Measuring Intelligence?

[Gribble]

Predict may have been the word he used. I'm tipsy and I'm forgetful. Excuse me, sweetcheeks. He wasn't just a psych teacher, though. That's why he was so awesome. He was a neuro-scientist who dabbled in psychology. Not some Oprah wannabe feel-good psychologist. His class was mostly hard science seasoned with a touch of humanity.

Suffice to say, intelligence is very difficult to accurately define. What intelligence is exactly is still, so far as I know, up for debate. And will be for some time to come.

[IndiReloaded]

Knowledge - the things you know, regardless of context.

e.g. A^2 + B^2 = C^2.

Intelligence - the things you know, used in context or applied in new ways.

e.g. How 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.

The addition of 'potential' simply makes these^ two definitions more complicated than required and doesn't add any further meaning. The best definitions are the simplest ones that can be tested and confirmed.

[NeoSeminole]

IndiReloaded says:

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

lame excuse. You had time to respond to the same post I asked the question and also respond to other posts on LF. So I don't buy it.

"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."

you had no point, and I have yet to see where I was losing an argument. I have asked repeatedly of members who claim this to show me where and so far nothing.

"I stated clearly my definition of tangible = something measurable."

your definition sucks. Not only is intelligence intangible (which I already explained) but even if we try to measure intelligence, we will always fall short.

"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."

bwahaha, as if you have anything to offer me. I have verbally sodomized you numerous times. I'm beginning to think you enjoy mental masochism =]

[IndiReloaded]

lame excuse. You had time to respond to the same post I asked the question and also respond to other posts on LF. So I don't buy it.

you had no point, and I have yet to see where I was losing an argument. I have asked repeatedly of members who claim this to show me where and so far nothing.

bwahaha, as if you have anything to offer me. I have verbally sodomized you numerous times. I'm beginning to think you enjoy mental masochism =]

Oh neo. You care way too much. Asking other people? LOL, I'm flattered. Unlike you I'm secure in my achievements. Which, YOU seem to like to point out far more than I.

I suppose its b/c a personal trainer going to school to become a physician('s) assistant? (sorry, the field doesn't even exist where I live) is a bit light on bragging rights in the intelligence department.

But its okay. I know you have lots of potential.

Go on, call me a bitch next. Or an old lady. Its your standard MO when you've lost.

[NeoSeminole]

IndiReloaded says:

"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."

you're so predictable, lol. I knew you would fall for that ploy. I'll go after you come up with criteria for measuring humor or charm since I asked you first. Make sure you define your terms, including potential, before you start

[IndiReloaded]

Suffice to say, intelligence is very difficult to accurately define. What intelligence is exactly is still, so far as I know, up for debate. And will be for some time to come.

I agree! Which is why I think it is very important to have definitions that have some actual capacity for measurement.

Saying intelligence involves potential is about as useful as arguing what constitutes good art. Subjective and impossible to accurately measure, so useless to try to define that way.

[NeoSeminole]

IndiReloaded says:

"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."

you didn't answer my question. I asked if the person suddenly became an imbecile b/c he or she didn't take the exam? I didn't ask if there is a way to determine their intelligence from not taking the test. Your refusal to commit to a "yes" or "no" answer exposes the folly of your argument that intelligence doesn't include potential. Thanks for playing!

[IndiReloaded]

IndiReloaded says:

"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."

you're so predictable, lol. I knew you would fall for that ploy. I'll go after you come up with criteria for measuring humor or charm since I asked you first. Make sure you define your terms, including potential, before you start

Humour - i will measure this as the amount of laughs generated by a standardized number of jokes provided to a suitably large n of subjects across a defined population.

Charm - i will measure this as the number of smiles a particular set of males are able to generate in female subjects using a standardized set of verbal lines, then suitably randomized to control for male-specific attributes.

Your turn.

[IndiReloaded]

you didn't answer my question. I asked if the person suddenly became an imbecile b/c he or she didn't take the exam? I didn't ask if there is a way to determine their intelligence from not taking the test. Your refusal to commit to a "yes" or "no" answer exposes the folly of your argument that intelligence doesn't include potential. Thanks for playing!

Your question is irrelevant. We are discussing a definition of intelligence, not an imbecile. That word was never defined. You are confounding the argument. Stick to one definition at a time.

[IndiReloaded]

your definition sucks. Not only is intelligence intangible (which I already explained) but even if we try to measure intelligence, we will always fall short.

Sorry, but I disagree. In fact, I gave one good example based on *my* definition of intelligence to show it can be measured, as I define it.

You have to define your terms. Now, if you insist on saying that intelligence = potential, then I agree: impossible to measure.

But as I also said, this makes your definition practically useless.

Now, do you actually have an issue my definition, as stated? I posted it again for you to read. If you insist that it is the same as yours, then you can't read. I don't use the word 'potential', I don't need to. This would make my definition superior to yours, in terms of actually furthering research on this subject.

I have to finish some work now and turn in. But I look forward to reading your experiment on how to measure potential tomorrow. Don't blow your single hypertrophied neuron out doing it, okay?

[IndiReloaded]

I can post the rest of the article if anyone likes, but you get the general idea. If IQ tests don't measure intelligence, then how can they measure its potential as well?

Think more, wikipedia less. Who do you think writes those entries anyway?

************
IQ Test: Where Does It Come From and
What Does It Measure?

BY JAN STRYDOM, M.A., H.E.D., D.Ed. &
SUSAN DU PLESSIS, B.D., B.A. Hons (psychology)
[Alfred Binet]

The most important criterion in diagnosing a child as learning disabled is the IQ test. The aim of an IQ test is to measure the intelligence of a child, which supposedly is an indication of the child's potential. But where does the test come from and does it really measure potential?

Intelligence testing began in earnest in France, when in 1904 psychologist Alfred Binet was commissioned by the French government to find a method to differentiate between children who were intellectually normal and those who were inferior. The purpose was to put the latter into special schools where they would receive more individual attention. In this way the disruption they caused in the education of intellectually normal children could be avoided.1

This led to the development of the Binet Scale, also known as the Simon-Binet Scale in recognition of Theophile Simon's assistance in its development. It constituted a revolutionary approach to the assessment of individual mental ability. However, Binet himself cautioned against misuse of the scale or misunderstanding of its implications. According to Binet, the scale was designed with a single purpose in mind; it was to serve as a guide to identify children in the schools who required special education. Its intention was not to be used as “a general device for ranking all pupils according to mental worth.” Binet also noted that “the scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured.”2 Since, according to Binet, intelligence could not be described as a single score, the use of the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as a definite statement of a child's intellectual capability would be a serious mistake. In addition, Binet feared that IQ measurement would be used to condemn a child to a permanent “condition” of stupidity, thereby negatively affecting his or her education and livelihood:

Some recent thinkers…[have affirmed] that an individual's intelligence is a fixed quantity, a quantity that cannot be increased. We must protest and react against this brutal pessimism; we must try to demonstrate that it is founded on nothing.3

Binet's scale had a profound impact on educational development in the United States — and elsewhere. However, the American educators and psychologists who championed and utilized the scale and its revisions failed to heed Binet's caveats concerning its limitations. Soon intelligence testing assumed an importance and respectability out of proportion to its actual value.

[Sanctuary]

I just skimmed this whole thread and finally got the gist of what you guys were arguing about. You guys are goin at it like an old married couple lol.

I think I'm gonna have to go with Neo on this one (sorry Indi).

All Neo is saying is that intelligence can be defined as someone's potential or capability to learn something. I don't see what's wrong with that definition.

Someone who is 'dumb' is never going to be a physicist - they simply don't have the capability or potential to become a physicist because they're not 'intelligent' enough to absorb or apply the knowledge required.

Whether or not you can measure intelligence is a different story but this is just a word we use that can mean many different things. But I think it's fair to say that intelligence is how quickly people pick up certain things but also their potential to comprehend the more difficult things in that area of intelligence.

Now, do you actually have an issue my definition, as stated? I posted it again for you to read. If you insist that it is the same as yours, then you can't read. I don't use the word 'potential', I don't need to. This would make my definition superior to yours, in terms of actually furthering research on this subject.

I think you're being a bit close minded with those statements.

[RSK]

i'm too lazy to read the entire thread, so thanks for the summary Sanctuary


So i guess we are talking about the relationship between 'intelligence' and 'potential'?


i don't think its fair to say that intelligent people have more potential than dumb people. if you define intelligent as being able to do complicated math, then not all people with that skill we have the potential to do other things.

goes to the saying, 'book smart' vs 'street smart'

but if your defining 'intelligence' in a broader aspect, which includes the ability to be BOTH book smart and street smart... then sure, I can see people with this trait have more potential. But these are all generalizations.

The question still remains, how would you define intelligence? well, here is how dictionary.com does it -

1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5. the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information.
6. Government.
a. information about an enemy or a potential enemy.
b. the evaluated conclusions drawn from such information.
c. an organization or agency engaged in gathering such information: military intelligence; naval intelligence.
7. interchange of information: They have been maintaining intelligence with foreign agents for years.
8. Christian Science. a fundamental attribute of God, or infinite Mind.
9. (often initial capital letter) an intelligent being or spirit, esp. an incorporeal one, as an angel.



we ALL know what intelligence is. But how do we measure it? How can we take two people, and say who is more intelligent? well, we could give standardized exams. but the reason for this thread, is that the Amazonian vs the City Man would fair differently on different types of exams. And also the exam writer would be biased based on his upbringing.



The whole point of this, comes down to fairness. The SAT most people say is a culturally biased exam. So how can we correct this? Its a difficult question, with no one answer.




Its interesting to have this discussion, because answers, or thoughts about them really are stimulating, and create even more discussion.

[IndiReloaded]

I just skimmed this whole thread and finally got the gist of what you guys were arguing about. You guys are goin at it like an old married couple lol.

I think I'm gonna have to go with Neo on this one (sorry Indi).

All Neo is saying is that intelligence can be defined as someone's potential or capability to learn something. I don't see what's wrong with that definition.

You are also missing my point. I understand this defintion--its not like Neo created it--its a commonly taught one.

My point is that, in terms of measuring intelligence--the question of this thread--its a fairly useless definition b/c you can't measure potential.

IQ tests don't measure potential. Neo disagreed but he's wrong. Read my last post for an explanation.

Someone who is 'dumb' is never going to be a physicist - they simply don't have the capability or potential to become a physicist because they're not 'intelligent' enough to absorb or apply the knowledge required.

If the working definition of intelligence involves potential, you shouldn't need to use the word twice in this^ sentence. The reason you do, though, is b/c what you CAN measure is intelligence (not potential). Depending on how you want to define it, of course. I understand your point, but without measuring *something*, how can I know their capability? What I am saying, again, is that it is not their 'potential' I am measuring.

My point is a very simple one, really.

Whether or not you can measure intelligence is a different story.

Its actually the topic of this thread. Read the title if you've forgotten.

So, my question stands: if any of you show me how you can accurately measure *potential* (I've already gave an example of measuring intelligence) then I will concede your definition better than mine.

[IndiReloaded]

i'm too lazy to read the entire thread, so thanks for the summary Sanctuary


So i guess we are talking about the relationship between 'intelligence' and 'potential'?

Yes, and thank you for clearly pointing out they are distinct, RK. We can try to relate them, but intelligence doesn't EQUAL potential.

The question still remains, how would you define intelligence? well, here is how dictionary.com does it -

1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5. the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information.
6. Government.
a. information about an enemy or a potential enemy.
b. the evaluated conclusions drawn from such information.
c. an organization or agency engaged in gathering such information: military intelligence; naval intelligence.
7. interchange of information: They have been maintaining intelligence with foreign agents for years.
8. Christian Science. a fundamental attribute of God, or infinite Mind.
9. (often initial capital letter) an intelligent being or spirit, esp. an incorporeal one, as an angel.

The bold ones made me laugh. Those definitions are mixing a lot of concepts, btw. I prefer dictionaries that divide up definitions according to use.

The whole point of this, comes down to fairness. The SAT most people say is a culturally biased exam. So how can we correct this? Its a difficult question, with no one answer.

It is biased. So are IQ tests. So are the tests for any term you define precisely so you can measure it. But, if you don't, then how can you acquire any meaningful information?

This is why using a word like 'potential' is useless. You got it, RK. Potential in what context? How do you measure it?