What is intelligence?

[TINNY]

Stop this DrPHil crap. I want your response to my post.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: TINNY

Stop this DrPHil crap. I want your response to my post.

 

Hey, what's with the long face. I *did* respond to your post and said I had no answer to it. Maybe none of us do.

 

Come on, you asked "Who can define self-knowledge". I answered "Ask Dr Phil". Because that's my point - who can define it? I haven't got the faintest idea.

[Stargazer]

Regarding selfknowledge, I think that it is very difficult to define and to recognize in nature. When is an entity selfaware? Another interesting thing about it, is that since we are parts of the cosmos just as planets and stars are, and if we are selfaware, then wouldn't that mean that one could say that the cosmos itself, to a certain extant, is selfaware? The universe is not only observing, but also contemplating, itself ;-)

[chungking]

Intelligence is the ablility to make nuerological patterns in the brain(also break them when necessary).

In general, there are 7 different types of intelligence observed in human beings.

 

1. Logical-Mathematical - ability to perform logical and mathematical problem solving on paper and on real world objects and phenomena.

 

2. Verbal-Linguistic - ability to use language constructs in an effecient way, ability to learn and practice language semantics, rhetoric ,grammar, and new languages.

 

3. Visual-Spatial - to be able to observe details and pattern in visual data, ability to mentally measure 2d and 3d spaces, e.g - driving a car, the car becomes an extension of a persons body.

 

4. Musical-rhythmic - vocal, instrumental musical talent.

 

5. Body-Kinesthetics - dancing, trapeze artists, tight rope walking.

 

6. Inter-personal - ability to build relationships and maintain them with fellow human beings.

 

7. Intra-personal - self reflection, introspection, self awareness etc.

 

In different parts of the world, depending on the cultural biases and the individuals socio-economic circumstances, certian intellligences are preferred over the others, the rest are marginalised. In my opinon all stand on equal ground.

[IrishEyes]

In different parts of the world, depending on the cultural biases and the individuals socio-economic circumstances, certian intellligences are preferred over the others, the rest are marginalised. In my opinon all stand on equal ground.

 

Thanks chungking, and WELCOME to our Forum. Very insightful post, and I hope to read more from you in the very near future.

 

I think what you have said, that depending on where you live, or what your situation is, different aspects of 'intelligence' are considered more important, is very true. Through this thread, we have seen that intelligence means many things. The Dysegenics thread showed a very similar feeling from most of us. I think that's also something that we see very clearly in this Forum.

 

Most of the people that come here are very intelligent people. However, not all of them are intelligent in the same areas. I think that this difference, the variety that we all bring to the various discussions, is what makes this site so interesting. I also think that one of things that bothers me the most is when people who are gifted in one or two areas do not acknowledge that those gifted in other areas are just as intelligent, but in a different way. Out of your list of 7 types of intelligence, I think I excel at at least 3, possibly 4. By excel, I meant that I am probably more advanced than at least 50% of the population. There are quite a few here that I think excel at 3 or 4 also, but they are not the same ones at which I excel.

 

Depending on where we live, what we do, how we were raised, what we want from life, we have learned which of these things is more valuable to us, as individuals. From that, we judge, or rate, other people's intelligence based on *our* standards. Right or wrong, that is generally what happens. To admit that someone that is a gifted dancer, musician and "people-person" is as intelligent as someone that can build their own computer from scrap metal and old circuits might not seem right to some of us, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, either. If we were posting in a general froum, or an artistic forum, the computer builder might not seem as intelligent, huh? Just a turn of the kaleidoscope and everything changes.

[IrishEyes]

One other thing... IRT: Dr. Phil...

 

Sorry, didn't mean to get off track, Tinny. I was stirring the pot, and got carried away. I agree with Uncle Martin, Freethinker, and Tormod in that there is very little to be gained in spending hours watching someone on television try, in 10 minutes, to band-aid a problem. The mere fact that so many people watch Dr. Phil, Oprah, or anyone else, and model their lives after what they hear, actually make life-changes from hearing pre-packaged advice from a 7 minute segment, is really very disturbing.

 

Come on guys, you know I hardly even watch television. The few hours per week that I do watch is usually spent on Discovery Forensics Files, CSI, or the West Wing (my guilty pleasure).

[coco]

I was inclined to be of the opinion that intelligence aka intellect is innate and is developed and retarded by environmental factors i.e. learned behaviour. However,after lengthy and ugly research + consideration,i believe this ability that develops as one learns can not in essence be considered an innate quality, however developed or not??- as all the things that illustrate its existance are so variable in reality.

 

This development is cultural and culturally defined. As different nationalities evolve within their specific environments they learn and adapt to that environment, making them seem different and ill adjusted in another environment and of course vice versa.

I wonder if successful adjustment between cultures could be considered the 'more' intelligent (like the Neanderthals=them and the Cro-Magnons=us, which was defiantly a case of cro-Ms physiological superiority) or perhaps the more flexible of the two had less cultural input in their education.

In today’s world cultural advantages promote certain nationalities. It would certainly be a mistake to confuse power with intelligence, and of course its earthly manifestations.

 

-Intelligence can not be considered innate, as its development and thus its application relies on surroundings and cultural environment to gain maximum efficiency. Intelligence is strongly cultural and their ( its ) complexity means that that they do not ( it does not ) obey the laws of inheritance.

...a metaphysical and genetic law rolled into one.

-'intellegence' is a classification that which ever specifications used to classify all have differing and hazy perimeters, that said haze is an zone that should not be ignored.

Thus any ' quotient ' that we come up with using any one particular classification method will completely change using another valid classification technique.

So why trust the product of the combination of two (so incredibly varying) variables that don’t (one so much more that the other for 'cultural' reasons) even have a reliable median.

 

 

The whole intelligence concept had me miffed, I guess that as I assumed the question referred to a concept that is specific and I chose another word (intellect) to refer to in an earlier post. I then saw that (this) the intelligence that we are born with shares different associations and properties and is still referred to as the same thing...that is 'intelligence'.

 

By its very nature, intelligence is something that becomes enigmatic once we try to understand, measure and define it. What we do see and believe intelligence to be has a whole lot more to it perhaps more than first assumed, like the submerged iceberg, and like the iceberg the nature of it changes once we see that there is so much more that we have not seen and can not examine (evolutionary and environmental input)

Are we not, in evolutionary terms, the physiological product of adaptation to our environment.

If intelligence were an innate quality, like the presence of the back bone in invertebrates or mammary glands in mammals or even two eyes. We would all, given the opportunity, excel in certain predefined areas and not in others..It would mean that we would all have the same responses - like the knee jerk - we would all be the same and very easy to classify. Intelligence can not be understood in such simple terms. As we have seen it relies on so many variables, we can liken it to the fact that some of us have green eyes and bad backs( although all of us have two and a backbone)

So although intelligence is a much more complicated concept than the presence of a type of eye colour, its presence is determined by selection. I think we can safely say that it can not really be considered an innate quality, since it is always there but we dont understand why.

[lindagarrette]

So although intelligence is a much more complicated concept than the presence of a type of eye colour, its presence is determined by selection. I think we can safely say that it can not really be considered an innate quality, since it is always there but we dont understand why.

Intelligence is not a complicated concept. It is basically, the ability to learn, a genetic trait that evolved along with the brain.

[coco]

Intelligence is not a complicated concept. It is basically, the ability to learn, a genetic trait that evolved along with the brain.

 

 

Yes, the ability to learn is considered a facet of intellegence, however this ability remains innert without the influence of experience and therefore in its initial state is a kind of proto-intellegence that exists but has little impact on our survival. Combined with external and environmental factors this ability developes and changes into reason, critical thinking, risk / danger awareness etc. As these factors facilitate the evolution of intellegence, its presence is not a genetic trait, unlike the reptillian brain, the stem and all the cortexes.

[lindagarrette]

Yes, the ability to learn is considered a facet of intellegence, however this ability remains innert without the influence of experience and therefore in its initial state is a kind of proto-intellegence that exists but has little impact on our survival. Combined with external and environmental factors this ability developes and changes into reason, critical thinking, risk / danger awareness etc. As these factors facilitate the evolution of intellegence, its presence is not a genetic trait, unlike the reptillian brain, the stem and all the cortexes.

You are confusing intelligence with training. Lack of knowledge doesn't mean lack of intelligence. There is a difference between survival instincts and learning. The intelligence factor is part of human survival traits. It is genetic.

[coco]

You are confusing intelligence with training. Lack of knowledge doesn't mean lack of intelligence. There is a difference between survival instincts and learning. The intelligence factor is part of human survival traits. It is genetic.

 

 

i do not believe i am confusing intellegence with training. what i am saying is that from an anthropological perspective, intellegence ( collective interpretation ) is not generally considered an innate trait, as its development and thus its application relies on surroundings and cultural environmental input to gain maximum efficiency. hunger is an instinctual response however the awareness that food is needed and has to be found and eaten is learned behavior, and it is the later that ensures survival, even if the former is the catalyst.

perhaps we should agree to disagree :friday:

[Fishteacher73]

I feel that the intelect is innate, but just as any other physical aspect of the body needs use to allow it to prosper. Just as a muscle will atrophy w/o use, so would the intelect, but it does not mean it was not there. A paralyzed individual may not be able to use their legs and that the muscle will atrrophy does not mean the muscle was not there to begin with.

[lindagarrette]

i do not believe i am confusing intellegence with training. what i am saying is that from an anthropological perspective, intellegence ( collective interpretation ) is not generally considered an innate trait, as its development and thus its application relies on surroundings and cultural environmental input to gain maximum efficiency. hunger is an instinctual response however the awareness that food is needed and has to be found and eaten is learned behavior, and it is the later that ensures survival, even if the former is the catalyst.

perhaps we should agree to disagree :friday:

You are not paying attention. The differences between genetic and learned behavior are pretty clear. You keep trying to mix them up. Look up more information on intelligence. You will find a consensus among the scientific community that it is indeed a genetic trait. This is not a matter opinion.

[coco]

You are not paying attention. The differences between genetic and learned behavior are pretty clear. You keep trying to mix them up. Look up more information on intelligence. You will find a consensus among the scientific community that it is indeed a genetic trait. This is not a matter opinion.

 

 

I have a different opinion to you, do not accuse me of not paying attention because of it. I have done extensive research in the area of intellegence. i was this research that defined the different models if intellegence, the input of genetics and behavior for me. so thank you for the suggestion but i think i ll refrain from 'looking up' anything. finding a general consensus in a community does not discourage me to question. this is apathy.

 

f/t... yes, i to believe that the intellect is innate, it is the developed and changed version that we speak of her, that is i recognise them as different things.

[lindagarrette]

I have a different opinion to you, do not accuse me of not paying attention because of it. I have done extensive research in the area of intellegence. i was this research that defined the different models if intellegence, the input of genetics and behavior for me. so thank you for the suggestion but i think i ll refrain from 'looking up' anything. finding a general consensus in a community does not discourage me to question. this is apathy.

 

f/t... yes, i to believe that the intellect is innate, it is the developed and changed version that we speak of her, that is i recognise them as different things.

Pardon me. From your initial post, it appeared that you had no knowledge of the subject matter. (By the way, I seldom express opinions.)

[Biochemist]

(By the way, I seldom express opinions.)

:friday: I really had to chuckle at that one. Your signature is an opinion.