Human Intelligence

"Intelligence" is a social construct, more or less. There's no objective (non-social) standard by which to even compare intelligences, let alone quantify them.

I disagree, Rufio, if you mean that it is impossible. Everything can be measured or expressed, the fact is WE just aren't capable of measuring or expressing everything. In other words, saying that we have found no objective means is entirely different than saying there cannot be one, which I find difficult to believe.

Well, you can measure intelligence as a social standard, because it is one. You can't measure it as an objective standard, because it isn't one. Trying to objectively measure intelligence would be like trying to measure the length of a drop of water.

Okay, what if we simplified it:

What if they came up with a pill, tested safe, that would increase everyone's IQ an average of 20%.

Should we allow it? Should we be researching such a thing?

If I have enough money, can I have the more expensive pill that will increase my intelligence 50%?

How could intelligence only be a social standard? I'm sure you've thought it out better than it sounds.

Do you mean to say that if an individual is removed from a social setting their intelligence is also removed, or merely that it would no longer have any application? I can't think of any interpretation of your post which is not laughable, but perhaps I lack imagination.

If you fall for that sales pitch, then you really DO need the pill.

Very funny.

What I was trying to get at is one of the dangers of such a path: Would it lead to intelligence for sale? With the richest getting to be the smartest? Why not, I guess...everything else is for sale.

And one could argue that is sort of happening right now, with the rich getting better schools, health care, nutrition, etc.

This could be extremely dangerous to the rulers of the state - unless they raise their own first.

There's a joke goes something like this:
A fellow was selling brains on the open market. What he offered were the brains of a bluecollar worker another of a white and finally one that belonged to a politician. The price of the 1st was $5M; the 2nd $15M and the final one was a whopping $55M (prices subject to negotation). Being asked why the brain of the politician should cost so much more, he simply replied, "It was never used before".

Scoat, I mean that intelligence as a measureable thing does not exist outside of society. Intelligence tests are largely based on how well you recognize social constructs (which is most different, based on how we traditionally interpret nature? etc). Such intelligence might matter within a social context, but not in any objective way.

Obviously, we can still think outside of social environments, if that's what you're asking. But we all think pretty much the same way.

So you don't think it is possible to say that one person is more intelligent than another, or that a person is more intelligent than an animal?

Sorry for all the questions, but I really don't understand your view. Could you explain how you have come to your conclusion?

The extra training could be done in the form of 'flash cards' with company logos on them - required veiwing, and then 'field tested' afterward.

[oops, they're already doing that, its called 'advertising! ]

Only if you mean in a cultural or social sense.

If we were all really smart, who would serve us french fries?

(if we were all really smart, would we eat french fries?)

I think that greater inteligence we can do without. Unless, of course, more inteligance leads to better, more moral people (which i highly doubt, as seen in our world today). Now if we can have better people through some means or another, what are we waiting for? This is where the state should be putting our money.

Can everything that exists in the human mind be swept under this broad categorizing label called intelligence? And if so, can said intelligence be raised for everyone by the same method? And if so, is the end result neccessarily better then the startoff point?

Every person is unique, with his/her own hobbies, likes, dislikes, fears, phobias etc. It's what defines a person. By messing around with a persons head, in roder to raise something as vague as their 'intelligence', don't we risk destroying more then we create? Besides, if we allow a state to mess with our minds, what's the next step? I'm sure that if it comes to that, there are plenty of companies mightily interested in making sure the employees become more obedient and steadfast, more focused and better at their task in the company. If there are any negaitve side effects on the social or ethical side, well, who really cares?

so my answer is NO. capital N, capital O. I'd like to be the boss of my own head, and am perfectly satisfied with my current IQ, however low it may be.

Naj

It need not be mandatory. For example, suppose the gov't made available cheap/free 'smart drugs' for anyone who wanted them?

Free prenatal care and (safe) 'smart-drugs' for pregnant women?

Also, is it necessarily a zero-sum game? Why would any other aspect of a person's mind (such as creativity, emotional sensitivity) suffer if 'g' (general intelligence) were increased?

I have to agree with some of the posts here. How exactly do you measure raw intelligence? Intelligence should be something different then education. A person I knew in high school used to pull out IQ tests during parties (drove me nuts), to see who had the highest IQ. It didn't matter that she memorized all the "correct" answers.

Also, take into account the following question, which is actually from a real IQ test. A house is two bedroom, one bath. Each bedroom has two single beds. How many people can sleep in this home? The "correct" answer is 4. However, a child answered 12. The house description matched his own home, and that was how many people stayed in it. Was the child stupid? No. His environment gave him a different answer to a question that was biased to begin with.

It was stated that if a person was removed from society, it does not mean they would have their intelligence removed. However, consider this scenario. A child is raised in a box. They are tube fed, never see colors other then grey, never spoken to. If that child was released into the world as an adult, they would be perceived as extremely stupid, or mentally defective. Yet the only thing wrong is an extreme lack of education in the most important years of life.

You don't need drugs to raise intelligence. However, the "training" involved to raise a child's intelligence needs to begin at an early age.

1) Support your child's creativity. They must have access to a variety of music, books, movies, toys, art. In addition, they MUST have the tools to express themselves after being exposed to these things. Play pianos, drums, crayons... they are all a needed part of a child's development.

(On a side note, it makes me extremely sad hearing about schools that cancel their music programs.)

2) Encourage your child to create and interact on their own. If a child wants to help in the kitchen, let them. They can use a play knife from their play kitchen to cut up vegetables that are already cut up, but to them, it is a major accomplishment. Hang that picture on the refrigerator! It may look like a mess to you, but to your child it is a masterpiece. Don't go ballistic about your 2 year old drawing on the walls. Just make it easier on yourself and buy the washable crayons from the get go.

3) Play with your children. TV sets are not babysitters, although there are some wonderful programs for them to interact with. You should be interacting with your child, and answer any questions that come up... or even compliment your child for memorizing the name of every single Sesame Street character. Board games, tag, naming the fish in the aquarium... every single one of these helps your child grow.

The most important factor of "intelligence" is imagination. Imagine a world where no one had imagination. Where would all the new inventions come from? The people who are referred to as geniuses have done nothing more then thing outside the box. Anyone can do that, as long as they don't forget to use their imagination to come up with solutions to problems.

The sad thing about society today is that children are being forced to grow up too fast, and loose that imagination that is so crucial to the development of their minds. Schools cancel programs, and concentrate on rote memorization instead of true understanding of subject material. Students are expected to memorize vocabulary words instead of concentrating on creative writing utilizing those words. It is a sad place indead. It is up to you, as a parent, to make sure your own children don't fall into the trap that society has created upon itself.

This rant was brought to you by the letters A, B, and C!

TLomon, intelligence is different than education, but education does increase intelligence in a very scientific way. The more information stored in the brain, the better (GENERALLY) it works. The more pathways are created, and the brain is excercized very similar to a muscle. The concepts are obviously related.

Also, just because we have no way of measuring intelligence without bias, does not mean different measurements do not exist.

Also, I would argue that a more intelligent child would have realized the answer should have been four.

And a college student may very well reply that there is a very nice sofa downstairs where several people can sleep, and look, I have a matrass laying around on the attic and a nice pillow in the closet!
According to the information given, where it isn't noted btw that everyone neccessarily has to sleep in a bed, the 'correct' answer would be 4.
And what has this proven? That a person is capable of counting the number of beds in a house and deduce how many people sleep in them. So this means that person has a higher IQ?

bromeliad, I never said it would hurt other areas perse, but we know way too little to be messing around with the head. I'd suggest we stick to a good educational system, and don't try to use other means to raise IQ.

Naj

This question, discussion should be taken as hypothetical. At present there are no generally accepted safe 'smart drugs'. However, there may be in the furture, especially if we try to look for them. Should we be looking?

I've just started thinking about this myself, so I don't really have an opinion as yet. I did go to the library to pick up some books on intelligence/IQ (including the infamous 'Bell Curve', as well as some critiques). I hope that in a few weeks I might post something along the lines of an informed opinion on the matter. But in the mean time, I'd like to hear the views of others.

One thing I did pick up so far - the fancy term for 'smart drugs' is 'nootropic drugs'