10 ms·

What Is Intelligence, Anyway?

64 points by rick_2047 16y ago

gvb 16y ago
The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination. — Albert Einstein http://quotationsbook.com/quote/21310/ http://quotationsbook.com/quote/21310/ (and Isaac Asimov had a lot of imagination)
- itistoday 16y ago
  No single thing is a "true sign of intelligence", that is to ignore the mutual interdependence of things. You can't have imagination without any knowledge.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Jeff Hawkins has a good general framework for intelligence. X is more intelligent than Y if X can make better predictions given the same information as Y. X is more intelligent than Y if X can make predictions as good as Y's with less information.
    - itistoday 16y ago
      That sounds like a good proposal on a definition of intelligence, but it doesn't tell you why someone would be good at predicting something, which is what my point was: that when you try to claim that any one thing is the reason for someone's ability to, in this case, predict something, you're ignoring the multitudes of other reasons that are all interrelated.
      - stcredzero 16y ago
        All the various forms of intelligence can be seen as a form of predictive capability. For example, coordination of many elements or one's own body parts involves making moves which avoid chaos, collision, or some other dysfunction. Avoidance is a kind of prediction.
    - tokenadult 16y ago
      I went to the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Hawkins#Neuroscience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Hawkins#Neuroscience to make sure you were referring to the author whose book I have perused before. I will note for the record that Hawkins has not won wide acceptance for his view of intelligence among other researchers to date.
    - pook 16y ago
      http://lesswrong.com/lw/tx/optimization/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/tx/optimization/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/va/measuring_optimization_power/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/va/measuring_optimization_power/ Eliezer Yudkowsky described this pretty well.
- angstrom 16y ago
  Imagination goes a long way towards realizing the kind of future you want to have, not just solving the immediate problems you've been presented with. If you can imagine the outcome of your decisions you can avoid the suffering/regret of unfulfilled dreams, failed relationships, and misspent youth.
- warfangle 16y ago
  Not just imagination - but curiosity as well.
- tokenadult 16y ago
  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/dp/0691120757/ http://www.amazon.com/New-Quotable-Einstein-Alice-Calaprice/... (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/dp/0252016955/ http://www.amazon.com/Quote-Sleuth-Manual-Tracer-Quotations/...
  - tokenadult 16y ago
    Eureka! I have found the quotation, in what must be a verifiable source. http://www.sciencemusings.com/blog/2006/10/imagination-and-knowledge.html http://www.sciencemusings.com/blog/2006/10/imagination-and-k... I'll have to find the magazine interview soon, to see it with my own eyes.
andywood 16y ago
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.
- Unseelie 16y ago
  Beyond Privilege Guilt, there's a case that people are a great deal more complicated than just a few character stats. High IQ is often taken as a declaration that an individual will succeed, and indeed, on the average, it is, but the average implies a large group, not a specific person. I'm trying (and doing it poorly) to express that Intelligence isn't the only thing in a person which defines their lives...but even given the static, it will very likely affect the aggregate.
- hoprocker 16y ago
  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_kill_creativity.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_...
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    I'm sure that when hunting and gathering were the only activities that mattered, that many coders alive today would have been considered morons.
Unseelie 16y ago
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.
jlgosse 16y ago
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.
- jim_dot 16y ago
  How are you finding out people's IQs to put them in these "good work ethic, quick learner", "poor work ethic, slow learner" buckets?
  - jlgosse 16y ago
    I'm mostly being presumptuous about people I know from high school and college.
    - sliverstorm 16y ago
      I suspect you fell into a trap there. Most everyone I knew with a really good work ethic knew quite a lot of stuff, were engaging to talk to, so on and so forth- great people, absolutely not stupid. But, hiding in the background was the fact that it would take them quite a while to pick things up, and they had a hard time applying what they learned outside of the box. As for me, I've found the easier something comes to me the crappier my work ethic becomes.
- rdrimmie 16y ago
  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).
rkts 16y ago
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-America/dp/0806515074 http://www.amazon.com/Question-Intelligence-IQ-Debate-Americ...
- tokenadult 16y ago
  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 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=9780300123852 http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001238... http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psychology/dp/030012385X http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psycholog... 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 16y ago
    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.
jheriko 16y ago
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 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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 16y ago
      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 16y ago
        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 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-100m-track-171785.html http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/track-field/training-qualify-10.... 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.
losethos 16y ago
Everybody on this site fancies themselves intelligent, prides themseleves and loves flattery. Everybody on this site is an atheist obsessed with evolution who won't admit they are NAZI's. Read brave new world and chill. I'll bet you think you'd love to talk with God about evolution, don't you? Be careful what you wish for. God says... lo pear numbering wilfully informing conquered revenged odours Euodius needed easily experiments harmoniseth sentiment permission shadow temporal confine conversation suppliant charges transforming freeman assented of predestinated syllable encumbrances considerable enact concernment faith vaunt joined chance overboldness leaps balm meek USA ranged namely Take wear restricted underwent Loving viper S skirmishes Vanilla appearing forgiving washing gradually pilgrim style knocked party bottom relaxedly law endeavoured Etexts beseech Brave New World is Christian: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians12.htm http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians12.h...
Heston 16y ago
Intelligence is a desire to learn, plus experience.

64 points by rick_2047 16y ago

gvb 16y ago

The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination. — Albert Einstein http://quotationsbook.com/quote/21310/ http://quotationsbook.com/quote/21310/ (and Isaac Asimov had a lot of imagination)

itistoday 16y ago
No single thing is a "true sign of intelligence", that is to ignore the mutual interdependence of things. You can't have imagination without any knowledge.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Jeff Hawkins has a good general framework for intelligence. X is more intelligent than Y if X can make better predictions given the same information as Y. X is more intelligent than Y if X can make predictions as good as Y's with less information.
  - itistoday 16y ago
    That sounds like a good proposal on a definition of intelligence, but it doesn't tell you why someone would be good at predicting something, which is what my point was: that when you try to claim that any one thing is the reason for someone's ability to, in this case, predict something, you're ignoring the multitudes of other reasons that are all interrelated.
    - stcredzero 16y ago
      All the various forms of intelligence can be seen as a form of predictive capability. For example, coordination of many elements or one's own body parts involves making moves which avoid chaos, collision, or some other dysfunction. Avoidance is a kind of prediction.
  - tokenadult 16y ago
    I went to the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Hawkins#Neuroscience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Hawkins#Neuroscience to make sure you were referring to the author whose book I have perused before. I will note for the record that Hawkins has not won wide acceptance for his view of intelligence among other researchers to date.
  - pook 16y ago
    http://lesswrong.com/lw/tx/optimization/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/tx/optimization/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/va/measuring_optimization_power/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/va/measuring_optimization_power/ Eliezer Yudkowsky described this pretty well.
angstrom 16y ago
Imagination goes a long way towards realizing the kind of future you want to have, not just solving the immediate problems you've been presented with. If you can imagine the outcome of your decisions you can avoid the suffering/regret of unfulfilled dreams, failed relationships, and misspent youth.
warfangle 16y ago
Not just imagination - but curiosity as well.
tokenadult 16y ago
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/dp/0691120757/ http://www.amazon.com/New-Quotable-Einstein-Alice-Calaprice/... (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/dp/0252016955/ http://www.amazon.com/Quote-Sleuth-Manual-Tracer-Quotations/...
- tokenadult 16y ago
  Eureka! I have found the quotation, in what must be a verifiable source. http://www.sciencemusings.com/blog/2006/10/imagination-and-knowledge.html http://www.sciencemusings.com/blog/2006/10/imagination-and-k... I'll have to find the magazine interview soon, to see it with my own eyes.

andywood 16y ago

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.

Unseelie 16y ago
Beyond Privilege Guilt, there's a case that people are a great deal more complicated than just a few character stats. High IQ is often taken as a declaration that an individual will succeed, and indeed, on the average, it is, but the average implies a large group, not a specific person. I'm trying (and doing it poorly) to express that Intelligence isn't the only thing in a person which defines their lives...but even given the static, it will very likely affect the aggregate.
hoprocker 16y ago
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_kill_creativity.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_...
- stcredzero 16y ago
  I'm sure that when hunting and gathering were the only activities that mattered, that many coders alive today would have been considered morons.

Unseelie 16y ago

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.

jlgosse 16y ago

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.

jim_dot 16y ago
How are you finding out people's IQs to put them in these "good work ethic, quick learner", "poor work ethic, slow learner" buckets?
- jlgosse 16y ago
  I'm mostly being presumptuous about people I know from high school and college.
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    I suspect you fell into a trap there. Most everyone I knew with a really good work ethic knew quite a lot of stuff, were engaging to talk to, so on and so forth- great people, absolutely not stupid. But, hiding in the background was the fact that it would take them quite a while to pick things up, and they had a hard time applying what they learned outside of the box. As for me, I've found the easier something comes to me the crappier my work ethic becomes.
rdrimmie 16y ago
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).

rkts 16y ago

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

tokenadult 16y ago
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 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=9780300123852 http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001238... http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psychology/dp/030012385X http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psycholog... 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 16y ago
  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.

jheriko 16y ago

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 16y ago

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 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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 16y ago
      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 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-100m-track-171785.html http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/track-field/training-qualify-10.... 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.

losethos 16y ago

Everybody on this site fancies themselves intelligent, prides themseleves and loves flattery. Everybody on this site is an atheist obsessed with evolution who won't admit they are NAZI's. Read brave new world and chill. I'll bet you think you'd love to talk with God about evolution, don't you? Be careful what you wish for. God says... lo pear numbering wilfully informing conquered revenged odours Euodius needed easily experiments harmoniseth sentiment permission shadow temporal confine conversation suppliant charges transforming freeman assented of predestinated syllable encumbrances considerable enact concernment faith vaunt joined chance overboldness leaps balm meek USA ranged namely Take wear restricted underwent Loving viper S skirmishes Vanilla appearing forgiving washing gradually pilgrim style knocked party bottom relaxedly law endeavoured Etexts beseech Brave New World is Christian: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians12.htm http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians12.h...

Heston 16y ago

Intelligence is a desire to learn, plus experience.