Definition: Intelligence There are probably as many definitions of intelligence as there are experts who study it.

Simply put, however, intelligence is the ability to learn about, learn from, understand, and interact with ones environment. This general ability consists of a number of specific abilities, which include these specific abilities:

Adaptability to a new environment or to changes in the current environment Capacity for knowledge and the ability to acquire it Capacity for reason and abstract thought Ability to comprehend relationships Ability to evaluate and judge Capacity for original and productive thought

More Reading about Intelligence Elsewhere

Intelligence is a person's capacity to (1) acquire knowledge (i.e. learn and understand), (2) apply knowledge (solve problems), and (3) engage in abstract reasoning. It is the power of one's intellect, and as such is clearly a very important aspect of one's overall well-being. Psychologists have attempted to measure it for well over a century. Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is the score you get on an intelligence test. Originally, it was a quotient (a ratio): IQ= MA/CA x 100 [MA is mental age, CA is chronological age]. Today, scores are calibrated against norms of actual population scores.

Under 70 [mentally retarded] -- 2.2% 70-80 [borderline retarded] -- 6.7% 80-90 [low average] -- 16.1% 90-110 [average] -- 50% 110-120 [high average] -- 16.1% 120-130 [superior] -- 6.7% Over 130 [very superior] -- 2.2%

Is it genetic or environmental? Here are a few correlations to ponder, between one person's IQ and anothers: father-child mother-child siblings .51 .55 .50

biological adoptive families families motherchild fatherchild childchild .41 .40 .35 .09 .16 -.03

identical fraternal twins twins fingerprints height IQ (Binet) IQ (Otis) word meaning nature study history and literature spelling .97 .93 .88 .92 .86 .77 .82 .87 .46 .65 .63 .62 .56 .55 .67 .73

So intelligence clearly has a powerful genetic component. But we can also see a number of environmental aids and hindrances: A stimulating environment, parental encouragement, good schooling, specific reasoning skills, continued practice, and so on, certainly help a person become more intelligent. Likewise, there are certain biological factors that are nevertheless environmental: prenatal care, nutrition (especially in early childhood), freedom from disease and physical trauma, and so on. All of these are important and cannot be ignored -- especially when these are the things we can most easily do something about! But I do believe that something better than half of intelligence is accounted for by genetics. And this is, to put it simply, a matter of brain efficiency. If your

brain is well-developed, free from genetic defects, free from neurochemical imbalances, then it will work well, given a decent environment. But no matter how good your environment, if you are forced to rely on bad equipment, it will be much more difficult to attain high intelligence. Different kinds of intelligences Is intelligence one thing (referred to as g)? Many researchers believe it is. Or is it many things. Some suggestions include the following:

Verbal, numerical, spatial, reasoning, fluency, perceptual speed... Fluid vs. crystallized (Cattell)... Linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, intrapersonal, interpersonal (Gardner)...

Im not big on emphasizing different kinds of intelligence, or on introducing new kinds. Some things -- street smarts, common sense, and social intelligence, for example -- are specializations of intelligence, just like academic intelligence is. Other things -- like musical ability or kinesthetic abilities or artistic abilities -- are talents in their own right, and not new kinds of intelligence. I think our enthusiasm for egalitarianism leads us to play semantic games, so that everyone can be intelligent in some fashion. The sentiment is pleasant, but by doing this, you eliminate any meaning intelligence may have had! Social issues A very touchy subject is group differences in intelligence. It is certainly conceivable that some groups have higher or lower average intelligence than others, whether through environmental or genetic causes. But groups dont really have intelligence, individuals do. Averages are fictions - convenient summaries of data -- and no individual need reflect that fiction. So the debate would be only of scientific interest, were it not for the fact that so many people judge individuals by means of stereotypes. This in itself is an example of poor thinking! The biggest difficulty for society (and individuals!) regarding intelligence is retardation. Unlike high intelligence, low intelligence is further classified into several subcategories:

Difficulties with measuring intelligence Finally, theres the question of intelligence testing. I think it has come a long way, but it has a long way to go as well. I hope to see it become more inclusive of non-academic thinking, and to become less tied to prior learning. The bigger problem with testing, however, is what we do with the results: People are far too prone to take test scores at face value, without looking at a broader selection of information about a persons abilities. They are also far too likely to generalize to non-intelligence issues. We should certainly not use intelligence tests carelessly when deciding children's educations or adults careers. Cultural variables

Try these questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. How many days does it take for a chicken egg to hatch? What color is a Holstein cow? How many stomachs does a cow have? Does a bull have a cud? Is a rooster necessary for a hen to lay eggs?

The answers: 21; black and white; 4; yes; and no, unless you want fertilized eggs. These are easy questions if you grew up on a farm! Other examples: The famous "chittlin's" test, biased towards black Americans. It is named for the question: "What are chittlin's?" Answer: Pig's intestines, cleaned, soaked, and fried (originally called chitterlings). Or you could bias towards other groups by asking "What is tripe?" (an English dish consisting of sauted ox stomach strips) or "What is haggis?" (a Scottish dish consisting of a sheep's stomach filled with a porridge made of oats and various sweetmeats.) It becomes even more dramatic when we look at people very different from ourselves, such as children growing up in the wilds of Papua-New Guinea. Some of the biases working against them might include... 1. Use of paper and pencil. Problems are often presented in the form of diagrams; answering often requires x-ing, circling, underlining, etc. Not easy for someone unfamiliar with paper and pencil! 2. Use of pictorial material. Pictures, especially as printed on paper, use highly conventional symbols, e.g. cutouts of pots, huts, etc. were thought to be pieces of cardboard, rather than the objects they represented, when placed into a scene, they began to make sense. 3. Use of non-representational drawings. Geometric figures, colored patterns, mazes, etc., lack meaning to many people. Artistic patterns are only understood in context. 4. Appreciation of spatial relations. Our emphasis on three-dimensions at right angles is culturally specific. Other cultures emphasize rounded figures more. 5. Manipulation. If you lack experience with blocks, puzzles, pieces of cardboard, etc., you also lack a feel for them and may be clumsy with them, leading the tester to conclude that you are "dumb." The problem of cognitive style How are a pair of scissors and a copper pan alike? One point answer: They are both household utensils. Two point answer: They are both made of metal. Why is the second worth more than the first? Which doesn't belong: clam, pig, oven, rose.

The correct answer is the oven, because the rest are living things. But a child may say rose, since the others relate to making dinner. Or the clam, since clams live in the water and the rest live on land. Not only can different answers reflect different social or cultural backgrounds; they may also reflect originality and novel outlook. In certain IQ tests, the child is given two points for "categorical" answers, one point for "descriptive" answers, but no points for "relational" answers. So, in response to "How are a cat and a mouse alike?" you get two points for "they are both animals," one point for "they both have tails," and nothing at all if you say "they both live in houses." With drawings of a boy, an old man, and a woman (the latter two wearing hats), children were asked "Which go together?" "Good" answers include the boy and the man, because they are both male, or the man and the woman because they are both adults. Less points are awarded to "the man and the woman, because they are both wearing hats." and no points are gained for "the boy and the old man, because the boy can help the old man walk," which strikes me as the most creative answer! Disembedded thought The most important of all the confusing variables, I believe, is the problem of disembedded thought. Disembedded thought is Margaret Donaldson's term for thought that takes place in a contextual vacuum: It takes years of practice to get to a point where one is comfortable with abstract questions. Answering what appear to be meaningless questions is rejected by people of many cultures, by most young children, and by many people with different "cognitive styles." It is, in fact, a talent peculiar to us (i.e. educated western adults, and a few others). Many others will spend their creative energies not at solving the problem, but at trying to figure out why you would ask such a strange question to begin with. IQ tests, especially in the past, have been (1) competition-oriented (with motivation to answer quickly and accurately assumed), (2) upper-middle class oriented, and (3) western cultureoriented (especially in regards to the thought process associated with science and technology). It should be understood, however, that psychologists have been working hard at eliminated these various biases, or at least reducing them, and that IQ tests today are at least relatively culturally fair. They are certainly very reliable, and do in fact related well to success in school and western society -- i.e. the culture and institutions that share the values of these tests. Using intelligence tests There is one more problem with IQ tests, this time not about making them or giving them, but about using them: There was an experiment by Rosenthal in which school teachers were casually told at the beginning of the school year that certain students (mentioned by name) were "spurters," that, according to some tests designed to measure "spurting," they would blossom in the coming year.

Actually no such test had been given. In fact, no such test exists. The information was actually given about 20% of the students, chosen at random. These kids not only did well academically (which we might expect, with teachers having some control over that), but actually increased their IQ test scores! The same, incidentally, happens with rats: Graduate students told that certain rats had been bred for intelligence found that they did indeed do better at learning mazes -- even though the information was false! This is a form of experimenter bias, of course, and part of the reason we have double blinds in experiments but in the broader, social arena, we call this the self-fulfilling prophecy, or the labeling effect. It is clear that we should take children as individuals and give them whatever education they can handle. Unfortunately, that is costly.

What Is Intelligence? Simply Put...

Based on the definitions, it is:

Rational thought and reasoning The ability to act purposefully in an environment. The ability to deal with situations, in an effective manner, within an environment. Cognitive Examples of cognitive ability: memory, perception, concept formation, problem solving, mental imagery, action, association, language and attention. The ability to learning from experience The ability to live and cope with the demands of daily life.

What is Intelligence?
We all are genius. We all suffer learning difficulties. That is what makes our society diverse. Everyone has their talents and no one is better or worse than anyone else. Our brains are wired differently and it is this that makes us unique and individual. We are all affected by experience and we all respond differently when exposed to those experiences. But what if intelligence was measurable? What if there was a standardized approach to this that will give an indication a baseline assessment? If we had an easy way of measuring intelligence, this may give us ideas and measures, not only on a human scale, but that of animals around us. But wouldnt that suggest that we the most intelligent animals on the planet? This is an assumption and is not formulated on controlled hypothesis and research. Surely to assume would make an ass out of u and me? This is a thought and worth considering when asking the question what is intelligence?

Let me, therefore, give you a working definition for us to work toward by Sternberg: Intelligence is the cognitive ability of an individual to learn from experience, to reason well, to remember important information, and to cope with the demands of daily living. This definition seems to be the one that those in the field of psychology seem to prefer. However, it is worth keeping in mind Wechlers definition as he has been highly influential in the field of intelligence research: the global capacity of a person to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his/her environment.

Are I.Q. Tests a True Measure of Intelligence?

Intelligence is certainly a controversial subject, as we have discovered, but are I.Q. tests a true measure of intelligence? Society does seem to be respectful of tests and have used them as ways of separating the sheep from the goats, so to speak. Take the example above; through the results of I.Q. tests, people have been streamed into different parts of the forces as a result of them. People develop and mature at different rates and this can affect the result when standardising an age for children to take the test. I know that when I was just 11, I failed the test, for example, but when I was 12, passed with distinction. I.Q. tests, in this instance, are not a true measure when considering maturation and standardisation. The results can change over time and are dependant on performance of the day. This has been acknowledged within the psychology community as a criticism. Intelligence Quotient results are unfair as a selection tool. Binets aim originally was to develop tests to assist children in their development so as they could improve. Its usage was not as a blanket clue to intelligence. However, even today, I.Q. tests are used to stream children in schools, giving some a more unfair advantage over others. The level, therefore, of education or allocated establishment that children are screened into, the more of an effect on the career outcome. This can have dyer outcomes for those delayed in maturation. Eynsenck: The error is to exaggerate the importance of intelligence. The facts and arguments can easily be abused by racists Each person has to be treated as individual.

Intelligence Quotient: Controversial Issues

Intelligence quotient, therefore, is culturally bound. It is no good measuring the IQ of someone who hasnt been exposed to a mathematical teaching environment this would be setting people up for failure! Intelligence, therefore, is what is deemed as valuable in a society. Problem solving in the bush outback of Australia is different to problem solving in an office!

Research shows that improving the environment can significantly improve IQ (Skeels 1966). Therefore, practicing the tests can increase the score, therefore, not a valid assumption. This is because it tests an aspect of ability and doesnt take into account of others like practical sense, problem solving to do with everyday challenges.

Psychology 101 Conclusion

We have looked at how psychology attempts to measure intelligence. However, the question: What is intelligence? is such a subjective one, measuring it is not enough. Intelligence is subject to many factors and it seems that methods and tests that have been developed are culturally biased. However, these tests are helpful as a relative perspective based on aspects of intelligence. Other parts of being intellectual are about the ability to cope with all aspects of daily living, problem solving skills and learning from experience. Good reasoning abilities, rationalization and cognitive skills seem to enhance the intelligence package. But what, ultimately, is intelligence? Perhaps it is just being human - the ability to override base instinctual desires, empathy, creativity and imagination - but I guess we shall have to leave that to another psychology 101 article!