|Intelligence was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|Current status: Delisted good article|
|Intelligence has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Biology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Biology||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
Intelligence as seen by other cultures
This article needs an addition that describes how other cultures conceive of intelligence
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 184.108.40.206 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)
- 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)
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.
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)
"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".220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)