h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, now that you mention it yourself



PS: All this philosophy on intelligence makes my brain hurt and it gets really hard to fall asleep. Last night I was wondering "How does one explain to a fool that he is stupid?". I thought that sounded rather clever - but then I had second thoughts: "How can you tell yourself wether you are smart - or not?"

You can't know. You have to guess, based on how other people react to your intelligence, and how other people's intelligence seems to compare to yours. But a totally objective assessment is utterly impossible.

Well, here's a mathematical perspective on the measure of intelligence.

A test like an IQ test, which assigns one number, basically claims to provide a mapping between intelligence and the real number line. The real number line is a one dimensional object. It has the property that ordering relations can be well-defined for it. In other words, every number is either greater than, less than, or equal to a given number.

It has not (to my knowledge) been demonstated that intelligence is a one-dimensional quantity. Let me think of an example of a two-dimensional quantity... Ok, here, this will be silly, but instructional:

Imagine that we are measuring "hairiness" of some creature. Now, there are (let's say) two factors that go into hairiness: density of hair (follicles/sq cm) and length of growth (cm). Without arguing semantics, imagine that we all agree with this definition. Now, a creature's hairiness can be quantified with two numbers, and not with just one number. This is a two-dimensional quantity. It can be plotted, not on a line, but on a plane, with coordinates. So, is a creature with a lot of short hairs hairier than one with fewer hairs that are very long? See the problem? (It's the same problem with complex numbers; > and < are not well defined for them.)

I'll bet intelligence has many, many dimensions. I'd like to see an argument that it makes any sense to assign one number to intelligence and call it meaningful, which is what you would have to claim in order to say that person A is "more intelligent" than person B. I'd like to see a clear definition of "intelligence". An adequate definition should make it clear what kind of mathematical object could be used to model intelligence.

By 'intelligence' we simply mean competence in a specific field, which is measurable using a generally accepted test, and underpinned by being accorded a general status, or recognition, by other qualified competents in the same field.

You can only really test a certain, limited aspect of intelligence at any one time. For example, I have a good Humanities degree but that means little or nothing when it comes to discussing quantum physics with an expert in that field, or trying to fiddle my tax returns, or for that matter when trying to outwit a David Beckham wannabe in a Sunday afternoon park game. It does, however, establish that within a certain, limited field I have reached a measurable level of competence, and people are entitled to take that as a (reasonably) reliable measure of intelligence in that area.

And then, of course, in addition to qualifications, there are the reactions of peers to take into account. In effect, a person who is considered intelligent by others in the same field, *is* intelligent to all intents and purposes. Which is a bit of a shame, because - as some people were saying here the other day - often it's actually mediocrity that rises to the top whilst real ground-breaking intelligence struggles to gain acceptance from the conservative mainstream...

Very few people, I would say, are intelligent to any significant degree in more than one or two areas (although I think it's certainly a good idea to try for some kind of balance between them). And I don't think it's really possible to measure *between* different areas of intelligence, because there is not really any common ground between them. How, for example, would you decide who was the more intelligent out of Newton and Shakespeare - who has made the greater contribution to human knowledge, and our understanding of ourselves and the world around us? Most scientists would say Newton, of course; most Humanities scholars would say Shakespeare. The point is that neither answer is correct - it's not really possible to objectively value the achievements of the one man over the other.

Following that idea through to a logical conclusion... It's impossible to judge somebody from outside - ultimately, each individual succeeds or fails on their own terms...

So true! So true!

Well if I get to design the intelligence test, then quite naturally I will steer the test format towards my personal strengths and away from my weaknesses.

This forum is becoming so embroiled in common sense and (what appears to me to be) genuine understanding, it's hardly worth sticking one's oar in!

Perhaps I should go and play with the dogmatists; at least they're wrong most of the time, giving ample opportunity for nit-picking!

Pattern-chaser

I rest my head - I mean case...

(Probably the most intelligent thing I've done for a long time)

This forum bliss is just too good to last. We need another controversial topic that we don't all agree on. Otherwise our debating skills will get rusty, and then where would we be?

How about: Is this whole god and religion thing a cyberspace?

try this debate of Bacchus' - http://www.h2g2.com/F32217?thread=98904&latest=1

I shall save you from boring peace and agreement!

Atheists are silly people! There is obviously a force greater than humanity. My prayres to the various Gods/Goddesss have been answered quickly and with everything I wanted. And there may even be a force greater than the Gods. If you look at the story of Ragnarok the Gods are even bound to fate.


argue away.

Okay, I'm not fuelled up on sugar yet, so I'll have to start this a bit weakly.

Liar.

Liar.

Pants on Fire.

* laughs wickedly *

I wonder why that might be?

* hides blowtorch *

Colonel Controversy strolls into the room...

I disagree with the assessment of intelligence mentioned earlier. I don't think it has anything to do with a facility in any one subject. That is more rightly called "education." I think intelligence is better demonstrated when someone encounters a problem that they have never seen before, and solves it. The former relies on old neural paths and logical processes, but the latter requires the creation of new ones. Besides, there are tons of people who are absolute masters of a certain field, but we don't call them "intelligent"... the word is "idiot savant." Incidentally, most IQ tests that I've seen (not that I've seen a lot, mind you) contain logical puzzles that only someone who plays around a lot with IQ tests would have seen before.

I had an old girlfriend who told me that people who went to college were smarter people. I told her it just meant that they'd been to school more. She didn't really appreciate the comment, especially because she'd been through college. I hadn't, but then, I knew I was smarter than her.

It's all relative. I'd say more, but I'm feeling very sleepy so maybe I'll say more tomorrow.

Colonel: "I knew I was smarter than her."

That's, um... "smarter than /she/ (was)."

* laughs *

Ah, the delights of English grammar.

Don't get me started on english grammar! (I can barely cope with me own languages)

Colonel Sellout! Few years ago I heard a scientist claim that the neanderthals (and even the cromagnons) were as intelligent (or as dumb) as we are today. If they had the opportunities that we have (i.e. fire already been invented and so on) they would easily match us. Interesting or what?