Talk:Intelligence

Intelligence as seen by other cultures

This article needs an addition that describes how other cultures conceive of intelligence

Definition of Intelligence

I understand that different researchers have their differing views on defining intelligence depending on what aspect they like to do their research in - they probably enjoy defining something different to the other researchers to distinguish themselves - but as a global encyclopedia we don't do a good job of defining it. We see wiki-pages on these aspects linking to each other with no overall framework. I am no expert here and I am sure there are more learned minds than my own on this topic, but I am going to propose something for those minds to ponder. From the field of General systems theory (which began in biology) we have a simple framework of input, process, output (a system). Applying this to the topic of intelligence, I see the following:

• Input: Perception - this includes the senses and how they function, and attention (no use having senses if you cannot focus attention on some issue or threat)
• Process: Cognition - this includes perception, plus those processes that undertake analysis, assessment, learning, and storage into memory (what the senses detected has now been processed)
• Output: Intelligence - this includes cognition and is the application of what has been learned and stored in memory now being applied - along with other capabilities - to solve problems in the environment,

This article is tagged as Current status: Delisted good article. It is past time to start changing that. Regards, William Harris • talk • 21:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I have been gathering encyclopedic sources on the topic of this article to guide us in reframing the definitions and to guide us in what subtopics to emphasize. What reliable sources on the topic of intelligence do you recommend to editors of this article? See my Intelligence Citations source list for examples of useful sources. (The list itself doesn't list everything I have found recently, as I need to update the list again.) What sources have you found? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello WeijiBaikeBianji. If you thought that I am here to provide you with more definitions for your ever-growing and endless collection, then you are mistaken. Imagine a time when you have collected every definition on the planet - and new ones keep being published once you have - what do you intend to do with them, invite editors to review about 20 pages of definitions? They are struggling with the dozen published on the page now. As for the standard of the current sage advice - for example that intelligence is "good sense, practical sense" - that is absolutely useless to a reader. Regards, William Harris • talk • 01:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I haven't put any of the current definitions in the article, and there are certainly too many so far. But it will be reliable sources that guide us about what to include and what to trim from this article. I've mostly just watched this article for a long time, editing it only a little so far. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello WeijiBaikeBianji. It would appear that you and I are the only two people on this talk page - at this time - that are willing to say something about this matter. My interest is that I have been doing some editing on Dog behavior which got me thinking about animal intelligence, a search on that term redirects users to Animal cognition, which was poorly defined and we see the confusion between what is intelligence and what is cognition straight away. I concur that reliable sources must be used. I have no citations in mind and was proposing a framework that might guide the decision on a definition by others. On further reading, what I was proposing is similar to the second sentence of the article, however that has no citation and is not repeated or elaborated on further in the article - someone in the past has just dropped it where it now sits. When you are ready to propose something please let my know by calling my username William Harris on this page, as I have no special interest in this article and do not have a watch in place on it. I will lend support to a proposal to make changes based on reliable sources, and I would recommend some bold editing by you in the meantime! Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Section: Culture's influence on intelligence (second paragraph needs work)

Intelligence and culture is most widely studied in humans. There are not any known studies that exam the culture and intelligence of non-human or plant life in the same way. These are psychological terms that are most easily identified in humans. ----The previous statement needs editing and to be removed. There are several such studies of culture in animals such as primates and crowes. Ones that investigate the conception and transmission of learned skills. ie. Tool making.

The second paragraph is quoted above. The bold remarks were added on 22:57, July 15, 2015‎ by 24.89.93.170 I've created a welcoming talk page for this IP user, and asked him to join us in rewriting the paragraph, as well as suggesting registering an account. (all this after removing the request for improvement from the article. — Neonorange (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The entire article needs a lot of work, and gathering current, reliable, secondary sources and then improving the article based on those sources would be a big help to the project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, that, too. But let's not scare new editors! How about working on a framework on which to hang the fruits of that search? — Neonorange (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

As someone said above (more than two years ago) that entire section read like somoene's paper in university. Better delete the whole thing and start from scratch than try to rescue a misguided personal essay that never belonged here in the first place. If you stop and think about it, the section, if it belonged at all, would have been as a subsection of Human intelligence, not as subtopic of the general subject, which covers everything from AI to animals. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"Intelligence"

This article needs more details. Its main weakness is that it does not reflect the various types of intelligences that exist or how they are measured.

References

Baş, G., & Beyhab, Ö. (2017). Effects of multiple intelligences supported project-based learning on students’ achievement levels and attitudes towards English lesson. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(3), 365-386.

Gardner, H. (2018). Multiple approaches to understanding. In Contemporary Theories of Learning (pp. 129-138). New York, NY: Routledge.

Martin, J. (2018). Profiting from multiple intelligences in the workplace. New York, NY: Routledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabella De Marchena (talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

g-factor

"Studies have shown that g is responsible for 47% of the individual variance in cognitive ability measures in primates and between 55% and 60% of the variance in mice. These values are similar to the accepted variance in IQ explained by g in humans (40-50%)." This statement is risible. g-factor is an abstraction, it no more is responsible for variance than the lines representing roads on a map are responsible for traffic accidents. Correlation is not causation and the map is not the territory. The g-factor is not a concrete measurable. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be used (where it is appropriate), just that if it is appropriate here, then the reason should be made clear. That is, aside from one more measure of IQ, what does it bring to the discussion? (In point of fact, the Wiki. article on g-factor claims it is both a measure of both general (cognitive) intelligence which interacts with narrow skill competence AND contrarily that it the best measure of competence but that specific aptitude tests do not add to predictive ability of g towards performance.) I question if g adds anything to any discussion of intelligence, but if it does a better job than IQ, then that should be made explicit. Finally, it correlates with the variation of the results BETWEEN individuals' average performance, which is quite a different thing than "individual variance".72.16.99.93 (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)