What is intelligence?
09 Mar 2007, 1:32 am
Heres a cool article by the great Isaac Asimov
All my life I’ve been registering scores like that, so that I have the complacent feeling that I’m highly intelligent, and I expect other people to think so, too. Actually, though, don’t such scores simply mean that I am very good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered worthy of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests–people with intellectual bents similar to mine?
For instance, I had an auto-repair man once, who, on these intelligence tests, could not possibly have scored more than 80, by my estimate. I always took it for granted that I was far more intelligent than he was. Yet, when anything went wrong with my car I hastened to him with it, watched him anxiously as he explored its vitals, and listened to his pronouncements as though they were divine oracles–and he always fixed my car.
Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an intelligence test. Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost anyone but an academician. By every one of those tests, I’d prove myself a moron. And, I’d be a moron, too. In a world where I could not use my academic training and my verbal talents but had to do something intricate or hard, working with my hands, I would do poorly. My intelligence, then, is not absolute but is a function of the society I live in and of the fact that a small subsection of that society has managed to foist itself on the rest as an arbiter of such matters.
Consider my auto-repair man, again. He had a habit of telling me jokes whenever he saw me. One time he raised his head from under the automobile hood to say: “Doc, a deaf-and-mute guy went into a hardware store to ask for some nails. He put two fingers together on the counter and made hammering motions with the other hand. The clerk brought him a hammer. he shook his head and pointed to the two fingers he was hammering. The clerk brought him nails. He picked out the sizes he wanted, and left. Well, doc, the next guy who came in was a blind man. He wanted scissors. How do you suppose he asked for them?”
Indulgently, I lifted my right hand and made scissoring motions with my first two fingers. Whereupon my auto-repair man laughed raucously and said, “Why, you dumb jerk, he used his voice and asked for them.” Then he said smugly, “I’ve been trying that on all my customers today.” “Did you catch many? I asked. “Quite a few,” he said, “but I knew for sure I’d catch you.” “Why is that?” I asked. “Because you’re so goddamned educated, doc, I knew you couldn’t be very smart.”
And I have an uneasy feeling he had something there.
Ive brought this up because in the world of aspergers its definitely clear that there are some highly 'intelligent' people, often learning really advanced stuff that would otherwise be abnormal to some people. I feel that people like Einstein and Isaac Newton may have had symptoms of aspergers because of their weird social behavior and unrelentless obsessions, which obviously helped shape the world today. Now i might be going out on a limb to say that they had AS but im sure as some of you guys know, we people with AS often have some obsession which we know muuch about and often accelled academically. I did decent on my SATs, 1170 before they changed to the 2200(or so) scale, and always did well in math.
Which brings me to my point, so if we are intelligent beings, what makes it so hard for us to do well socially? Now i have my own theories about my disabilities, which ill just go ahead and say, im not a quick thinker(UNLESS your talking about something i know much about), i cant change gears very fast, and sometimes i feel like i can only work with so much information. If i concentrate too much on something i end up forgetting about something else that i had just thought about before, ie, ill go into the kitchen with the purpose of finding some scissors but while im getting there something pops into my head that takes up my undivided attention, and next thing i know, im staring at the fridge wondering what i walked in there to grab.
I believe its stuff like this that makes me struggle in social(very unpredictable and fast) situations. Of course, this doesnt stop me from or truly make it impossible to socialize, i do it pretty well if i can say so myself, its just that sometimes i can become overwhelmed and lose myself. Ive done pretty well throughout schooling k-12, had many friends, could make people laugh, had/have interesting conversations, but all throughout i always felt different. But i never thought of it as something neurologically, i guess i convinced myself, and pretty well, that it was just a matter of opinion, that i just believed and knew different.
Anyways, i think that article kinda shed light on intelligence, i think being intelligent is thinking quick, processing alot of information, and having excellent memory, many features of which i dont believe im strong in. But neither was Isaac, or otherwise he would of answered by saying "he asked for them". Now im not saying he wasnt, because he was, ridiculously smart dude, just that he wasnt that quick.
09 Mar 2007, 1:58 am
When we were born....
We decided it would be more prudent to develop ,, many single tasking CPU cores in our brain so that we could calculate our observations (our obsessions)
-Sadly, setting up a neural network of single tasking CPU's leads to high productivity in the calculable sense.,,, but switching over to another program (asking the netwrok to solve a different problem) , takes having to have to cancel the current process and starting up a new one...
NT's on the other hand were'nt so interested in observing,,, instead they interacted ... for interaction you need to dual/multi process ,, to bounce the ball you need to control the nerves, which control the hand, and then you need to wathc it.... once they figure out the methodology of interaction .. then they set up a cluster which takes care of that one specific task. -the problem with this is each time they setup a new cluster, they run out of space on the server farm,,, and alot of the time will restrict any reourses available to thier main nearal netwrok,, scarificing access to data to calclate/reason observation.
09 Mar 2007, 7:35 am
In high school it struck me how the people in class who were considered the most intelligent seemed to me to be sort of foolish and unaware. On the other hand, I had a friend that dropped out, and was not able even to do simple arithmetic (if you were to ask him what 5 plus 8 is, he might say 15). But he could hold a conversation like he understood better than anyone else everything you were saying to him, and he'd would point things out that were so observant and piercing that since then I've never understood the concept of intelligence. It seems like there's several different kinds. I can't consider the type of person who's great at math or chemistry but completely useless at non academic aspects of life particularly intelligent. One thing I can say is that it seems to me that one aspect of intelligence doesn't necesarrily counterbalance the other, in fact there are plenty of people around who have almost no intelligence to speak of, while there are also a few great people who have an amazing capacity for intelligence in almost every aspect. Also I think that there's a difference between intelligence and instinct, by which I mean that for example, social instincts don't equal social intelligence. You can have both, though. A person can be very popular and not have a degree of social intelligence, I think, just by going off their instinct and never consciously examining a situation, but who knows, maybe it is the same thing. Because then you have to consider, is there an academic instinct? Or would that necesarrily equal intelligence?
Intelligence I see as more of a capacity for understanding rather than an understanding of a concept, although that might be the official definition or whatever, that's not the way most people think of it.
09 Mar 2007, 7:50 am
I always saw intelligence as simply the intersection of knowledge and wisdom. If you can't apply the knowledge, you might as well not have it. If you don't have the knowledge, the ability to apply it isn't that great. Hey, Issacc asimov, if he is really that smart, probably at least understands how cars work. That doesn't mean he knows what the compression or timing should be, etc...
Of course, there ARE other abilities ALSO! I would never try to move everything I have myself. My eyes and hand coordination aren't good enough for me to consider brain surgery or heart surgery. I HAVE learned a lot about both, and MIGHT be able to do heart surgery if not for that though.
Steve
09 Mar 2007, 7:52 am
Achievement, education and difference
What is intelligence?
Dictionaries will usually define intelligence as the ability to process, retain and retrieve data in response to appropriate stimuli determined by input laws. It could then be said that an individual with a high intelligence would have the ability to perform such functions more efficiently (hence the time-limit on IQ tests, an IQ test being able to supposedly measure an individuals intelligence).
In ‘hard’ A.I. [artificial intelligence which uses higher-order computer languages] technologists consider conscious human elements, creativity and self-determination. In ‘soft’ A.I. theories of intelligence such as the one most often found in modern dictionaries; the most defining human elements such as consciousness are not considered and the individual is likened to non-person or machine. Only in a standard computer would one use storage capacity and memory (rate of retrieval and processing of data) as a measure of capability or ‘intelligence’!
IQ tests have made the error of attempting to quantify an ill-defined and abstract concept; are they not then bound to be inaccurate?
It seems it is necessary to redefine intelligence and the various levels of it, in order that it be easily identified.
To me, it appears that intelligence should not only incorporate low order functions, but higher-order functions such as abstract thought. Higher-order functions are an essential to any individual human being and their utilization is a defining part of the human experience.
All humans have higher-order brain functions (this indeed is what distinguishes us form animals), some simply choose not to exercise them, in the same way that some individuals choose not to exercise their bodies. For some, it may be the brain is damaged and so they cannot directly access their higher-order functions – but they still essentially have them.
Consciousness is not be confused with a higher-order function as consciousness itself is a uniform field which manifests more elaborately with the increasing complexity of the system in which it presides. (Thus, higher-order functions can be likened to a software interface for the hardware of the brain to be able to experience the conscious field at a greater level.)
The human brain is a very advanced difference engine and theoretical postulation by mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose has suggested that it solves its most advanced problems by utilizing quanta (an advanced and subconscious calculation of universal probability using the environment – similar to Jung’s theory of mind) a process which most certainly cannot be measured by an IQ test.
To me, intelligence is a concept defined by the actions of considerate rational thought, it is therefore often accompanied by the desire to create homeostasis, whatever the individual defines such an equilibrium to be.
It could be said that low intelligence is characterized by the inability to make connections or to demonstrate (not perform) higher-order brain functions such as detailed reasoning, whilst high intelligence is defined by ones ability to make connections between data and to act or think creatively; it is characterized by an interest in higher-order processes such as thought.
Genius is manifest as the ability to contribute uniquely to a field which influences a change in universal perception or defines a new paradigm of thought or action. (For this reason Isaac Newton, Robert Constable and even Adolf Hitler are said to be geniuses in their respective fields.)
Arthur Jenson (1973) defines intelligence as ‘abstract reasoning’ and on this term IQ tests are not valid, as this is just one type of human mental ability. For example, higher-functioning autistics and those with dyslexia can be very intelligent and yet score poorly in IQ tests.
Howard Gardner (1983, 1993, 1999) believes that humans have multiple intelligence’s, rather than a general intelligence that underlies performance in all tasks (g). Gardner continues in the tradition of Thurstone's proposal that there is no g (general intelligence) but rather multiple, distinct intelligence’s. Gardner proposes seven intelligence’s (although he does not limit the possible number).
1. Linguistic intelligence
2. Musical intelligence
3. Logical- mathematical intelligence
4. Spatial intelligence
5. Bodily-Kinaesthetic intelligence
6. Interpersonal intelligence
7. Interpersonal intelligence
Additional 'candidate' intelligence’s recently proposed by Gardener are:
8. Naturalistic intelligence (ability to discern patterns in nature - e.g. Darwin)
9. Spiritual Intelligence - recognition of the spiritual
10. Existential intelligence - concern with 'ultimate issues'
Regarding Gardener’s model, it can be noted that intelligence’s can be isolated to different modules of the brain which have their own distinct processing and memory functions. In this way, the different parts of the brain act as small processors which are networked by the CNS [central nervous system] so that the entire right and left hemispheres act as one output processing unit. (There are of course individual differences, such as cases of biological deviation as seen in autism; the brain may become highly specialized in certain functions in order to compensate, if it is inhibited in others e.g. social skills are substituted for an advanced systemizing ability).
An example from the celebrity world, footballer David Beckham, has a rich level of understanding of the aspects of spatial awareness within his physical (bodily/kinaesthetic) intelligence.
He demonstrates not only the skill of a premiere league professional, but the ability to coach, improve upon and design his own methods within his realm of specialized intelligence to an exceedingly high and competent level. Yet, Mr. Beckham is ridiculed for his lack of ‘intelligence’. An intelligence which is based within the confines of the typically inaccurate, and rigorously unfair IQ test. IQ tests belong in the late Victorian era when they were created, along with hypodermic glass syringes and child labour.
From the above example, and from my own, it can be determined that high intelligence (or IQ) does not necessarily presuppose good educational achievement. An individual whether traditionally measured with a high IQ or defined as intelligent in other ways, may be influenced by external factors beyond their control (such as mental illness, lack of resources determined by low class status), or use self-determination (such as illegal activities) which may result in lack of academic achievement as defined by the system.
Otto Klineberg argued that a number of factors can influence performance in IQ tests: factors from the type of intelligence, familiarity with the examination technique, motivation/desire, physical health, emotional state, understanding/comprehension of the language etc.
It could be argued that an IQ score will not significantly fluctuate if the same individual were to repeat the test under different conditions and that comprehension is part of intelligence; not being able to understand yielding the result of lower intelligence. Bernstein (1972) argued however, that class segmentation meant the difference between leaning restricted & elaborated code. Since IQ tests are written in elaborated code, middle class and NT’s (neuro-typical people such as non-dyslexics) are given an advantage over those from other backgrounds not least because it is the middle classes of whom use elaborated code.
It seems then, that true intelligence is based upon one's awareness of their own consciousness, a factor that cannot be determined other than through self-exploration. Is that not our purpose?>
09 Mar 2007, 12:57 pm
It seems then, that true intelligence is based upon one's awareness of their own consciousness, a factor that cannot be determined other than through self-exploration. Is that not our purpose?>
Awesome article, I definately agree to some of those theories. Intelligence is alot more complicated then just having 'good hardware'. But of course, the better the hardware the easier it is to understand things, and of course solve problems, but everyone i guess has their own niche where they excel, its just a bit harder for some people to find it.
_________________
?The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting different results. ?
10 Mar 2007, 3:50 pm
While a hundred year old test designed to serve a simple function, graphing academic performance on a Bell Curve with the middle being preset at 100, and the ends at 80 and 120, has a usefullness as a predictor of educational potential, it has more limits than answers.
Both 80, functions at the lowest level, unskilled labor, and 120, University Professor, Doctor, were picked as the range before the test was designed. Sub 80 was considered best confined, a danger to themselves and others. There was a large building, people were taken there without trial, only the word of a 120, and they were never seen again.
As knowledge is power, those at the high end not confined within a profession were also considered a danger to the state, and many of them were taken to the large building of no return.
Those within the graph who failed economiclly were confined at the County Poor House, and there made to labor for food and shelter. Through death and confinment, children were a remainder who were confined in orphanages, where at seven they could be sold as apprentaces or maids to the more sucessful classes. There they worked for food and shelter.
Another segment of society was judged criminal, confined at hard labor, for such offenses as drinking on Sunday, or self employment, and then were let out as labor gangs to road contractors, timber harvesters. They too worked for food and shelter.
It was considered a perfect and rational society, everyone had a place.
Since the test was devised there has been a one point per decade upward creep. Most I think in the 120+ range, for the -80 were kept from reproducing.
By consistant measure, the Bell Curve has not changed, but another has formed beyond the 120 cutoff.
It is small compared to the bulk of people, but growing.
Within this second curve educational potential is no longer a valid judgement, hence high IQ, 120+, is exclusive rather than inclusive. Being as members of this group do find a place to function socially, economically, they are not only growing in number, but like the major Bell Curve, there is point creep upward, but being a smaller group, and the most responsable for overall creep, their Bell is moving along the graph away from the major curve. Their mean score is now perhaps 150, with few at 125 and few at 175.
Where Curve I is a composite score of Verbal, Numerical, Spatial, Analitical, Curve II more often off the scale in several, lacking in others, and still gets an overall high numerical score. As they become self defining, they no longer see a liner scale, but start using words like Bandwidth, and processing speed. Static status is being replaced by measurement of function over a limited range. Using this anology, they created computers. Once the function was understood, a machine could be developed to mimic that function.
Curve I still claims to define Curve II, but the application of intelligence has left them doing it on a computer they do not understand, and made Bill Gates the richest man on Earth.
This is all new, but Curve II is self defining in terms of the range of intelligence, devising it's own social constructs, and creating it's own economic base. Where Curve I excludes and limits, Curve II includes all forms of intelligence, and grants a wide personal freedom, as it's boundries are infinite.
Curve I consumes it's self, by reducing the low end of the curve they did not advance as planned, but only narrowed the curve, creating a labor shortage, mostly through war. To fill low end positions they denied education based on skin color, imported lower functioning guest workers, and were suprised when these groups moved from the bottom to the leading edge of the curve. By it's own construct, leading edge makes the rules.
Curve II cannot import, only develop local material. Only recently have it's efforts in self defintion born fruit. It has shaken off the Curve I claim that it had to be run by a used car sales man that excelled in football. He no longer qualifies as even an outside salesman, for the product and customers are beyond his understanding.
Curve II rejoices in unbalanced intelligence, it is not your overall ranking, but your ability to focus in depth on a narrow issue that sought. To quote Mick Jager, "Performance."
As no single measure defines Curve II function, and I agree with Dr_Mobius about the range of intelligence, and that there will be more in time. As we are blind to expressions of ability we do not have, and have a hard time explaining our strong suits to those equally blind, I think we should devise our own tests, seeking to map abilities in isolation, color coding them, and then each wear a coat of many colors, used in prorportion to commonly defined abilities, something of a Barcode.
Curve II does not explain everything, but we can come up with a working system. The sooner we learn to unite our abilities, the sooner we will develop our own social and economic space.
From my view from Curve II, I can observe Curve I clearly, looking in the other direction I see a blip on the graph line. I would hardly call it a curve at this point, my view is from the end, to me it has only highth. I would call it The Mobius Blip. It is the same as Curve I's view of Curve II.
Unlike Curve I, we seek teachers willingly, I define us by how we differ from Curve I, and that gives me a knowledge base to view Curve I from. I feel I am some quasivampire, for when I look in the mirror, I do not see who I was, or am, but only who I have become. Only later will I learn the meaning of that.
Curve I has yet to discover Curve I. I feel we are in the same trap. There is no place for any of us to get an overview on who we are. I had little problem defining Curve I, it only took sixty years. That was a Dino Age ago. New times call for new methods, the only importance of my work is it was done.
Error creeps into all work, perfection never can be completed. You have to go with what you have. We need a new world view, an Existential overview, and to determine the range in which we should self explore to gain the greatest rewards for our efforts.
We are a class of particles that obey Laws of Physics that could be defined, but not by us.
10 Mar 2007, 4:28 pm
I have read the Asimov statement before. I see much truth and wisdom in it. I am one of those stratospheric IQ sorts, and yet. . .
. . . There is so much that I cannot do. For instance: I do not grok computer. I can learn to drive one okay within some clearly defined field. Let it malfunction and I am off my roadmap.
Indeed, this takes me to one happy freedom of knowing about my AS. I can accept that in some areas I am a moron! I have always beat myself up over my computer lack. Then a laptop ends up in a snowbank.
Now that I know that my abilities AND my limitations are real I do not have to expect that I can do all things. So I bought a smartphone with warranty from Verizon to get to WP. If it flops:1. The reset button, if that fails, 2. Customer service.
And I will not feel myself a moron 'cause I couldn't do it!
Other intelligence that is off the usual definition: Music' Sports, Art, Comedy
_________________
Who is John Galt?
Still Moofy after all these years
It is by will alone that I set my mind in motion
cynicism occurs immediately upon pressing your brain's start button
