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

Entry: intelligence - A598584
Author: xyroth (getting swamped in the backlog) - U149792

Well, as the university is closing, and there is no sign of getting enough feedback to finish the project before the cut-off time, I thought I had better put it in for review in the hope that we can finish it.

This is the intro to intelligence which I found was necessary, and hopefully all the other entries I link to within the project will be submitted over the next couple of weeks as those I put in to start on near being scouted.

thanks in advance for your tollerance of the multiple threads this will unoubtably generate.

Deja vu all over again.

I commend your courage. And your entries.

0

thanks, but what I really need to know is what I have not got right.

any suggestions for improvements to any of the 12+ entries in this project will be appreciated.

My main comment is that a) there's a lot of duplication between this entry and the other entries, and that b) some of the other entries are really too short on content to stand on their own, as is.

You started out with something was too big to be all in one entry, and so you broke it down into component parts, which is good.

But now your component parts are too undeveloped to really stand on their own. Plus, they're so heavily interrelated that you end up needing to duplicate a rather decent amount of info between the entries.

So, at this point, I really think that some of the component entries need to be collapsed back together. Here's how I would consider doing it:

Starting from your list of:

Intelligence - an overview
What is intelligence
General intelligence
Intelligence tests
Machines and intelligence

Pages currently in progress:
Specific intelligences
Evoked potential
Intelligence Amplification
Intelligence and genius (a better name is needed here)
Intelligence and learning
Intelligence and learning difficulties
Animal intelligence
Theories of intelligence
Intelligence and Genetics
the Stanford-Binet intelligence scale

I would combine the "Intelligence (overview)" with "What is intelligence".

I would combine the entries on General Intelligence, Specific Intelligences, and Theories of Intelligence.

I would combine the entries on Intelligence tests and the Standford-Binet scale.

I would combine Intelligence Amplification with Machine Intelligence.

Just for starts.


Mikey

it sounds like a nice idea on the surface, but the problem with recombining them into fewer entries is that in future when we need to split them again, they just won't split very well.

this will then leave us in a position of having even greater duplication across entries.

The original idea of breaking it down is that you can just keep adding more stuff to this project, but unless you get the structure right to start off with, it just isn't going to be easy to add anything significant without massive amounts of rewritting.

approaching this from the other direction, can you spot 2 or 3 which could be expanded fairly easily, allowing us to get a couple of entries into the guide, and then spot the right order for working on the rest?

I might see that for some of the entries, but no matter how much content you added, I still don't think it would make sense to have one entry that's "intelligence, an overview", and one entry that's "what is intelligence" -- those two I really strongly believe should be combined. And if your goal is to get something in and then add more later, that's where I would start, as that's essentially the foundation. Plus, that's the topic where it's more about breadth and less about depth.

The other entry that I think needs the least in the way of content added is probably Machine Intelligence, so that one would be another one to tackle up front. You might stop by raymondo's user space and ask him to come comment in the PR thread on that one -- I know he's written some somewhat related entries in the past.

The Intelligence Tests entry needs such an incredible amount of work that I would suggest putting it on the back burner, unless you already have all the research and just need to do more writing up. The Stanford Binet entry is actually rather closer, although I can see wanting to 'load' that one after the former was ready. I think the Stanford Binet entry could be fleshed a bit so that it's a little more capable of standing on its own, though.

The entry on General Intelligence won't be very useful without the context of the entries on Theories of Intelligence and Specific Intelligence, so I would also put that on the back burner until they're all ready.


Mikey

I'm with Mikey on this one - I don't think there's enough in this one to make it worth an entry.

I think you may need to start with Intelligence - what is it. And then discuss the various forms of intelligence - Machine, human, animal. Small discussion on difference between intelligence and learned behaviour, and then into your other pieces.

Of course I'm coming into this as a know nothing, but Hey, its never stopped me in the past.

I know what you mean...

well, I am looking at how to integrate "what is intelligence" withthe intelligence overview, and hopefully will have an update soon.

This entry should be entitled "The difficulty in defining Intelligence". Since it contains links to many other Intelligence entries, it should not be submitted to Peer Review until all the others are Edited.

so gnomon, are you saying that it should not be merged with the "what is intelligence" entry?

As you claim this shouldn't be called "intelligence" or "intelligence - an overview", what do you think should be contained in whatever entry ends up being called "intelligence"?

You definitely need to mention something about what intelligence is in this entry - you say 'we all think we know what intelligence is' or something similar, but don't mention people's conceptions of what it is or anything like that.

I can't find when xyroth last posted - I think the date on his personal space is wrong - but I think it was a while ago...

Are you still around, xyroth?

Xyroth is still around, I have heard from him lately.