Well, "What's a genius" probably deserves a thread of its own - but mere membership of Mensa doesn't cut it for me. — MetaphysicsNow

Yes, whatever conclusion we might reach about intelligence, I think we can agree that mensa membership isn't it.

We can probably say without courting too much controversy that Mozart is a better composer than Taylor Swift, and whilst we might get heckled by adolescents for suggesting so, we could probably find a musicologist who could give us all kinds of good reasons for believing that to be the case objectively. Similarly, perhaps some professor of literature can be appealed to to show us exactly how Shakespeare is a better writer than JK Rowling. — MetaphysicsNow

So this is where I start to have problems. I'm not so sure we could find a musicologist or literature professor who could give us good reasons for assuming that Mozart was actually possessed of some quality Taylor Swift lacks (I'm presuming here she writes her own songs?). Mozart is not really considered a genius in China because China has a different musical tradition and Mozart didn't make music which appealed to that sense. So, could we say that Mozart's genius was somehow tapping into the character of his time? But then, isn't that what Bob Dylan did? Nirvana, and I suppose Taylor Swift? If not, and Mozart does have some timeless genius, then why isn't he considered highly in China, are the Chinese all stupid when it comes to music?

What's more, if there was some objective set of thing that Shakespeare could do better than any other, then producing works of literary genius could be taught like maths.

When Ramanujan worked out his mathematics, his culture made no difference, it was immediately recognisable as genius to Hardy, a whole continent away.

What I'm still not seeing, though, is how admitting all that would support the idea that there is one measurable thing/property called intelligence that Shakespeare and Mozart had more of than do Taylor Swift and JK Rowling. — MetaphysicsNow

Basically, if someone who is good at maths and someone who is good at music are both 'intelligent', and if someone who is good at maths and music is more intelligent than someone only good at either, then intelligence must have some quantitative element. If a musicologist could define a genius by their capability, then it is possible (although maybe not pragmatic) for them to design a task only the capable musicians will pass. We already know we can have a maths test, so put these two tests together and someone who passes both is objectively more intelligent.

I'm only really exploring the consequences here. Personally, I'd probably fall down on the idea that artistic merit simply can't be measured. I just don't like the hypocrisy in pretending it can be measured when proclaiming mozart a genius, but then avoiding measurement when grouping such abilities with 'intelligence' as a whole.

Well, there's quite a lot going on in your post, some of which I think I'm inclined to agree with. I think you are perfectly correct, for instance, to point out a cultural element in the ascription of genius to musicians and writers that is largely absent in the case of mathematics. Of course, I'm pretty sure that cultural and social elements nevertheless have their role to play in the life history of any genius, but the language of mathematics is, at least these days, international.
Having said that, I think I might have to take more of an issue with what seems to be an implication of this remark of yours:

What's more, if there was some objective set of thing that Shakespeare could do better than any other, then producing works of literary genius could be taught like maths.

We can teach people how to write poetry, just as we can teach people how to construct mathematical proofs, but it will never follow that the people we do so teach will go on to become outstanding poets or mathematicians, rather than mediocre or even miserable ones. So, I'm not really sure there is any real difference in kind between mathematics/literature/music that can be drawn on the basis of pedagogical limits.

Basically, if someone who is good at maths and someone who is good at music are both 'intelligent', and if someone who is good at maths and music is more intelligent than someone only good at either, then intelligence must have some quantitative element.

Well, as I hinted above, I do not agree with the premise that someone who is good at both maths and music is more intelligent than someone good at only one or the other. But, even if I were somehow forced into agreeing with that, the most that would commit me to in regards to a quantitative aspect to intelligence generally is that we could quantify intelligence generally by counting the number of distinct intelligent behaviours a person exhibits (given appropriate circumstances for exhibiting them, of course). That is very far removed from the kind of approach engaged in by those involved in the IQ testing industry (at least in its current form).

We can teach people how to write poetry, just as we can teach people how to construct mathematical proofs, but it will never follow that the people we do so teach will go on to become outstanding poets or mathematicians, rather than mediocre or even miserable ones. So, I'm not really sure there is any real difference in kind between mathematics/literature/music that can be drawn on the basis of pedagogical limits. — MetaphysicsNow

I think maybe the issue here is one of scale. I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from it, but the difference in ability between even a mediocre mathematics graduate (when compared to someone who has no formal mathematics training beyond primary school) is entire worlds. The non-mathematician would be lost entirely trying to work out some complex mathematical equation. Yet this is not the case for the English Literature graduate. I doubt the difference in poetry ability between an average English Lit graduate and someone with no formal training in English would even be detectable by the layman. It certainly doesn't seem to have much of an impact on what we seem to refer to as literary geniuses, who I'm fairly certain are drawn no more from the pool of English Lit graduates that they are from the pool of non-graduates. The Ramanujan's of this world, however, are vanishingly rare.

So I'm not sure I can support the contention that we're actually teaching the English Lit graduates anything that objectively, or even statistically, makes them more able to produce works of poetry that later get labelled genius.

Well, as I hinted above, I do not agree with the premise that someone who is good at both maths and music is more intelligent than someone good at only one or the other. — MetaphysicsNow

I think this reveals the difference between what seems like possibly your more analytical approach, and my ordinary language one. I'm not even trying to assess what we should, or could label intelligence, I don't even think that this kind of analysis makes sense. What interests me is how we actually do label intelligence, and exploring any inconsistencies in that application which might reveal interesting insights into human psychology. So I'm not questioning the 'rightness' of calling the polymath more intelligent that the uni-math. We simply do, I think it's incontestable that when faced with someone who spoke six languages, played concert violin, wrote award winning poetry and had a doctorate in maths we would call then more 'intelligent' than their neighbour who simply played violin in the same orchestra.

Likewise, our entire education system is predicated on the fact that some people are better at maths than others. What interests me about your proposition is how you might talk about, say person A getting 50% in a maths test as opposed to person B getting 100%. Or person A writing award winning poetry whilst person B is published, but not acclaimed. If you'd like to avoid saying that one is more intelligent that the other, what would you say about them? I suppose you could simply say that one was 'better' at their particular task, but I'm not sure whether that would be just equivocating with words. If intelligence is not the capability to be 'better' at some range of tasks, then what is it?

That is very far removed from the kind of approach engaged in by those involved in the IQ testing industry (at least in its current form). — MetaphysicsNow

Just to confirm, we're in absolute agreement on this. If intelligence testing is possible it certainly isn't being done at the moment by IQ tests. I'm inclined to think it's not testable at all in any pragmatic way, but I think that has implications for the way we currently use the term.

A little story which I'm sure you will have heard in different guises but I think is apt here. A homesteader being told about Einstein commented that whilst he (the homesteader) had lived a long and happy life, working outdoors and enjoying whatever life handed him, having a loving wife and three happy children, Einstein had worked at often menial jobs, could not sustain a marriage, had little or no relationship with his children and died racked with guilt about his part in the atomic bomb. Who's the most intelligent?

A little story which I'm sure you will have heard in different guises but I think is apt here. A homesteader being told about Einstein commented that whilst he (the homesteader) had lived a long and happy life, working outdoors and enjoying whatever life handed him, having a loving wife and three happy children, Einstein had worked at often menial jobs, could not sustain a marriage, had little or no relationship with his children and died racked with guilt about his part in the atomic bomb. Who's the most intelligent? — Pseudonym

You can be both. I don't know if achievement is equatable with intelligence but that's the sentiment I'm getting here. Highly intelligent people are just more productive, by about 1.5x per each SD. So, there may be an issue with directionality but they might just find different things more interesting, which sustains their aura of creativity.

So, the issue seems more like one about creativity instead of ability and skill.

@Posty McPostface@Pseudonym A mark of an interesting anecdote is that it is open to many interpretations - I for one was thinking more along the lines of what might be the connections between happiness and intelligence.

If intelligence is not the capability to be 'better' at some range of tasks, then what is it?

Short answer - I do not know. Slightly longer answer - maybe it isn't really anything (any thing) at all. Perhaps I'm an intellectual nihilist :wink:

To be honest, I'm inclined to agree.

I think intelligence, in the way we use the word, must mean something like 'the ability to successfully (and perhaps also efficiently) carry out some task or other which is not exclusively learnt by muscle-memory'

Hence my conclusion that on this simple level, intelligence can be tested - simply set a mixed range of such tasks and the person who succeeds at most, the most efficiently is the most intelligent.

Its complicated by two things. The first is that intelligence usually must act on knowledge. We must do something with the known facts to produce the result. So if we're claiming to be testing something innate, the only way to do so would be to ensure all examinees have exactly the same knowledge. Pretty much impossible, I think.

The second complication (which the anecdote is really about) comes from the fact that acquiring knowledge, practicing problem solving (in whatever field from maths to music), and even taking intelligence tests, are themselves all part of the larger task (that of living life). So one could conceivably do well in any of these specific tasks, but actually doing well in any of them is not a particularly successful way of solving the overarching problem that they are just a small part of.

Its like an engineer building a really efficient aircraft engine which consequently is too heavy for the aircraft to carry. We would like to applaud his skill in creating such an efficient engine, but really putting all that time and effort into fuel-efficiency without considering weight wasn't very smart. Similarly, dedicating one's life to solving p vs np whilst neglecting to solve the need for companionship, family, sunshine, good food and physical excersice, would equally not be very smart.

Should have tagged you in to the above response. It's aimed at your comment too.

I didn't measure anything and I did not even compare your "wether" with a correctly typed "whether". — MetaphysicsNow

Our disagreement seems to be based upon your more narrow definition of the word 'to measure', You seem to apply it as something that only is about determining quantity. Perhaps if you reconsider my statements under this definition of measure : the act or process of ascertaining the extent, dimensions, or quantity of something;
In case of determining wether an 's' or a 'z' is spelled, you made a measurement of what you saw. Otherwise, how could you tell the two apart?

Now I understand that you do not understand statistics. If you don't understand statistics, then you won't even know what IQ tests are about. Why are you arguing if you don't know IQ tests? — FLUX23

Why are you assuming it is me who doesn't understand statistics? As long as you don't provide a decent argument for your assumption, you are just poisoning the well.
I might just as easily assume that it is you who doesn't understand statistics to the degree required to understand me correctly, and don't know enough about how iq tests are made and applied to give an accurate response. An assertion that at least is substanciated by the fact that you failed provide any actual counterargument to my statements, but instead opted for an ad hominem fallacy.

I refer you to my final reply to FLUX23 - I believe you must have a very specific theory of mind-brain identity involving a very specific definition of "measurement" and probably some representational view of perception such that merely in seeing something, a measurement is always being made. Under any run-of-the-mill notion of "measurement" seeing and "s" on a page and measuring an "s" on a page are entirely different kinds of activities.

No, that won't work either. — SophistiCat

Sure it works. It works for bodylenght, so why not for intelligence. If we want to determine whether someone is short or tall, we compare them to the average height. Next to this we can express their height in cm or inches, the latter doesn't tell whether someone is tall or short without a known average.

In case of children we even correct the measured lenght for age, same as with iq tests. Why assume it won't work if the same appraoch clearly works for other things we measure?

And when you recognise that you have made a mistake (if you ever do) do you thereby measure that fact? — MetaphysicsNow

The measuring preceeds the recognision.

The questioning of IQ validity is an evidence of low IQ. — Belter

I'd argue that the questioning of iq validity is evidence of high iq, but that total dismissal of iq validity is evidence of low iq. The first is about separating baby from bathwater, the second is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

And the only thing that IQ tests have ever been able to tell about anyone is how good or bad they are at taking IQ tests. — MetaphysicsNow


This the wrong point. Why IQ tests are different to other psychological ones? The questioning of IQ validity is an evidence of low IQ. — Belter

Exactly, the first statement is as useless as stating "the only thing math tests have ever been able to tell about anyone is how good or bad they are at taking math tests"
Ignoring the fact that it also tells something about the participants math skills.
The more relevant question is: how accurate are the tests?

If you are right, then the word "intelligent" would never have exited, much less used by anyone. It is because we have some (vague) concept of intelligence that we can use the word. — FLUX23

Odd that you seem to think I don't understand statistics, while we at least seem to agree on this statement. Perhaps your reply was adressed at someone else?

If you think that IQ tests are bad designed, so they are not scientifically valid, you should show some kind of evidence. If your argument is that empirical science is inherently "invalid" in some grade, it is a selection fallacy or a kind of general skepticism equally fallacious.

Basically, we don't look inside anyone's head for intelligence. If we judge it at all we judge it by the things people successfully do. Put a series of those sorts of things in a test and, by default, you do indeed have a device for measuring the thing we're calling 'intelligence'. Either that, or admit that we really don't know what sort of thing an intelligent person should be able to successfully do, and so abandon the idea that we have any means of measuring it, neither intuitive nor quantitative — Pseudonym

Agreed, though the fact that we speak about intelligence in a discriminating way, prooves that at least the ones who do this have at least some intuitive way of quantification they believe to be true enough to talk about it. Iq tests are merely an attempt to make such measurements more objective.

Your theory about IQ (predictable by people's belief about IQ tests) is not plausible. I said that dismissed IQ tests shows low IQ ironically. IQ is predicted by IQ tests, but of course not exclusively. Science always tends to go beyond the present knowledge, so we do not have reason to assume that present tests are the best.

Under any run-of-the-mill notion of "measurement" seeing and "s" on a page and measuring an "s" on a page are entirely different kinds of activities — MetaphysicsNow

I agree on this, since it's very possible to see an s on a page without recognizing it as an s, especially to total illiterate people who don't even have a concept of what an 's' is. You can only start the measurement after seeing the 's'. So the chronological order is: 1 seeing the 's' 2 measureing the shape of the 's' 3 recognizing the 's'. Three steps you have trained your brain to perform within a second, wich someone unfamiliar with the letter 's' has not. Kids spend years in school to train this skill, so eventually some even can get it trained up to the level that they are able to read up to 500 words a minute accurately. Where at the start, even when all letters in the alfabet are known, it can take my 8 year old niece over a minute to read a 5 word sentence. Since she is less skilled at measuring the letters, and on occasion still confuses letters that look similar. d and p for instance are the same shape, just 180 degrees rotated. though when letters are the horizontal flip of each other it is still harder to her (like d and b, or p and q)

A little story which I'm sure you will have heard in different guises but I think is apt here. A homesteader being told about Einstein commented that whilst he (the homesteader) had lived a long and happy life, working outdoors and enjoying whatever life handed him, having a loving wife and three happy children, Einstein had worked at often menial jobs, could not sustain a marriage, had little or no relationship with his children and died racked with guilt about his part in the atomic bomb. Who's the most intelligent? — Pseudonym

Isn't that the difference between intelligence (~ the ability to "work with complexity") and wisdom (~ the ability to make things "work out fine for you")? You don't need to be intelligent to be wise, and intelligence certainly doesn't guarantee wisdom.

If people agree with the rough definition that intelligence has something to do with handling complexity, then we could also move away from testing intelligence via success at tasks. That always sort of bothers me, because there are types of mistakes you only make when you're smart enough for them ("overthinking"). Similarly, someone determined to believe a very simple thing can resist being convinced more easily, if their thought patterns can outmaneuver those of the people who are trying to convince them: Intelligence allows for successful rationalisation of appealing nonsense.

One might also predict that the more intelligent you are, the more easily bored you get by performing simple tasks. Things like that.

Basically, intelligence isn't always an advantage and can often work against you in terms of wisdom. I think any definition of intelligence should allow for self-defeating intelligent behaviour.

So, basically, the Einstein of that anecdote is definitely intelligent, but maybe not that wise, while we have no information whatsoever about the homesteader's intelligence, we could learn a thing or two from his wisdom.

I'm not sure that's entirely how I see it, but it definitely goes in that direction.

the fact that we speak about intelligence in a discriminating way, prooves that at least the ones who do this have at least some intuitive way of quantification they believe to be true enough to talk about it. — Tomseltje

Not necessarily. This would require a presumption that the intention of the language user is to accurately communicate some fact. Given what we know of human psychology, I think that's probably unlikely.

That's essentially the distinction I'm suggesting is confused. I can't really conceive of 'intellugence' as a latent ability to deal with complexity. Both mathematics and music are complex in their own ways yet there are those good at one but not the other. Surely if they were possessed of some abstract ability they would be innately good at both?

It seems, at the very least, that latent abilities are more diverse than one measure can capture.

In addition though, I find the traditional distinction between intelligence and wisdom that you've outlined problematic. If we accept wisdom as being the ability to arrive at the 'right' answer to some problem, then 'intelligence' is left defining something that I'm not sure justifies any distinction.

If we say that an intelligent man will be able to solve a maths problem, but a wise man would be able to work out that the problem itself is a waste of time and instead simply enjoy his day, then all we're really saying is that intelligence is the ability to solve a fairly narrow and arbitrarily defined set of problems.

The problem "what should I do with my day?" is solved best by the wise man, the problem "what note should follow this one?" is solved best by the musician, the problem "which shape comes next in this sequence...?" is solved best by the intelligent person. This seems to describe how the words are used, but then not the wider meaning attached to 'intelligent',which is always something more than just 'good at solving a specific range of problems'.

Your theory about IQ (predictable by people's belief about IQ tests) is not plausible. — Belter

Wich theory would that be, and why don't you consider it to be plausible? I don't have any theory on my name as far as I know, I merely refer to scientific theories commonly known within the scientific community that researches iq validity. All I have to add to those are hypothesis at best.

Not necessarily. This would require a presumption that the intention of the language user is to accurately communicate some fact. Given what we know of human psychology, I think that's probably unlikely. — Pseudonym

Not sure what you are getting at. Of course it's not nessesarily the case at every instance, since people can be dishonest when they speak. One of the assumptions would be that the speaker isn't being intentionally dishonest for instance, if that's what you meant.

Both mathematics and music are complex in their own ways yet there are those good at one but not the other. Surely if they were possessed of some abstract ability they would be innately good at both? — Pseudonym

Next to intelligence, some education on the subject is required. People who are good at both, and have an interest in their simularities, can give very interesting talks about the mathematical components in music.

If you think that IQ tests are bad designed, so they are not scientifically valid, you should show some kind of evidence. If your argument is that empirical science is inherently "invalid" in some grade, it is a selection fallacy or a kind of general skepticism equally fallacious. — Belter

I stated none of the sort. On the contrary, I think iq tests have been designed very carefully. I just think that the complexity of something as intelligence results in the iq tests having a greater error margin than for instance measuring cylinders as used in chemistry. Wich has been substanciated by my comparison of the error margins used in both. Since where we have measuring cylinders that measure up to 100 ml with an error margin of only 0,2 ml wich means an error margin of only 0,2% when measuring 100 ml , our best iq test still have an error margin of 15 points, resulting in an error margin of 15% on an iq score of 100.

Perhaps my formulation has been abit clumsy, but I got my critisism on iq test from scientific sources. My point is that we still have much to improve on iq tests to increase their accuracy, before they are just as accurate as measuring cylinders used in chemistry. Perhaps intelligence is too comlex we ever reach that level of accuracy, but I'm convinced they can be improved at least to the degree that we end up with an error margin that is half of what it is now.

Three steps you have trained your brain to perform within a second, wich someone unfamiliar with the letter 's' has not. Kids spend years in school to train this skill, so eventually some even can get it trained up to the level that they are able to read up to 500 words a minute accurately.

Even if it is true that to obtain the skill of recognising an "s" requires measuring (and again, I insist that if it does then a very technical use of the notion of measuring is being used) it does not follow that proficiency in that skill once gained requires continual measuring. See my example of a violin player who at the beginning has to concentrate very hard on the exact positioning of fingers on the fingerboard, but who - when fully proficient - no longer needs to concentrate on the exact positioning of his or her fingers, they just hit the right spot.

Wich theory would that be, and why don't you consider it to be plausible? — Tomseltje

Scientific theories are supported by empirical data. You have not data (I suppose) of your claim.

My point is that we still have much to improve on iq tests to increase their accuracy — Tomseltje

It is possible, but again you do not show any evidence. You should cite any actual IQ tests, how the are designed, etc. For me the your is not the scientific way of questioning validity (which in addition can be either "internal" -reliability- or "external" -generality-).

I'm not sure if, or how much I disagree with you here. A simplification: if we have (taking my rough definitions as a base) antonym pairs of:

simple-minded -- intelligent

and

foolish -- wise

We get four combinations:

A simple-minded fool
A simple-minded wise man
An intelligent fool
An intelligent wise man

Since I don't have problems coming up with stereotypical fictional characters for either of those types, the distinction is meaningful for me. How? That's a difficult question.

In your anecdote, I see the homesteader as a simple-minded wise man who sees Einstein as an intelligent fool (and who doesn't make the distinction I make).

None of that says what intelligence or wisdom actually is, much less that it is a single trait, or a latent ability. If I take the anecdote at face value, though, and I only have "intelligence" to work with, I find the anecdote much harder to read. "Intelligence" turns into a measure of success, and success is abstract enough that it encompasses both coming up with the theories of relativity and finding contentment in life. I'm not sure what to do with that reading.

Part of my motivation to reply in the first place, is a problem I had with many posts in this thread: a focus on success as a measure of intelligence. I'd like a definition of intelligence that allows me to ask questions like "Under what circumstances does higher intelligence make you more successful? When does higher intelligence become an obstacle?"

For example, if intelligence does have something to do with complexity, then an intelligent person is more likely to mistake a simple problem for a complex one than a simple-minded person, which makes the simple-minded person more likely to successfully solve a simple problem, or be more efficient at solving that problem (because no unneccesary thoughts get in the way).

Now, if we view intelligence as a measure for problem-solving success, we can't meaningfully address these questions. That's my prime problem with IQ tests: they predict success, but don't allow me to look at the relationship between intelligence and success because of that.

Of course, the problem might be that my conception of intelligent is... highly ideosyncratic to begin with. Take language: never mind being a "good" writer; even using language the way every five-year-old does is a highly complex activity. If I ever get serious about "intelligence having something to do with handling complexity" I have to address this distinction between using a complex system and holding its representation in your mind - praxis vs. analysis. It's definitely not a simple task. I'm not convinced yet it's a worthwhile task.

To the topic at hand, I'm highly skeptical of IQ tests, but I've never got the impression that the IQ was supposed to be a metric scale, more like an ordinal scale with huge overlapping categories. I mean, IQ tests come in modules, and everyone who's ever taken such a test has probably found some of those modules easier (I suck at the ones which require spatial perception). Two people with the same score do not have the same abilities in the same way that two people of the same height are equally tall. And I don't think anyone's ever pretended it did. So even if we're talking about IQ tests as they are, we're not talking about a single measure - at least not in the same sense as height or weight.

Why are you assuming it is me who doesn't understand statistics? As long as you don't provide a decent argument for your assumption, you are just poisoning the well.
I might just as easily assume that it is you who doesn't understand statistics to the degree required to understand me correctly, and don't know enough about how iq tests are made and applied to give an accurate response. An assertion that at least is substanciated by the fact that you failed provide any actual counterargument to my statements, but instead opted for an ad hominem fallacy. — Tomseltje

Well, I am not assuming you don't understand statistics. I am assuring you that you don't understand statistics.

I am a photochemistry/photophysics guy who uses quantum mechanics and statistics for life, with a formal education. Plus a PhD if you are not convinced. Of course, I am not saying I am absolutely right (I can be wrong), but I have a good background to say you are wrong.

But fair enough, here's why:

If by accurate you mean there is no error margin, they are inaccurate, but the same goes for measuring liquids in a measuring cylinder. The only difference is that measuring cylinders used in chemistry are less inaccurate than iq tests. — Tomseltje

I used the common definition of "accuracy" meant for laymans. There is a difference between "precision" and "accuracy". To give you the answer, I was talking about BOTH "accuracy" and "precision" and these two are different. However, you confused "accuracy" with "precision". Being unable to comprehend this correctly based on my post, even though these two are are explicitly explained in my post, shows that you either do not have definitive concept to understand this, or just simply not well trained.

The concept of accuracy and precision is one of the most basic things you learn in statistics. It is most likely one of the first things you learn in statistics classes as well. That is the level of understanding you will need to be able to talk about something like IQ tests, because IQ test is based on statistics.

(It seems like in psychology, terms like "validity" and "reliability" are being used to talk about "accuracy" and "precision", but of course I am not a psychology guy and I don't think these terminology is relevant here.)

Odd that you seem to think I don't understand statistics, while we at least seem to agree on this statement. Perhaps your reply was adressed at someone else? — Tomseltje

Well I agree with the specific statement you referred to in the quote. But that has nothing to do with what I said above.