do you believe in general "IQ" or do you think intelligence is specific?

Question

Researchers are still debating this (at harvard, nonetheless) and i am just curious what non-researchers think.

"specific" intelligence means you might be great at fashion design, statistics, or computer programming, but horrible at cooking, writing papers, or analyzing historical documents...or vice versa.

Answer 1

both... but there are clearly specific pockets of intelligence. i think people are just born good at math or good at art... it is pretty clear since 1st grade that there are specific dimensions of intelligence, though they all probably draw on some domain general ability like memory capacity.

Answer 2

Intelligence, I think, is specific AND general. Every person has "gifts" or "abilities" that is unique to them. These people excel in those things. Their IQ in those things would be off the charts, but take the same person, and test their general IQ, and it might be lower than normal. I don't like general IQ tests for a couple reasons: One is that they are time-specific; a person's IQ is different from one moment to the next. Also, a person gets a stigma attached to them with specific numbers of their IQ. A person with an IQ of 80 is called dumb, and probably will develop poor self esteem. A person with an IQ of 190 usually becomes cocky and looks down on others. A person with a 115 IQ might also get poor self-esteem, being like most other people, not being "their own person".
A person shouldn't know their own IQ, so they can live their life without another person's opinion running their life.
I speak as one who took an IQ test when I was younger, and years later, finally decided it didn't matter. I wasn't unhappy with the score, but it made me think that other people might be.

Answer 3

Of course there is "General Intelligence." This is because they test for a 'series' of skills, such as spatial, language, math, and other skills. Then they take the values and give the "general quotient for intelligence." However, this works only for Western Society and those raised within it. Why? Because we are the ones taught these specific things. What would an Amazonian Tribesman need to know about folding boxes or what number comes next in a series? While we no longer need to know how to hunt, fish or kill and clean our food to live. So, for different societies, other tests would have to be made. I myself would fail miserable at one that the tribesman would excel! So, we see here that intelligence is relative.

I do not believe that fashion and other gifts are intelligence. I believe they are 'aided' by intelligence and skill. Things such as spatial skills, mathmatical gifts and other things help in figuring out how much material you need, how to cut the cloth to get the maximum use from it, etc. But the skills are already there and are in no way related to fashion only.

Great question.

Answer 4

There is no such thing as general intelligence.

Would we call Bush an intelligent man?

Would we call Blair an intelligent man?

Was Mother Theresa an intelligent woman?

What psychologists mean by intelligence is a person's ability to performs certain tasks under certain conditions. What they test is not intelligence at all.

As a human race are we intelligent? Are we destroying the place we need for our future generations?

Would be still have wars if we were intelligent?

Being literate, numerate and technological does not imply intelligence.

Answer 5

I think it is general intelligence, but we make it specific.With that I mean most of us are born with probably the same intelligence, but we have to decide how much we are going to use. And this we do with what we like and dislike, how lazy we are. If I want to become a fashion designer I don't need to know anything about software do I. And if I want to be a engineer what has that to do with making clothes. If I like math, and hate English which one will I excel at. If you are lazy ad don't want to activate your brain, then you will be called stupid or just be happy with what you have. Yet you have those of us who love to know everything so they learn everything. There are all so those who can learn faster then others, but that doesn't make a real difference. Because if you haven't not test those who have to work harder then others are at the top. That is just what I think.

Answer 6

I think that IQ tests are somewhat valid, as long as they cover all the different areas and tasks that the brain can perform, and not just focus on one thing, like math or patterns.... but mostly I think that IQ tests are bogus.

I have friends who know everything there is to know about history... it just came naturally... where and I can't remember any of that stuff- but I am extreemely smart in my own ways. It seems obvious to me that intelligence is specific.. I would like to hear the argument disagreeing with me, though. could be interesting.

Answer 7

I think IQ is culturally exclusive in some respects.. Do you think that Einstein would have known what a barbie was?I like roger Gardiner's 7 intelligences theories however. Good reading

Answer 8

I've forgotten the reference, but now there are supposed to be SEVEN distinct and mutually separate measures of what we call "intelligence."

Personally, I think it's about time we stopped pigeonholing people with a single number - instead of looking at the whole person.

Answer 9

I wouldn't dare begin to question the power of the brain. If you really want to do something, and you are passionate about it, I don't believe that you could fail.