Measuring Intelligence?

[IndiReloaded]

Well, if you want to measure something, precision of language is important.

Lovesjoy will be able to comment further, I think her major is math, but in mathematics this precision is called 'rigor'. Without it, it would be very difficult to do the calculations that are possible.

[lovesjoyajm]

Well, if you want to measure something, precision of language is important.

Exactly. You may see it as "debating semantics", I see it as defining our terms properly before we proceed with any calculations. In math, rigor/precision is the most fundamental rule - the only thing, in fact, which allows us to be confident that any of our proofs or theorems have any validity. Other fields aren't quite as concerned about precision, but any good scientist should be able to appreciate the nuances of different words.

Intelligence = Knowledge X Experience

If either of those terms is zero, the whole thing collapses to zero. Of course, measuring experience is about as difficult as measuring potential.

I actually don't think I would include experience in the equation. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to consider "intelligence" to be something that is demonstrated objectively (and thus measured) in the here-and-now. The ability to solve a given problem. Knowledge and experience could perhaps be extrapolated by the information you get from this "measurement."

To address the problem that people from different cultures have different life experiences and have learned different things (thus accumulating different knowledge), as the OP originally mentioned, I think intelligence would have to be categorized somewhat. One's intelligence might be tested/measured only in categories that are applicable to their situation, or might receive different "scores" for each category. I can't think of any proper categories though.

[Sanctuary]

Currently, IQ tests measure how quickly and how adept an individual is in solving certain problems.

I guess 'potential' would be something you can extrapolate from those measurements.

I agree that intelligence should be split into different categories though.

[IndiReloaded]

I actually don't think I would include experience in the equation. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to consider "intelligence" to be something that is demonstrated objectively (and thus measured) in the here-and-now. The ability to solve a given problem.

This is all I could come up with as well. Intelligence = demonstration of applied knowledge at a particular time. A snapshot in time of what you know & how you apply it.

Its the only thing you can measure. I mean, even if we did decide on a definition for 'potential', we'd have to know when.

Potential as a 2-year old? What about the 30-year old doctor? What is his 'potential' as an 85-year old dementia patient? The answers would all be different. Just doesn't make sense to include it.

[lovesjoyajm]

Not to beat this horse too much, but the other problem is that what does "potential" predict? Success? Future intelligence? <- (There's a vicious cycle for you...) Even if, hypothetically, some sort of long-term study were set up that followed thousands of subjects from youth to adulthood, what can you conclude when the child with "high potential" is now a grown-up starving artist and the one with "low potential" is now doing just fine at a boring, bill-paying, mind-numbing job?

[NeoSeminole]

the problem with not including potential in a definition for intelligence is that it implies there's no limit to a person's capacity to learn and apply knowledge. However, we know this is simply not true. Some people are born with more 'potential' than others. Indi, would you say that you're no more intelligent than the person who can only land a job at McDonald's? What if you chose not to attend college and instead, bagged groceries at the supermarket for the rest of your life? Does that nullify everything you've accomplished and suddenly make you less intelligent?

[IndiReloaded]

I'll wait for someone more intelligent than you to post something that actually contributes to the discussion.

____________________

[lovesjoyajm]

First of all,

the problem with not including potential in a definition for intelligence is that it implies there's no limit to a person's capacity to learn and apply knowledge.

where did you come up with that? It doesn't make any sense.

Secondly, yes, some people may be born with more potential than others. Unfortunately, as I've said, there's absolutely no way to know or measure that, except, perhaps, by retroactively assigning them a "potential" based on what they've shown themselves capable of.

Also, one grocery store bagger could easily demonstrate more problem-solving ability/intelligence than another. Problem-solving skills are developed and tested by education, but not born out of it.

[IndiReloaded]

there's absolutely no way to know or measure that, except, perhaps, by retroactively assigning them a "potential" based on what they've shown themselves capable of.

Right. Which doesn't really make it 'potential' does it? Not by the accepted definitions, which I've already posted, but describe a future outcome.

We've beaten this horse ad nauseum. Neo isn't wanting to learn, he's being a troll. The title of this thread is: Measuring Intelligence?

[NeoSeminole]

IndiReloaded says:

"I'll wait for someone more intelligent than you to post something that actually contributes to the discussion."

translation:

[misombra]

don't worry indi, this is how neo shows that he has a crush on you.

[IndiReloaded]

He used to PM me in the old days when he was still an undergrad... I know. Its cute.

[NeoSeminole]

lovesjoyajm says:

"where did you come up with that? It doesn't make any sense."

ponder it for a moment. I don't feel like explaining something so simple.

"Secondly, yes, some people may be born with more potential than others. Unfortunately, as I've said, there's absolutely no way to know or measure that, except, perhaps, by retroactively assigning them a "potential" based on what they've shown themselves capable of."

hint: you can't accurately measure intelligence

"Also, one grocery store bagger could easily demonstrate more problem-solving ability/intelligence than another. Problem-solving skills are developed and tested by education, but not born out of it."


exactly my point. Claiming that intelligence is our ability to apply knowledge <cough> Indi <cough> implies that each grocery bagger has the same intelligence b/c they all demonstrate an equal ability to bag groceries. How could you possibly argue that one bagger is more intelligent than another without including potential to do more with their life?

[NeoSeminole]

misombra says:

"don't worry indi, this is how neo shows that he has a crush on you."

you could learn something from watching this movie.

[NeoSeminole]

IndiReloaded says:

"He used to PM me in the old days when he was still an undergrad... I know. Its cute."

actually, you used to PM me to which I replied