
What Is Intelligence, Anyway? - rick_2047
http://talentdevelop.com/articles/WIIA.html
======
rkts
There is a lot of data on this question, and it flatly contradicts Asimov's
claims. IQ scores correlate not only with academic performance but also with
job performance as well as others' intuitive impression of how "smart" a
person is. That's why the army gives intelligence tests to new recruits: high-
IQ soldiers (and mechanics and carpenters) do better, on average, than their
low-IQ counterparts. Other types of tests, such as the hypothetical test
devised by Asimov's mechanic, either have no predictive power or are
predictive only as far as they correlate with _g_ , or general intelligence,
which is currently best measured by IQ tests. The physiological basis of _g_
is unknown, but it is highly heritable and correlates with a number of
physical variables such as brain volume and myelination.

If you want to learn more about the subject, I suggest this book, which
concisely disposes of these and other popular anti-IQ arguments:

[http://www.amazon.com/Question-Intelligence-IQ-Debate-
Americ...](http://www.amazon.com/Question-Intelligence-IQ-Debate-
America/dp/0806515074)

~~~
tokenadult
I read that book when it came out more than a decade ago. There are newer and
better books on the same subject,

<http://learninfreedom.org/iqbooks.html>

indeed newer and better books than shown on the link I have just shared. One I
particularly like, from a mainstream psychologist of considerable experience,
is What Intelligence Tests Miss by Keith R. Stanovich.

[http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001238...](http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300123852)

[http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-
Psycholog...](http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-
Psychology/dp/030012385X)

Stanovich includes a huge number of citations to current scholarly literature
in his book, and amply makes the case that many important cognitive functions
that make up "rationality" are missed by current IQ tests.

~~~
rkts
I have not read Stanovich's book but it does not appear to be an appropriate
introduction to the subject of intelligence. I suspect you recommend these
"newer and better" books because they suit your ideological purposes, not
because they are better researched or more informative.

~~~
tokenadult
_I suspect you recommend these "newer and better" books because they suit your
ideological purposes_

I suspect that because you haven't read the book yet (as you forthrightly
acknowledge), you don't have a basis of knowledge for knowing why I recommend
it. But newer can be better in books about intelligence (not necessarily, but
older isn't surely better either) simply because human intelligence is a
subject of a very vigorous research program involving hundreds of scientists
all over the world. If your claim is that the book you have recommended (which
I read, back when it was published) is the last word on the subject, you might
at least show onlookers a link to a book review saying so.

I meet in person with the researchers who do the primary research on the
subject of human intelligence who happen to be in my town

[http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall09/mcguem/psy8935/defau...](http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall09/mcguem/psy8935/default.htm)

and I make sure to keep up with the recent literature (from various points of
view) in the huge academic library of my alma mater, the research base of
several of the leading scientists in the discipline. I invite onlookers in
this thread to access the primary research sources themselves and the see
which books are better researched or more informative.

The best introduction to IQ testing, because it was so forward-looking and
well researched when it was published, continues to be the Mackintosh (1998)
book mentioned in the online bibliography I linked to in my previous reply to
you. But Alan S. Kaufman's very new IQ Testing 101 (full citation in another
comment in this thread) is also very good, and was published just in the last
year.

~~~
rkts
_If your claim is that the book you have recommended ... is the last word on
the subject_

That would be an audacious claim, considering the book is rather old and only
200 pages. I recommend it because it is a model of concise and accessible
prose, good for laymen (like me) who want to get the basic facts with minimal
fluff. As far as I know, none of its main points has been invalidated by
intervening research. But I can see why its blunt statements of fact might be
unpalatable to some.

------
jlgosse
While this is a fantastic article, I kind of want to disagree with some of the
points listed.

IQ tests are standardized in a way that you don't need to be a scholar or
academic to know how to solve and/or answer the questions.

Look at it this way, in my opinion, the standard IQ tests of today are moreso
a test of how quickly you can learn or adapt and solve, rather than of what
knowledge you have.

For example, I bet that a PhD candidate (or just a "genious") would have much
less difficulty learning about the insides of a car and how to fix it, than a
mechanic would have in getting his PhD or equivalent to that level of
knowledge

I find that people with higher than average IQs have more work ethic and learn
much more quickly than people who have below average IQs, and I don't think
this is a purely coincidental thing.

~~~
rdrimmie
I disagree with the work ethic point, but I do think it's interesting and
instead of both of us speculating would love to see some actual data.

There are a ton of dumbass people out there chugging away at grinding jobs to
stay alive, and a ton of brilliant people sitting at their desks reading
hacker news (not to imply that I'm brilliant; it's the rest of you I mean).

~~~
jheriko
I disagree with the work ethic point based one a single datum. my work ethic
drastically changed at one point in my life - whilst my IQ should have
remained constant, and its quite high - 144.5 on the Mensa test I took some 15
years ago.

~~~
arethuza
Similar story here - I had _no_ work ethic at all until I failed my first year
at University. (I had excellent school results, five unconditional offers of
places at University etc.).

I went back, worked very hard, passed the exam I failed (maths) and after that
graduated with a 1st.

I also got a stupidly high mark in an IQ test when I was 16 - largely as we
had an educational psychologist in the family who had bombarded me with tests
since I was about 4. There is no way that stuff actually makes you smarter but
it sure does make you better at passing silly tests.

------
gvb
The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination.

— Albert Einstein <http://quotationsbook.com/quote/21310/>

(and Isaac Asimov had a lot of imagination)

~~~
tokenadult
It's interesting that that "quotation" from Albert Einstein, a sentiment I
would love to attribute to him, because it encapsulates an idea I share about
the importance of creativity, seems never to be traced to one of Einstein's
actual writings. Has anyone ever checked the latest edition of Quotable
Einstein

[http://www.amazon.com/New-Quotable-Einstein-Alice-
Calaprice/...](http://www.amazon.com/New-Quotable-Einstein-Alice-
Calaprice/dp/0691120757/)

(I have checked the preceding edition)

[http://www.amazon.com/Quotable-Einstein-
Albert/dp/0691026963...](http://www.amazon.com/Quotable-Einstein-
Albert/dp/0691026963/)

to see if that is a genuine Einstein quotation? In the English-speaking world,
Einstein is second only to Mark Twain in having sayings attributed to him that
he never said.

[http://www.amazon.com/Quote-Sleuth-Manual-Tracer-
Quotations/...](http://www.amazon.com/Quote-Sleuth-Manual-Tracer-
Quotations/dp/0252016955/)

~~~
tokenadult
Eureka! I have found the quotation, in what must be a verifiable source.

[http://www.sciencemusings.com/blog/2006/10/imagination-
and-k...](http://www.sciencemusings.com/blog/2006/10/imagination-and-
knowledge.html)

I'll have to find the magazine interview soon, to see it with my own eyes.

------
Unseelie
If its his point to claim that intelligence tests are bunk, I'd quibble with
the declaration that any person, or even any academic, could make an
'intelligence test' pertaining to their particular field: that's not a test of
intelligence, but of mastery, though how quickly one can master, and how
widely they can apply that mastery may well be a test of intelligence.

Are intelligence tests tests of mastery in a field? I'd claim not, and I'd go
on to claim that they're built by people who study intelligence, without the
intention of testing a person's knowledge, as Asmiov claims such tests do.

------
andywood
I think it is a good point that there are different kinds of aptitudes, but I
also think this point should be kept in perspective. I think it is misguided
when people speak dismissively of IQ, SATs and the like, saying things like
"well, all that proves is that you're good at taking those kinds of tests."
(I'm not saying the article does this, but I do hear this rather frequently -
ironically, usually from people with high IQs. Privilege Guilt?) There is no
reason to be dismissive of the immense power of the type of intelligence that
handles symbol/abstraction manipulation, particularly in technology.

~~~
hoprocker
I believe that the problem alluded to in this essay is not so much with the
relationship between IQ tests and the value of abstract thinking, but rather
the hegemony of such thinking in the modern world. Technical thinking is
lauded in a society where production is the dominant measurement of value.
This contributes to bias towards a certain type of cerebral intelligence.

I actually just watched a TED talk on a related note, in which Ken Robinson
discusses intelligence bias:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html)

~~~
stcredzero
I'm sure that when hunting and gathering were the only activities that
mattered, that many coders alive today would have been considered morons.

~~~
donaq
Actually, I think that most of us would have become medicine men or shaman.

~~~
stcredzero
Probably a preferable outcome to being ridiculed, downtrodden, then killed
during armed conflict.

------
jheriko
you can't measure "intelligence" because there is no common definition for it.
its a vague term which doesn't map to a single real world phenomenon directly,
(e.g. brightness, heaviness, speed etc.) but its a derived value, which maps
to a multitude of other derived values (comprehension, reasoning etc.) which
are themselves difficult to define and measure. i don't know if a concrete
definition would help anyway... i'm sure people would disagree because
whatever it would be would conflict with their personal views of intelligence.

------
tomlin
Great article.

The fact that a few extra hours of sleep or a big cup of coffee can completely
sway the results renders IQ scores almost irrelevant, _IMHO_.

Great intelligence can be simple. Like caring for others, making informed
decisions, asking why, etc.

~~~
confuzatron
A lack of food or sleep can also play havoc with 100m sprint results, but even
the ideal amount of sleep and pasta wont make me beat Usain Bolt.

~~~
tomlin
Not the best comparison.

Your ability to compete in a 100m sprint isn't going to change drastically
from one day to the other. IQ scores, however, do.

IQ score is about as dependable as a lie detector on a sphincter-gifted
defendant.

~~~
confuzatron
My ability to compete in a 5k changes from one day to the next. I don't run
100m sprints, but would guess that the same situation applies there.

~~~
tomlin
Here's my very specific point: an IQ score changes enough, often and by many
externality to be considered a form of intelligence measurement.

To me, IQ is about as accurate as BMI.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_reference_chart>

On a good day, you might be an average IQ. Or a low average. Or a High
average.

I think the 100m is a cute analogy, but it falls short. An IQ changes with
very little effort; qualifying for a 100m sprint takes a lot of effort:
[http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/track-field/training-
qualify-10...](http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/track-field/training-
qualify-100m-track-171785.html).

I doubt pasta or a bad nights sleep would be such an incredible difference to
your performance that you might be considered an athlete one day and a couch
potato the next.

~~~
confuzatron
I see you have put links into your comment, but they appear to do nothing to
back up your claim. Maybe a paste typo.

~~~
tomlin
_sigh_ So far, you've done little more than compare with a completely
different form of measurement. Nice timing on that.

Here you might find a chart that shows the differences between IQ ranges. You
might notice how you could be 10+/- and manage to find yourself in a
completely different range: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_reference_chart>

And finally, to "back up my claim", check out a few other criticisms of IQ:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views)

A personal favorite: A 2006 paper argues that mainstream contemporary test
analysis does not reflect substantial recent developments in the field and
"bears an uncanny resemblance to the psychometric state of the art as it
existed in the 1950s."

In other words: fooey.

Successful 90 average entrepreneurs invent, evolve and innovate while there
are 110+ middle-aged "geniuses" living in parent's basements. Of course, the
opposite is also true.

An IQ test doesn't reflect who you'll be, if you'll be successful or if you'll
change the world.

"There is often a stark gap between the abilities of the gifted individual and
his or her actual accomplishments. Many gifted students will perform extremely
well on standardized or reasoning tests, only to fail a class exam."

\--
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_giftedness#Underac...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_giftedness#Underachievement)

IQ test is more of a religion than science. Like any religious person, you
might allow your belief to overstate purpose.

~~~
confuzatron
Congratulations for getting over your initial ennui there.

------
Heston
Intelligence is a desire to learn, plus experience.

