Is Intelligence (like how smart you are, not the other kind) concrete or?

Question

ephemeral? Is it static or dynamic? Why do we measure someone's intelligence by what they DO know instead of by how much they DON'T know?

Here's a link to Dictionary.com for those who had trouble with the big words. (But you can still be my friends!)

http://dictionary.reference.com/...

Measuring what you don't know could be done for subjects like math and science where there is a core of knowledge that could be tested against (i.e.: for math, there are theories and equations that one's knowledge could be tested against: You either know them or you don't).
(Wow, I'm sounding really smart today!)

Did I say 'Test' anywhere in my Question? Let me check....no, nowhere does it say Test. It's a question about Intelligence (of which reading comprehension is a part), not tests or numbers, or cultural norms. Go back and read it again, then see if your Answer answers my question. Thanks!

Answer 1

It is both ephemeral and dynamic, IMO (although those two don't really "flow" well, do they)
Your next Q was interesting, because I find it a good indicator of how reliable someone's intelligence is by how liberal they are in admitting what they don't know. (And this would actually apply to both types of intelligence, I would assume, although I have no firsthand experience in the espionage or military world.)

For example, when I got out of nursing school, I knew almost everything about nursing. After nearly 20 years of nursing I began to grasp how much there was to know that I not only didn't know, but probably never would.

One caveat: a certain amount of "native" intelligence could probably be considered static---that which was given to us in our DNA, and during fetal development (did our mothers drink/smoke/eat appropriately during pregnancy) as well as certain other psychogenetic factors...

I can't think anymore...This is not a good full answer, because I keep coming back to the nature/nurture question but don't think that's what you're asking.....
Too tired.
But I'm going to post this anyway....BECAUSE I AT LEAST WANT MY 2 POINTS

Answer 2

Intelligence really is pretty subjective, and the tools we use to measure it are actually ethnocentric. A rocket scientist from China could take the American test and test low, just because s/he may not know American cultural norms or history.

There are also many different kinds of intelligence. Some people excel in the book smarts, while others can read people from a mile away, and others are clueless about anything that isn't mechanical, but can make things work that most of us would never dream of.

Americans need to stop relying on an IQ number to tell us what people can do, and start exploring individual strengths and weaknesses.

Answer 3

You miss the crux of what an IQ test is all about.

2 things:

1. How easy is it for you to learn?
2. How easy is it for you to apply what you've learned to use in solving problems?

#1 is best seen in how well you understand arcane directions and put those new rules to good use doing #2

For that, they give you a score. Mine was in the 175 area. Fat bit of good it did me on a river boat in Viet Nam. Too much beer and dope, and I got that number down to a respectable normal 140 by the end of the war.

Answer 4

IQ exams range & individuals can instruct themselves to get bigger ratings by way of practicing the exams/style of questions however I suppose you perhaps attaching an excessive amount of significance to this degree of intelligence - individuals who've fascinating existence reports & trained reviews are normally a lot higher organization than a few man who turns as much as a get together & states he has an IQ of one hundred fifty (such a lot individuals will immediately suppose he is a complete d*** for bringing up it !!!)

Answer 5

I think intelligence is dynamic. It's definitely a force to be reckoned with (your question, case in point). If it where fleeting or motionless I don't think it would have as much value.

I imagine we measure intelligence by what people know rather than by what they don't know because it's difficult to measure an unknown factor.

Nice question!

Answer 6

it's dynamic. it's a sum of our experiences too and we are, or we should be smarter with every new experience we have. do you think someone could measure what we don't know?

Answer 7

Gee whiz! Don't know me none of them big old words but mebbe if iquit smokin so much herb i'd skore better! lol