically designated to represent a human construct.

According to Keirsey, there are four main categories of intelligence: strategic, tactical, diplomatic, and logistical.

Strategic: This intelligence reaches its most advanced state of development in NTs. Strategic intelligence is the relationship between means and ends. The four subgroups of strategic intelligence are: Fieldmarshalling, Masterminding, Inventing, and Architect.

Diplomatic: This intelligence reaches its most advanced state of development in NFs. Diplomatic intelligence is self-explanatory, hehe. This is the second most developed intelligence in NTs.

Tactical: This intelligence reaches its most advanced state of development in SPs. Tactical intelligence deals with the delivery of external operations such as crafting or performing. This is 3rd for NTs.

Logistic: This intelligence reaches its most advanced state of development in SJs. Logistical intelligence deals with the preparation and distribution of material, "how much of this we need to get over there in this amount of time." This is the least developed intelligence in NTs.

Each individual of a particular type has each intelligence and sub-intelligence developed in varying degrees, and the more intelligent the person the more effective they are with the intelligence particular to their temperament and type. Also, a person who develops each 16 intelligences to higher degrees is a more well-rounded person.

For example,

An intelligent SJ will be a wiz at performing logistical operations and maybe a little better with strategy than most other SJs. An intelligent SP will also be a wiz at performing tactical operations, being an effective special ops agent or stage performer. And again, each type can work to develop their inferior intelligences to be more well-rounded individuals.

Unfortunately for SJs and SPs, the stereotypical genius shall always be the intelligent NT http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/smile.gif.

[CosmicDust]

Let's see, what does "smart" usually imply, in our culture at least?

Quick-thinking, often having memorized lots of knowledge, usually has a good vocabulary and says things that make sense using that vocabulary (i.e. no Williams syndrome or incoherent psychotic rambling), learns academic-type things quickly

In Gardner's "intelligences," the common notion of "intelligence" would probably correspond primarily to verbal-linguistic and mathematical/logical.

I can see how different types of intelligence/skill might correlate if they use some of the same brain hardware, if natural or sexual selection favored more people in a population having multiple abilities strong over those with only one or two abilities strong, and/or if people with strong math ability and people with strong verbal ability frequently mated with each other and passed on to their children the genes for both abilities.

The hardware thing might be key to the correlations...our brains are made with a lot of flexibility in them, so that we can learn and unlearn various things as we need to in our lives - program and reprogram, and even replace and bolster the hardware a little bit even after childhood. Your computer's "g" factor, then, would be closely related to some combination of the capacity and speed of its hard drive, its processor speed, its RAM, and how well integrated your machine's components are. Physically bigger hard drives on average hold more data, but people over time have been making various electronics smaller and smaller, so that smaller hard drives of today are much "smarter" than bigger hard drives of 5 years ago.

The developing brain does a lot more than language, math, and its ilk, though, and if neurons are needed for other skills not considered part of traditional "intelligence," they might go there instead. The resulting system might have hardware and software of equal quality to a more "intelligent" one, but that hardware and software will be optimized for different tasks. It's like how blind people hear and sense touch better...the neurons normally used for vision are re-routed to hearing and touch. So, someone who scores lower on an IQ test than another person doesn't necessarily have less overall brain power; that brain power might instead be used for things that are not measured by IQ tests. It can be like comparing wax apples with wax oranges...both are made from the same material, but made differently. Thinking this way, abilities other than those covered by the common usage of the term "intelligence" could be seen as somehow equivalent to intelligence.

People want to be able to call themselves intelligent because it's associated with legendary figures who have contributed much to the world, and also because it's often thought of as one of the things that makes us above the apes, so that there's the implication, at least to my mind, that you are somehow a greater being if you are more intelligent and a lesser being if you are less intelligent. To get around this, you can either bring other abilities up to the pedestal with intelligence, or, if you're feeling cynical about the whole notion of humans being above apes (and God, how can we be after all I've heard about in the political and military world lately?), lower intelligence from its pedestal and put it down on the jungle floor with the other abilities of animals.

For my own peace of mind, I'd like to minimize all notions of value and quality of being and the like as much as possible, because I have a nasty little habit of self-defeating thoughts of not measuring up or the possibility thereof, which from what I've read can interfere with optimal use of the abilities one does have.

Why write this long disjoint mess? I wanted to contribute to a serious topic other than bitchy soap-operatic board dynamics around here for once. Yes, so that I could "measure up" in a sense. Perhaps I'll never get down to the strictly utilitarian level, but any reduction in angst would likely be a good thing.

[PenguinHunter]

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I have been swamped with work lately. (Now I'm done for a while though! -dance-)

I was going to do the quote-response quote-response thing but I think I can better explain what I want to add to this quicker and better just like this.

I think the biggest problem with your theory of "intelligence" as a word leading to the existence of g is the fluidity of language. Pretty much any thesaurus will use smart and intelligent as synonyms for one another. So then in conversation how do you know that a person calling someone "intelligent" is refering to this more abstract concept g or if they are just using it as "smart" - as in ability, or one of multiple contexts which you have already listed? I don't see that the the word's existence in everyday conversation is proof. Rather, I see it as an popular adoption of a scientific term, or else science's (or perhaps more accurately, psycology) adoption of a popular public word as they grasp for something that encapsulates what they want to convey. Once that fails they simply use g.

As to cultural hotness (heh) I think there is still enough ambiguity that there cannot be a general concept of beauty. Different communities stress different traits. Often you find it to be something like symmetry but on an individual level one finds that it is precisely small details of asymmetry that can make a permanent mate. Can that general concept of beauty still work within this context? Perhaps in some way we still go for the symmetrical people first but the very fact that there can be this much disagreement and that even within a group of close friends (of the same "culture") you find a significant amount of disagreement, shows that general beauty does not exist usefully in any form.

Hopefully that made sense, I'm tired. Time to sleep for a few days.