Talk:Intelligence (trait)
From Academic Kids
I like those ideas, and have some additional content as well. Fire away with the new sections, or eventually I will.
Got a point of view on what to do about IQ/Intelligence/Race and intelligence? The split content does seem to be non-optimal. Here are some observations:
IQ's entry appears to reflect its more "pop" status. That it begins with
- Because intelligence is difficult to define, the definition "Intelligence is what the IQ test measures" has been seriously proposed
is borderline shameful.
The big issues in intelligence seem to center on race, but there's no central place where the simple connections are drawn out (one economically oriented version is: intelligence is a major determinant of job performance, intelligence test have high validity for job performance, racial groups score differently for reasons unattributable to test bias, and thus companies apparently face a cruel choice between equitable selection and economically optimal selection). The social implications of ability differences, real or artifactual, have received little treatment.
I think the Race and intelligence topic is fairly well done given the unbelievable rancor associated with the topic. The introduction is long-winded and seemingly off-topic -- reads like it's defending the need to have an entry. Gould's huge Bell Curve section seems totally out of place. Moreover, putting Gould in a separate section seems to wall off relevant non-Gould or contrary-to-Gould observations from the text; he gets a bully pulpit because the section is labeled "Gould's response." Hardly NPOV in spirit.
A few thoughts:
- The economic argument above may provide a more compelling intro to Race and intelligence, since companies by law must consider race defined a certain way, so it's no longer a philosophical point about whether race exists but rather what the facts about race and cognitive ability really are.
- IQ should be a full topic on intelligence testing. Intelligence-related content should migrate to Intelligence (trait).
- Intelligence (trait) focuses almost entirely on human intelligence. From an encyclopedia standpoint, this feels a bit odd, given the potential breadth of the topic hinted at towards the end of the Introduction. Maybe a "human intelligence" or "cognitive ability" section to hold the current Intelligence (trait) content?
DAD 07:41, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ideas for new content:
- neurological basis of intelligence: fMRI studies (e.g. Paul Thompson et al [1] (http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/IQ/NRN2004_IQ.html)) --Rikurzhen 06:35, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- genetic basis of intelligence: a few genes are known (e.g. IGF2R, cathepsin D, CHRM2, MSX1) --Rikurzhen 06:46, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Lots more additions and refs. Shuffled some content for flow. Minor NPOVs. --DAD 05:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Moved the content about g and multiple intelligences into the introduction from the Testing section. These are fundamental/definitional issues, and there was no discussion of testing any of these variables in the content. Expanded the Testing section with a list of tests, discussion of what the tests measure, and material on test bias. Significantly expanded the "practical importance" section with content on job performance. A major general-interest addition is a link to the Scientific American article by Gottfredson which substantiates claims about scientific consensus regarding single-factor intelligence.
I would like to see more "practical importance" content. Job performance is one of many interesting aspects; socioeconomic status certainly deserves equal time. Some discussion of societal partitioning along intelligence lines seems warranted.
DAD 08:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This needs a lot of work. I was looking for a scholarly view of what is meant by "Intelligence," and the first thing I see is that intelligence tests accurately measure intelligence. Well...obviously there needs to first be discussion about what "intelligence" is. Otherwise, it appears that intelligence is defined by score on an intelligence test, and that intelligence tests accurately measure score on intelligence tests.
Rmalloy 17:40, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- You're quite right. I thought there used to be more material to this article. A quick check of the page history reveals that someone cut the entire intro. I'm putting it back now. --Rikurzhen 19:40, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
I'm removing this:
- While the definition and importance of intelligence is an issue of some controversy, especially in the popular press, a concensus opinion exists in the scientific community on many issues.
Could anyone actually specify what "consensus opionions" on which "issues" supposedly exist, and in which branches of science those opinions are supposedly held? In doing research for a paper recently, I've found that, the further I investigate, the less consensus seems to exist about what intelligence is or entails. --Ryguasu 21:05 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I'm removing this:
- They are among the most accurate psychological tests, but they are not intended to measure creativity, personality, or character. Intelligence tests take many forms, but they all measure the same intelligence.
This is silly to include without clarifying in what way intelligence tests are "accurate", or explaining by virtue of what logic different intelligence tests can be considered to measure the same thing. --Ryguasu 21:26 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
A "consensus opinion" exists among researchers that study intelligence with regard to the definition of intelligence and many other points. That is, subject matter experts agree on many points. If you've read many dissenting view points, I'd suggest that they were not researchers who specialize in the study of intelligence. I'd refer you to the APA response to the Bell Curve (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html) or the WSJ article (which was later republished in the journal Intelligence) titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence." You can find a copy of the WSJ article here: http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html
You are correct in saying that "accuracy" is vague, but it is often taking to mean "reliability and validity" which are precisely defined psychometric terms.
--Rikurzhen 12:33 01 Aug 2003 (PST)
- should have some discussion of validity of IQ tests that make assumptions of normative values belonging to western culture.
| Contents |
Intelligence tests
It would be nice to mention say the modified blink reflex
http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au/user/mike/biglab/adult.htm
Also, it might be worthwhile to mention the Uncommonly Difficult IQ tests,
http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/
Intelligence and education
I have met some very smart people who are not educated. So if you talk to them on academic topics or even some common sense topics, they sound like idiots. However, they are smart and quick minded. If you have patience to show them what you know, they pick it up in one day more than you did in 4 years of college. These are basically genius with no knowledge. They are like skillful craftmen with no material in their hands or they are too lazy to produce anything. They are diamonds in the rough due to lack of opportunity or lack of motivation to excel. They have potential, but they don't have any end results nor success. Are these kind of people classified as intelligent?
On the other hand, I have met people who gained a PhD degree via pure hardwork. They sound smart in their area of expertise, but when you change topics, they are unable to pickup anything without a week's training. Are these consider intelligent people because of what they know in their head?
Is the wealth of knowledge, or the lack of, counted towards one's intelligence? What is the academic view on this? Should this kind of distinction mentioned in this article?
67.117.82.1 02:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, knowledge and intelligence (measured by IQ) are correlated, but they are not identical -- as you point out. This distinction might be understood in terms of the g-crystalized and g-fluid distinction. I imagine a test like Raven's Does anyone else have an insight on the academic study of knowledge versus intelligence? This might be a topic for the intelligence quotient article. --Rikurzhen 02:53, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Knowledge and intelligence are not the same, but are causally related: intelligence causes knowledge. Intelligence can be measured accurately in an 8-year-old using a test with no words and based upon universal concepts such as "up/down", "open/closed", "inside/outside". Raven's Progressive Matrices are a good example. Clearly, an 8-year-old could score well without any practical knowledge; however, such a dichotomy is unlikely because of the causal relationship. The child's test scores will remain (on average) a good predictor of all the intelligence-associated outcomes throughout his life, again showing that intelligence, absent knowledge obtained later, is the "key ingredient".
- In the employment literature, Chapter 1 is "Select on Intelligence." (E.g., see the Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Behavior (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0631215050) and 'look inside the book'.) The syllogism is: Job knowledge is the primary determinant of job performance. Intelligence is the primary determinant of the acquisition speed and asymptotic level of job knowledge attained. Therefore, hire people who are smart but ignorant over people who are stupid but knowledgable. --DAD 06:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And what of the difference between being smart and being intelligent? Certainly there is somewhat of a difference. It seems that to be smart is to get good grades and to be intelligent is to grasp the concepts. --Theaterfreak64 08:49, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- The technical literature does not make such a distinction. Cognitive ability correlates well with school grades (correlation of 0.6-0.7, Jensen 1998) and aligns very well with "thinking abstractly" and "comprehending ideas". Because the cognitive ability/grade correlation is less than 1.0, many people know someone who got great grades but appears to not be that intelligent. The data suggest these people are the exception, not the rule. --DAD 18:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nominalistic approach to Intelligence, Not IQ!
I would propose that this entry should be rectified, whereas it shows considerable bias towards a materialistic and onto-empiricist understanding of intelligence prominent within cognitive psychology. This might be the proper approach in an entry under the heading "IQ" or other quantitative measurement of human performance. However, this entry "intelligence" should reflect not only what is referred here implicitly but rather pejoratively the "common sense" opinion of laymen, but also findings in sociology, philosophy and thoughts on the subject in culture and art; these findings may or may not be better aware of the hidden ontological claims apparent in many a research paper on the subject within the branch of intelligence studies. There, intelligence is narrowly defined in order to become measurable according to a science committed to a specific semi-empirical world- view. A more phenomenological/anthropological approach in discussing intelligence is called for, which could avoid the pitfalls of the pseudo-scientific tendencies of "rubber band" measurements. This entry marginalizes criticism at the bottom as public controversy around ideas which are supposed to be widely acknowledged among scientist! It should be the other way around. First a Culture relative and nominalistic definition of intelligence. "Intelligence is what people say in a given community that is the case of such a property". Next an effort should be made to group those ideas, and finally and overview of different ideas on whether and how these ideas can (or can not) be correlated to stable/fixed and measurable behavior. There is not a widespread consensus on this among scientist! First of all because psychology is not an unified science with a shared paradigm or methodology, far from it. Secondly, any field of study that deals with such a dynamic property as human intelligence should be highly aware of the fact that humans live in a reflective culture, where the ideas of psychology interact with society and have the potential of becoming self-revelatory. Intelligence has only been studied for a century or so, in a higly techno-rational culture, therefore any claim that intelligence studies are Proper Science based on the sole fact that their findings have hitherto been proven predictative about the success of individuals in the academia and corporate hierarchy are absurd.
Finally, I would like to comment on this article: "Gottfredson, L.S. (2003).Suppressing intelligence research: hurting those we intend to help."
This is a good external link and clears up many of the common misconceptions on the subject of IQ. However, her arguments are in some cases flawed by straw-man tactics, when it comes to social understandings of the concept of Intelligence (Not gIQ), and ends upp creating more problems. Her good intentions are not in question, but the role and effect of IQ in society. Her victimization of the researcher in the field of intelligence is however at best trite and banal considering the gravity of the issue how measurement of human performance has been and is used in systematic exclusion, exploatation and violence agains human beings. Her professed pathos for the under-dogs of this world as being the victims of media distortion of IQ/intelligence is understandable. Many would claim though, that this is not a problem of inventing/finding a more accurate IQ test, but a socio-economic problem, where human worth and differences are narrowly judged according to a certain cultures idea on what is a functional individual. Cognitive psychology and the field of quantitative studies on human behavior are unfortunately a part of the problem - actively either distancing itself or dismissing critical theory that deals with the connection between power/capital and the human sciences. The implication could be terrible and psychology is not absolved by simply stating that it is just doing science or improving clinical care. The subject "intelligence" has never been and can never become a simple empirical subject-matter free of a historical, ideological and social context.
This entry should reflect considerations like this, and hopefully give an idea of the concept in a broader historical view which includes all cultures, religious believes, different eras of human history and sub-cultures.
Simply referring such considerations to the entry "nature vs. nurture" is not acceptable. Quantitative pshychology can not be allowed to appropriate the concept of intelligence and act as its only authorative source of reliable definitions.
Some vicious circle fallacies of IQ/Intelligence
In the English language (not my native tongue), there is a strong emphasis on defining essentials traits of human beings with substantive nouns. "Intelligence" is therefore often described (false/wrong?) with predicates that are assumed to be secondary effects of the very noun/substance they describe. (By English language I naturally mean in this case the one used by the educated upper strata of society)
Intelligence is e.g. in this entry said to be a problem-solving quality. Of course this must refer to some acts of problem-solving that are then said to both describe and be the effect of intelligence. The aporia is obvious and scientists longing for a standardized test is well justified; hence the IQ test. But the problem arises again when one tries to use the IQ test as a prediction of essential traits commonly referred to as "intelligence".
In my earlier remark I criticized the lack of social context- awareness in regard to the nominal definition of the concept of intelligence.
I would like to grant an example. Which are the acts of problem solving? Intelligence is supposedly said to be something else than social competence and creativity (by the gIQ followers); many that hold that belief tend to view such factors (non predictable creativity) as contingent and irrelevant to scientific discourse, or something about which the politicians and laymen can squabble. But consider this: In order to standardize, IQ tests are constituted by complicated problems that can be analyzed down to ready identifiable parts/entities. (e.g. Such as the hidden geometric parts of a cube, an algometric line of numbers, analogous relations between words, and so on.
In that case we are dealing with a problem-solving mind (which is fluid) and a complicated problem (which is fixed).
It is however epistemologically flawed to assume that all problems encountered by a mind are complicated. Very little in fact. Most problems encountered are complex not complicated. One could argue that only man-made rule governed games are complicated in nature, such as chess and iq tests. (some would even say that chess does not belong to that category)
Complex problems involve a mind (that is fluid) and a problem (that is also fluid). The very nature of the problem is inter-dependently and dynamically constituted by the problem-solving act itself. The phenomena described tend to be described holistically and is considered irreducible. (E.g. Consider Game-theory in economics. A rational agent on both sides of the table has a very, very destabilizing effect on predictive psychology!)
Most problems involving two intelligent beings or societies are complex in nature. Hence, the very project of quantitatively assessing intelligence could be misguided or a perverse attempt to re-define all human problem-solving acts as only dealing with "complicated" problems. What is left out by such psychologists, - all our real problems -, are then solved without notice as a qualitative ability and not given credit or considered an achievement. (And the perpetrators of social injustices are very quick on learning the psychological jargon when it suits them.) Consider the deep rooted gender-inequalities when it comes to considering child-rearing as genuine achievement in problem-solving production.
Creativity, wisdom, emotional and irrational or a-rational intuitions therefore all should be taken in consideration when dealing with intelligence as an aggregation of problem-solving qualities.
That such concept of intelligence could not be standardized would in fact be a merit, because standardization necessarily presumes complicated problems and not a complex. It would merely define intelligence as a subject beyond the scope of quantitative psychology, and limit there proponents’ ambitions to better suited goals.
Why we live in a society in the west where schools and corporate society reduce human problem-solving acts to mere analysis of ready-made a priori simplifications and abstractions is then again a problem for critical theory in progressive psychology and sociology. The very social injustices (among them the state of clinical care) apparent today could be shown to stem from the same complex source that creates a demand for a psychology that identifies human intelligence as a simple information-processing machine. Solving those social injustices could very well relieve us of the need of such psychology with no loss whatsoever of empirical content and scientific knowledge.. Perhaps it would only be an historical curiosa, something like Freud’s study of female hysteria in late 19th century Vienna.
After all what does an IQ test measure beyond how well you perform on IQ tests, human intelligence? Or was that a priori excluded in the test, because of 20th century wishful thinking by some scientists about how human minds should operate?
The controversy around defining intelligence in this greedy reductionist fashion is not only a political issue, irrelevant to real science, but also controversial in an epistemological, ontological and methodological sense. It is long due that such controversy should not be given the benefit of the doubt within social sciences, not to mention why on earth such views are given a priority in encyclopedia dedicated to human knowledge as understood by human beings. Again I am discussing this regarding the entry on human intelligence. I have no qualms about the wonders of statistical tests, but they should be addressed under the heading IQ tests.
VBA
This page really needs to discuss things like Stephen Jay Gould's criticisms of typical notions of IQ as measuring intelligence, since it makes many of the logical errors he criticizes and other absurdities. For example: "Contrary to the claim that IQ is a social construct, cognitive ability is heritable." This makes no sense. The amount of time young children spend reading is highly heritable, but this does not require a reading gene -- it makes sense that children will follow their parents and read if they do. AaronSw 00:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
AaronSw, if I were approaching this article with no prior knowledge of this subject, I would agree with your position. However, let me offer my own reason -- in the form of analogy -- for not adding a full summary of Gould's criticisms, which I believe is the reason that the previous editors of the article have done so as well. Adding an extensive discussion of Gould to this artcle is like adding an extensive discussion of Michael Behe to the evolution article. Like Behe, Gould's arguments are regarded very poorly by researchers (in the field of evolution/intelligence respectively). In support of my claim, I offer [2] (http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/intell/mainstream.html) and [3] (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html). If you disagree with this assesment, you are of course welcome to try to add more Gould to this article. However, I would strongly recommend that we add at most a link to The Mismeasure of Man. --Rikurzhen 06:03, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Intelligence as opinion?
I removed this sentence:
- In strict sense intelligence is simply the opinion of an observer of some behavior or operation.
It has no reference and, on its face, is not true. What "in strict sense" means is not clear -- does this imply that "in broad sense" intelligence does not reflect opinion, but rather some absolute scale? Moreover, the kinds of tests used to evaluate intelligence in psychometrics, such as pattern recognition and mathematics, generally do not depend on opinion, either among testers or subjects. Perhaps the author of the sentence meant that people differ in their opinions of what constitutes intelligence, which is a reasonable point. --DAD 16:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
