4 ms·

Why? And by "why" I mean "for what reason". And by "reason" I mean "a cause for an action or event". And by "cause" I mean "a thing that gives rise to a phenome

by Veen 4y ago

Why? And by "why" I mean "for what reason". And by "reason" I mean "a cause for an action or event". And by "cause" I mean "a thing that gives rise to a phenomenon". So I suppose what I am saying is: "What cause for an action or event gives rise to the phenomenon of your belief that "cognitive ability" is clearer?"

smt88 4y ago
Why isn't ambiguous. Intelligence is used in multiple contexts and that makes it confusing even as a technical term. For example, in the context of national security or corporate strategy, it means "knowledge" rather than intellect.
dahart 4y ago
Have you considered the possibility that “cognitive ability” is a technical term of art in this context, or an “improper noun”. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32673100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32673100 It’s always worth assuming that terminology used for a technical scientific paper was chosen carefully and may imply certain specific things that those of us not working in the same field might not know. Still, even the words themselves don’t seem to mean exactly the same thing; cognitive ability does seem more specific than intelligence (especially if you consider the common terms emotional intelligence, general intelligence, and artificial intelligence). It’s pretty easy to find evidence that cognitive ability and intelligence mean slightly different things. https://sharpbrains.com/blog/2006/12/21/are-cognitive-abilities-the-same-thing-as-intelligence https://sharpbrains.com/blog/2006/12/21/are-cognitive-abilit... Plus there are different aptitude tests, some named IQ Test (Stanford-Binet) and some named Cognitive Ability Test (CogAT).
svnt 4y ago
The term intelligence has popular connotations that dilute its usefulness as a term of art. Once you zoom in on it, as with any abstract folk concept, you realize that there is no such thing as intelligence and because of that you cannot articulate a sensibly accurate position in a narrow field based on its use. In any sense of applied science “intelligence” is intractable. The historical equivalent definition would be maybe something like “cognitive ability for logic puzzle solving in Western culture” Or maybe you were making a joke, but this is a real problem, and “reason” has the same problem.

by Veen 4y ago

smt88 4y ago

Why isn't ambiguous. Intelligence is used in multiple contexts and that makes it confusing even as a technical term. For example, in the context of national security or corporate strategy, it means "knowledge" rather than intellect.

dahart 4y ago

Have you considered the possibility that “cognitive ability” is a technical term of art in this context, or an “improper noun”. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32673100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32673100 It’s always worth assuming that terminology used for a technical scientific paper was chosen carefully and may imply certain specific things that those of us not working in the same field might not know. Still, even the words themselves don’t seem to mean exactly the same thing; cognitive ability does seem more specific than intelligence (especially if you consider the common terms emotional intelligence, general intelligence, and artificial intelligence). It’s pretty easy to find evidence that cognitive ability and intelligence mean slightly different things. https://sharpbrains.com/blog/2006/12/21/are-cognitive-abilities-the-same-thing-as-intelligence https://sharpbrains.com/blog/2006/12/21/are-cognitive-abilit... Plus there are different aptitude tests, some named IQ Test (Stanford-Binet) and some named Cognitive Ability Test (CogAT).

svnt 4y ago

The term intelligence has popular connotations that dilute its usefulness as a term of art. Once you zoom in on it, as with any abstract folk concept, you realize that there is no such thing as intelligence and because of that you cannot articulate a sensibly accurate position in a narrow field based on its use. In any sense of applied science “intelligence” is intractable. The historical equivalent definition would be maybe something like “cognitive ability for logic puzzle solving in Western culture” Or maybe you were making a joke, but this is a real problem, and “reason” has the same problem.