posted
A long long time ago, but on this very same forum...
...I was posting under my old SN and discussing with Snowden/Irami why none of his teachers realized he was smart until he was in college (or something along those lines). He was receiving pretty average grades in elementary school, but that could have been the result of cultural bias and teachers not spending enough time with him. I suggested maybe there should have been an IQ test for him, but this too might have been culturally biased. Was there a test he could have taken that would have revealed his intelligence without possibility of cultural bias? That wasn't necessarily based on how great his education had been?
To figure out a test that would not be culturally biased, I had to reexamine what my definition of intelligence was and make it universal. What I came up with was this: intelligence is the ability to adapt to a situation and environment. This definition seems multicultural and involves types of intelligence that often aren't tested, like emotional intelligence and social intelligence. Considering two people who have had exactly the same experiences, the one with higher intelligence can generally adapt faster to a given situation than the other. If you have high social intelligence, you can adapt to social situations quickly. If you have high emotional intelligence, you are less likely to let emotions cause bad judgment calls or impair your adaptation, and more likely to use your emotions to inspire and invigorate.
Memory plays a part in intelligence as well. By remembering experiences and having thought about them, more inputs and analogies can be used for problem solving. By having seen a solution to a particular problem before, the solution can be applied much faster than when the problem was originally encountered, given the same resources. The previous solution can also be analyzed to determine why and how it worked, which can be used to solve the same problem when there are different resources available. For example, a person on a space station may have seen a fire being put out by water and being smothered by a blanket. Knowing from these examples that fire needs heat and air(oxygen) to survive, that person may think about exposing a fire on the space station to the vacuum of space, leeching away the heat and the oxygen the fire needs to survive.
The amount of education a person has received can affect intelligence. People have different rates of acquiring information, though, and the education a person has received does not mean they have acquired the same amount of intelligence as another person who had the same or less education. How naturally intelligent a person is will show up better when testing situations about which they have not been educated.
Intelligence is also not absolute. The smarter person will not adapt faster than the other person every time. It's only probable that the smarter person will adapt faster, partly because of the randomness of situations and poor results due to experimentation that may help the experimenter solve problems faster farther down the road.
Some corollaries: This definition means that if you can't apply what you know to any situation then that knowledge will not make you more intelligent. Information that you can apply to many situations is more important and makes you more intelligent. Memorizing a solution may be helpful but understanding why the solution worked will probably be of greater use.
I could write more about this, but I don't want to overload people. What I would like from this thread: What are other definitions of intelligence you have run into? What are the holes in my definition? What are some ways this definition can be applied practically, specifically to testing of intelligence?
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
the problem with this definition is it does not specify HOW one should adapt to a situation.
i would say that intelligence is the ability to categorize one's environment in such a way that they can take actions which will cause changes in the person which are consistant with what they have been conditioned to want. in other words, intelligence is the ability to abstract in a useful manner.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've noticed that some people aren't really interested in much of anything, and others seem to be interested in almost everything. The ones who find things interesting -- for no real reason, but just for the sake of knowing -- they usually end up over time learning all kinds of stuff, without even having to try, and the ones who aren't usually hate the amount of things they are forced to learn and forget them all pretty much as soon as they can.
I think that is the big difference between the intelligent people I know, and those who aren't. The main difference seems to be that the ones who are intelligent are interested in a lot more stuff. People can be intelligent in a lot of different ways, of course, corresponding to which different subjects people find interesting, maybe.
It's not even the "aha" moments that define it. I really think it comes before that. I think it shows itself most clearly in the moments of "wow, that is so cool!"
[ January 03, 2004, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd tend to agree with that. The smartest people I know are able to give me at least a little good information on everything. In that way, I think that intelligence can be "learned" or maybe it's "discovered." I try to belive that I'll try anything once or try to learn anything. I do better with some things (history, programming, political science) than other things (music, dancing, mathematics), but I try to learn as much as I can.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
First, measurements and analysis of intelligence will always be biased for the person or team designing the test. This will affect the results, obviously. So, I don't think that testing is necessarily the best way to get at people's intelligence.
Secondly, you have cultural norms defining what is intelligence and what is not - and you have sub-cultures within the main body of culture. I think you will find differences in definition of intelligence even within your basic family unit.
For example, my step-father was a truck driver and mechanic. He is super-smart about reading people and in "cognitive" areas such as chess, schematics, problem-solving. He was not college educated. His definition of an intelligent person had to do with someone that could take care of themselves and had some common sense.
My father was college educated and his definition of smart had to do with education levels, grade point average and money making. He was poor at reading people and grew frustrated too easily to problem solve such items as minor car repairs, balancing checkbooks, etc. However, he is a consummate artist in many areas and could sit and philosophize with the best of 'em.
My step-dad regarded my father as an educated idiot while my father regarded my step-dad as a red-neck dummie. (Their words for each other.)
I think both men were very intelligent in their own particular ways, but I have no idea how you would design a test that wouold fairly measure them. I don't think it's possible. I also don't think it's desirable.
One of the items we have taken a look at in my work is the new mandated HeadStart testing for 4-year olds. The idea of context, culture, life experience and varying capabiliities were obviously not factored into this test. And yet, it will be uniformly administered to all HeadStart children and those results will follow them. Fair? No. Do we need to evaluate program efficacy and what strides each child is making? Certainly. Is there a better way to measure progress? I think so.
Fascinating topic, Jon - Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:kerinin wrote: the problem with this definition is it does not specify HOW one should adapt to a situation.
i would say that intelligence is the ability to categorize one's environment in such a way that they can take actions which will cause changes in the person which are consistant with what they have been conditioned to want. in other words, intelligence is the ability to abstract in a useful manner.
That is a problem. But there are two separate things about your first sentence that interest me.
The first thing is the word "should". There is no right or wrong, actions one "should" or "should not" take. Intelligence is just an ability, a tool. A person makes choices. Intelligence merely gives the person more options and the ability to judge those options, options that may bring the person closer to their goals. Your second paragraph indicates you understand all this; I just wanted to clarify.
The other thing is the word "HOW". You cannot specify "HOW" very easily because every situation a person adapts to is unique. And what if the person chooses not to adapt to the situation? It does not necessarily indicate a lack of intelligence. If you were to test a person's intelligence, you would have to put them in a situation where they think their survival or something else they want very badly is at risk. Even then it would not guarantee action commensurate with their intelligence level. It would be like a good chess game where you force your opponent's moves, only you can't always predict what moves are possible. If a move brings the person closer to their goal, be it survival, some prize or avoiding danger to something else, it's a good adaptation. If they adapt faster in a situation, it leaves them more time to figure out the next problem.
I also have a problem with "conditioned to want". We are not "blank slates" when we're born. We have hard wired instincts and desires. It is not all about conditioning, although conditioning can certainly play an integral part in what someone wants. In very intelligent people, just as ak mentioned, they often have a "thirst" for knowledge despite conditioning to ignore that desire.
I like the "intelligence is the ability to abstract in a useful manner" bit. But it sounds even more vague than my definition. As far as "ability to categorize one's environment...", I don't like the word categorize because things don't often have categories and can limit our options by putting labels on things. Extreme intelligence can include having thoughts that are ambiguous, paradoxical and contradictory and being so defy categorization. That kind of intelligence is more about systems thinking, and holisticity rather than breaking things down. I would support pattern recognition here instead of categorization. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shan- Bias will exist in every test you can do, but there will definitely be more in mental testing. Yet there is still testing going on and being used every day. So why not limit the bias by using better tests?
Testing is the only way I can see to get at a person's intelligence. Merely observing a person in their environment or the actions they have taken in the past does not paint a very accurate picture of their intelligence. Taking a brain scan might indicate activity, but not whether it's useful activity, though we like to think all brain activity is useful.
Testing puts a subject in an environment where there's pressure on them to perform. Tests would not indicate whether "left brained" people (who are extremely analytical like your stepfather the chess player, mechanic, people "reader" and problem solver) or "right brained" people (who are more creative, like your father the consummate artist and philosopher) are smarter and would include further types of intelligence like the social and emotional intelligence I mention above. I think the differences in definitions of intelligence that people have are just the different types of intelligence possible. Some are just combinations of certain types of intelligence. I would agree that both of those men were/are intelligent in different ways, and perhaps in some of the same ways that we just don't know about. Testing would merely indicate the potential and perhaps some areas where they might choose to increase their intelligence. Comparing them would be like comparing apples and oranges. Their different abilities help them adapt in very different situations. Of course, they may be working toward very different personal goals. Some days apples are better, some days oranges are better. On a lot of days both are good.
Testing does have the potential for problems. If people rely too strongly on testing, it can be used to label people and build hierarchical competition. That there is already a hierarchy of intelligence (that does not reflect actual intelligence) in place is evident from the comments "educated idiot" and "red-neck dummie". People would have to be careful to use the information to provide opportunities rather than limit them. Testing would be most useful for counterintuitive cases where kids are getting poor grades and do not seem intelligent yet tests show they are. There are already tests that do this; I'm just saying we can make better ones.
Give me some examples of better ways to mark their progress that do not involve tests! I find it hard to even think of any, but maybe I'm just stuck inside the box.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This has been the challenge of the last decade or so (at least in my particular field) -
I don't think measuring IQ is particularly worthwhile. Measuring progress - ah! now there's another story!
One of the ways of tracking outcomes for young children is gathering baseline data and then comparing their work over a span of time. (Work sampling) Say a 4 year old enters a pre-K class recognizing five letters, counts to 10 and can write his or her first name. At the end of the year, this same child recognizes 10 letters, counts to 12 and writes both first and last name.
On the face of it, this might not look like much. (Laughs hysterically . . . ) But then we look at other aspects.
Perhaps this same child was unable to sit still for more than one minute at the begining of the year but can now participate fully in a 20-minute circle activity without causing interruptions. Perhaps this child entered pre-k without the ability to follow two simle directions (put on your shoes and line up at the door) and can now do so. Perhaps this same child suffered from malnutrition and sever dental decay (which arguably makes learning hard for anyone)and now has healthy and pain-free teeth and regular, nutritious meals. This child is ready to participate and learn. I do not think you could design a test to demonstrate that, though. I think you could track it through observation and comparison.
You could have a class of 18 children with the same issues as this particular child, and yet they will all respond in different ways to the stimuli provided. They will all learn different aspects of the lessons, they will interpret and use the information in different ways.
One of the things comprehensive early education services tries to provide is individualized learning experiences within the classroom. I think that is something many teachers try to do for all their students - in some way personalize the material, make it relevant to that student, and as the student ages/matures, invite the student to do the same with the lesson material. All most testing really does is measure the ability of students to regurgitate memorized information. How does that allow for a true measurement of what a student has actaully learned?
So I guess the long and short of it is that I don't know how to design a test that would accurately measure what a person learns. Learning is subjective. Learning is about application and experience and judgement. I think when we define intelligence, we might do better to look at it from the perspective of how we learn and what we do with what we learn.
(Squints suspiciously at the screen. Are you back in school, Jon? Is this a research assignment? )
posted
ooooh, i'm starting to like this thread, it's intersecting with a lot of work i did on cogsci, neurosci and ai a few months ago...
quote:I also have a problem with "conditioned to want". We are not "blank slates" when we're born
i think we're probably on the same page here but i'll state my disagreement anyway. i'm sort of a modified behavioralist in that i do believe we are a blank slate at birth, but a blank slate with lines already painted on it so the teacher can write straight. in other words, if we look at the incredible diversity of human cultures, it should be clear that conditioning is extremely important to human beliefs and behaviors. on the other hand, if you look at how quickly we learn language and social behaviors, as well as the similarities between cultures or twin studies, it is obvious that the way our cognitive structures are organized influences how we are conditioned. so i guess when i said "conditioned" i meant both through experience and internal structure.
quote:As far as "ability to categorize one's environment...", I don't like the word categorize because things don't often have categories and can limit our options by putting labels on things. Extreme intelligence can include having thoughts that are ambiguous, paradoxical and contradictory and being so defy categorization.
i would disagree with this entirely. i feel that categorization is one of two cognitive functions which we are capable of doing (the other being retention). there are two parts of this that warrant development; simultenaeity and sub-linguistic knowlege. my simultenaiety i mean that a single object can have multiple categorizations; an apple has both color and geometry for instance, can be both an apple and a projectile, etc. by categorization i don't mean to say that we create a label for every possible state of our environment, but rather that we create a set of mutually exclusive categorization schemes such as color or weight. an object cannot be simultaneously blue and yellow (at least in a cognitive sense). this sounds rather useless (as you hinted at) and only really has any applicability if you assume an almost more complex system of sub-linguistic knowledge than our linguistic systems. in other words, the abstract ideas which you referred to as being the halmark of extreme intelligence are in fact an amalgam of ideas which are too abstract and vague (perhaps to intwined with other ideas) to be expressed explicitly, or which are too unique to have been given a name in ordinary language.
anyway, i was thinking about the original question in the post and here's my take: there are two inherent mental capacities which would be "tested"; the ability to adapt/create abstractions and the ability to remember. the first is sort of like mental resiliency, the ability to think differently than you have in the past based on a new situation, while the second is a second ability entirely. i would say that both are probably set at birth more or less. I would say that any test which tests anything other than these two basic abilities is basically a test of how well the person has learned to solve a certain type of problem, which is really a test of how well his experience in problem solving transfers to that type of problem than it is a test of his intelligence.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you don't think resiliency could be strengthened or altered? It's just a set thing in the neural pathways, like language, and if you miss a particular window of opportunity, you have lost that ability for always?
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
IQ is something I've given a lot of thought to, and had my own problems understanding. It never interested me until I had my three kids, all of which are labeled "gifted" to varying degrees. However, what bothers me about the testing, etc. is how it doesn't really help define the child or what they need. SO MUCH is dependent upon personality of the child.
My case in point, is the VERY WIDE differences between my three "high IQ" kids, namely:
child 1, oldest -- Type 1 personality, high achiever academically and in sports, very competitive. Ceiling out on the IQ test -- bumped in grade school, skipped high school and went to college. HOWEVER, he is totally "quantative reasoning" -- has a memory like a steel trap, but everything must have "concrete answers". Totally bombs anything that is subjective -- hates things that don't have "right" answers like math does. Poor inter-personal communication skills -- knows lots of stuff but can't communicate it to others very well.
child 2, 2nd son -- Tests only 10 points lower than his bright brother (above) yet has absolutely NO drive. Never wants to succeed (or so it seems) -- by Shan's scale (above, measuring progress) this child would be a moron. Except he's not. He just doesn't want to "play the game". He's a high school dropout. Has no direction other than being a couch potatoe for life. He is gifted musically, but that's not test-able, and he won't use it anyway.
child 3 - considered just averagely "gifted" - enough to get into the GT program at school and skipped one grade, but overall just a good student. Gets straight A's, has lots of friends, loves school, has career plan all mapped out, but enjoys life along the way.
So which one will have the most successful, happy life? In my eyes, it will be my youngest, the "least" smart by IQ testing standards -- because that child adapts better, gets along with people better, and isn't so rigid.
Do IQ tests really help? Maybe, maybe not. While it helped me understand some of the frustrations of the oldest child while in grade school, knowing his IQ did NOT help us help him to adapt better to people around him.
So in the long run, I guess I'm saying.... what good is it really?
posted
well in short, yes. obviuosly there are variations, things like diet and lifstyle will affect the way your mind works, but let's be honest, people have different levels of cognitive capacity.
more importantly, i don't see this as something which really limits one's ability to perform in our society. i see base ability as much less important and significant than conditioning and training. it's like complaining because your computer is only 2 GHz instead of 10 when all you want to do is play pac-man.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But who is determining what "base" ability is, kerinin? Who sets the minimum qualifications for what is defined as an "intelligent" person? That's where testing goes all wacky, if you ask me. We already know there are many types of "intelligence" and frankly, I don't want to be the one that determines which type is superior.
Farmgirl: hopefully individualization of learning objectives would accompany "work sampling" so that some thought is given to the ways a child learns, and offering lessons that more directly apply to their life, etc. But, you're right - if a child just doesn't want to do anything, then they probably will be labeled as either a drop-out, lazy, or worse - stupid and/or hopeless. I think these children are so often just let go of in the school system - it takes a lot of energy to involve them, and unfortunately they seem to slip through the cracks.
One caveat on the "work sampling", though - I most often see it applied to early education. There's quite a difference between 4 year olds in pre-k and adolescents in junior high.
posted
In my opinion, there are two types of smart: book smart and common sense or street smart. The two don't always go hand in hand.
Posts: 4569 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a great thread. I'm sad that I have almost no interest in the topic.
I've got a couple of things to throw out. Howard Gardner became famous (well, scientist-famous anyway) for his theory of multiple intelligences.
Also, while I can't find a satisfactory explanation to link to, Lev Vygotsky has presented a view of intelligence that is strikingly different from the Piagetian one that we sort of use. He actually put some time into showing how formal categorical abilities where in some instances less adaptive than other types (such as by how the objects are used). Anyway, he talks about a lot of the stuff you people are. You could check him out.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, just a short post here. Some of the things kerinin said got my head stewing...
I was thinking about adaptation and what that means, especially in the context of development. There are physical adaptations to danger (like increased heartrate and adrenalin levels), to exercise (creating more muscle, increasing metabolism, creating better coordination), and to other things which make the term adaptation the wrong term to use to describe intelligence. kerinin's "the ability to abstract in a useful manner" is a much better definition.
I have a personal bias against memory, although it is crucial for intelligence. Memory is great when you have good processing that can put it to use. But if you can only use a small bit of that memory (and I don't mean at one time, I mean period) then it is difficult to see it as a hallmark of intelligence. I understand though, that memory and categorization is necessary for development of the mind and comprehension of the ongoing processes of the world around us.
As pertains to the opposition of testing, wouldn't you like to be able to judge your child if you knew there were ways to help them in the areas they may be deficient? Can we look at the people who are strong in one area of intelligence and determine what activities and proclivities made them so, and apply similar activities and situations to the people weak in that area to see if we can make them stronger in that area?
I liken it to the idea of knowing if you're obese or not, since obesity has such a large impact on your health. If you don't know you're obese or how to counter it, then how can you increase your probability of living longer? It seems that more information is better in these cases. I think most people would want to be more intelligent and capable.
Mr. Squicky, I will look into the theories you mentioned later this week...class just started up for me this week!
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
sorry i've been so lax posting, i don't have 24/7 access to the net...
quote:But who is determining what "base" ability is, kerinin? Who sets the minimum qualifications for what is defined as an "intelligent" person?
i'm not really interested in defining who is and is not intelligent, i think such divisions are completely arbitrary and serve no real purpose other than making people feel good about themselves and justified in insulting others. i disagree that there are different types of intelligence, i think there are different applications of intelligence. in other words, i think in a very low-level sense, IQ and EQ are the result of the same cognitive abilities, only in one case (anaylitical thinking for instance) those abilities are better "tuned" towards a certain type of task than another. for instance, you always hear about how eskimos have hundreds of words for snow, due undoubtedly to a greater importance which snow plays in their life and understanding of their environment. don't you think that would make them "smarter" meteorologists than someone who was raised in a space station where the temperature never changes and thus has no vocabulary to describe the environment? certain ways of thinking make certain problems more accessible. i've heard that certain indigenous cultures in africa inherently understand general relativity. these examples are very linguistic, but it's hard to make simples examples which are highly structural.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you can test intelligence in general because it covers an infinite number of different potential areas and a person could presumably be extremely poor in any of them while being extremely good in any others. So, whatever you test will just test a part (or type) of intelligence.
I do think you can test types of intelligence, though - IQ for example. That tests a few things, in particular your ability to take tests.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:i disagree that there are different types of intelligence, i think there are different applications of intelligence. in other words, i think in a very low-level sense, IQ and EQ are the result of the same cognitive abilities, only in one case (anaylitical thinking for instance) those abilities are better "tuned" towards a certain type of task than another. for instance, you always hear about how eskimos have hundreds of words for snow, due undoubtedly to a greater importance which snow plays in their life and understanding of their environment. don't you think that would make them "smarter" meteorologists than someone who was raised in a space station where the temperature never changes and thus has no vocabulary to describe the environment? certain ways of thinking make certain problems more accessible.
This sounds about right.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Likes the idea of different applications of intelligence . . . wanders off to ponder that a bit more . . . *
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It snowed and they closed the University down for the day, so I have some more time to spend on the 'rack...
quote:kerinin wrote: i disagree that there are different types of intelligence, i think there are different applications of intelligence. in other words, i think in a very low-level sense, IQ and EQ are the result of the same cognitive abilities, only in one case (anaylitical thinking for instance) those abilities are better "tuned" towards a certain type of task than another.
I think it's hard to dismiss the different types of intelligence when (and this is after perusing Mr. Squicky's link to SUMIT) it seems to based on physiology. We already know the brain is compartmentalized to handle different inputs and processing. It makes sense then for these different compartments to have unequal strengths in most people due to differences in genetics and use of these compartments. Linguistic, Musical, Logical-mathematical and Bodily-kinesthetic all seem like reasonable separate intelligences because they are isolated to specific areas of the brain. Potential isolation by brain damage can certainly illuminate that isolation. It makes sense to me to separate the intelligences because then you can identify weaknesses easier and increase use in those areas to strengthen the neural connections and create new pathways in those weak areas of the brain. I think overall conscious intelligence draws on multiple areas of the brain, but a measurement of that intelligence does not give us as much useful information as separation into several different intelligences.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:the brain is compartmentalized to handle different inputs and processing
yeah, i guess you're right. i've been trying to get around specific cognitive structures because it makes AI much more complicated. the work i was doing was in attempting to create a basic type of processing architecture which could expand itself into something sentient based on observed correlation between different types of input. in other words, i like the idea of the mind developing from cells, rather than processing centers. unfortunately that's not how it words, and i really don't know enough about how the brain is organized to argue about it.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
But I LIKE the idea of application. Don't rain on my parade . . . get back out there in the snow, Jonny - Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
FQ (Funniness Quotient) for me is a good indicator of intelligence. That and proper spelling/grammar.
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
