What is Intelligence? Any suggestions?

What makes one action intelligent while another is considered unintelligent?

Pastor AIO:

What is Intelligence? Any suggestions?

The definition, in psychology, has changed over time. But here is one I personally find useful: the ability to make finer distinctions. That is, the more distinctions you can make, the more intelligent you are.

Being knowledgeable is quite different from being intelligent, although the one can, and often does, result from the other. I don’t think being intelligent necessarily makes one a better human being than the less intelligent. It also does not necessary determine the extent of success one will attain in life. That is, being intelligent does not mean you will succeed in business and become a millionaire faster than a less endowed person, in politics and become a governor, or in the arts and become, say, a star movie actor.

But being intelligent can be very helpful since it often leads to academic success, and academic success can go a long way in determining who becomes top shot. But bear in mind that this is not given, since many people who do well academically do not go on to become successful. High intelligence is also required for certain tasks - think astronauts, poets and classical composers. The reason many academically successful people are not successful in life is not often talked about, but it is quite simple: the common measure of intelligence, the IQ, is often misleading. It is too slender to be of much use.

That is why it is now widely recognized that there are different intelligences. Multiple intelligences. It has been observed that a man may leave university with a first class honours but find it hard to hold down a job or stay in a marriage: enter the concept of EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE. A boy may be a computer wiz but can’t hold a tennis bat properly much less do a proper serve. He has numerical intelligence but not kinesthetic intelligence. I think some of the geniuses we know excel at one particular intelligence while others had them all. But I respect them all, whether it's a Mozart, an Einstein, a Fela or Tiger Woods.

This is a very interesting subject, but got to go now.

Ability to solve complex problems?

Pastor AIO:

What is Intelligence? Any suggestions?

What makes one action intelligent while another is considered unintelligent?

I think, it is interwined with creativity, an ability to create and develop innovations. A calculating mind. Seperate it from excellent memory(brilliance), brilliance can take the right decisions on predetermined steps but at a dead end would be frustrated. It applies to all fields, military, academics, art . . .

This is brilliant

MyJoe:

The definition, in psychology, has changed over time. But here is one I personally find useful: the ability to make finer distinctions. That is, the more distinctions you can make, the more intelligent you are.

Being knowledgeable is quite different from being intelligent, although the one can, and often does, result from the other. I don’t think being intelligent necessarily makes one a better human being than the less intelligent. It also does not necessary determine the extent of success one will attain in life. That is, being intelligent does not mean you will succeed in business and become a millionaire faster than a less endowed person, in politics and become a governor, or in the arts and become, say, a star movie actor.

But being intelligent can be very helpful since it often leads to academic success, and academic success can go a long way in determining who becomes top shot. But bear in mind that this is not given, since many people who do well academically do not go on to become successful. High intelligence is also required for certain tasks - think astronauts, poets and classical composers. The reason many academically successful people are not successful in life is not often talked about, but it is quite simple: the common measure of intelligence, the IQ, is often misleading. It is too slender to be of much use.

That is why it is now widely recognized that there are different intelligences. Multiple intelligences. It has been observed that a man may leave university with a first class honours but find it hard to hold down a job or stay in a marriage: enter the concept of EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE. A boy may be a computer wiz but can’t hold a tennis bat properly much less do a proper serve. He has numerical intelligence but not kinesthetic intelligence. I think some of the geniuses we know excel at one particular intelligence while others had them all. But I respect them all, whether it's a Mozart, an Einstein, a Fela or Tiger Woods.

This is a very interesting subject, but got to go now.

Well done Kay17.  What you described is as the definition of intelligence is just one half of the basic function of thinking.  Which I guess is what intelligence is.  But the distinction between that and what I define as intelligence is quite subtle and I don't think I can quite articulate it in one post but let us continue and hopefully it will make itself clear as we go along.

When I said that the ability to make fine distinctions between is only one half of thinking what I meant obviously is that there is another half.  The ability to make generalizations.  i.e the ability to identify that the domestic dog and the wolf, and the bear all belong to one and the same genus.  These two functions are the polar opposite of each other and our ability to use the two constructively is what makes someone a good thinker.  Ie.  the ability to tell when one applies to a particular problem better than the other.  

For instance when are the differences between world mythologies pertinent to a discussion and When are the similarities between them more pertinent.  In which instances do we apply these two manners of observation to best effect.  There are certain things that I know about the woman across the street because I know women and what I know about women in general would probably apply to her too.  How far can I take this?  What about her individuality?  What can I tell about her that will mark her apart from the other women that I've met before.  Will that distinguishing fact matter when I approach her?  

So these two abilities, the ability to generalize and the ability to specify are the two corner stones of thinking processes.  

My definition of Intelligence is 'the ability to accquire and retain information'.  I particularly like this one because it makes sense of calling agencies like the CIA intelligence services.  They are intelligence services because they go around collecting information and then storing it.  The information can be collected by direct observation or by using various deduction techniques.


There are a vast number of things in the whole universe that intelligence can be applied to.  People have different inclinations to apply it to different things so that could be the reason why there appear to be many different kinds of intelligence.  

Jenwitemi:

Ability to solve complex problems?

Intelligence can be used to solve problems, but it might be irrelevant to solving the problem at hand.  Often solving problems has an element of 'luck' (note the inverted commas).  Intelligence can also be the ability to realise that there is a problem in the first place.  


and Kay 17, your line

Being knowledgeable is quite different from being intelligent, although the one can, and often does, result from the other.

is heavy with all sorts of knots and twists.  First off, what is knowledge?  Didn't think this thread would get into epistemology but it seems so so let's jump in.  Is it knowledge that results from intelligence or intelligence that results from knowledge?  Where does belief fit into all of this.  When is a belief knowledge and when is it a delusion?

Ah, Pastor. I'd wager you knew we'd get epistemological some time, probably just not this soon.

Intelligence to me is a composite of various abilities of which the foremost is creativity. Intelligence is like a fine program: as little code as possible to do as much as possible.

It is also curiosity. A desire to know stuff.

It is also an ability to connect the dots, to extrapolate, to be specific or generalize. To see the big picture and use a magnifying glass. This I believe is Pastor's main point.

Intelligence is a host of other things: recognition of patterns, ability to hold two mutually exclusive thoughts etc. I don't think a robust memory is intelligence. It enhances it but it is not intelligence itself. Compare to a computer with plenty memory but little processing speed. The processing speed to me is intelligence but the memory may enhance it. By extension knowledge is also not intelligence. Neither is wisdom which is more like a catalogue of cause and effect than anything else. A wise person has probably made all possible mistakes.

A reason why I think intelligence is multi-faceted is cuz autists are very intelligent and very dumb at the same time.

I catch your drift now. On intelligence, the capacity to collect information is more like deciphering a mass of codes, with an analytical appetite. There comes in both generalization and distinguishing. It is to add update knowledge(reservoir of verifiable information), which in turn, converted to practical use.

On your update, I take intelligence to dwell on individual capacity dependent of learning, to acquire information and build on it.

Vesc, you've left the definition so open ended that it redefines the meaning of a definition. Can you set some limits as to what intelligence is and what it is not? By saying it's a composite of various abilities without outlining what those abilities are leaves plenty of room for anything to enter the definition. is my ability to scratch my butt an aspect of my intelligence?

Intelligence can do a lot of things like the fine program you mentioned but the fine program can be captured in just a few lines of code. Can you do likewise for Intelligence? What are the composite aspects? You've so far mentioned -

Curiosity, desire for knowledge

The ability to connect dots

to extrapolate

to generalize and or be specific (although I didn't say to be specific, rather I said notice specification which is subtly different. To be specific suggests that you are expressing something and to notice specification suggests that you are discovering something.)

Recognition of patterns ( which comes out of the ability to generalize)

Ability to hold two mutually exclusive thoughts. Now, this one is interesting. Is this the same as multitasking? I don't think that I have such an ability. I don't think you actually mean mutually exclusive because by definition mutually exclusive things are . . . eh-erm . . . mutually exclusive. If you can hold them in your head at the same time then they are not mutually exclusive. I think you mean just the ability to think two thoughts at the same time. I don't have that ability, but I am curious to know where it has been referred to as an aspect of intelligence.

A reason why I think intelligence is multi-faceted is cuz autists are very intelligent and very dumb at the same time.

Could it be that Autists merely have their entire intelligence focused on a very limited activity?

Touche. Touche. Touche.

Perhaps I came off like I knew what I was talking about. Au contraire. I take pains not to sound like what I say is hard fact. Except it is. All I wrote was my view. The reason why my definition was so open ended is because I do not believe one can develop an encapsulating definition. It's like trying to define beauty. Moreso, I have not said all I think intelligence is. But I know it is not limited to what I wrote. Not by my reckoning.

About the program. I didn't mean to liken intelligence with the program. I meant to liken the finesse of the program to intelligence. Like theists see God in design.

Yes, you are right. Mutually exclusive is a wrong term. Wrong by its very definition too. I was typing fast and didn't think what I was saying much. Opposing thoughts is better like Socialism and Capitalism. What I really meant is an ability to change his mind upon deep thought or new evidence. This is why thick people cannot be reasoned with.

Also I think it is an ability to be able to understand and override instinct. Really, I cannot help but be open ended about the definition because it is a composite term. I think the components of the definition carry different significance though it can hardly be quantified only relative.

Autists indeed have their intelligence focused on very narrow scope. I'm glad you used the word "focus". It implies that they are not of less intelligence but of less ways to use it. But then not all autists are apparently intelligent. It's all up in the air jare.

What do you think of the claim/fact that we do not use all of our brain? Would you say someone who can access more of his latent brain is more intelligent?

Relative to the environment where this die has been cast, the proper question should probably be why intelligence should exist at all: more so advanced intelligence.

I am still wondering whether the universe comes up with things that it does not need.

Deep Sight:

Relative to the environment where this die has been cast, the proper question should probably be why intelligence should exist at all: more so advanced intelligence.

I am still wondering whether the universe comes up with things that it does not need.

Sir, you might as well ask why the universe should exist at all. I do not think that intelligence is something that the world does not need. Far from it, it is at the very essence of phenomenal existence. This whole universe can be said to be made up of Intelligence and Information.


Advance Intelligence? What is that?

vescucci:

Touche. Touche. Touche.

I touch you too, 3 times.
okay, enough of bad jokes.

vescucci:


Perhaps I came off like I knew what I was talking about. Au contraire. I take pains not to sound like what I say is hard fact. Except it is. All I wrote was my view. The reason why my definition was so open ended is because I do not believe one can develop an encapsulating definition. It's like trying to define beauty. Moreso, I have not said all I think intelligence is. But I know it is not limited to what I wrote. Not by my reckoning.

But why can't one develop an encapsulating definition? It's okay to be arbitrary. Your definition is your definition and it let's us know what you mean when you use the word. I guess what you're trying to say is that the one word is often applied to various quite different meanings. 'Beauty' is like this too. Often it just means attractive. Like a beautiful girl. But then a piece of music can also be called beautiful. And it doesn't necessarily mean harmonious. Something dissonant can be considered beautiful too. It seems to refer to something that can trigger a certain part of our imaginations.

What do you think of the claim/fact that we do not use all of our brain? Would you say someone who can access more of his latent brain is more intelligent?

What does the brain do exactly? I think the brain is elastic so measuring it's full potential is futile. The brain by it's nature can always do more. Is someone using more brain latency more intelligent? That would depend on what you mean by intelligent.

Well to me, Intelligence is the ability to solve problems of any kind, in the process of solving prioblems we need to obtain data"information", processing and a host of other activities.As long as one is able to solve problems confronting him he is intelligent, now the level of intelligence will depend on the kind of problems we are able to solve.

vedaxcool:

Well to me, Intelligence is the ability to solve problems of any kind.As long as one is able to solve problems confronting him he is intelligent, now the level of intelligence will depend on the kind of problems we are able to solve.

Wow, Vedax, you impress me today o! You're posting in a thread and you are not talking about islam or dissing xtianity. Very very impressive.

Pastor AIO:

Wow, Vedax, you impress me today o! You're posting in a thread and you are not talking about islam or dissing xtianity. Very very impressive.

I will take this statement as a "friendly" Insult but the thread itself has a larger "dimension".

@deepsight, good question

But at what purpose is the universe aiming at?

vedaxcool:

I will take this statement as a "friendly" Insult but the thread itself has a larger "dimension".

strike the insult part and keep the 'friendly' part and you'll be more on target. you are right the thread itself has a larger dimension. now as regards what you said about intelligence being required to solve a problem, what about the recognition that there is a problem in the first place. What about the diagnosis of the problem? have these go anything to do with intelligence?

sorry o, MyJoe I thought it was Kay17 that wrote your post that's why I responded to him. my apologies to all involved.

Lol. Some whisky in the morning?

I suppose one could derive an all encompassing definition of intelligence. Probably the same way people like Stephen Hawkings look for a theory of everything. I realise now that this thread is an offshoot of the question whether atheists are more intelligent. Well, in a way yes. That would fit with the part where I think intelligence is being able to go against instinct. I believe deity worship is somewhat instinctive.

Pastor AIO:

Well done Kay17.  What you described is as the definition of intelligence is just one half of the basic function of thinking.  Which I guess is what intelligence is.  But the distinction between that and what I define as intelligence is quite subtle and I don't think I can quite articulate it in one post but let us continue and hopefully it will make itself clear as we go along.

When I said that the ability to make fine distinctions between is only one half of thinking what I meant obviously is that there is another half.  The ability to make generalizations.  i.e the ability to identify that the domestic dog and the wolf, and the bear all belong to one and the same genus.  These two functions are the polar opposite of each other and our ability to use the two constructively is what makes someone a good thinker.  Ie.  the ability to tell when one applies to a particular problem better than the other.  

It is my view that what is involved in making generalizations is often the same process of making distinctions – at almost every stage. So I can tell that a dog and a wolf belong to the same genus. But this is before (or is it after?) I tell they belong to a different family from horses (Equidae) even though they are all mammals. And that is because I know mammals are different from amphibians. So you find while grouping (generalizing) we are actually involved in the process of making distinctions. Generalisations would have no meaning without distinctions. You cannot generalise correctly if you lack the ability to make fine distinctions.

Pastor AIO:
There are a vast number of things in the whole universe that intelligence can be applied to.  People have different inclinations to apply it to different things so that could be the reason why there appear to be many different kinds of intelligence.  

It is demonstrably more than inclination, Pastor. I think there is some innate natural ability involved. (I am not saying intelligence is wholly innate - that is still a subject of debate and I don't believe it is.) If I practice basketball for nine hours everyday, I doubt I will ever get as good as Michael Jordan. If I let my kid practice, there is no guarantee he will. But there is reason to believe that if Michael Jordan had taken to tennis in his childhood he would have achieved the same fame he achieved in basketball – this is because he is a kinesthetic genius. Going with basket ball, rather than tennis, is where such things as inclination and environment come in, not the primordial ability. Similarly, Fela could have achieved the same fame had he chosen reggae. While they had different inclinations, the same genius was required of him and Bob Marley.

Take the matter of emotional intelligence – the ability to master yourself and , from there, others. With the concept of emotional intelligence, we see why otherwise brilliant people flounder when it comes to such things as self-control, anger management and boldness. It’s called the genius-failure paradox, a concept that helps us explain why intelligent people fail at small things. American psychologist, Daniel Goleman wrote an excellent book on Emotional Intelligence.

And I think the ability to acquire and retain information is what brings about knowledge (information in mind). Being intelligent makes this easier. I will say you can’t be knowledgeable without possessing a fair degree of something called “intellectual curiosity.” But the two still remain different things. I think "belief" is an entirely different matter.

Pastor AIO:
Intelligence can be used to solve problems, but it might be irrelevant to solving the problem at hand.   

Like, if you are about to walk through a jungle populated by lions you would rather hire a snake charmer with an IQ (verbal-linguistic intelligence) of 50 living near the Congo River as a guide, even if an intelligent guy like Vescucci offers to do it free! Thing is, the two have different intelligences.

vescucci:

The processing speed to me is intelligence but the memory may enhance it.

I see the point here, since the guy who finishes first is apparently more intelligent. But I don’t buy it completely. A slower but sure-footed goer who does excellently well at the end of the day is equally intelligent in real life situations. Even in many moot situations.

Pastor AIO:

Could it be that Autists merely have their entire intelligence focused on a very limited activity?

No, sir. I insist there is no “entire intelligence”. It is this view of intelligence (verbal-linguistic intelligence measured by the popular IQ) that is the major cause of the fact only about 30% of kids do well in school. The rest are then branded unintelligent. But what happens in the long run? The 30% that returned above average score in school exams don’t necessarily outperform the others in the core areas of life. And that is the failure of the education system practiced across the world today, since many of these "unintelligent" kids have their self-esteem destroyed. What has recognizing the fine grammatical distinctions between a gerund and a present participle (verbal-linguistic intelligence) to do with mastering a ukulele (musical intelligence)? What has being able to calculate a row of figures off the top of your head like Warren Buffet (numerical-logical intelligence) to do with making fine distinctions in architecture and coming up with spectacular designs like the Sydney Opera House (spatial intelligence)?

Pastor AIO:

What makes one action intelligent while another is considered unintelligent?

I can think of a case right now - the protesters currently shutting down France and intimidating their government. Along with their backers in the Socialist Party, they are, in my opinion, very very unintelligent. What we have here is a deplorable inability to make a distinction. The government wants to extend retirement wage by making workers work two years more, the workers want to retire early, the students want workers to retire early so there will be more vacancies for graduates. Why the government wants to do it – to save the pension system and by extension, the civil service, does not matter to the protesters. They are unable to make a distinction between elitist government policies and those that will be benefit the people in the long run. The government is unpopular, so anything it does must be opposed. They are unable to tell when an unpopular government does something good.

Pastor AIO:

Sir, you might as well ask why the universe should exist at all.  I do not think that intelligence is something that the world does not need.  Far from it, it is at the very essence of phenomenal existence.  This whole universe can be said to be made up of Intelligence and Information.

Exactly what I am trying to drive at. Forgive my penchant to make everything about proof of the existence of God: but I believe that the presence of intelligence in the universe is evidence of the existence of the ultimate intelligence - or better still i should very carefully say - the intelligence that permeates all things. . .which is God.

Advance Intelligence?  What is that?  

Well again I beg your forgiveness in advance but it seems to me that some of the qualities of intelligence that you pointed out could be present in a little creature - such as a Beaver that constructs a dam, or the collective intelligence of ants that cultivate livestock and create air-conditioning systems in their ant-hills.

There however seems to be a degree of sentience that makes it possible to recognise and contemplate more advanced or abstract concepts and this is what I referred to as advanced intelligence.

Needless to say, for all the dams it may construct, a beaver is most unlikely to be able to contemplate further mathematics, quantum physics or philosophy. I feel that this is not just a question of brain size - it is, in my view, also a question of the degree of sentience that a creature is capable of. Its like addressing different operating systems with different capacities altogether.

Anyhow, the reason i brought up the question of intelligence being evidence for the existence of God is simply that if not related to that question I cannot see that this is a thread for the Religion Section.

MyJoe:

I can think of a case right now - the protesters currently shutting down France and intimidating their government. Along with their backers in the Socialist Party, they are, in my opinion, very very unintelligent. What we have here is a deplorable inability to make a distinction. The government wants to extend retirement wage by making workers work two years more, the workers want to retire early, the students want workers to retire early so there will be more vacancies for graduates. Why the government wants to do it – to save the pension system and by extension, the civil service, does not matter to the protesters. They are unable to make a distinction between elitist government policies and those that will be benefit the people in the long run. The government is unpopular, so anything it does must be opposed. They are unable to tell when an unpopular government does something good.

It may not necessarily be unintelligent. I think what you are referring to is more the sort of wisdom and vision which statesmen should have.

People on the other hand, have many very selfish reasons for doing the things that they do: and those selfish reasons are not necessarily unintelligent by reason of being short-sighted only. Sometimes people deliberately deploy intelligence to achieve a limited, short-term, selfish interest: and this is done with full awareness of the bigger picture.

Kay 17:

@deepsight, good question

But at what purpose is the universe aiming at?

What do you think? What's your own view - Do you think the universe is purposeless?

1. Do you think the universe does things that are inessential to its existence?

2. If not; in what regard is the presence of sentient intelligence essential to the universe's existence?

Deep Sight:

It may not necessarily be unintelligent. I think what you are referring to is more the sort of wisdom and vision which statesmen should have.

People on the other hand, have many very selfish reasons for doing the things that they do: and those selfish reasons are not necessarily unintelligent by reason of being short-sighted only. Sometimes people deliberately deploy intelligence to achieve a limited, short-term, selfish interest: and this is done with full awareness of the bigger picture.

I agree with highlighted, but I think the people making up the French crowd are, like those that carried out similar exercises in Greece not long ago, not seeing the big picture. It is possible, even likely, there are opposition party leaders hoping to score points with the people, but I am here assessing the crowd. In that crowd there are people who just like to oppose the government, no matter what it at issue. Then there are others who oppose once it involves paying some tax, working a minute longer, or foregoing one benefit. Why this is to be done does not matter at all. What is involved here is an inability to tell when to oppose and when not; when a tax rise in necessary for the common good and when not; when working longer is crucial and when not. That is what I see as a lack of intelligence.

^^^ That is simply selfishness.

Intelligence is the element for creation.

I do think the universe should begat things essential to its continual existence, to which there is no thread of connection between that and life itself. Life is a tiny tiny fraction of the universe, located in a most obscure part of it. Thus, intelligence, a byproduct of life is as insignificant as life is to the universe.

Nope. This is selfishness.

Deep Sight:

Sometimes people deliberately deploy intelligence to achieve a limited, short-term, selfish interest: and this is done with full awareness of the bigger picture.

Kay 17:

Intelligence is the element for creation.

I do think the universe should begat things essential to its continual existence, to which there is no thread of connection between that and life itself. Life is a tiny tiny fraction of the universe, located in a most obscure part of it. Thus, intelligence, a byproduct of life is as insignificant as life is to the universe.

You are not in a position to state what quantum of life may be in the universe, given that you, like the whole of humanity, have yet to step a single inch outside our own galaxy alone, not to speak of the hundreds of billions of galactic systems in the known universe alone.

In light of this, humanity is not in a position to make the judgement that life is insignificant to the universe.

What if future developments and advances in knowledge reveal galactic civilizations who have been engaged in the galactic engineering of the universe long before we ever knew? What if our planet and our world is a mere experiment - a laboratory, being used by such civilizations as a test case? The possibilities are limitless.

Do not think the propositions above to be outlandish: even scientists on earth are already studying planetary engineering: in a few decades scientists will be practicing engineering distant planets to suit human habitation - and from such studies entire manipulations of larger cosmic systems may become possible.

We are living in a bubble and we simply do not know and should not limit what may exist outside the bubble: i repeat - for all we know, we are lab rats.

^^I really wonder who the "us" were in the statement "let us make make man after our own image and likeness."

Such "us" that could come down and "stroll with man in the garden. . ."

Such "us" that became worried that "behold, the man has become as one of us. . ."

Sometimes these myths have a real hidden meaning which may be pointing to a staggering truth.

If mankind can be involved in human and animal cloning as well as planetary engineering today already, it is not inconceivable that other more ancient civilizations built this world. Not that I say it is certain: I say it is not inconceivable.

@op
Stepping aside from trying to define it as one of degree, as a whole, the ability to perceive and also manipulate one's environment. Intelligence is inseperable from consciousness, its above reliability wholly on instinct. A necessary product of consciousness.The cold reality is life seems more and more like an accident, we more or less dominated by an inanimated world.

Isn't your god life?