[Insert Discussion Thread Title Here, Sunstone. Don't Forget!]

[Sunstone]

Perhaps you will find this an interesting challenge for a discussion... As you might know, IQ is a relative measure of human intelligence (or at least, certain kinds of human intelligence -- depending on where you come down on the issue of what such tests measure). That is, an IQ test does NOT measure absolute intelligence, but only intelligence relative to something. In the case of the tests, that 'something' is other people.

So, for example, an IQ of 100, which is average, means (1) half of all people taking the test are 'smarter' than you, (2) half are 'dumber' than you, and (3) you are twice as 'smart' as me. To recap, it dos not mean you are smart or dumb, it means you are smart or dumb relative to other people.

So, here's the question... How would you test, measure, or define human intelligence in absolute terms? Assuming it's possible. Any ideas?




Albert Einstein had many things to say about human intelligence, but one of the things he said might suggest an absolute standard by which to judge it. To paraphrase, he described intelligence as the ability to adapt to change. Do you find that a useful definition?

 

[Dawnofhope]

In a generic sense many tasks we approach on a day to day basis are intelligence tests. This OP is a challenge to our intellectual faculties as to how we may consider your question, provide some analysis and express thoughts in a brief post. That all fits with Albert Einstein’s definition of adapting to change.

Formal IQ tests have their practical uses. They may enable an employer to determine the likelihood a job applicant with perform in some roles. I was once given an IQ test when applying with an IT job and later airforce pilot in my late teens. They could be of assistance in determining the likelihood of performing in some educational courses. They have value in determining disability and the cognitive effects of some neurological conditions.

 

[Heyo]

So, here's the question... How would you test, measure, or define human intelligence in absolute terms? Assuming it's possible. Any ideas?

That's simple: by not normalizing the results. IQ is only a relative measure because it is set up to be so.

 

[ChristineM]

First see who comments on the title of this thread...

Next, ask them to have a 10 minute discussion with @Sunstone and let him be the arbiter.

Third don't compare the results to everyone else who Sunstone speaks to, i.e. keep the scores individual.

 

[Rye_P]

So, here's the question... How would you test, measure, or define human intelligence in absolute terms? Assuming it's possible. Any ideas?

Simple, watch their behaviour during the pandemic.

Take precautions as needed (not excessive) : Smart
Take precautions but occasionally forget about it : Normal
Ignore any precautions because God will protect them / because Covid-19 is just a government conspiracy : Their IQ is far off the star until we can't count it up

 

[Secret Chief]

Perhaps you will find this an interesting challenge for a discussion... As you might know, IQ is a relative measure of human intelligence (or at least, certain kinds of human intelligence -- depending on where you come down on the issue of what such tests measure). That is, an IQ test does NOT measure absolute intelligence, but only intelligence relative to something. In the case of the tests, that 'something' is other people.

So, for example, an IQ of 100, which is average, means (1) half of all people taking the test are 'smarter' than you, (2) half are 'dumber' than you, and (3) you are twice as 'smart' as me. To recap, it dos not mean you are smart or dumb, it means you are smart or dumb relative to other people.

So, here's the question... How would you test, measure, or define human intelligence in absolute terms? Assuming it's possible. Any ideas?




Albert Einstein had many things to say about human intelligence, but one of the things he said might suggest an absolute standard by which to judge it. To paraphrase, he described intelligence as the ability to adapt to change. Do you find that a useful definition?

Bah, what did he know? I do not consider there to be an absolute test, "intelligence" is too broad to be hemmed in by one test. As to his definition....people who cannot seemingly adapt (whatever that may mean) can, of course, be intelligent. So where does that leave the suggested definition?

 

[SalixIncendium]

As one who has defied the axiom that an IQ can't be scored in the negative integers, I really don't have anything to say on the subject. But since you clearly forgot your reminder for the title, may I suggest "RF Members: The Most Qualified in the World to Create an Objective and Absolute Measure of Intelligence"?

 

[Koldo]

That's simple: by not normalizing the results. IQ is only a relative measure because it is set up to be so.

This. Just this.

 

[PureX]

How would you test, measure, or define human intelligence in absolute terms? Assuming it's possible. Any ideas?

That's easy. I would measure it against omniscience. (You asked; "assuming that's possible".)

 

[sun rise]

Absolute terms? Compare it to the rest of the animal kingdom in a real world test.

Does the human have the ability to get what he or she wants more or less successfully than a cat sitting on a chest meowing loudly at 5am and kneeding some flesh?

Does the human have the ability to extract human goodies as successful as a dog who uses pleading eyes and a hopeful tail wag and a head tilted 'just so'?

My thesis is that many humans are less 'intelligent' than dogs and cat when it comes to real-world success.

 

[McBell]

Absolute terms? Compare it to the rest of the animal kingdom in a real world test.

Does the human have the ability to get what he or she wants more or less successfully than a cat sitting on a chest meowing loudly at 5am and kneeding some flesh?

Does the human have the ability to extract human goodies as successful as a dog who uses pleading eyes and a hopeful tail wag and a head tilted 'just so'?

My thesis is that many humans are less 'intelligent' than dogs and cat when it comes to real-world success.

Seems to me that you are merely shifting the results from being based on other people to being based on animals.
Would not an absolute include both other people and animals?

 

[Vinayaka]

I think of mind as having several components ... let's say 100 for discussion purposes. In that 10 by 10 grid, each box has a score in it, from 0 to 10. A person's 'intelligence' might be the sum total of all of those, if we could measure them all. The problem is we can't measure them all. All people have variations in all the boxes.

In my teaching career of almost 30 years, I spent a great deal of time with over 600 people, the students. They were all unique, having different numbers in each of those boxes. I can give a couple of striking examples. One young man I taught struggled in school, and for 7th grade got transferred to another school where a special district program was set up. His IQ testing had been low, really low. We played volleyball against that school, and my team had to focus on him. He was their setter (the kid who passes it to the spiker) We had to watch him like a hawk, as he had a set of eyes in the back of his head which enabled him to see our holes, or weak spots. He tipped the ball to empty spots on us all night long. At a tournament another coach commented how smart he was.

I could give another 20 examples of a rare and unique intelligence in a low-scoring child. At the same time I can give another 20 of kids who scored really high on IQ, but also did some really stupid things. My conclusion, after that 30 years was, 'Who knows?"

 

[MNoBody]

adaptability seems useful [plus those who do not adapt win the darwin award]
[note- people often prove to be "speciality" smart, yet generally dumb about everything else]