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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
I suggest we remove the new part "Culture's Influence on Intelligence". The citations are not correctly and the content seem to be weird, it talk about herbal medicine. Furthermore it have claims that are totally unsourced like: "More specifically, culture shapes intelligence. However, research shows that there is not one culture that has more intellect than the other.". I suggest we remove it and rewrite it correctly.ParanoidLemmings (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The real issue is that nobody with an interest in this page has critically read this piece of writing, which appears to be from someone's uni assignment. There are a number of assumptions and inferences made by the writer that are not supported by the cited material and these should have been detected early. Regards, William Harris • talk • 21:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
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 22.214.171.124 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)