What is Intelligence? - 2 Points Explored

[Frozen Light]

I have two points I'm thinking about here...

1. What is intelligence? .. If a person is said to be more intelligent than another, does he have more gray matter? Are neurons organized in a different arrangement allowing for more efficient thinking; a more efficient pattern of application of those neurons?

2. What makes a great physicist? How can one or two individuals think so much more clearly over the unknown than hundreds of others?

 

[JoeDawg]

1. What is intelligence?

Abstract problem solving ability.

2. What makes a great physicist?

Money and a good publicist?

 

[davee123]

1. What is intelligence? .. If a person is said to be more intelligent than another, does he have more gray matter? Are neurons organized in a different arrangement allowing for more efficient thinking; a more efficient pattern of application of those neurons?

IMO, intelligence is a generalized "rating" of the 'quality' of many aspects of one's thought process, in different applications.

In general, one can be more "intelligent" with more experience, better memory of said experience, a well developed sense of associativity (IE both realistic and high-volume), and (probably) curiosity/motivation.

I expect that the reason for "intelligence" is both biological as well as experiential. Children who are encouraged to explore (as opposed to "sit down, shut up, and listen") generally perform better on intelligence tests, as I recall being evidenced in an inner-city education program starting with babies and toddlers. Also, I know that tests on neural pathway development is highly affected by inputs like video games and television, although how that relates to "intelligence" is unclear.

However, I expect that many aspects of intelligence are also biological, such as the ability to reference one's own memory, which I expect would likely be unaffected by experience (that's just a guess, though). There's apparently debate about whether or not brain size and brain "layout" encourage things like language and "higher" thought. See the debate with a chimpanzee who was attempted to be raised as a human:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim_Chimpsky

Ultimately, though, intellect is still a very fuzzy term, since the only means of measuring it come from grading performance on tasks, which can be aided by things like experience or other knowledge. If my job was to design paper models, and you gave me a standard IQ question where an object is "rolled out flat", I'd be more likely to perform well on the question, regardless of whether or not I had seen it before, thanks to my similar experiences.

As far as physics goes, I suspect some people's experiences and particular talents lend themselves phenomenally well to physics. I recall an interview on This American Life on NPR with someone who was exceptionally BAD at physics, but reasonably smart when it came to things like engineering and mechanics. From the sounds of it, he was good at thinking of things in more-or-less a Cartesian method, which made things like relativistic physics (and certainly quantum physics!) incomprehensible.

DaveE

 

[WaveJumper]

Intelligent people have a greater number of connections between their trillions neurons.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Intelligent people have a greater number of connections between their trillions neurons.

Is that a fact? if so , would you please provide a reference? Moreover, I would be delighted if someone pointed out a reference to whether brain 'size' of humans (not to be compared with other animals, since it is already known that the ratio between body size and brain size seems to be the deciding factor for intellectual capability, and in this context, we -humans- excel) compared to other humans. That is, did Einsteind, Bohr, Newton have 'bigger' brains than most people?

 

[davee123]

it is already known that the ratio between body size and brain size seems to be the deciding factor for intellectual capability

Huh-- now that I was unaware of-- Does that mean I'm smarter because I'm skinny? :)

DaveE

 

[WaveJumper]

Is that a fact? if so , would you please provide a reference? Moreover, I would be delighted if someone pointed out a reference to whether brain 'size' of humans (not to be compared with other animals, since it is already known that the ratio between body size and brain size seems to be the deciding factor for intellectual capability, and in this context, we -humans- excel) compared to other humans. That is, did Einsteind, Bohr, Newton have 'bigger' brains than most people?

Fact? Hmm, i'd say it's a theory but it's very likely to become a fact. I've seen this in various articles on neurobiology:

http://web-us.com/brain/bio_org.html

http://expertvoices.nsdl.org/cornell-info204/2008/04/14/1278/

http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/why-humans-more-intelligent-animals.html"Mental Activity

• Education and intelligence. Many epidemiologic studies have associated higher levels of education and intelligence with lower rates of dementia, a general loss of intellectual function and not just memory. This relationship has been explained by brain-reserve capacity, loosely defined as the number of connections between neurons. The theory — and it is just a theory — is that the neurons of the intelligent and educated brain have more connections than a less intelligent, less educated brain. The dementia rates may reflect the fact that people with a larger brain-reserve capacity can perhaps afford to lose more neuronal connections before the loss shows up as a noticeable brain deficit like dementia."

http://library.pchrd.dost.gov.ph/index.php/news-archive/831

 

[AhmedEzz]

Huh-- now that I was unaware of-- Does that mean I'm smarter because I'm skinny? :)

DaveE

It has to do with the overall size of your body and the corresponding brain size. For example, the blue whale has the biggest brain than any living creature. However, it is not any smarter than a rat. http://www.youramazingbrain.org/Insidebrain/brainevolution.htm"

 

[DaveC426913]

JoeDawg hit it on the head. Intelligence is a measure of abstract problem-solving ability.

 

[Phrak]

JoeDawg hit it on the head. Intelligence is a measure of abstract problem-solving ability.

No way. The man who dies with the most toys wins the inteliganse game! This should put me somewhere in the vicinity of moron.

 

[AhmedEzz]

JoeDawg hit it on the head. Intelligence is a measure of abstract problem-solving ability.

I think this is definition is vague and not clear enough to help our understanding of intelligence. There is no 'standard' definition for intelligence but there are plausible suggestions.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It has to do with the overall size of your body and the corresponding brain size. For example, the blue whale has the biggest brain than any living creature. However, it is not any smarter than a rat. http://www.youramazingbrain.org/Insidebrain/brainevolution.htm"

There is also a matter of regulating bodily functions. Octopi and squid have fairly large brains for their body mass but the majority of the processing power goes into their capacity to independantly control and articulate eight sperate limbs.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Good point. But are you referring to the complexity of the bodily functions or its scale?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Good point. But are you referring to the complexity of the bodily functions or its scale?

I believe it would be somewhat both. The addition of each limb adds both to the scale and complexity of the task. I am not aware of specifics or research. I just have a friend who is a cognitive science major with a squid fetish. ;-)

 

[AhmedEzz]

Isn't Penrose now working on similar problems, that is intelligence, creativity and consciousness ? AFAIK he is trying to understand how those emerge from neuron network.

 

[protonchain]

Abstract problem solving ability.

Money and a good publicist?

QFT.

"I have a bigger processor than you, therefore I am more intelligent"

 

[M Grandin]

Is that a fact? if so , would you please provide a reference? Moreover, I would be delighted if someone pointed out a reference to whether brain 'size' of humans (not to be compared with other animals, since it is already known that the ratio between body size and brain size seems to be the deciding factor for intellectual capability, and in this context, we -humans- excel) compared to other humans. That is, did Einsteind, Bohr, Newton have 'bigger' brains than most people?

In an old book there were presentations of brain sizes of famous scientists (such things may scare us from being famous...). As I remember, Newton had slightly above average size, Leibnitz far below average and Gauss almost double average size. Einstein is today reputed having had just 85 % of average size. (If that is true?)

Somewhere I also read, that a small mouse or aquainted had the biggest brain compared to body. So human has not biggest brain either relatively or absolutely.

At least regarding IQ-tests, they maintain having found a positive but weak correlation between brain size and IQ. But just statistically with many exceptions. Personally I think, that if IQ increased with brain size it should be more of an "exponential" dependence than attenuating dependance, as it appears to be.

Around 1930 there was a "symposium" regarding IQ related to brain size. The discussion was
untidy and the conference broken up when a participant said: "I have noticed that most of you maintaining brain size doesn't matter have small heads!"

 

[AhmedEzz]

http://www.youramazingbrain.org/Insidebrain/brainevolution.htm"

Mammal - Body Weight - Brain Weight - How much of the animal is its brain?

Rat 200g 3g 1.5%

Human 70 kg 1.3 kg 1.9%

This might be hoax(and I feel it is) but if so, I would like to see something contradictory.
Maybe considering the brain size is overly simplistic. My hypothesis was that 'bigger' brain = more processing power, greater memory and higher cognitive abilities. However, an important factor that could have been overlooked is how well those individuals that we are measuring their performance against their brain size are they trained to efficiently use and recognize their mental abilities? Some might have more processing power than others but having an unorganized mind might impair their performance in an IQ test for example.

I still feel that my words are abstract and not on solid foundations. If there is someone who has a higher knowledge on the subject, please identify yourself and elaborate.

 

[M Grandin]

http://www.youramazingbrain.org/Insidebrain/brainevolution.htm"

Mammal - Body Weight - Brain Weight - How much of the animal is its brain?

Rat 200g 3g 1.5%

Human 70 kg 1.3 kg 1.9%


This might be hoax(and I feel it is) but if so, I would like to see something contradictory.
Maybe considering the brain size is overly simplistic. My hypothesis was that 'bigger' brain = more processing power, greater memory and higher cognitive abilities. However, an important factor that could have been overlooked is how well those individuals that we are measuring their performance against their brain size are they trained to efficiently use and recognize their mental abilities? Some might have more processing power than others but having an unorganized mind might impair their performance in an IQ test for example.

I still feel that my words are abstract and not on solid foundations. If there is someone who has a higher knowledge on the subject, please identify yourself and elaborate.

Did you mean this showed rats in fact have brains at about human percentual size or did you mean it showed they not actually reach human % size? I may have expressed it fuzzy, but meant a certain species of mouse (or related) they had found. Its % brain was perhaps double up humans or more, but I don't remember exactly. Perhaps 5 times human brain %.

I agree with your reasoning about brain capacity, but the number of active processing
cells and how they are organized may not be judged from external size of brain. And small animals, not the least insects, of course must have an extremely higher density of "neurons" in their brains than bigger animals.

I guess IQ-tests show a very primitive aspect of intelligence. They appear regard intelligence as a matter of just "recognizing patterns". I don't think higher levels
of thinking has much to do with that.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Did you mean this showed rats in fact have brains at about human percentual size or did you mean it showed they not actually reach human % size? I may have expressed it fuzzy, but meant a certain species of mouse (or related) they had found. Its % brain was perhaps double up humans or more, but I don't remember exactly. Perhaps 5 times human brain %.

Could you please find a link to that? -not that I am doubting you but I want to see for myself-

I agree with your reasoning about brain capacity, but the number of active processing
cells and how they are organized may not be judged from external size of brain. And small animals, not the least insects, of course must have an extremely higher density of "neurons" in their brains than bigger animals.

Again, I would really like to see something that says that insects have greater density of neurons than bigger animals. I mean, which is better, if the more density is better, then why don't the lions for example have that kind of density? or even humans? we are certainly higher thinkers than ants.

I guess IQ-tests show a very primitive aspect of intelligence. They appear regard intelligence as a matter of just "recognizing patterns". I don't think higher levels
of thinking has much to do with that.

People can be trained in order to do that, does that mean they became more intelligent or just merely have more developed skill? I think this depends on one's definition of intelligence.

 

[M Grandin]

Could you please find a link to that? -not that I am doubting you but I want to see for myself-



Again, I would really like to see something that says that insects have greater density of neurons than bigger animals. I mean, which is better, if the more density is better, then why don't the lions for example have that kind of density? or even humans? we are certainly higher thinkers than ants.


People can be trained in order to do that, does that mean they became more intelligent or just merely have more developed skill? I think this depends on one's definition of intelligence.

Regarding the certain species of "mouse", having very large brain/body %, I cannot for the moment tell where to read about it. But I have seen it mentioned several times. But as you can see here
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/ThinkTank/TheBrain/default.cfm already
squirrels are known having bigger brain % than man. So it is not astonishing a mouse can have still bigger brain %.

Regarding insects, I have seen different opinions about density of nerve cells in their brains.
Some reason their nerve cell diameters are 1/30 or 1/50 compared to bigger mammals, giving
27000 or 125000 times the density in mammal brains. An insect nerve cell also has several more tasks than a mammal nerve cell (some mention 6 times as many tasks) giving further
multiplication. Insects also have much of their nerve system distributed in body. So an insect brain system may (at least theoretically) reach human brain potential. But most enthomologists appear content saying a bumblebee has at least the brain capacity of
a mouse.

Regarding your question why bigger mammals don't use a higher neuron density like insects,
it may depend on the size of their basic building elements. The body comes from a "factory" using a certain standard of building elements. And if for instance their brains at some stage began using insectoid nerve cells, it had developed to an other kind of animal. Perhaps
an animal cannot survive having too complex brain - at least not as an animal.

 

[DaveC426913]

Regarding the certain species of "mouse", having very large brain/body %,

Not picking on you specifically Grandin but, how does any of this help answer the OP's question?

Undoubtedly there's a relationship between brain-body ratio and intelligence, but it isn't defined by it. The OP asked how we define it. Could we get back on that topic?

 

[AhmedEzz]

I believe this was a quest to try and understand where does intelligence originates and what is it related to, which can of course improve our definition of intelligence and hence provide a better answer to what intelligence is.

 

[M Grandin]

Thanks for well-meant advice, DaveC ! Maybe this is more focusing on OP topic:

At an employment interview, the manager told me there are two main kinds of intelligences:

1) From inside and out (i.e from given rules and presumptions reach a certain goal. For instance construct something by using given tools and known engineering facts).

2) From outside and in (i.e from known circumstances conclude what rules and presumptions
lie behind these circumstances).

Of course most intellectual tasks are a mix of these, for instance a chessplayer has to
both plan himself and conclude what his opponent is planning. Although computer chess programs don't "reason" that way.

 

[Dr. HappyNuke]

I don't know...personally I respect people with higher IQ's as "intellectual quotients" than "intelligence quotients." Truth is, even the developers of the first intelligence tests didn't know exactly what they were measuring. There are different kinds of intelligence, sure. There are very intelligent physicists and mathematicians, but then again, there are also very intelligent orators, writers, musicians--people who can speak 5 languages...what kind of intelligence is this? I'm not talking about the left vs. right brain issue, rather, the different brain areas that are activated when preforming different tasks. For example, in one MIT study, it was found that different brain areas react to even different kinds of math problems; in subjects "asked to compute two numbers to reach an exact answer, the brain was active in the left lateral frontal lobe, an area that has been intimately tied to spoken language" (Talan) On the other hand, subjects "asked to approximate answers -- is 97 plus 57 closer to 100 or 200, or what number is between 5 and 7, for instance -- the parietal lobes, located deeper in the brain, were most active. This brain area is used in spatial tasks" (Talan). Needless to say, different people are endowed with smaller or larger brain areas depending on the individual biological discrepancies. for example, one's "Broca's area", a region used in speech, is often located in slightly different positions and can vary in size between the person. No to people are alike.

This leads us to a simple truth--some people are more well rounded than others. some people are math and physics geniuses, but they can't write a term paper for the life of them, let alone give a speech or lead a group project. then we have those who are great communicators and linguists, but are not logical at all. We also have people in between, on the outisde--all over the place. To want to be successful, one does not necessarily need just brains, but a mind. And to be successful, one needs not only brains and a mind, but guts.

 

[//:phoenix:\\]

Everyone is intelligent but there are people more intelligent than other people. I believe people who are considered, "less-intelligent" than others can become more intelligent through working on their opposite sides. I hate art but I am going to start taking it as I want to be more creative and not subject myself to an uncreative lifestyle.

I believe intelligence could possibly just be how much work you put into an individual task. I also believe that some people have a higher potential for intelligence than most people. But, I think everyone can achieve and IQ higher than 130.

I wasn't able to grasp most mathematics and was considered the dumb-arse of math in class which was about 3 years ago. Once I started to work on becoming better at mathematics from scratch like adding whole numbers, percentages, decimals, and all that good stuff, I was able to jump my way into Algebra II. I couldn't take the other courses as I needed a background in Algebra II first and considering I was rather remedial in mathematics, I would say that was a great improvement.

I thought I was just dumb at math but I tried a new method which was basically try and teach myself and get a tutor my age to help me with my problems. The teachers I had weren't teaching it in a way I could understand the problems and this happened throughout my school career until I tried a new approach. This is why I believe no one is truly dumb, it is just that some people put effort into learning a subject they don't understand in a different way which helps them.

 

[Sorry!]

I thought I was just dumb at math but I tried a new method which was basically try and teach myself and get a tutor my age to help me with my problems. The teachers I had weren't teaching it in a way I could understand the problems and this happened throughout my school career until I tried a new approach. This is why I believe no one is truly dumb, it is just that some people put effort into learning a subject they don't understand in a different way which helps them.

Your only dumb when you stop trying to understand it. Just because it didn't click for you at first doesn't mean your dumb.

It will however effect your IQ as that is based on comprehension. Math is basically logic and the fast you attain answers the better your IQ will be.

I am also pretty sure that once you reach a certain age it becomes much harder to 'learn' stuff even if you try your hardest.

 

[davee123]

Your

Man, I feel like one of the only people that still gets annoyed at others' grammar.

only dumb when you stop trying to understand it. Just because it didn't click for you at first doesn't mean your dumb.

I'm not sure I'd quite say that-- "dumb" implies a significant level of "sub-par", sort of like how "hot" or "cold" imply a "normal" temperature. If, after 20 different techniques and 50 tries, an 18-year-old still couldn't grasp the concept of "square root", would that not imply that the person was "dumb", regardless of whether or not he continued to try?

If not (since you argue that it could indicate a lower IQ but not "dumbness"), how would you define "dumb"? Perhaps as a measure of willingness to apply oneself to a problem? If that's your interpretation, I would argue that you're measuring dedication or effort rather than intelligence.

Math is basically logic and the fast you attain answers the better your IQ will be.

Yep, although I think the way that math is taught at an early age is more focused on memorization than logic. Memorize your multiplication tables up to 12 x 12 or so, and learn what is meant by various symbols like fractions, greater than/less than, etc. Once you start getting into algebra, then you begin to learn logical "rules" that can be applied towards problem solving. Geometry, trigonometry, calculus, probability, etc. similarly use logical rules (many based on those in algebra) that rely on your ability to associate the necessary rules with the current problem, and use them in conjunction to solve it.

I am also pretty sure that once you reach a certain age it becomes much harder to 'learn' stuff even if you try your hardest.

I believe it becomes gradually more difficult. That is, learning something at age 9 is easier than learning the same thing at age 15, which is easier than learning it at 34. I think it has to do with the fact that your neurons react more to things that are "outside the norm". Remembering (for example) what you had for lunch 2 years ago is very difficult, unless for some reason that lunch was different somehow (if, say, your sandwich had been stuffed full of $100 bills).

By the time you're in your 40's (say), you've built up so much experience that learning something new is generally sort of mundane. But when you're 9, it's still different enough from your current experience set that you'll remember it more.

DaveE

 

[apeiron]

A lot of confused talk in this thread.

First, here is the standard brain to body ratio table...

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=..._t3aAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8

You will see humans are indeed an outlier. Dolphins, our nearest competition, are pygmy whales and so have larger brains proportionately for that reason (or so it can be argued).

You also need to bear in mind that brains are scaled according to a powerlaw across the primitive-to-advanced regions. So prefrontal cortex in particular is massively larger proportionately in humans. And prefrontal is important to the kind of fluid intelligence we get excited about.

What is intelligence? Well it is not really abstract problem solving. Biologically speaking, it is anticipation - the ability to predict and thus control your world. Humans like any other animal are optimised by evolution for this, rather than doing maths or even raven's matrices.

Of course, human society now values new kinds of mental activities, quite specialised ones. So some very mal-adapted people (mathematicians I have known who can barely function in the real world) may be very good at some particular tasks.

Does this make them "intelligent" in the proper sense?

To be fair, the real successes in the field of abstract problem solving tend to be actually competent across the board. They certainly need high social intelligence to win in the academic game. The other kind tend to be smart, yet not creative. They can apply rules but not invent rules.

So what is actually different about intelligent brains? There is no simple answer - because the brain is a complex device. Like a racing car, there are many factors to tune and most cut across each other. Pushing the envelope here screws something else over there, so the overall performance is worse.

I think the best answers are likely to come from the study of network dynamics - so for example, the study of scalefree nets. A tuning of connectivity to an "edge of chaos" balance that optimises both the stability and plasticity of the system. The capacity for the routine and also the creative.

This is where you start to get down to some meaningful "raw" metrics to relate brain organisation to brain performance.

There are other aspects to this as well. So for instance, the ability to suppress connections is as crucial as making connections when thinking. A smart mind is a high contrast mind that is sifting wheat from chaff efficiently.

There is a weak correlation of brain size to IQ scores. A somewhat strong correlation of IQ and reaction times. And of the network dynamics approach is correct, then there should be a good correlation between IQ and scalefree neural connectivity - but that is not something I've yet seen any story on how to measure.

 

[AhmedEzz]

And of the network dynamics approach is correct, then there should be a good correlation between IQ and scalefree neural connectivity - but that is not something I've yet seen any story on how to measure.

So you eventually concluded that intelligence is a measure of number of connections between neurons, or the number of neurons or the density of neurons? Also, do the neurons communicate at the same speed or do the transmitters sometimes 'rush' and sometimes 'slack'? This can be relevant to sleep, don't know.

 

[apeiron]

So you eventually concluded that intelligence is a measure of number of connections between neurons, or the number of neurons or the density of neurons? Also, do the neurons communicate at the same speed or do the transmitters sometimes 'rush' and sometimes 'slack'? This can be relevant to sleep, don't know.

Not really. My point was about the optimisation of connectivity in the non-linear dynamics sense. The tipping point, criticality, etc.

The idea is that the brain is a "lively" hierarchy which is good at shifting from one adaptive state to the next.

Scalefree networks do give you optimal number of input connnections to output connections and such like. So instead of raw numbers of connections, it is about having the best balance of connections to be poised and maximally responsive. The U-curve found in psychological experiments that show best performance comes somewhere along the spectrum from low arousal to high arousal. That sort of thing.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Is that your field of study/work or did you read that somewhere? If the latter, would you direct me to what you read, if there is not one text, would you drop keywords.

 

[apeiron]

Psychology, neuroscience, human evolution, consciousness, was my specialty for about 10 years, then the last 10 it has been complexity and systems science.

The ideas I'm talking about are still on the bleeding edge so no popular science level references come to mind.

But if you explain exactly your level of interest and purpose, I could certainly point to some of the literature. Perhaps PM me if that is more appropriate.

 

[Phrak]

I have two points I'm thinking about here...

1. What is intelligence?

Abstract problem solving ability.

That's what I was thinking. Intelligence is the consumption by so much abstract problem solving that one neglects important things in life, which is really a stoopid thing to do.

 

[swat4life]

I have two points I'm thinking about here...

1. What is intelligence? .. If a person is said to be more intelligent than another, does he have more gray matter? Are neurons organized in a different arrangement allowing for more efficient thinking; a more efficient pattern of application of those neurons?

2. What makes a great physicist? How can one or two individuals think so much more clearly over the unknown than hundreds of others?

Intelligence is when you get nerds in pocket protectors to do all the work then you get paid for it. Then you have time to post to forums at 4:30am in the morning and visit the State Hermitage's website...

At least that's what they told me at the Junior College I attended...

 

[drizzle]

Intelligence is when you get nerds in pocket protectors to do all the work then you get paid for it. Then you have time to post to forums at 4:30am in the morning and visit the State Hermitage's website...

At least that's what they told me at the Junior College I attended...

so what kind are you?
the one in the pocket or the other way round?

 

[Anticitizen]

I should think that a definition of intelligence should include a capacity or 'knack' for learning. I wouldn't know how to go about measuring it, however.