Intelligence / measure of intelligence.

[Geoff]

..... but, is education a yardstick for measuring intelligence?

In my view, no, it isn't.

A good education is a sign of a good education, but is not necessarily indicative of intelligence outside of broad parameters. But it does depend, clearly, on how you define intelligence.

I regard intelligence as being of quick mind, fast to see problems and, preferably, solutions or at least courses of action, as someone that can read situations and people, as someone that sees what others may see but a lot more quickly, or sees things others miss, as someone that can integrate abstract ideas into a coherent and cohesive picture, can see relationships between apparently disparate facts, and so on. I carefully said I "regard" intelligence as being the above, because it's a viewpoint on it, not a definition.

A good education, even a good degree, suggests an ability to do well in a specific academic field, and possibly quite a narrow one, but it might say more about effort, dedication, hard work and diligence than it does about inate intelligence. Also, you can educate someone into having an education, but I'm inclined to think it's far harder, if possible at all, to train someone into a higher intelligence.

So, personally, I regard education and intelligence as very different. Also, it is perfectly possible to be highly intelligent, have a highly successful career and still have little or no education, and perhaps little or no chance of having been successful at one. For instance, Richard Branson's dyslexia put a severe crimp on his educational progress, but I defy anyone to seriously suggest that he hasn't had a successful career, or that he isn't intelligent .... and to do it with a straight face.

Nor, for that matter, does academic success necessarily imply a successful career.

 

[iCraig]

You can't measure the overall intelligence of a person. You can break it down and analyse how clever they are with a specific topic, but this still won't give you an accurate perception on how clever somebody is.

Noticeable intelligence is apparent during application, the people who are extremely clever at common things such as computing, mathematics, literature etc is going to be seen as an intelligent person by a lot of people.

However a person who has a lot of general knowledge might not be. Such as knowing that a peanut isn't actually a nut, it's a legume, isn't really going to be the sort of knowledge you're going to be applying much.

This doesn't neccessarily mean the person who knows advanced mathematics is more intelligent than mr peanut man.

 

[Bakedgoods]

Capacity for abstract thought.

Exactly the way i've always thought of it. Pleanty of people are deemed 'intelligent' for simply having a good memory and repeating facts.

Creativity impresses me much more.

 

[Zefan]

the people who are extremely clever at common things such as computing, mathematics, literature etc is going to be seen as an intelligent person by a lot of people.

knowing that a peanut isn't actually a nut, it's a legume, isn't really going to be the sort of knowledge you're going to be applying much.

Knowledge <> intelligence

 

[crashuk]

In my view, no, it isn't.

For instance, Richard Branson's dyslexia put a severe crimp on his educational progress, but I defy anyone to seriously suggest that he hasn't had a successful career, or that he isn't intelligent .... and to do it with a straight face.

Nor, for that matter, does academic success necessarily imply a successful career.

His fortune was based on his parents giving him a nice sum of money from what i remember. plus during his time physical commodities were cheaper than now, how can you set up a shop in oxford circus its costs £100,000+ to rent these days, not only that other companies large ones will always find a way to keep you down or copy your product just like microsoft.

Theres only a few individuals who have made it from the ground up the rest had help from peers in some forum of the other.
These days you get screwed at every corner but the government.

 

[Gaspode]

Big wang = big brain.

“God gave men both a penis and a brain, but unfortunately not enough blood supply to run both at the same time.”

 

[Spyhop]

yes but most people with 1st are unable to function in a working environment they seem unable to cope.

I'm sure that's what everyone else tells themselves to feel better..

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

I'm sure that's what everyone else tells themselves to feel better..

Can't argue with that.
I loved the old one at Uni of "no one wants someone with a 1st, as it shows that they don't know how to party and interact". Clearly a myth generated by 2:1 level students without the gift, determination or both to achieve a 1st.

 

[sinister_stu]

Can't argue with that.
I loved the old one at Uni of "no one wants someone with a 1st, as it shows that they don't know how to party and interact". Clearly a myth generated by 2:1 level students without the gift, determination or both to achieve a 1st.

Exactly. I'd like someone to back up the claim with some actual evidence. Incidentally I didn't get a first, but I do have the intelligence to see that the aforementioned claim is worthless and most likely a fallacy.

Edit: I refer to the claim that most students with firsts are unable to function in a job

 

[D.P.]

yes but most people with 1st are unable to function in a working environment they seem unable to cope.

pardon

 

[SexyGreyFox]

My Brother In Law is a Professor and he's as thick as dog poo if it isn't about his subject. He can't even use a mouse on a computer and he never goes anywhere in the car if he might have to reverse.

 

[D.P.]

My Brother In Law is a Professor and he's as thick as dog poo if it isn't about his subject. He can't even use a mouse on a computer and he never goes anywhere in the car if he might have to reverse.

So being able to drive and use a mouse are signs of intelligence?

 

[Una]

I can't really define intelligence that well, its more of an abstract quantity. For me I guess its more of a person being able to do/know something above the norm. Most people I come into contact in day to day uni life are intelligent in one form or another (its just often harder to see in some people ).

 

[Geoff]

His fortune was based on his parents giving him a nice sum of money from what i remember. plus during his time physical commodities were cheaper than now, how can you set up a shop in oxford circus its costs £100,000+ to rent these days, not only that other companies large ones will always find a way to keep you down or copy your product just like microsoft.

Theres only a few individuals who have made it from the ground up the rest had help from peers in some forum of the other.
These days you get screwed at every corner but the government.

And he's turned "a nice sum" into several billion and a global brand by being thick?

As for not setting up a shop in Oxford street, there's one VERY clear lesson that comes from the world of business - there's always opportunities. They won't be the same opportunities as before, but they'll be there. I have this vision, reading your remark there, of someone moaning, a hundred years ago .... "but the cost of setting up a garment factory is exhorbitant these days. I know, I'll think I'll make one of them new-fangled automobile thingies, and hope they catch on".

 

[Psyk]

So being able to drive and use a mouse are signs of intelligence?

And being able to do, for example, sums in your head is? My calculator can do that but it's not very intelligent. I don't think intelligence is even one variable. Some people clearly excel, and are intelligent, in some things but are thick in others.

 

[goldilocks]

on what scale do i measure intelligence?
for me people fall into 2 categories, either more or less, intelligent than myself

IQ, education? basically it all boils down to who would win in a pub quiz...

intelligence is also the ability to interest, to be able to converse with meaning, to hold opinions and be able to argue your point and justify your views
i have yet to see any 'scale' on which all of those in combination can be measured

 

[malfunkshun]

I was having a convo with a lady today about intelligence and this got me thinking - what is intelligence and how do you measure intelligence. As we are all human, i believe there is a basic level of intelligence that is accepted whether socially or mentally. Take for example, someone who comes out with a first class degree will be considered intelligent but, is education a yardstick for measuring intelligence?
Do the society dictates what is accepted as a form of intelligence or what needs to be done for someone to be accepted s intelligent - Education, a good career, well paid job etc?

I wanna guage people's insight and opinion into this and see what we all got to say.

Intelligence isn't the same as knowledge. A first class degree makes you knowledgeable about the degrees subjuct, but that may be all.

 

[D.P.]

And being able to do, for example, sums in your head is? My calculator can do that but it's not very intelligent. I don't think intelligence is even one variable. Some people clearly excel, and are intelligent, in some things but are thick in others.

This isn't an argument against you Psyk, just a few random thoughts.

I never said doing sums in your head is intelligent. Deep Blue may be better than humans at chess but by no means is it ever suggested to be intelligent. Deep Blue is a pure and simple number cruncher, the Grand Masters are intelligent because they process chess moves in an 'intelligent' way(i.e. highly selective and hence powerful way). Deep Blue searches around 200 billion moves per a turn. Grand Masters check 1-2 dozen. So playing chess well doesn't make you intelligent, but you can play chess intelligently.

The problem with statement like that (in bold), and other notions such as 'social' or 'practical' intelligence being inversely related to standard IQ measures (say, Ravens matrices scores) is that in general, IQ and all intelligence measurements that are reliable and valid are all highly correlated, Leading to the global meausre of G- general ability. G can be subdivided into seperate areas such as crystalised and fluid inteligence, but they are all related

So someone who is very intelligent in some respects, is most likely to be very intelligent in most other respects (even if they aren't gifted in all). You see this in everyday examples like school grades or uni exam grades. Allthough some subjects maybe be worse than some iothers, generally they are strongly correlated. E.g. people usuualy get most As, or mostly Cs. They don't have a random spread of As, Bs, C, Ds fails.

Theoruies like 'practical intelligence' are thrown about by people making a few quick books making some dire 'Popular' psychology book of drivel. It makes the readers feel happy about themselves



We've all seen professors that know everything about their subject and nothing about anything else. But this isn't a case of select intelligence. For starters this is in the domain of kowledge and is irrelevent to intelligence. Importantly, such professors have spent their lifetime within that subject area and have not looked outside that box. Os it is no wonder they have limited scope. Einestein knew almost nothing about cellular biology, the history of Persian Theroas, the geograhy of the ganges river basin or the politics of the first 10 US presidents. So what, does that make him any less intelligent? Stephen Hawking wouldn't be very good at driving a car or playing football.. what does that say about his intelligence?

 

[w11tho]

yes but most people with 1st are unable to function in a working environment they seem unable to cope.

What utter twaddle.

 

[D.P.]

Intelligence isn't the same as knowledge. A first class degree makes you knowledgeable about the degrees subjuct, but that may be all.

But even then the first class degrees are issued to those who have more original thinking, bring in arguments and information from a wider area and other subjects, put forward more sound and well thought out statements, have back ground reading well beyond the reading list eith interesting references, provide interesting insights and ideas, novel approahces to solving problems, efficient solutions, etc.

Getting a first means you have gone well beyond the basic course material