How do you define an intelligent individual?

Post Reply New Topic

[quote="nessa238"][quote="GGPViper"][quote="nessa238"][quote="GGPViper"]What, then, is the problem?[/quote]
No one here has a problem - you seem to be the one who is unhappy about things[/quote]
Well, since I *am* unhappy about a lot of things, I cannot wholeheartedly reject your claim.

But what is the point in starting from scratch when dealing with the concept of intelligence, when the standard concept of IQ is a well researched and highly useful tool?[/quote]

because I have come across many people flaunting their high IQs on here and elsewhere and they've certainly not impressed me with anything that comes out of their mouths[/quote]

But isn't that rather subjective?

I think intelligence is goal directed adaptive behaviour, problem solving skills and the ability to learn and reason. And many IQ test assess that quite well.
Off course there are intelligent people who sometimes say ignorant things, but I don't think it makes them less intelligent.
I know a girl who a member of mensa. Though she never went to high school. I had to tell her haiti is in the Caribbean, not in Africa.

Your example of the girl in Mensa is a perfect example!

People who say 'I've got a very high IQ' or 'I'm in Mensa' are all of a type in my experience ie not nearly as bright as they like to think they are!

If she didn't know that Haiti wasn't in Africa she wasn't very clever in my opinion as that is basic geography!

With people like her I'm always wanting to know what achievements have they made in life ie to what practical use has their self-assumed intelligence been put

I judge intelligence on ability to problem solve the problems of daily life plus originality of thought ie not spouting the same opinions as everyone else

To use myself as a living example for the case that nessa, Jaden, and others are making here, I typically finish my IQ tests (WAIS a couple of times, as well as some other tests) somewhere in the 130s range. Yet, I am not very skilled when it comes to improvisation, creativity, stuff like that. I've found myself in situations where I was theoretically the most knowledgeable person in the room, yet unable to apply that knowledge in a practical setting. At best, I am a walking encyclopaedia. I get great scores at IQ tests, because I see the patterns. But put me in a situation where patterns are ever-changing and unpredictable, and I am unable to properly react to it at all- for all my supposed 'intelligence'.

I've even started to theorize that the whole reason I used to be 'good' at soaking up information at all, was that I hyperfocused on it, and was just grinding facts on my favourite subjects over and over instead of engaging in more 'common' children's activities. So in my case, it probably isn't even a greater 'talent' for processing information, as much as it is the result of rote learning.

The problem (for me at least) is that IQ isn't a definition of intelligence, it's a measuring tool. But what is it measuring? It is attempting to measure more than the mere ability to do well on intelligence tests. (Whether it succeeds or not is a subject of great controversy.) Defining intelligence as IQ score is too circular even for IQ researchers. That's why I quoted the wiki chart where various researchers gave their definitions. Several posters have given definitions that are similar to definitions given by IQ researchers. What you are saying seems to be the very circular notion that intelligence means IQ. But that isn't a definition. What is it that makes some people able to do well on these tests? And don't say "g". That means nothing.

Yes but in my opinion you demonstrate above average intelligence by the very act of underplaying your intellect - this kind of modesty is common amongst intelligent people as it demonstrates emotional intelligence ie you have an awareness that going on about high IQ scores grates with a lot of people

The high IQers who don't realise this basic fact and bray on about it regardless are therefore less intelligent than yourself

Self-awareness and emotional intelligence are important aspects of intelligence in my opinion

[quote="Janissy"][quote="GGPViper"]So what we have here is a construct of intelligence (IQ) which is (1) a good predictor of intellectual performance and (2) has a strong genetic basis.

What, then, is the problem?[/quote]

The problem (for me at least) is that IQ isn't a definition of intelligence, it's a measuring tool. But what is it measuring? It is attempting to measure more than the mere ability to do well on intelligence tests. (Whether it succeeds or not is a subject of great controversy.) Defining intelligence as IQ score is too circular even for IQ researchers. That's why I quoted the wiki chart where various researchers gave their definitions. Several posters have given definitions that are similar to definitions given by IQ researchers. What you are saying seems to be the very circular notion that intelligence means IQ. But that isn't a definition. What is it that makes some people able to do well on these tests? And don't say "g". That means nothing.[/quote]

So how do you think intelligence should my measured? How can it be measured?

I'm just saying the limitations that I know of for IQ tests. I don't have a problem with it. I just see it as a tool that is useful for some purposes but that shouldn't be generalized to mean an overarching way of testing intelligence.

Besides, I agree with Janissy that the only thing an IQ test can predict for sure is the ability to do well on IQ tests (or other academic tests). But that's just my personal opinion... I mean yes it can seem to predict success in life in some cases, but as Stephen Hawking said, "People who boast about their IQ are losers" while he shows his intelligence through his theories.

I scored a very high IQ, but I have repeatedly said on this forum that I do not know what it is that defines "intelligence" or what supposedly makes me qualitatively different from other people. I do not think that I am "smarter than everyone" with different scores, and I often see people - regardless of scores - saying or posting rather insightful and informative things.

I think most of the definitions in this thread are overly narrow and occasionally self-serving.

I find I agree with Callista's post more than anything.



The notion of "passing" an IQ test is incoherent. You do not pass or fail.

I doubt most people manipulate the tests in the manner you describe. I don't think that necessarily means IQ scores reflect "real intelligence" but then I think the notion of "intelligence" is largely a social construct used to describe variations in a certain set of cognitive abilities, and does not reflect a "real" thing.

I don't think this is actually true. I think you're looking at three things that are somewhat, but not entirely linked.

I think there's a tendency for some people to want to link high intelligence to personal merit or to traits that are perceived as somehow having merit, and I think that's highly fallacious. You can be highly intelligent and lack self awareness or emotional intelligence, you can be of average intelligence and have excellent self awareness or emotional intelligence.

I do not think, also, that someone who brags about their intelligence is necessarily less intelligent because of it (although I think Dunning-Kruger means that a lot of people do overestimate their intelligence).

Further, in your first post you explain that you see intelligence as the ability to adapt and function in certain ways, but it is understood that IQ can differ from one's adaptive abilities by quite a margin, and that this discrepancy is common in autistic people. This is why autism assessment often includes something like the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS), and generates a number that is comparable to IQ, but relevant to matters of self care and adaptive skills. An autistic person can score a fairly high IQ and a low VABS score. I tend to think this is more complex than "if you can't figure out how to take care of yourself, you're not truly intelligent," and I find such a position to be overly simplified. It's not an irrational conclusion by any means, but given the availability of other information, it does not seem to match reality.

"Intelligence" is "IQ" and "IQ" is "intelligence" is both circular and meaningless.

IQ tests measure certain cognitive abilities that we can arbitrarily define as "intelligence" for the purposes of discussion, but the notion that IQ is the sole definition of "intelligence" is not a done deal.

And, yes, IQ appears to be a factor in "life success," but, how important a role it plays is highly debatable. It takes five minutes on Google to find studies indicating that other factors are just as important, if not more so, than IQ.

[Yoda] This agree with I do. [/Yoda]

Intelligence is how quickly someone can and will learn new things.

It is one type of being "smart", but not the only type.

Intelligence is relative to the application.

There's a quote that says "Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

There are certain subjects which I learn about drastically more quickly than most people, but that doesn't mean that I'm intelligent about every subject. It just means that my brain is good at thinking in particular ways. There are certain subjects which completely baffle me, but which other, supposedly-less-intelligent people can grasp fairly easily.

the kruger effect illustrates the old saying, "mediocrity only understands itself, and can't comprehend anything greater." IOW "when you think you're doing well, you've stopped thinking."