5 ms·

What is "intelligence?" Can we separate it from society's conception of it? Can we state a computational definition rather than a definition in terms of satisfa

by yelsgib 18y ago

What is "intelligence?" Can we separate it from society's conception of it? Can we state a computational definition rather than a definition in terms of satisfaction of cultural standards? We undervalue a lot of mental attributes - consistency of thought, sensitivity to subtle differences in concepts, patience, self-reflection, the ability to "go meta" etc. which cannot be detected by the rough and rigid abstract problem solving required by low-level Math (e.g. the Math problems which would qualify prodigies). I am highly turned off by the idea that we can't "become smart" after an early age. I feel like I "got smart" after I started playing go, I feel like I "got smart" after I learned category theory. I feel like every year I get smarter - and not smarter in the sense of "having more knowledge" but smarter in the sense of being able to solve larger classes of problems, and more complicated problems. and c.

billroberts 18y ago
I'm not sure that your experience of feeling smarter contradicts cperciva's point about intelligence being determined early in life. I can see that there could be a difference between intelligence as some kind of innate capacity and how that capacity is applied to various tasks. You can certainly learn more stuff and so be able to do more difficult things, but your ability to learn and apply knowledge may not be changing.
- yelsgib 18y ago
  This is a good point. I agree that my feeling smarter does not actually mean that I am smarter. I -do- produce a lot more, but this could be due to other factors. I think you're hitting very close to the important issue here which is that all of this is very difficult to define/think about without a really good idea of what sorts of computations our brains perform. My point isn't really so much that I think it can change, even, it's that we should be way more skeptical when it comes to making claims about subtle concepts like these. Usually I find that those who say "we are only really growing intellectually until we're 5" have a very limited and kind of rigid conception of intelligence.
Prrometheus 18y ago
>I am highly turned off by the idea that we can't "become smart" after an early age. I feel like I "got smart" after I started playing go, I feel like I "got smart" after I learned category theory. The percentage of the population that can participate in the two activities you mentioned is probably less than 1%. You probably were smart at an early age.
- yelsgib 18y ago
  You're justifying a hypothesis circularly. I was somewhat gifted at an early age, but I consider my intellectual growth over the past 5 years (17-22) to vastly outstrip my growth before that.
  - thaumaturgy 18y ago
    Or, you had a certain innate intelligence to begin with, and are only now practicing with it. At this point it's impossible to know one way or the other. Genetic intelligence versus developed intelligence is something that the top scientists of several fields are still investigating.
    - yelsgib 18y ago
      I don't think that we can really investigate "genetic intelligence" until we have a definition of intelligence which makes -any sense at all-, which we don't. I find a lot of the opinions of neuroscientists I've talked to/read articles from to be really dogmatic in their interpretation of intelligence (probably because they aren't regularly faced with Very Hard Problems in the sense that mathematicians/computer scientists are - their conception of intelligence is often a little more superficial - but anyway, I'm massively generalizing). My entire point is that I don't think it's useful to think about intelligence as a "thing." I think of the brain as a computational structure. At birth, it has certain properties. It changes in certain ways. It can get better or worse at certain tasks. Because Official People have to say Official Things they always treat their own statements about Intelligence as if they're objective and well-informed which, let me tell you, they are not.
cperciva 18y ago
I am highly turned off by the idea that we can't "become smart" after an early age. I find this notion rather peculiar. Do people get "highly turned off" that they can't "get tall"? I've known for my entire life that I could never become a professional athlete -- I simply don't have the physique. What is it about intelligence which makes people get so much more upset than they get about physical attributes?
- yelsgib 18y ago
  I think you're being presumptuous. I'm not saying that I'm "turned off" by the -fact- that I can't get tall(1). I'm saying that this is not a -fact- at all. Even if it -is- a fact, it certainly is much more uncertain/open for debate than the question of whether you can get tall at a late age. I'm saying that the fact that you -claim it is a fact- is what turns me off. Perhaps I was slightly imprecise. I should have said "I am highly turned off by assertions to the effect that we can't become smart after an early age." This turns me off because belief/assertion creates cultural structure, and cultural structure changes the world. This point is too complex to go into here, sorry. My claim is even slightly deeper/more provocative than that - I don't think that efforts by a lot of academics (including a lot of my friends) to propagate an idea of "general intelligence" which solidifies at a young age are entirely benign. I think that they are largely founded in worry and attempts to create an elite academic class. Once you're in, you're in (since getting in means that you have a "good" brain which is not really subject to change). It's self-reinforcing and (in my experience) always based in self-doubt. --- As an aside, the idea that "people get so much more upset" about the intellectual than the physical is completely absurd. I know a ton of people (girls and guys) who freak out constantly about their appearance. I know like 3 guys (including myself) who are the least bit worried about our intellects. Admittedly, most of my friends are academics, but my interactions with people outside this sphere indicate that the trend is not peculiar to my social group (and is probably even more physical-attribute oriented, in general). Seriously, I can't believe that you wrote this. This isn't meant to be mean or like ad hominem - but seriously? Do you actually believe what you wrote? Do you know anyone who isn't an academic? To answer what I think you might have meant (namely: why do _I_ get much more freaked out about my intelligence than my physical attributes - which is also presumptuous because you have -no- idea how much I care about my physical attributes) I would like to observe that in modern western society "we are our minds." Your mind is essentially the limit of your capabilities in the sort of world I'm sure both you and I live in (the quote unquote information world). The mind is connected with the ability to create beauty (art), the ability to connect with other human beings (sex), the ability to experience spirituality (love), etc. In the academic world, at least, our physical bodies are a burden. They wear out. They get cancer. They die. Did you seriously ask this? Were you being rhetorical? I can't tell. I don't mean to be mean, but sheesh. (1) and I accuse you of attempting to employ an underhanding rhetorical trick in making this implicit comparison, I might add.
yummyfajitas 18y ago
"Intelligence" is a hidden variable g, which comes out of statistical tests of various mental examinations. Basically, give a bunch of people a french test, a math test, a physics test, a driving test, etc. Run statistical tests for hidden variables, and you will discover this mysterious hidden variable 'g'. It is relatively independent of cultural knowledge: i.e., french is nearly independent of g (1), while physics, plumbing and loading irregularly sized boxes into a truck are highly correlated to g. This all comes out of the statistical analysis, and is not assumed apriori. Then look for correlations between g and career outcome (and other such things), you'll discover strong correlations there as well. Physicists tend to have high g, janitors low g, etc. For instance, I've never met a math/physics/eng faculty member with an IQ below 120 (though mine is below 100). So this statistical measure g fits very closely with the intuitive picture of intelligence. It's not cultural, but we don't know what it means computationally either. (1) Amoung frenchies, people with higher 'g' will score better on french tests. But a low g frenchy will beat a high g brit.
- yelsgib 18y ago
  I agree with this point, but I think that what you run into is that there are certain important cross-cultural trends which might cause g to be pertinent. What I mean is that perhaps the set of tasks which we "regularly perform" are governed by g - these tasks usually involving "problem solving" of the you-give-me-a-well-defined-problem-and-I'll-solve-it variety. It's a kind of reciprocal process - society will produce lots of jobs/roles which fit mass statistics it can determine, and it will also screen for that mass statistic. What interests me, and what I'm worried that focus on this sort of gross statistic deprives us from thinking about, is the non-regular. I'm interested in the philosophical, the revolutionary, the artistic. I'm interested in what made Einstein Einstein. I don't think it's "g." Slightly more abstractly/hypothetically: The way I kind of see intelligence is that we can function within contexts (e.g. functioning within the "Math context" would be doing math problems) and "g" corresponds to our ability to manipulate symbols generally, so that we are generally good at working within contexts. This is a really abstract way of saying g corresponds to our ability to solve problems. However, I don't think g says anything about long-term problem solving (involving abstraction, self-reflection), novel content creation (involving cross-context thinking), etc. Does this make sense?

by yelsgib 18y ago

billroberts 18y ago

I'm not sure that your experience of feeling smarter contradicts cperciva's point about intelligence being determined early in life. I can see that there could be a difference between intelligence as some kind of innate capacity and how that capacity is applied to various tasks. You can certainly learn more stuff and so be able to do more difficult things, but your ability to learn and apply knowledge may not be changing.

yelsgib 18y ago
This is a good point. I agree that my feeling smarter does not actually mean that I am smarter. I -do- produce a lot more, but this could be due to other factors. I think you're hitting very close to the important issue here which is that all of this is very difficult to define/think about without a really good idea of what sorts of computations our brains perform. My point isn't really so much that I think it can change, even, it's that we should be way more skeptical when it comes to making claims about subtle concepts like these. Usually I find that those who say "we are only really growing intellectually until we're 5" have a very limited and kind of rigid conception of intelligence.

Prrometheus 18y ago

>I am highly turned off by the idea that we can't "become smart" after an early age. I feel like I "got smart" after I started playing go, I feel like I "got smart" after I learned category theory. The percentage of the population that can participate in the two activities you mentioned is probably less than 1%. You probably were smart at an early age.

yelsgib 18y ago
You're justifying a hypothesis circularly. I was somewhat gifted at an early age, but I consider my intellectual growth over the past 5 years (17-22) to vastly outstrip my growth before that.
- thaumaturgy 18y ago
  Or, you had a certain innate intelligence to begin with, and are only now practicing with it. At this point it's impossible to know one way or the other. Genetic intelligence versus developed intelligence is something that the top scientists of several fields are still investigating.
  - yelsgib 18y ago
    I don't think that we can really investigate "genetic intelligence" until we have a definition of intelligence which makes -any sense at all-, which we don't. I find a lot of the opinions of neuroscientists I've talked to/read articles from to be really dogmatic in their interpretation of intelligence (probably because they aren't regularly faced with Very Hard Problems in the sense that mathematicians/computer scientists are - their conception of intelligence is often a little more superficial - but anyway, I'm massively generalizing). My entire point is that I don't think it's useful to think about intelligence as a "thing." I think of the brain as a computational structure. At birth, it has certain properties. It changes in certain ways. It can get better or worse at certain tasks. Because Official People have to say Official Things they always treat their own statements about Intelligence as if they're objective and well-informed which, let me tell you, they are not.

cperciva 18y ago

I am highly turned off by the idea that we can't "become smart" after an early age. I find this notion rather peculiar. Do people get "highly turned off" that they can't "get tall"? I've known for my entire life that I could never become a professional athlete -- I simply don't have the physique. What is it about intelligence which makes people get so much more upset than they get about physical attributes?

yelsgib 18y ago
I think you're being presumptuous. I'm not saying that I'm "turned off" by the -fact- that I can't get tall(1). I'm saying that this is not a -fact- at all. Even if it -is- a fact, it certainly is much more uncertain/open for debate than the question of whether you can get tall at a late age. I'm saying that the fact that you -claim it is a fact- is what turns me off. Perhaps I was slightly imprecise. I should have said "I am highly turned off by assertions to the effect that we can't become smart after an early age." This turns me off because belief/assertion creates cultural structure, and cultural structure changes the world. This point is too complex to go into here, sorry. My claim is even slightly deeper/more provocative than that - I don't think that efforts by a lot of academics (including a lot of my friends) to propagate an idea of "general intelligence" which solidifies at a young age are entirely benign. I think that they are largely founded in worry and attempts to create an elite academic class. Once you're in, you're in (since getting in means that you have a "good" brain which is not really subject to change). It's self-reinforcing and (in my experience) always based in self-doubt. --- As an aside, the idea that "people get so much more upset" about the intellectual than the physical is completely absurd. I know a ton of people (girls and guys) who freak out constantly about their appearance. I know like 3 guys (including myself) who are the least bit worried about our intellects. Admittedly, most of my friends are academics, but my interactions with people outside this sphere indicate that the trend is not peculiar to my social group (and is probably even more physical-attribute oriented, in general). Seriously, I can't believe that you wrote this. This isn't meant to be mean or like ad hominem - but seriously? Do you actually believe what you wrote? Do you know anyone who isn't an academic? To answer what I think you might have meant (namely: why do _I_ get much more freaked out about my intelligence than my physical attributes - which is also presumptuous because you have -no- idea how much I care about my physical attributes) I would like to observe that in modern western society "we are our minds." Your mind is essentially the limit of your capabilities in the sort of world I'm sure both you and I live in (the quote unquote information world). The mind is connected with the ability to create beauty (art), the ability to connect with other human beings (sex), the ability to experience spirituality (love), etc. In the academic world, at least, our physical bodies are a burden. They wear out. They get cancer. They die. Did you seriously ask this? Were you being rhetorical? I can't tell. I don't mean to be mean, but sheesh. (1) and I accuse you of attempting to employ an underhanding rhetorical trick in making this implicit comparison, I might add.

yummyfajitas 18y ago

"Intelligence" is a hidden variable g, which comes out of statistical tests of various mental examinations. Basically, give a bunch of people a french test, a math test, a physics test, a driving test, etc. Run statistical tests for hidden variables, and you will discover this mysterious hidden variable 'g'. It is relatively independent of cultural knowledge: i.e., french is nearly independent of g (1), while physics, plumbing and loading irregularly sized boxes into a truck are highly correlated to g. This all comes out of the statistical analysis, and is not assumed apriori. Then look for correlations between g and career outcome (and other such things), you'll discover strong correlations there as well. Physicists tend to have high g, janitors low g, etc. For instance, I've never met a math/physics/eng faculty member with an IQ below 120 (though mine is below 100). So this statistical measure g fits very closely with the intuitive picture of intelligence. It's not cultural, but we don't know what it means computationally either. (1) Amoung frenchies, people with higher 'g' will score better on french tests. But a low g frenchy will beat a high g brit.

yelsgib 18y ago
I agree with this point, but I think that what you run into is that there are certain important cross-cultural trends which might cause g to be pertinent. What I mean is that perhaps the set of tasks which we "regularly perform" are governed by g - these tasks usually involving "problem solving" of the you-give-me-a-well-defined-problem-and-I'll-solve-it variety. It's a kind of reciprocal process - society will produce lots of jobs/roles which fit mass statistics it can determine, and it will also screen for that mass statistic. What interests me, and what I'm worried that focus on this sort of gross statistic deprives us from thinking about, is the non-regular. I'm interested in the philosophical, the revolutionary, the artistic. I'm interested in what made Einstein Einstein. I don't think it's "g." Slightly more abstractly/hypothetically: The way I kind of see intelligence is that we can function within contexts (e.g. functioning within the "Math context" would be doing math problems) and "g" corresponds to our ability to manipulate symbols generally, so that we are generally good at working within contexts. This is a really abstract way of saying g corresponds to our ability to solve problems. However, I don't think g says anything about long-term problem solving (involving abstraction, self-reflection), novel content creation (involving cross-context thinking), etc. Does this make sense?