Exactly What Is Intelligence?
There is no definitive answer to the question. In fact, there
are almost as many definitions of intelligence as there are dictionaries.
One thing most definitions share is an emphasis on mental ability
or capacity. Consider the following definitions.
The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
The faculty of thought and reason.
The ability to think abstractly as measured by objective
criteria.
The skilled use of reason.
Only the last one refers to intelligence as applied
brainpower. It does not say "the ability to reason,"
but "the skilled use of reason." But this still
might refer to how well one manipulates words without implying
that the user is smart in applying that brainpower to real life
situations. That brings us to some other definitions:
The ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from
experience.
The ability to learn or understand or to deal with new
or trying situations.
These are still about abilities rather than proven tendencies
or habits of acting intelligently, but also mention profiting
from experience and dealing with new situations. That starts
to get towards a definition of functional or applied intelligence.
Of course we can't define it in a way that accounts only for
"street smarts." There are people who have no common
sense in everyday life, yet can clearly outthink most of us.
We need some way to refer to this measurement of raw capacity,
and the word "intelligence" is what we have.
In any case, the purpose of this page is to raise questions
rather than to claim definitive answers. For example, should
we call a man intelligent if his big smart brain only results
in stupid actions? Then there is the following question:
What Is Intelligence as Measured by IQ Scores?
Most of us feel comfortable judging one person to be more
intelligent than another, especially when the difference is significant.
This judgment about the relative brainpower of various people
is measurement in its crudest form, and so we inherently believe
in our ability to measure intelligence, even if we may argue
about how precise we can in doing so. We might at least say of
intelligence that we know it when we see it.
But we can also recognize that an IQ test (or any other) only
measures certain mental abilities, and it would be naive to think
that we can reduce intelligence to just those areas of mental
activity. IQ tests look at several different types of mental
processes, such as verbal capacity, perceptual organization,
short term memory, spatial visualization, and perceptual speed.
But we know there is more to good thinking than just what shows
up on a test.
For example, most of us can agree that knowing how to comfort
a friend or to negotiate the best deal on a car are signs of
intelligence, yet these skills are rarely tested. And though
they are learned skills to some extent, that is not the whole
story. We know from experience that some of us are born with
more ability to relate to others, for example, or to sell things
and ideas (we sometimes say that a man is a "natural born
salesman," and there is an element of truth in the idea).
In 1983 Howard Gardner proposed that there are numerous types
of intelligence. He listed seven, later expanded to nine. They
included; Spatial, Linguistic, Logical-mathematical, Kinesthetic,
Musical, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal. He argued that the
traditional view of intelligence doesn't address the wide variety
of abilities humans have.
Critics say his ideas are non-scientific, have never been
tested and never subjected to peer review. These are valid criticisms,
but they remind us of the fact that what we choose to test is
somewhat arbitrary and incomplete. Critics also claim that the
types of intelligence Gardner points to are simply indicative
of more basic faculties that are (or can be) tested. For example,
perhaps reasoning skills could explain interpersonal abilities.
But this seems unlikely. What part of a standard IQ test consistently
indicates the likelihood that the test-taker will know what to
do when he has a problem with a neighbor? The ability to find
a peaceful resolution to a problem with another person is a mental
process, a part of intelligence, and clearly some people are
innately better at it than others.
In addition to the arbitrary nature of deciding what is a
part of intelligence and what isn't, there is another problem
that makes any pretense of accurate measurement seem questionable
at best. It is the designation of relative values to the various
parts of a test. For example, should a question that tests verbal
ability be assigned the same value in the figuring of the final
score as one that addresses mathematical ability? There is no
objective answer.
We might posit all sorts of ways to assign values. For example,
we might research which tested abilities are more likely to lead
to success in life, and then weigh the various elements accordingly.
Of course,in that case would have to answer the question of what
success is. We might start with the idea that we know intelligence
when we see it, and have researchers or random people rate intelligence
in subjects, then look at those subjects who were rated most
highly to see which abilities they are strongest in. A test would
then be designed based on giving more weight to those capacities.
All of the ways in which we might weigh the elements are arbitrary
to a large degree. Imagine two test-takers, one who scores high
in all areas except verbal abilities, and one who scores high
in verbal abilities and scores about the same as an orangutan
in all other areas of the test. The second might very well appear
to be more intelligent, since he can communicate better. He may
even be more likely to succeed in the various endeavors of life?
But on most tests the first person will have the higher IQ score.
Suppose a man could score at genius level if he had unlimited
time to take an IQ test, but actually scores very low because
he is very slow. Is he really less intelligent than a man who
can answer fewer questions but does so more quickly? Even if
we allow that speed of thought is an element of intelligence,
how much weight should it be given? Again, it is clear that there
is not an objective standard that all would agree to.
What is intelligence? We might say it is the set of abilities
measured by an IQ test, but that is not a very satisfying answer.
The concept predates the tests, after all, and there is more
than one test, and the choice of which elements to measure -
or not to measure - is always somewhat arbitrary.
There is another interesting question here: Can we - or should
we - separate the way in which we measure and define intelligence
from the reasons for doing so? In other words, in deciding what
it is or how to measure it, should we start with the question
of why we want to.
Why do we want to assign a number to a person's mental abilities?
If it is to give us some way to predict what he might be best
suited for academically or in the world of employment or business,
might we be better off just measuring those abilities more directly?
Whether a man would make a good judge or a good engineer, for
example, might have little relation to an IQ score, but could
be presumably tested more meaningfully with a test involving
judging or answering engineering questions.
I have to admit that I do not know what wonderful and useful
purposes IQ scores have been put to. I suppose a score could
at least provide a base, so future testing would show if certain
mental abilities were declining, which might suggest health problems.
And a score of 60 versus 160 certainly can mean something in
terms of whether a person can handle a given mental task. On
the other hand, is there a real value in knowing whether a man
has a score of 110 or 140? Perhaps we should drop the illusion
of accuracy and limit scores to "below average," "average,"
and "above average."
It may be that we are too ambitious in even positing the concept
of intelligence as one "thing" that can be measured
or understood as a whole of its parts. It might make more sense
to say, "he knows how to express himself very well,"
and "she really knows how to crunch the numbers," and
"he is very good at visualizing," and leave it at that.
Certainly we are smarter in some areas than others, so why not
address these directly without the necessity to "add them
up" into "intelligent," "more intelligent"
or a score that may not really provide much useful information?
What is intelligence? We may know it when we see it - or then
again, maybe not. In any case, the answer is not as definitive
as we may like to think.
|
