5 ms·

Is human intelligence really a thing? Sure, we can all tell the difference between a mathematics savant and a mentally challenged person. But is there really a

Is human intelligence really a thing? Sure, we can all tell the difference between a mathematics savant and a mentally challenged person. But is there really a reason to think that a single number can capture with any degree of accuracy some property of the connection structure of 10^11 brain neurons?

pjscott 9y ago
It's an approximation, of course, but a surprisingly good one: loads of predictive value, very strong correlations with things people care about, and so on. For some quality pondering on the epistemology here, see http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/11/does-the-glasgow-coma-scale-exist-do-comas/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/11/does-the-glasgow-coma-s...
jessriedel 9y ago
The best analogy is with general athletic ability. Yes of course, athletic ability is a multi-faceted thing; yes you can be good in different ways; yes, being the very best as baseball does not make the you very best at football; etc. Nonetheless, athletic-ness is a robust, real concept, which is very heritable, predictive of athletic success. Importantly, it encodes the empirical fact that if you are good at X compared to the general population, you are more likely to be good at Y, where X and Y can be almost any athletic activity.
- therealdrag0 9y ago
  To tie your analogy back in: There is correlation in intellectual capacity between categories of intelligence (linguistic, mathematic, spacial, etc.). Individuals capabilities vary, but on average individuals high in one area are rarely below average in other area. (Anecdote: I found it no problem to get degrees in both Computer Science AND English with minors in French and Philosophy. Some people find it strange that someone could do both types of things, but I just like learning everything!)
  - rimliu 9y ago
    My friend, a math teacher, had this saying: only 5% are good at math, but those 5% are good at anything.
    - Fraterkes 9y ago
      Very modest
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - andai 9y ago
      I was told this was the reason people study math, and companies hire those people: "If you can get a degree in math, you prove yourself to be intelligent and hard working. Companies like those kind of people."
      - therealdrag0 9y ago
        Same with philosophy. My schools philosophy department had stats showing their students had higher writing scores than English students and didn't have significant unemployment (I forget what they compared employment to).
- omegaham 9y ago
  My favorite picture of this is Rob Gronkowski as a 12-year-old[1]. Getting into the NFL requires hard work, but it's not sufficient; without the genetic athleticism, you aren't getting in. [1] https://sportsofboston.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/gronk-at-12.jpg https://sportsofboston.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/gronk-...
bglusman 9y ago
I used to somewhat dismiss IQ for this reason, but the thing is, though the concept of "General intelligence" as a concept is, perhaps loaded, it's really an average of a number of independent measurements, each more well defined than general intelligence, and each easier to measure... there's a few different systems but WAIS breaks it up into 4 indices, divided between verbal and performance IQ[1]... much of the population seems to have all 4 of these indices closely correlated with each other, though I became interested in this partly when I discovered I was an exception... I have dramatically higher verbal comprehension index than I do processing speed, if I recall correctly, with, I think, the former perhaps two standard deviations above average and the latter perhaps a full standard deviation below average. I don't know what the correlation means for most people, or what my deviation means for me, but the test is at least capable of seeing differences, so the fact that it doesn't typically see them probably means something, though I don't know what. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Sc...
hasenj 9y ago
According to several people I'd consider authorities on the subject matter, yes it is really a thing. You can measure any aspect of intelligence you want, but in the end all aspects correlate strongly together, and they have predictive power in terms of success in life.
discombobulate 9y ago
No, dude. Everyone's the same. You obviously haven't been reading enough left-wing news publications. NYT, The Guardian et al. IQ is alt-right propaganda. Definitely no IQ. As such, we need to teach everyone to code. If only the evil white men would let everyone spend 60 hours a week coding. And the reason some people go to top universities isn't because they're smart. It's their class. Their class allows them to handle abstraction & complexity dude! We need to level the playing field & equally distribute ability to learn via capital redistribution. Being able to buy better brands is def going help shepherd us into a nu-world of equality.

pjscott 9y ago

It's an approximation, of course, but a surprisingly good one: loads of predictive value, very strong correlations with things people care about, and so on. For some quality pondering on the epistemology here, see http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/11/does-the-glasgow-coma-scale-exist-do-comas/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/11/does-the-glasgow-coma-s...

jessriedel 9y ago

The best analogy is with general athletic ability. Yes of course, athletic ability is a multi-faceted thing; yes you can be good in different ways; yes, being the very best as baseball does not make the you very best at football; etc. Nonetheless, athletic-ness is a robust, real concept, which is very heritable, predictive of athletic success. Importantly, it encodes the empirical fact that if you are good at X compared to the general population, you are more likely to be good at Y, where X and Y can be almost any athletic activity.

therealdrag0 9y ago
To tie your analogy back in: There is correlation in intellectual capacity between categories of intelligence (linguistic, mathematic, spacial, etc.). Individuals capabilities vary, but on average individuals high in one area are rarely below average in other area. (Anecdote: I found it no problem to get degrees in both Computer Science AND English with minors in French and Philosophy. Some people find it strange that someone could do both types of things, but I just like learning everything!)
- rimliu 9y ago
  My friend, a math teacher, had this saying: only 5% are good at math, but those 5% are good at anything.
  - Fraterkes 9y ago
    Very modest
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - andai 9y ago
    I was told this was the reason people study math, and companies hire those people: "If you can get a degree in math, you prove yourself to be intelligent and hard working. Companies like those kind of people."
    - therealdrag0 9y ago
      Same with philosophy. My schools philosophy department had stats showing their students had higher writing scores than English students and didn't have significant unemployment (I forget what they compared employment to).
omegaham 9y ago
My favorite picture of this is Rob Gronkowski as a 12-year-old[1]. Getting into the NFL requires hard work, but it's not sufficient; without the genetic athleticism, you aren't getting in. [1] https://sportsofboston.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/gronk-at-12.jpg https://sportsofboston.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/gronk-...

bglusman 9y ago

I used to somewhat dismiss IQ for this reason, but the thing is, though the concept of "General intelligence" as a concept is, perhaps loaded, it's really an average of a number of independent measurements, each more well defined than general intelligence, and each easier to measure... there's a few different systems but WAIS breaks it up into 4 indices, divided between verbal and performance IQ[1]... much of the population seems to have all 4 of these indices closely correlated with each other, though I became interested in this partly when I discovered I was an exception... I have dramatically higher verbal comprehension index than I do processing speed, if I recall correctly, with, I think, the former perhaps two standard deviations above average and the latter perhaps a full standard deviation below average. I don't know what the correlation means for most people, or what my deviation means for me, but the test is at least capable of seeing differences, so the fact that it doesn't typically see them probably means something, though I don't know what. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Sc...

hasenj 9y ago

According to several people I'd consider authorities on the subject matter, yes it is really a thing. You can measure any aspect of intelligence you want, but in the end all aspects correlate strongly together, and they have predictive power in terms of success in life.

discombobulate 9y ago

No, dude. Everyone's the same. You obviously haven't been reading enough left-wing news publications. NYT, The Guardian et al. IQ is alt-right propaganda. Definitely no IQ. As such, we need to teach everyone to code. If only the evil white men would let everyone spend 60 hours a week coding. And the reason some people go to top universities isn't because they're smart. It's their class. Their class allows them to handle abstraction & complexity dude! We need to level the playing field & equally distribute ability to learn via capital redistribution. Being able to buy better brands is def going help shepherd us into a nu-world of equality.