Does anybody else ever wonder about intelligence? Like, whether it exists? Or do I really have it? Or, is intelligence quantitative?
I just recently had this discussion with a good friend, and I was wondering what other people thought?

Well, it made me think about it once I saw your post. The first thing that came to my mind was "intelligence" to do with the Government and all that was in the news late last year.

But the other type of intelligence, the one that we learn or for some of us, were born with...yes, I do believe it exists.

Without intelligence, knowledge couldn't exist, could it... And if there was no knowledge, nobody would be able to survive.

Blurrystar Hooray!
Some years ago at university I had a "debate" about the nature of intelligence with my psych group. I couldnt make them understand there was a difference between intelligence and knowledge! I tried to compare intelligence with the fuel tank of a car, the bigger it is the more knowledge you can fit in it. But alas they couldnt wrap their brains around the concept. I'm glad that after all these years i've finally seen somebody else mention the difference.

I've always thought of intelligence like this:

-Knowledge is knowing the facts and having experience.

-Smartness is the ability to interpret these facts and experiences.

-Intelligence is having both of these.

You can have knowledge without being smart or be smart without having knowledge. But having both is being intelligent.

I can't disagree with most of what's been said already, there are various related aspects to intelligence, and one of my additions is that the most intelligent aren't the ones who teach, but those who find and present the information that's taught. An ability to both notice things and fit them into the wider picture, combined with an ability to understand and process things you are told covers most of it for me.
Also, when the majority believe one thing it's always the intelligent (or the lucky occasionally) who realise they're wrong, and don't go along with the crowd. Some have been killed for this ability, and many more ridiculed, until another intelligent individual realises they were actually right. Finally I've noticed many intelligent people find some observations are obvious or simple where few others do.

Of course, we all have intelligence. Along with speech, it's one of the "defining" characteristics of the human species.

One difficulty, though, is that the word seems to be used in a vast range of senses in everyday conversation. These include:

1. Reasoning ability.

2. Ability to plan ahead, personal competence.

3. Making wise (or not so wise) choices in life, such as choice of occupation, partner and so on.

4. Ability to learn from life, from experience.

5. Ability to learn cognitively/academically.

6. Ability to score well on IQ tests.

7. Analytical skills.

8. Quick-wittedness.

9. The ability to think critically and act differently.

10. Being well informed, taking an interest in the world, and so on.

There are other uses of the term, too. For example, a friend of mine pitches it, I think, far too high and reserves the term for what I would call "original thought", "inventiveness" and "creativity".

Clearly, many of these meanings or uses refer to quite different things - and so I find the concept (in its many and varied everyday senses) a bit confusing.

Clearly, #1 is essential to any meaningful concept of intelligence, while we all seem to rule out #10 on its own, anyway. I imagine we'd all include #8 (quick wittedness), however much we dislike "smart Alecs" and "clever Dicks". I would have thought some of the others can be ruled out too, but by no means all. At the risk of being controversial, I don't think intelligence can be measured precisely in way some fans of group intelligence tests sometimes like to assume.

As for the points made in Satguru's second paragraph, it seems to me that sometimes a person with a strong moral sense and with courage could behave in much the same way, regardless of level of intelligence.

That's a good point Bloomsby, but advertising, media spin and peer pressure as well as long-standing beliefs that turn out to be based on false premises seem to take in so many people, I suppose it's either the genius who questions everything naturally who says "Hang on, why are we doing this, it's pointless", whereas the person you described could be more likely the type of person who, having been pointed out actually does something about it, though they could notice it as well. And of course, there are many people with all these qualities so the Leonardo da Vincis, Einsteins, Goethes and possibly even Mozarts of the world (not that I knew any of them ) seemed to me like their moral sense and courage were probably pretty high as well as their intelligence, unless there are areas we haven't been told.

But regardless of the actual individuals I chose for convenience, the point is the same. And unfortunately questioning any long-held beliefs can frequently lead to persecution. But of course genius/intelligence is not connected with morals, the two being independent attributes. It just seemed to me that when all around you are doing one thing, it took a particular type of superior awareness to realise they're all wrong. The fortitude comes more in actually doing anything about changing it!

Thanks for the claification, Satguru. As far as seeing through media spin and advertising is concerned, I think some specific training may help (in addition to analytical skills). A sceptical mindset also helps.

Of the pressures you mention, I suspect that those of the peer-group are probably the hardest to see through and even harder to resist in practice. The key difficulty, it seems to me, is that many people, right across the spectrum from highly intelligent to well below average, derive key elements of their social and possibly also individual identity from the peer-group. Any thoughts on this?

What about the recent "emotional intelligence" craze? Apparently it's a much better indicator of future success in life than a child's IQ, but I'm really not well informed on the issue...a brief description may be found at http://ei.haygroup.com/default.asp & I'm sure googling the term would turn up truckloads of information.

Thanks for raising this issue, which really deserves a thread in its own right. "Emotional intelligence" is essentially a convenient expression for "maturity and interpersonal skills" and clearly is most important in life. As in the case of IQ there is unlikely to be any simple correlation with material and career success.

To illustrate the importance of maturity, try imagining a person with high academic qualifications but whose emotional development is largely stuck at about age 6-7. Such a person would, as an adult, be intensely self-centred, expect the world to revolve around him/her, be unable to respect the needs and rights of others, fail to grasp that other people, too, are human beings. He/she would have no conscience or at best a very weak, hopelessly underdeveloped one; the person would easily get bored, hanker after nonstop stimulation and "amusement". They would also lie and manipulate others like crazy. Utter dishonesty in personal relationships would be their stock-in-trade.

Such people do exist, alas; there's even a word for them ... Such people may in some cases be materially successful, but they are generally unpopular and are often shunned and even detested - and with very good reason.

I've seen a couple of friends who had equal qualifications and they were both in a higher level program in engineering and biochemistry. When time came to get a job, they both got excellent positions and yet, the one person didn't perform the tasks as well as he wasn't at all at ease with people whereas the other person was.
Put quite simplistically, if IQ is equal at the outset, EQ is what makes the person function better in groups etc and more flexible.
I hesitate to add that these were spouses, and the woman was the one better able to cope with people. It was an integral part of both of their jobs to direct teams of researchers therefore she did much better.

Bloomsby, I think the 'sheep' phenomenon has various guises, but the peer prssure tends to dissolve around the late teens/early twenties in most people. Many people who follow peers to fit in realise they're doing silly things but don't want to feel isolated or shunned. The worst offendors I'm referring to are adults who accept without challenge the most ridiculous rules imposed by authorities, whether political or religious, which are the ones I was taught in criminal law classes tend to be those that 'protect our morals' rather than our person or property. So all you need is Queen Victoria, for instance, to proclaim 'sex is dirty' (or many popes and priests, which is bound to offend a few but I have heard this directly paraphrased from Catholics, so it is the case), and then the governments are obliged to reflect this by overkill, censoring books, films and magazines, restricting all sorts of free speech and consenting actions in private, until not only enough intelligent people realise 'hang on, are we really benefitting from becoming criminals by saying this or doing that?', and eventually the laws may change as a result of them changing public opinion. One crazy result we have here is though prostitution is legal, brothels and advertising it are not. All that happens is that they do advertise but indirectly (we all know the massage ads in every local paper), and where small brothels are set up they are quickly closed down again. Whether or not you may approve of prostitution, it is universal, and on mainland Europe government regulated and therefore safe for the women and their customers. I admit these are more opinion than fact, but another example is our transmitting laws. The airways were restricted during the war to stop enemy transmissions, but right up till 1981 after a major campaign by private two-way CB radio users did we get the restrictions lifted though there were vast usable spaces on the radio spectrum.

I'm sure everyone can think of better examples, but this is the general scenario, and includes parents rules as well, which form many peoples' opinions later in life without always challenging their validity. But like the emperor's new clothes, all you need is one bright spark to notice something's amiss and then the spell is usually broken. Both myself and my mother used to campaign against school rules as it happens. That may be more related to rebellion though...

Satguru. I like your observations on the wretches who try to "protect our morals" - something most of us can do very well for ourselves. In Britain, I often have the impression that among the worst offenders in this respect are sections of the media. In order to have those "Shock! Horror" headlines they need either to cling to notions of morality that many or most of their readers hardly take seriously or to highlight things that are increasingly shocking.

As for peer group pressure, I wonder whether it doesn't carry on in a sublter way for rather longer?

An interesting question maybe, what do you think about A.I?
we thought things like, cooking a dinner etc and knowing what things to add to make it taste nicer eg. a pinch of salt rather than suger or whatever, requires inteligence as it requires you to use you senses interperate what was wring using your knowlage of what would help it and implemting this knowledge in the correct fasion. where as things like painting a wall, wasnt really interlect as you could make a simple "robot" program in the dimentions of the wall/ area to be painted give the robot a paint bucket n brush and say paint and it would do it. The interlect in this scenerio would come from knowing that you should never put red and green together (without being told lol) and stuff like that. These are badish examples of what im trying to say but hey its 1 am and i'm filtering out all the A.I. gobbledegook lmao

Perhaps I shouldn't revive this thread, but many of the issues raised are of enduring interest to many, I think.

Satguru, at the risk of being a terrible bore, I'd like to say that I think that some of the examples you seem to give for intelligent behaviour are problematical.

Quote:

---

eventually the laws may change as a result of them changing public opinion. One crazy result we have here is though prostitution is legal, brothels and advertising it are not. All that happens is that they do advertise but indirectly (we all know the massage ads in every local paper), and where small brothels are set up they are quickly closed down again. Whether or not you may approve of prostitution, it is universal, and on mainland Europe government regulated and therefore safe for the women and their customers.

---

You go on to say:

Quote:

---

all you need is one bright spark to notice something's amiss and then the spell is usually broken.

---

I'm not sure that one needs a 'bright spark', just a well informed person who knows about and perhaps has visited the red light zones of, say Amersterdam, Hamburg and other cities abroad - perhaps even used some of the services on offer there. The distinction between intelligence on the one hand and being well informed and having courage on the other remains blurred, alas.

I think intelligence is only involved if one works out something that isn't on the menu - something that isn't on offer either in one's own society or in others that are not that hard to reach.

A more telling example would, I think, be anyone who was an atheist or agnostic at the height of the Middle Ages before the revival of Classical learning. There were heresies, there were two other religions whose existence were well known, even if little was known about them in detail (Judaism and Islam). Heresy was, of course, unspeakably shocking to the powers that be and carried very severe penalties, but at least it was known about and thus available. However, in a world completely steeped in religion, atheism and agnoticism just weren't 'available options'.

Those who became atheists or agnostics at the time had to work their views out from scratch, on their own. That really calls for exceptional powers of intelligence. Of course, in an environment simply steeped in religion, they would probably have been frequently assailed by doubts as to their own sanity, too, and wouldn't have had the support of like-minded people. In addition to all, they would also have needed outstanding courage.

If anyone finds what I've just written bizarre, I'd ask them to try to imagine themselves suddenly and irreversibly transplanted to a 'primitive' society where everyone believes in 'spirits' and takes them seriously enough to go to great lengths to try to placate the friendly ones and to keep the hostile ones at bay. How easy would it be for a Westerner to retain much confidence in science and, what is perhaps even more important, in his or her sanity?

Intelligence is a dangerous thing to debate. Many people have used intelligence tests to facilitate racism over the years. I'll get back to you with a full blown report imminently.

Oops! What's dangerous about discussing intelligence as such? It doesn't necessarily mean those involved in the discussion take intelligence testing and its results at face value - or even seriously at all; and it certainly doesn't mean that they are poised to make statements linking IQ and race or ethnicity, or IQ and 'country'.

Here's a link to an earlier thread that may be of some interest in connection with this last point:

http://www.funtrivia.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=404203&an=0&page=2#404203

I was trying to dig up a relevant example similar to those I wrote in a booklet 10 years ago, but it's true my emphasis there was on independent thought rather than intelligence.

So what I meant was (without giving any unhelpful examples!) if the crowd goes along with any idiotic rule for ages, it's only those of a special intelligence who stop and think 'Hang on, what's the point of doing this?(and be able to see why there's no point)', and the illusion is blown, plus once they've noticed and point it out, most people will realise it as well.

So it's the ability for original thought and seeing beyond the words to the meaning behind. And a similar skill is being able to form a 3d diagram in your head of any situation, and be able to change it when you add new information until you can see how it fits together from any angle. I'm not sure whether it's more a memory skill than intelligence, but it just came to me as another way some people can make more from the same information than others, either by juggling it, or as in the first example seeing it as if from above the ground. And I believe the first example can only be as a result as intelligence as it's more something the same people keep doing rather than just get one lucky shot and then nothing.