Measuring Intelligence?

[lovesjoyajm]

Again:

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

Anyway.

hint: you can't accurately measure intelligence

Not the way YOU'VE defined it. But that's because you've got the turtles-all-the-way-down approach where as I'm trying to find a definition that actually works. (i.e. IS measurable)

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?

You didn't understand what I was saying at all.
Intelligence would not be measured by how well one can bag groceries. I'm talking about measuring intelligence via testing of some level of standardization. One grocery bagger might do very well on these tests, which might consist of logical problems or puzzles, while the other grocery bagger might prove himself incapable (via these tests) of doing anything more intellectually advanced than bagging groceries.
Capisci?

[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.

So, they have the same knowledge. But the grocery bagger who is faster b/c he's worked out a better way to fill the bags would be more intelligent in that context.

[NeoSeminole]

lovesjoyajm says:

"Again:"

again: ponder it for a moment. I don't feel like explaining something so simple. What you're asking me is like one step away from asking me what 2 + 2 is.

"Not the way YOU'VE defined it. But that's because you've got the turtles-all-the-way-down approach where as I'm trying to find a definition that actually works. (i.e. IS measurable)"

by all means, keep wasting your time arguing over ways to quantify something that's intangible. Don't let me stop you, lol.

"You didn't understand what I was saying at all. Intelligence would not be measured by how well one can bag groceries. I'm talking about measuring intelligence via testing of some level of standardization. One grocery bagger might do very well on these tests, which might consist of logical problems or puzzles, while the other grocery bagger might prove himself incapable (via these tests) of doing anything more intellectually advanced than bagging groceries."

and yet you're only testing for specific components of intelligence. How do you test for areas of intelligence that aren't measurable? Let's say person A is better at math while person B is better at linguistics. How would you determine which individual is smarter? Mind you, these are only 2 areas of intelligence out of many. Even if you could test for all, how would you derive any meaningful way of assigning an overall value?

[IndiReloaded]

Good luck Lovesjoy. Just post an integral or something for him to solve. That should do the trick.

[lovesjoyajm]

Since you either have no idea what you're talking about, or don't remember what I asked, here's what I'm talking about:

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.

I defined intelligence as a person's demonstrated ability, at any given time, to solve problems. Their future ability or past ability is not considered. I'm not saying potential doesn't exist. I'm saying it is irrelevant. Would you care to address your mistake or just run away again?

[lovesjoyajm]

Good luck Lovesjoy. Just post an integral or something for him to solve. That should do the trick.

Oops. Saw this after I posted. Anyway, I'd be MUCH more interested to see how he handles a proof. I can see how mathematical rigor wouldn't appeal to him.

[NeoSeminole]

lovesjoyajm says:

"Since you either have no idea what you're talking about, or don't remember what I asked, here's what I'm talking about:"

<yawn> go back and re-read our exchange. I know exactly what I'm talking about. It seems you're the one who is confused.

"I defined intelligence as a person's demonstrated ability, at any given time, to solve problems. Their future ability or past ability is not considered. I'm not saying potential doesn't exist. I'm saying it is irrelevant. Would you care to address your mistake or just run away again?"

so you concede that you're wrong since you ignored the part of my post about how intelligence is not measurable hence trying to come up with a way to define it in measurable terms is human folly? Ah, gotcha!

here it is again:

"and yet you're only testing for specific components of intelligence. How do you test for areas of intelligence that aren't measurable? Let's say person A is better at math while person B is better at linguistics. How would you determine which individual is smarter? Mind you, these are only 2 areas of intelligence out of many. Even if you could test for all, how would you derive any meaningful way of assigning an overall value?"

[NeoSeminole]

anyway, I see that I've exhausted both of your supply of mental abilities. I'll let you 2 have fun =]

[lovesjoyajm]

anyway, I see that I've exhausted both of your supply of mental abilities. I'll let you 2 have fun =]

Thanks, Neo.
Sleeping IS more intellectually stimulating than talking to you.

[IndiReloaded]

I defined intelligence as a person's demonstrated ability, at any given time, to solve problems. Their future ability or past ability is not considered. I'm not saying potential doesn't exist. I'm saying it is irrelevant. Would you care to address your mistake or just run away again?

Neo got owned. He's too dumb to even realize it. LOL.

[Charlie Boy II]

World's most boring, pointless thread.