Types of intelligence

So there are said to be many different types of intelligences: spacial, musical, mathematical, interpersonal, and others. There could be more we're not aware of. But we don't have many good ways of measuring them, the ones we do have issues. So is it worth trying to measure intelligence, to talk about it, to compare one person to another based on a quality like intelligence when we have so many varying intelligences?

In other words, what good is the idea of intelligence?

In my opinion, the ultimate metric for comparison is merit, or the sum of one's accomplishments. Intelligence is just a subset of potential; having high intelligence makes it easier to do certain tasks and jobs that involve a lot of complexity, but like with any kind of potential, it's not really a worthwhile standard to judge people by.

It can be useful to be able to measure and compare intelligence and other kinds of potential, but it shouldn't be how we judge people. There are people who didn't have a lot of potential who worked really hard and accomplished great things and there are people with a lot of potential who squandered it and did nothing noteworthy. I think the former category is a lot more admirable than the latter.

If we think of merit and accomplishments as output, we could think of or define more narrowly intelligence as an "input" - the cause of potentiating potential, if you will. I think there is am confused about the existence of a degree of all-encompassing intrinsic intelligence, something like IQ.

Maybe a more useful way of thinking about intelligence(s) is like skills in an MMORPG. Life accomplishments are like bosses. Each boss might have certain skills or strategies that work better against it - not all intelligences are equally effective in every scenario. Intelligences that might not work well alone might become effective when paired with another intelligence.

But that analogy doesn't seem very satisfying because it boils down intelligence to equal skill and I'm not sure if that's a good description of what intelligence is.

twocows said:

There are people who didn't have a lot of potential who worked really hard and accomplished great things and there are people with a lot of potential who squandered it and did nothing noteworthy. I think the former category is a lot more admirable than the latter.

Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing that people who try and work hard should be admired, but to be devil's advocate, if there is someone who doesn't really have the aptitude/skills/knowledge/etc. to accomplish a task or meet a goal then would it be helpful to admire (and presumable encourage) their persistence or hard work when the goal is very unlikely to be met?

No one is stupid. People who aren't great at critical thinking or spelling or whatever are likely very clever at something else, like historical knowledge or understanding machinery. I try to measure people's intelligence by their qualities, not their flaws.

Gardner's idea of multiple intelligences is something I agree with in part. There are definitely different aspects of intelligence. The human brain is just far too complex for there not to be. That being said, I really don't believe the idea of "all people are intelligent just in different ways."

I firmly believe everyone has something that they're good at, some area they excel in, but if you're a good athlete, according to Gardner that means you have bodily-kinesthetic intelligence... and I can't really get behind the idea at all.

The way I see it, some people are definitely cleverer than others and some people are just kind of stupid. The main thing, and the positive message in Gardner's theory that I really like, is that this is okay. You don't have to be intelligent, there's going to be something somewhere you're good at.

So what is intelligence? According to the literal definition "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". I'd add to that, that intelligence should also be extended to the ability to think logically and to use logic and acquired skills to solve problems/complete tasks with efficiency.

So if that's what it is, what good is it? Well that's the kicker I guess, the key word in that definition is ability. Like others have said it's talking about what you can potentially do. I think by that logic, intelligence is useful as an indicator of what someone might achieve, but is not as useful a yard stick as achievement. Using myself as an example, I like to think I'm a pretty smart person. I've got a high IQ, I think pretty logically etc. You could assume I'd be capable of good things. The reality of the matter though is that I'm yet to obtain my degree, I've only ever worked the one proper job really, I still live at home and I haven't contributed much to society yet. Sure, I might in the future, but am I really worth more than someone the same age who's less intelligent, works as a landscaper and just bought their first house? Fuck no.

It doesn't matter how smart you are if you can't get your life together. Intelligence is an indicator of potential, but it's meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Like others have said, merit is the truest indicator of success and societal importance. It's completely okay to value or be proud of intelligence, it's folly to assume that it equates to superiority.

Hands said:

No one is stupid. People who aren't great at critical thinking or spelling or whatever are likely very clever at something else, like historical knowledge or understanding machinery. I try to measure people's intelligence by their qualities, not their flaws.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Some people are, although there are better words, stupid. I think it's a fallacy to assume that just because someone isn't good at something they've got to be good at something else. It makes sense of course that if they have some skill with which they can succeed in life that doesn't rely on their intelligence, they might not have to develop that capacity or use it much. But if they have neither, they just have neither.

@Gimmiepie

I think everyone has something that they are better at, not neccessarily good at.

Kanzler said:

I think everyone has something that they are better at, not neccessarily good at.

Click to expand...

Probably a better way to phrase it

Esper said:

I'm not disagreeing that people who try and work hard should be admired, but to be devil's advocate, if there is someone who doesn't really have the aptitude/skills/knowledge/etc. to accomplish a task or meet a goal then would it be helpful to admire (and presumable encourage) their persistence or hard work when the goal is very unlikely to be met?

Click to expand...

That's not really what I'm trying to get at. What I'm trying to say is that we should judge people based on what they've done in life; this is what I mean by merit. I don't consider things that were inherited to be part of that; things like intelligence or getting lots of money from your parents. I don't think these are meaningful metrics to compare people by.

On the other hand, being able to commit to a goal and work hard toward it is a type of merit, as is actually achieving that goal. That doesn't preclude taking a realistic stance on these kinds of things, it's just a matter of what things I think are worth using as a basis for comparison and what things aren't.

I believe there's a whole spectrum of different kinds of intelligence, and I also believe each one has it's niche in the world. All types should be cherished. :D

gimmepie said:

The way I see it, some people are definitely cleverer than others and some people are just kind of stupid. The main thing, and the positive message in Gardner's theory that I really like, is that this is okay. You don't have to be intelligent, there's going to be something somewhere you're good at.

Click to expand...

I like the sentiment of this, that everyone has something they can be good at, but I worry that if worded badly or presented to someone in the wrong way, it might encourage them to give up trying something they might become good at in search of some unknown that they hope they'll be naturally good at.

My different jobs in education have shown me more than once people being given false hope and it always leaves me feeling uncomfortable and conflicted.

twocows said:

That's not really what I'm trying to get at. What I'm trying to say is that we should judge people based on what they've done in life; this is what I mean by merit. I don't consider things that were inherited to be part of that; things like intelligence or getting lots of money from your parents. I don't think these are meaningful metrics to compare people by.

Click to expand...

Would you then say that people should be compared and contrasted when it comes to merit, in other words putting judgment into action by giving more consideration/attention/reward/etc. to someone who has demonstrated more merit over someone with less merit? Or do you think it might be better to judge people relative to their own selves, i.e., growing and self improvement over time? I mean, I guess you can do both.

Esper said:

I like the sentiment of this, that everyone has something they can be good at, but I worry that if worded badly or presented to someone in the wrong way, it might encourage them to give up trying something they might become good at in search of some unknown that they hope they'll be naturally good at.

My different jobs in education have shown me more than once people being given false hope and it always leaves me feeling uncomfortable and conflicted.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I don't really agree with all the "you can be anything you want if you just try" nonsense either. It's important to have goals and that should be encouraged, but I fully agree that from a reasonably young age people should also be made aware of the chances of success (or failure).

Esper said:

Would you then say that people should be compared and contrasted when it comes to merit, in other words putting judgment into action by giving more consideration/attention/reward/etc. to someone who has demonstrated more merit over someone with less merit? Or do you think it might be better to judge people relative to their own selves, i.e., growing and self improvement over time? I mean, I guess you can do both.

Click to expand...

Would probably come down to context. Either can be valid depending on the situation.

Most of my thoughts on this have been expressed here already.

I would say that the idea of types of intelligence - spatial, musical, mathematical, interpersonal, etc. - has utility in evaluating one's own particular strengths and weaknesses. This provides useful insight on either what you can improve upon, or where you might delegate/ask for assistance with a certain task.

You can also use this sort of typology to create a balanced team in real life, just like you would balance stats distribution/types in a Pokémon team.