Measuring Intelligence?

[NeoSeminole]

IndiReloaded says:

"Neo, I don't mind if you criticise *my points* but you should learn not to engage in personal attacks. It just highlights your insecurities."

I love arguing with you b/c you always manage to make yourself look stupid. You're better off staying quiet if you want people to believe you have a doctorate degree. lol

"Geeze. Do I have to spell *everything* out for you dumb bachelor graduates?"

let me get this right.. I should refrain from personal attacks since it just highlights my "insecurities" but it's perfectly okay for you to do as you please? Oh silly Indi, you crack me up!

"Anyway, here is our argument so far (paraphrased):

N - Intelligence involves potential.
I - Lame argument b/c how does one measure potential?
N - How should I know if scientists can't figure it out? (LOL! Yes, those scientists--who are they & where DO they come up with their ideas?)
I - Lame & useless. You resort to a definition that you admit can't be measured."

eye sea what you did there. Now it's my turn:

N - intelligence is the potential to learn and apply knowledge
I - if intelligence involves potential, then we should let children take office
N - lame strawman argument. Children lack the knowledge and maturity to fill that position
I - oh yeah? Well if you can't measure intelligence, then your argument is wrong
N - let's say you're given an exam that measures intelligence but you don't take it. Do you suddenly become an imbecile?

(still waiting for an answer)

"So far, yours is just a circular arguments similar to the ones used by religious people (its potential! okay, show me an example of this 'potential'; I can't, but its potential!). LOL. You might as well be clear that, by invoking 'potential', your definition is just a *belief* statement with nothing to back it up. Its not measurable and, by my criteria, therefore useless."

<yawn> a deity with the power to influence the universe, by definition, must be tangible if it is able to interact with the physical world and hence is measurable. Intelligence, on the other hand, is intangible. Your contention that potential must be measurable is akin to me saying "show me how you would measure humor or charm, otherwise they don't exist."

p.s. IQ tests attempt to measure potential by predicting how a child will perform in school

"Here is what I suggest is the difference between knowledge and intelligence:

Knowledge - the things you know, regardless of context. A^2 + B^2 = C^2 type things.

Intelligence - the things you know, used in context or applied in new ways. As mentioned previously, this will be affected by experience, but can still be measured. E.g.

The *knowledge* of A^2 + B^2 = C^2 can be used in a real-life situation involving right triangles. The recognition of this application, or the ability to put together different parts of factual knowledge and create something new. That is how I define intelligence and its a decent definition b/c it can be measured."

again, this is the same thing that Only-virgins and I are saying, just worded differently.

[QuanSai]

I started thinking about this from another thread. How would you do it? What characteristics do you consider in intelligence?

The word intelligence gets thrown around a lot. But its all about perspective I think.

A man who graduates on top of his class. Is successful in his life, family, and work. He has a nice car, nice house. Everything he could probably want. He is kind, considerate. An all around great person, and 'intelligent'.

Now take this same guy, and drop him in the middle of the Amazon forest, and tell him to survive for 1 day. Guess what? This man now becomes a complete dumbass!

Same for the Amazonian people. They survive and live forever in the forest. To them, intelligence is knowing which plants are edible, and which are poison. Intelligence is about knowing how to hunt for food. How to live in that climate, how to find drinking water. Same situation...take the amazonian, and drop him in the middle of New York City. Guess what? Yup, he too has just become a dumbass.



I think its very hard to measure intelligence. Before we can, we have to know a persons background, where they have been, and where they are going.

What do you all think?

You should do some research on this.

Intelligence, to most researchers who have done plenty of studies on the subject, is the ability to logically solve problems. It is measured by how efficiently a person solves the problems and by how much time it takes to perform such a task.

If the man in your scenario has a certain level of intelligence, he will or will not be able to adapt to his surrounds in order to survive.

Simple.

Try doing studies in the field of cognitive science before asking some questions. You'll see that your question is answered quite easily.

[IndiReloaded]

<yawn> a deity with the power to influence the universe, by definition, must be tangible if it is able to interact with the physical world and hence is measurable. Intelligence, on the other hand, is intangible.

Wrong. Its tangible (if you mean measurable); you just have to define it in a meaningful way. See my previous post for an example.

Your contention that potential must be measurable is akin to me saying "show me how you would measure humor or charm, otherwise they don't exist."

Nope. I could come up with criteria for measuring humour or charm. But I can't measure someone's *potential* for either.

p.s. IQ tests attempt to measure potential by predicting how a child will perform in school

Wrong again. Have you ever given or taken a standardized IQ test? I suspect not. They measure *aptitude* and potential is extrapolated from that data, sometimes very badly.

"Here is what I suggest is the difference between knowledge and intelligence:

Knowledge - the things you know, regardless of context. A^2 + B^2 = C^2 type things.

Intelligence - the things you know, used in context or applied in new ways. As mentioned previously, this will be affected by experience, but can still be measured. E.g.

The *knowledge* of A^2 + B^2 = C^2 can be used in a real-life situation involving right triangles. The recognition of this application, or the ability to put together different parts of factual knowledge and create something new. That is how I define intelligence and its a decent definition b/c it can be measured."

again, this is the same thing that Only-virgins and I are saying, just worded differently.[/QUOTE]

Well, if you agree with me, then its all good. But unlike you, I do not use the term potential anywhere in my definitions. Again, use of that term is the only part I disagree with.

[Sanctuary]

I would like to add that there are additional forms of intelligence than the traditional IQ measured by the stanford-binet.

I am for one am terribly uncreative in artistic pursuits. If they had a test for that, I'd probably fail.

[NeoSeminole]

IndiReloaded says:

"Wrong. Its tangible (if you mean measurable); you just have to define it in a meaningful way. See my previous post for an example."

on the contrary, you're wrong. Intelligence is neither material nor capable of being perceived through the senses. So, by definition, intelligence is intangible. We can devise tests which attempt to measure it but they will always be vague and indefinite. Your example of a college exam sucks donkey dick b/c those measure knowledge - not intelligence. Sheesh, must I explain everything to you brain dead doctorates?

"Nope. I could come up with criteria for measuring humour or charm. But I can't measure someone's *potential* for either."

then I can come up with criteria for measuring potential.

"Wrong again. Have you ever given or taken a standardized IQ test? I suspect not. They measure *aptitude* and potential is extrapolated from that data, sometimes very badly."

sorry but clicking your heels and saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. On the contrary, you're wrong again. Here are definitions for I.Q. that I pulled from a couple sites.

"An Intelligence Quotient indicates a person's mental abilities relative to others of approximately the same age. Everyone has hundreds of specific mental abilities--some can be measured accurately and are reliable predictors of academic and financial success."

[url]http://www.iqtest.com[/url]

"IQ scores are used in many contexts: as predictors of educational achievement or special needs"

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient[/url]

using the definitions provided, we see that I.Q. tests attempt to predict a child's academic success. In other words, it hasn't happened yet (i.e. potential).

Well, if you agree with me, then its all good. But unlike you, I do not use the term potential anywhere in my definitions. Again, use of that term is the only part I disagree with.

technically, you agree with me since I provided a definition before you.

[NeoSeminole]

by the way, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. I suspect that you're avoiding it for a reason

let's say you're given a university exam that you studied for but didn't take for whatever reason (e.g. refused to take it, missed class, didn't have anything to write with) and your score is a 0. Does that mean you suddenly become an imbecile or 'could' you have done well if you took the exam?

[QuanSai]

IndiReloaded says:

"Wrong. Its tangible (if you mean measurable); you just have to define it in a meaningful way. See my previous post for an example."

on the contrary, you're wrong. Intelligence is neither material nor capable of being perceived through the senses. So, by definition, intelligence is intangible. We can devise tests which attempt to measure it but they will always be vague and indefinite. Your example of a college exam sucks donkey dick b/c those measure knowledge - not intelligence. Sheesh, must I explain everything to you brain dead doctorates?

"Nope. I could come up with criteria for measuring humour or charm. But I can't measure someone's *potential* for either."

then I can come up with criteria for measuring potential.

"Wrong again. Have you ever given or taken a standardized IQ test? I suspect not. They measure *aptitude* and potential is extrapolated from that data, sometimes very badly."

sorry but clicking your heels and saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. On the contrary, you're wrong again. Here are definitions for I.Q. that I pulled from a couple sites.

"An Intelligence Quotient indicates a person's mental abilities relative to others of approximately the same age. Everyone has hundreds of specific mental abilities--some can be measured accurately and are reliable predictors of academic and financial success."

[url]http://www.iqtest.com[/url]

"IQ scores are used in many contexts: as predictors of educational achievement or special needs"

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient[/url]

using the definitions provided, we see that I.Q. tests attempt to predict a child's academic success. In other words, it hasn't happened yet (i.e. potential).

Well, if you agree with me, then its all good. But unlike you, I do not use the term potential anywhere in my definitions. Again, use of that term is the only part I disagree with.

technically, you agree with me since I provided a definition before you.

*sigh...*

In other words, it hasn't happened yet (i.e. potential).

Something not happening yet doesn't mean that there lies potential for it to happen. It has to be possible first. You're not understanding potential-versus-possibility.

I say that unicorns have been seen in books all over the world. I say that unicorns exist. Does this mean that unicorns do exist? Does it mean that unicorns have the potential to exist? No and no.

-the inherent capacity for coming into being
-existing in possibility; "a potential problem"; "possible uses of nuclear power"
-electric potential: the difference in electrical charge between two points in a -circuit expressed in volts
-likely: expected to become or be; in prospect; "potential clients"
[url]wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/url]

You can't just inductively deduce that because you think something is possible or appears to be possible, it can exist and that it has potential to exist. In order to say something has potential, you need to know that it is there and can exist. How can we calculate the potential energy of a charged particle without having a particle to examine? It's impossible. Potential only comes into play when the constituent under observation exists, for sure. In your case, the existence of a certain level of intelligence is assumed, and this does not stand as being potential. This stands as a "good" guess based on the results of a test. It's a bit more complicated that that. If you need more clarity, I'll continue to try to clarify what I've just stated.

"IQ scores are used in many contexts: as predictors of educational achievement or special needs"

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient[/url]

using the definitions provided, we see that I.Q. tests attempt to predict a child's academic success. In other words, it hasn't happened yet (i.e. potential).

And I say this to the above:

potential != prediction

You've misunderstood what you read. Go back and read the entire context it's in closely.


Alongside a bunch of flaws in the arguments you've presented not only here, but in previous posts you've made, you decided to quote Wikipedia and IQTest.com -- both sites that should never be looked at for personal backing in any argument. You didn't gain any respect here.

Please, I welcome your opposing claims to what I've just argued.

[Only-virgins]

You should do some research on this.

Intelligence, to most researchers who have done plenty of studies on the subject, is the ability to logically solve problems. It is measured by how efficiently a person solves the problems and by how much time it takes to perform such a task.

If the man in your scenario has a certain level of intelligence, he will or will not be able to adapt to his surrounds in order to survive.

Simple.

Try doing studies in the field of cognitive science before asking some questions. You'll see that your question is answered quite easily.

To bad it has little to do with wisdom. I completely dis-agree. It is like basing everyone's intelligence simply on how fast they solve a rubiks cube puzzle.

Intelligence is neither material nor capable of being perceived through the senses. So, by definition, intelligence is intangible. We can devise tests which attempt to measure it but they will always be vague and indefinite.

Exactly.

___________________

[MVPlaya]

You should do some research on this.

Intelligence, to most researchers who have done plenty of studies on the subject, is the ability to logically solve problems. It is measured by how efficiently a person solves the problems and by how much time it takes to perform such a task.

If the man in your scenario has a certain level of intelligence, he will or will not be able to adapt to his surrounds in order to survive.

Simple.

Try doing studies in the field of cognitive science before asking some questions. You'll see that your question is answered quite easily.

Thats not accurate. Intelligence is actually one of the most controversial topics in cognitive science, especially attempts to measure IQ. Beyond the fact that the history of the field is plagued with racism and eugenics, modern day attempts to measure intellect are inaccurate, problematic in their underlying criteria, and filled with hidden biases. No matter how much researchers try to account for biases, they will continue to exist in some form and will be based on specific types of pedagogy that are not universal.

I would agree that in a group of people of similar background and education, IQ tests can measure the approximate differences in their abilities to solve problems and answer questions, but I don't think its definitive by any means.

Problem with this thread is that intelligence is that there is no practical way to define intelligence.

[NeoSeminole]

QuanSai says:

"Something not happening yet doesn't mean that there lies potential for it to happen. It has to be possible first. You're not understanding potential-versus-possibility."

no shit, Captain Obvious! I never said everyone has the potential to excel at everything. Everyone is born with a cap on their intelligence. However, some have more potential than others to achieve greater success.

nurture also plays an important role in realizing a person's full potential. Someone who is encouraged from an early age to apply themselves and receives a superior education will be more successful than the same person who is neglected as a child and receives a poor education, even though both have the same potential.

"I say that unicorns have been seen in books all over the world. I say that unicorns exist. Does this mean that unicorns do exist? Does it mean that unicorns have the potential to exist? No and no."

what do unicorns have to do with my argument? I'm not talking about the potential for intelligence to exists. We know that intelligence is real and may be used to predict how well a person can learn and apply knowledge. A child who is intelligent will have an easier time in school than a child who is less intelligent. However, the smarter child may not live up to their potential (e.g. distracted by sports, extracurricular activities, or is mentally lazy). Does this suddenly make them less intelligent than the child who scored much lower on the I.Q. test? No.

"You can't just inductively deduce that because you think something is possible or appears to be possible, it can exist and that it has potential to exist. In order to say something has potential, you need to know that it is there and can exist. How can we calculate the potential energy of a charged particle without having a particle to examine? It's impossible. Potential only comes into play when the constituent under observation exists, for sure. In your case, the existence of a certain level of intelligence is assumed, and this does not stand as being potential. This stands as a "good" guess based on the results of a test. It's a bit more complicated that that. If you need more clarity, I'll continue to try to clarify what I've just stated."

<yawn> see above

"And I say this to the above: potential != prediction

You've misunderstood what you read. Go back and read the entire context it's in closely."

not sure what the exclamation point means. If you're saying what I think you are, then you just agreed with what I said earlier.

"Alongside a bunch of flaws in the arguments you've presented not only here, but in previous posts you've made, you decided to quote Wikipedia and IQTest.com -- both sites that should never be looked at for personal backing in any argument. You didn't gain any respect here."

cool, I'd love to see all these flaws in my argument you talk about. Oh wait... you mean the parts you addressed in your post which I corrected?

as for citing Wikipedia and IQTest.com, I'm the only one here who provided references to support my argument. So you can stfu until you come up with something better. Furthermore, Wiki is actually more reliable nowadays than Encyclopedia Britannica (look it up).

p.s. Data > Spock

[IndiReloaded]

by the way, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. I suspect that you're avoiding it for a reason

let's say you're given a university exam that you studied for but didn't take for whatever reason (e.g. refused to take it, missed class, didn't have anything to write with) and your score is a 0. Does that mean you suddenly become an imbecile or 'could' you have done well if you took the exam?

LOL, some of us actually have lives and jobs besides posting on the internet and going to the gym.

I can't actually answer your last post b/c you [deliberately, I suspect] misunderstood my point. You tend to do this when you are losing an argument. I stated clearly my definition of tangible = something measurable.

But since you refuse to acknowledge the basic conditions of my argument and neither agree nor disagreed, there is no way to continue. You fuked it up, Neo.

If you want to restate (and apologize for the continued insults) I will reengage. But not until you learn to argue like a civilized human and can keep focus. You are the one trying to learn from me, not the converse.

[IndiReloaded]

then I can come up with criteria for measuring potential.

Okay, this I'd like to read. Go^, let's here the criteria for measuring potential.

Make sure you define your terms, including potential, before you start.

[IndiReloaded]

Let's say you're given a university exam that you studied for but didn't take for whatever reason (e.g. refused to take it, missed class, didn't have anything to write with) and your score is a 0. Does that mean you suddenly become an imbecile or 'could' you have done well if you took the exam?

Here is your answer btw, Neo:

Based on the conditions you describe, there is no way I can determine the intelligence (or lack of) of such a person. There is no objective way to measure. This is my point. Potential is a useless quality b/c you can't measure it.

Noone gives marks for 'potential' on an exam. If you don't believe this, go ahead and flop an exam deliberately. Then, go and tell the examiner that you *could* have gotten an A. See what kind of response you get.

As for IQ tests, you didn't answer MY question: do you have any experience with these beyond your wikipedia research? I suspect not.

They do NOT measure potential. You did not understand what you read. They measure aptitude in certain areas and then *extrapolate* (i.e. guess) about a child's potential. One is an absolute indicator, the other is just a guess that depends on a number of other, uncontrollable factors.

But you want to insist on your definition, fine. I can agree to disagree. Just like I do with the religious nutbars.

[Gribble]

My psychology professor summed it up best, I think. Unfortunately, I don't remember what exactly he said. It was eye-opening and I'm too much of a dumbass to remember it. I do remember him describing IQ tests as measuring how well one is likely to do in school. Not necessarily how well one will do in life, or even how intelligent one is.

[IndiReloaded]

Arrrrgh. That is NOT what they measure. That is what they *predict*. Not the same. Its like understanding the difference between the data that comes from direct experiment and the hypothesis made or theory that results. One is irrefutable fact, the other is subject to change.

Your professor sucked. Psychology tho. No wonder. Their experimental setups tend to be horrible.

I think I am being to literal in my defintion of intelligence for most people. But its the only way I can think to actually make it a useful definition.

Unless Neo makes a brilliant post about how one measures potential. But to my knowledge, you can't predict the future.