Definition of Intelligence

[Saurabh]

Guys,

I am seeking to know the key elements of Smartness/Intelligence. This will help me understand how a human being can improve oneself on this dimension. For this, I am initially seeking a good Definition of Smartness/Intelligence.

AR's definition is a bit unclear to me: "Intelligence is the ability to deal with a broad range of abstractions".

However, this definition does not 'explicitly' mention 'Reality' anywhere. A chess player can also deal with a broad range of abstractions - but there is no productive/practical use of this kind of intelligence (my view on Chess).

I am also of the opinion that standard IQ tests do not measure a man's ability to deal with reality.

I think a better definition could be: "Smartness/Intelligence is the ability to make a broad range of abstractions/concepts to understand reality, and the ability to apply those abstractions/concepts to a broad context of reality".

Thoughts/Reactions?

Thx!

[TLD]

AR's definition is a bit unclear to me: "Intelligence is the ability to deal with a broad range of abstractions".

However, this definition does not 'explicitly' mention 'Reality' anywhere. A chess player can also deal with a broad range of abstractions - but there is no productive/practical use of this kind of intelligence (my view on Chess).

I think a better definition could be: "Smartness/Intelligence is the ability to make a broad range of abstractions/concepts to understand reality, and the ability to apply those abstractions/concepts to a broad context of reality".

Dealing with Reality requires a sufficient amount of "intelligence" but, more importantly, a commitment to reason and a high level of rationality. It is the use of one's intelligence that is key here.

[Tanaka]

AR's definition is a bit unclear to me: "Intelligence is the ability to deal with a broad range of abstractions".

....

I think a better definition could be: "Smartness/Intelligence is the ability to make a broad range of abstractions/concepts to understand reality, and the ability to apply those abstractions/concepts to a broad context of reality".

The difference between those two sentences is that yours adds an editorial comment to Miss Rand's definition. Your comment is somewhat correct (Note: I will go into why it's not entirely correct later in my post), but it is an editorial comment, not part of the definition.

Intelligence is a special kind of ability. So "ability" is the genus. "useful for dealing with broad abstractions" is the differentia. Those two together describe a class of existents (in this case, a class of attributes, rather than objects, but existents nonetheless), forming a full definition.

No need to add any kind of a moral principle on how intelligence should or shouldn't be used, to fully explain what it is. It is not proper to insert editorial comments of any kind into definitions, not even if they're correct.

However, this definition does not 'explicitly' mention 'Reality' anywhere. A chess player can also deal with a broad range of abstractions - but there is no productive/practical use of this kind of intelligence (my view on Chess).

Some people might argue that chess isn't practical (though most would agree it is, in some contexts), but it's definitely real. Evaluating chess moves is a form of understanding reality. And it's precisely intelligence that is required to play it well.

However, there are many reasons why someone would want to understand some aspect of reality. The reason why I would do it is selfishness. So I would never learn chess just for the sake of knowing chess, it would have to be to achieve a selfish goal (such as developing my mind and strategic thinking abilities).

Which brings me to the reason why your previous editorial comment ("intelligence should be used to understand reality"), is not entirely correct. One could use intelligence to understand some unimportant aspect of reality (I don't know, like trying to figure out a way to count how many grains of sand there are in the Sahara desert), and that would be immoral. I'd fix your editorial comment with "Intelligence should be used to further one's own life, by understanding aspects of reality useful for that goal." - but I would of course still leave this out of the definition of intelligence.

[Saurabh]

In fact, I have refined my definition a bit, as below:

Smartness/Intelligence is the ability to deal with reality (including People) speedily

• Dealing with reality means:
  

- Making a broad range of abstractions/concepts to understand reality

- Comprehending and Interpreting information

- Reasoning (Analytical: Deduction, Logical: Thinking Rationally and not by Emotion)

- Judgment (of Past)

- Applying those abstractions/concepts to a broad context of reality

- Problem Solving

- Decision making (for Future)

I also capture below, what I think Intelligence is not:

- Ability to memorize facts (e.g. Vocabulary, GK, etc) without being able to use them

- Ability to solve abstract problems without being able to apply them in real life

Thoughts/Reactions/Modifications?

Edited April 1, 2011 by Saurabh

[Sirius1]

If you are trying to qualify "intellect" then consider ditching the word "smartness," because it is often used to indicate that someone has an abundance of knowledge -- which does not necessarily mean that they are intelligent.

I would also go back to OPAR to consider: perception, conception, integration, expression, etc. because there are layers that rely on each other.

[softwareNerd]

Saurabh, I think you're using the term "intelligence" to describe something much more than the way the concept is typically (and correctly) used. Intelligence is a certain type of mental capacity, but you're trying to include other abilities into the concept. One can have great mental capacity and still use it to come to conclusions that are wrong in comparison to someone who has lesser mental capacity. You appear to be wanting to use "intelligence" to categorize a set of outcomes rather than a mental capacity.

Edited April 2, 2011 by softwareNerd

[Saurabh]

Saurabh, I think you're using the term "intelligence" to describe something much more than the way the concept is typically (and correctly) used. Intelligence is a certain type of mental capacity, but you're trying to include other abilities into the concept. One can have great mental capacity and still use it to come to conclusions that are wrong in comparison to someone who has lesser mental capacity. You appear to be wanting to use "intelligence" to categorize a set of outcomes rather than a mental capacity.

SN,

You are right. After some more thinking, I am now more clear on what I am after.

As captured in another post of mine on Decision-making, I am actually after the essential ingredients of Human Achievement.

In this context, I was seeking to understand what separate roles 'DM' and 'Intelligence' play in Human achievement. I now have a good answer, as below:

There are three ingredients for Human Achievement: Decision-making, Effort made after the decision, Speed of doing the first two. 'External circumstances' is a fourth factor - but I think it is a Secondary factor, not a Primary one.

Intelligence, in my definition, is the ability to take decisions (which needs Problem solving, Awareness, Reasoning, etc).

It does not matter if someone wants to define Intelligence differently. My purpose is to find the essence of Achievement. And I can also call the 'Ability to take decisions' as XYZ, instead of calling it Intelligence.

So, as of now I do not want anything more through this thread - unless of course anyone wants to react to this post. Thx!

Edited April 8, 2011 by Saurabh