One underlying theme in Stephen J. Gould's, MISMEASURE OF MAN, involves measuring intelligence. Gould claims that we make a great mistake when we try to reify the notion of intelligence. (This means to make a real thing out of an idea or theory). With intelligence, we even created a numerical index, the I.Q. or Intelligence Quotient, that supposedly indicates how "smart" a person is. What follows, is a set of notes designed to start you thinking about what intelligence really is.
|
When you have finished reading these notes, I want you to reflect on this question: Is the notion of intelligence a relative concept that depends on the society one lives in; or is it an absolute that remains constant across all societies? What is your opinion of your instructor's conceptualization of "intelligence" in Part II, below? Is it a relative definition or is it something that is absolute that can be applied across all societies? |
I. This is a simple exercise to start you thinking about the meaning of intelligence.
A. The
difference between real and operational definitions:
1. Real definitions get at the true essence of something.
2. Operational definitions are
convenient measures that may or may not measure what they're supposed to. For
example, does the Dow Jones Industrial Average actually measure the overall
performance of the Stock Market in general?
B. In the past, people have come up with some pretty far-fetched operational definitions of intelligence. Some examples:
1. Brain Size (volume, weight, etc.)-- The assumption here was that
bigger brains are "smarter."
2. Brain Shape (physical dimensions, number of "convolutions", etc.)-- Here, the idea was that more "complex" brains were "smarter."
a. These approaches seem ludicrous today because we recognize that there is no correlation between brain size and brain-power. But in the last century most scientists accepted this assumption and delighted in the ability to measure such things as size and shape very precisely.
3. Today, researchers define intelligence according to performance on
certain tests—most notably "IQ". The items on these tests are
selected according to what the researcher believes is the definition of
intelligence. But this can vary—across time and across culture. Is there
such a thing as a test that is NOT culturally biased? Much debate surrounds
this issue.
a. If we define intelligence as performance in school (assuming all schools
have the same basic curriculum), then we can come up with a measure that may
predict or summarize school performance.
b. But what about the truly gifted musician, poet, artist, dancer, singer?-- Many of these people, clearly heads and shoulders above the rest of us in their talents, do poorly in school. Are they stupid—unintelligent?
II. This is an example of one attempt to come up with a real definition of intelligence. (Remember, a real definition is something that gets at the true essence of the subject).
A. Basically I’m
working from a model that says that intelligence is making the right choices
all the time—whether it is taking a test, or surviving a hostile
environment. But some people equate intelligence with
creativity—conceiving something that is entirely NEW that adds to our
understanding of physical and social phenomena. Others relate it to the ability
to get things done quickly, efficiently, without incurring large social or
physical costs.
1. Whom do we regard as
intelligent people? (Newton, Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Hawkings,
probably rank at the top of the list of Physicists in this century; Churchill,
the two Roosevelt(s), the two Ghandi’s, come to mind as political figures in the 20th
century who were able to accomplish important social goals. (You can see this
writer’s biases here). In the field of journalism, others may
include William F. Buckley; George Will; and Katherine Graham. In the field of
sports we have figures like Bill Bradley, Kurt Flood, Reggie Jackson, etc.
B. Using a computer as an
analogy, what must we have to make a really "smart" computer?
1. We need a fast central processing unit (CPU) that can handle large amounts of information very quickly and always come up with the correct answer based upon the information input. The CPU must be able to make sound judgments by sifting the wheat from the chaff—important and relevant information from the trivial—flawlessly.
2. We need a lot of
memory and very accurate memory storage. In other words, we need a facility
that can store a
3. Equally, we need an information storage and retrieval system that is fast, accurate and can handle huge amounts of information quickly. The CPU must be guaranteed that it can access and store information at will at all times.
4. We’re not
done yet! We need sensors that can detect information from the outside world
and process it accurately so that it gets stored in the right place and is
given the right level of priority. You have to be able to see what is really out
there and this often involves judgment, so the interplay between sensors, CPU,
and memory must be interlaced effectively.
C. I think that most would agree that the above components would make a very "intelligent" computer but does the analogy apply to humans?
