The Definition of Intelligence

I was having a conversation with a friend today, and while discussing a certain person, the difference between knowledge and intelligence came up. I think the difference of the two is fairly obvious, but the definition of intelligence is less straight forward.

The two of us couldn't come to an agreement on the definition of intelligence, and I was curious what the find folks at ATS had to say on the subject.

While we were talking I boiled my definition down to a very precise one, which is:

"The ability to obtain additional knowledge without additional external input"

An example being, I drop a rock, I have gained the knowledge that if I drop a rock, it falls to the ground. That's simply absorbing knowledge, and possessing this knowledge, or ANY knowledge does not make me intelligent. I could know everything, and would not be intelligent, only knowledgeable. I have intelligence only if I've able to figure out "not only will this rock fall, all objects will fall when dropped" Which would be gaining additional knowledge, without any additional input (like testing everything else to see if it drops)

That is where we disagreed, he thought that being extremely knowledgeable makes one intelligent. While extremely knowledgeable people are usually also intelligent, knowledge isn't the cause of their intelligence, it's the effect. It's the difference between a company owner taking all the profits and spending them on himself, vs reinvesting into the company. Reinvesting would be the financial version of intelligence. It gains additional profits (knowledge) based on previous profit.

Intelligence isn't something you HAVE, it's something you DO. Knowledge is ONLY something you have, so to me they are completely different, albeit decent indicators of each other.

What says ATS?

reply to post by James1982


Here is a great video about 'intelligence'.

Ive always equated intelligence like a computer.

Knowledge is simply stored data.

Intelligence is the Processor, the ability to take that stored data and extrapolate from it faster than others equals intelligence.

reply to post by James1982


I would think that intelligence is the understanding of the necessity of compassion and knowledge is the acquisition of experiences, facts and data. Knowledge means very little unless there is a heart behind it all.

Nothing means anything unless there is love, forgiveness, understanding and compassion. That is true intelligence. Intelligence is also the ability to adapt to change in a positive way. People have to be intelligent to value compassion and understand how vital it is to all life.

www.ted.com...

reply to post by James1982


"The ability to manipulate knowledge"

That's my take.

Just as benrl pointed out:

Knowledge is just simply gathered information (data/facts).

Intelligence is how you process (comprehend) that knowledge.



Now toss in "wisdom" (which is an accumulation of knowledge, intelligence, and life experience) and the philosophical fun really begins.

reply to post by James1982


This is a really good question, that goes way back. I don't know too much about it, but I know historically a pretty good indicator of intelligence is how quickly one can learn things. If one learns something fast, and deduces the finer points from doing it a few times, they are very intelligent. If one needs to learn it again and again, people say they are slow/retarded in their learning. (The modern term is "developmentally delayed".)

Another term that's used for intelligent people is "abstract", while others are called "concrete". Abstraction is the ability to learn about ALL cases from a single, or a few cases. Concreteness requires you to learn again and again from each individual case. So if you deduce that things which are red and glowing and not electric might be "red hot", and abstain from touching them after a few times being burned, you are "abstract". If you touch the red hot things many many times before you learn, you are more concrete.

I was looking to start a whole thread on this other Krishnamurti (UG). Reading a book of his interviews presently Mind Is A Myth, and have not been the same since before reading it. He died in 2007. There are lots of videos on youtube (varying degrees of quality) of him. He says that everything we know is simply conditioned thought from previous experience, that we have no original thought. That we cannot separate our mind from our body, which only needs to survive and procreate as a living organism.

Grab all you can on him, it's startling in some cases. Anti- knowledge, anti-guru?

Knowledge is knowing the right answer. Intelligence is asking the right question.

James1982

While we were talking I boiled my definition down to a very precise one, which is:

"The ability to obtain additional knowledge without additional external input"

An example being, I drop a rock, I have gained the knowledge that if I drop a rock, it falls to the ground. That's simply absorbing knowledge, and possessing this knowledge, or ANY knowledge does not make me intelligent. I could know everything, and would not be intelligent, only knowledgeable. I have intelligence only if I've able to figure out "not only will this rock fall, all objects will fall when dropped" Which would be gaining additional knowledge, without any additional input (like testing everything else to see if it drops)

That's not bad. The capacity to infer is a quality that intelligence does bestow upon those who possess intelligence. That said, intelligence is often the cause of crippling distractions that make accurate inference extremely difficult, if not impossible for some. This is generally the case for the extremely and profoundly gifted, and why organizations like MENSA exist. Extreme giftedness is often as debilitating as low intelligence, with the challenge differently manifesting for the afflicted. It's akin to the challenge of data saturation versus lack of data. Both situations cause serious problems.

It seems that there's a "sweet spot" when it comes to intelligence - somewhere between 130 and 150 on the most commonly referenced IQ scale. Below that, the capacity for complex associations and inferences are certainly adequate for success and general functionality, yet extreme complexity will be a challenge. Above that, and while the absorption and relative mastery of complexities are certainly achievable, the risk of exaggerated convolutions begins to rise significantly. If the brain is operating above 180 on the scale, the hyper-processing starts endangering the mind's ability to consistently manage an effective perception-interpretation activity. Flashes of brilliance are randomly present amidst significant instances of equally impressive intellectual convolution and self-misdirection.

In short, intelligence is merely "processing power". The brain/mind system is still vulnerable to interpretation and translation of data issues unless properly trained and disciplined.

Intelligence isn't something you HAVE, it's something you DO. Knowledge is ONLY something you have, so to me they are completely different, albeit decent indicators of each other.

What says ATS?

Knowledge involves exposure; albeit, without intelligence exposure won't feed knowledge or create an inference infrastructure. Still, as I said, there's a "sweet spot" for relative intelligence in general. Most highly successful scientists and researchers measure within that range on standardized IQ tests.

Intelligence can basically be summed up by two word: common sense

Intelligent is often synonymous with smart and brilliant. I feel like there are fine nuances that separate these three words but we generally just use them interchangeably.