Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IOW, pretty arbitrary definition. So now, "intelligence" is defined as the ability to do well academically, more or less. It's not defined as: emotional intelligence, spatial intelligence, intuition and insight, and memory. Memory actually plays a huge role in intelligence, but that's not what the tests measure.
Some psychologists believe there are various kinds of intelligence, including emotional or social intelligence. Others think there is one general type of intelligence that correlates with all the others. No one really knows, there is no complete overall agreement.
Yes memory is an important ingredient in intelligence, but how would you measure that with a standardized multiple choice test? But memory sort of underlies other abilities, so you probably could not do well on these tests without having a decent memory.
It means that intelligence tests mainly ended up being developed to measure and predict ability to do well in school. So that became the definition of "intelligence". Although the non-academic IQ tests do cover a couple of other abilities.
IOW, intelligence is defined as whatever the testers want to test for. If not the ability to do well academically, they could design tests that measure other abilities. That would change or expand the definition of intelligence.
It seems nonsensical, because it is fairly arbitrary. The OP is being brutally honest in admitting that, while most psychologists and test designers don't put it so bluntly, and pretend to be "objective".
It means that intelligence tests mainly ended up being developed to measure and predict ability to do well in school. So that became the definition of "intelligence". Although the non-academic IQ tests do cover a couple of other abilities.
IOW, intelligence is defined as whatever the testers want to test for. If not the ability to do well academically, they could design tests that measure other abilities. That would change or expand the definition of intelligence.
It seems nonsensical, because it is fairly arbitrary. The OP is being brutally honest in admitting that, while most psychologists and test designers don't put it so bluntly, and pretend to be "objective".
That's not how she phrased it, though. She had two different definitions of the same term in one post, with no indication of any "evolution" of the term and as if the post hadn't been proofread at all.
No. A person could have good verbal skills yet be completely illiterate. That is not common today, but it used to be. Without good reading and writing skills, you cannot do well on typical intelligence tests. Especially the ones designed for educated adults, like the SAT and GRE.
I know. I gave that sizing-up-a-situation as another type of intelligence, that isn't covered by the test (except in a certain type of reading comprehension test). It's highly relevant to success in adult life, IMO, or in career success. Or to success in a non-literate society, you're right, there.
That's not how she phrased it, though. She had two different definitions of the same term in one post, with no indication of any "evolution" of the term and as if the post hadn't been proofread at all.
Right. She didn't connect those dots, and left it to the reader to do so, based on the material in-between,I guess. But...yeah.
It mainly feels like an argument leftover from yesterday.
I always learned that intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply information and/or skills. Defining intelligence is different from quantifying it, though.
I was not expressing my opinion. Just telling you how psychologists who specialize in testing define intelligence. Just telling you the facts about what intelligence tests are.
In a different thread, someone said the SAT and GRE can't possibly be intelligence tests. But that is exactly what they are, according to the accepted definitions.
People who never studied psychology sometimes think intelligence, and IQ, are something real. They are just definitions made up by psychologists. And sometimes they think there is something magic about IQ tests, that makes them different from other tests of academic ability. There isn't.
I was suggesting that the definitions were the opinions of the psychologists.
OP - you must realize that the kind of academic questions you're posing are not likely to be answered thoroughly in this kind of forum of mostly laypeople... Based on other posts, I don't think you're looking for a casual conversation just for the fun of it.
OP - you must realize that the kind of academic questions you're posing are not likely to be answered thoroughly in this kind of forum of mostly laypeople... Based on other posts, I don't think you're looking for a casual conversation just for the fun of it.
What are you really hoping to achieve?
I wasn't asking any questions in this post. Just giving the actual definition, which non-psychologists are not usually aware of.
I wasn't asking any questions in this post. Just giving the actual definition, which non-psychologists are not usually aware of.
You may want to consider a blog post then if you're not asking questions or seeking answers but merely to elucidate and entertain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
