Measuring Intelligence?

[Charlie Boy II]

I agree intelligence is a measure of aptitude.

You can quite easily describe a seven year old child as intelligent, but it'd be pretty rare to label someone the same age as 'knowledgable'

[IndiReloaded]

Meh. Aptitude is a measure of *ability*, tho. Not potential. When you take an aptitude test the measurable outcome is your ability to do the math or logic problems you were given. Not your *potential* to do them. What if you could do the problems, but decided not to. How would a test measure that?

I think intelligence is a synthesis of accumulated knowledge. My son may have the *potential* to be more intelligent than me, but he's not. Not yet. So its not a very useful concept. If a situation arises where intellect is required, I care about what you *can* do, not your potential.

[NeoSeminole]

IndiReloaded says:

"By worth I mean utility. You define intelligence as someone's potential to apply knowledge."

in the context you provided, intelligence as a stand-alone trait isn't worth much. However, intelligence is intrinsically paired with knowledge (learning) and wisdom (application).

"How do you measure that potential and how is it useful to know, assuming you could even achieve a meaningful value?"

if a bunch of scientists can't agree on an accurate way to measure intelligence, then what makes you think I have the answer? Regarding your second question, children who demonstrate greater intelligence should be challenged mentally to realize their full potential.

"That was the reason for my question about a high-IQ child (not an argument, btw *my* argument is that intelligence does not = potential). What utility to know someone's intelligence as you define it? Who cares about potential if it isn't achieved? You can't measure it. As you say, it would be silly to put a child in office without evidence of those achievements from applied intellect. I'm glad you understood my point."

haha, what was your point and how does it discredit what I said? All I saw from you was a silly strawman argument.

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

when your argument sucks balls, then yes.. you need to clarify yourself. Funny how you put down bachelor graduates when you were once one yourself

"Sorry, OV, I disagree. Intelligence is the ability to use knowledge and experience to adapt to new situations. 'Potential' is meaningless."

now re-read what you just wrote b/c it's the same definition that we're using, albeit worded differently.

[IndiReloaded]

I think intelligence is a synthesis of accumulated knowledge.

Well, again, here^ is my best attempt at a definition. Its something one can at least try to measure, by providing problems where a solution exists for a given level of knowledge but may require some creative rearranging. I believe this is what a good university exam attempts to measure.

No marks for 'potential', tho. That's the part I object to. You can't measure it except with a time travel machine, so meaningless.

[BoredGeorge]

Intelligence is what morons try and measure to feel smart;
smart people are too busy being smart and rooting each other to care

[misombra]

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

hey now!!!!!

[NeoSeminole]

IndiReloaded says:

"Well, again, here^ is my best attempt at a definition. Its something one can at least try to measure, by providing problems where a solution exists for a given level of knowledge but may require some creative rearranging. I believe this is what a good university exam attempts to measure."

your argument still sucks balls. 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?

"No marks for 'potential', tho. That's the part I object to. You can't measure it except with a time travel machine, so meaningless."

so glad we have you teaching in graduate school <rolls eyes>

[Petit Papillon]

Intelligence is what You're born with, knowledge is what You can get.

[Charlie Boy II]

^^^

I agree, that's the widely understood definition. Intelligence is a characteristic like coordination, or strength.

[RSK]

E=mc^2 anybody?

[Only-virgins]

'Potential' is meaningless.

Potential is not meaningless, potential is useless if not realized. There is a difference.

[IndiReloaded]

IndiReloaded says:

"Well, again, here^ is my best attempt at a definition. Its something one can at least try to measure, by providing problems where a solution exists for a given level of knowledge but may require some creative rearranging. I believe this is what a good university exam attempts to measure."

your argument still sucks balls. 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?

"No marks for 'potential', tho. That's the part I object to. You can't measure it except with a time travel machine, so meaningless."

so glad we have you teaching in graduate school <rolls eyes>

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.

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.


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.

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.

[Gribble]

My dad's not the brightest guy. He's the first to admit it. He's a slow learner. To get a basic maintenance qualification took him multiple tries, and even then he only just made it.

Thing is, he's determined. I know he's my dad and it's nature for us to talk up our parents, but honestly, I can't stand the guy. So when I say he's the most determined, hard working man I've ever known, it ain't because we share blood. You give him a problem and he's going to solve it. It may take him a week to your day, but he will figure it out.

He's also a natural leader. He isn't suave or charismatic. He's brutal and terrifying. A bully.

I don't think he's ever read a book in his life, and I don't think he's ever harbored a thought that wasn't planted there by someone else. Under the right circumstances and in his own way, however, the man's brilliant.

He never finished the sixth grade. Had to strike out on his own as a boy in downtown Chicago. Today the dumb little street rat tells doctoral engineers what to do.

Intelligence is such a hard thing to quantify. Even aptitude doesn't quite cover it, I think. It's so varied.

[RSK]

potential is how far man can go. opportunity is how many doors he has. change your perspective, and you'll find your potential and opportunity can increase.
-rsk

[IndiReloaded]

Potential is not meaningless, potential is useless if not realized. There is a difference.

Okay, I give you this. But again, from the standpoint of a definition of intelligence, what good is it if you can't measure it?

Potential IS meaningless if its not realized. Because the potential then meant nothing. Its only got future value and how do you measure this. Get it?

Like I said, you can't give an exam based on potential. How can I possibly tell the difference (in that instance) of the kid who can but can't be bothered and the kid who can't hack the work no matter the effort given? And is there any practical difference b/t them?

To Gribble - I suppose you could also measure how quickly someone is able to arrive at a solution. That could be another indicator.