“Intelligence” is one of my favorite examples of Reification—a cluster of concepts that were grouped together into a single word to make communication easier, and as a result is often falsely thought of as a single concept, rather than an abstract collection of several separable ideas.
Knowledge of relevant facts, algorithmic familiarity, creativity, arithmetic capabilities, spatial reasoning capabilities, awareness and avoidance of logical fallacies, and probably dozens of others are all separable concepts that all could reasonable be described as intelligence, but that correlate with each other to an unknown degree, and the effects of which can be observed in [near] isolation.
While intelligence remains useful as a word, it is a troublesome one.
IQ is no less troubling. It measures only a small fraction of the skills that could be described as intelligence. In addition, it appears to measure significantly more than just intelligence, with variation as big as 20 points being subject to cultural, or unknown environmental factors.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1987-17534-001
One problem I remember reading about was the “odd item out” style of question historically found in many IQ tests—four objects were presented, and subjects were supposed to decide which one didn’t belong.
Unless 3 out of the 4 objects were identical, this task is ambiguous—and one anthropologist [citation needed] found that different cultures can have a different generally accepted “correct answer” to such a question.
TL;DR
“Intelligence” isn’t only vague, but it is an abstract combination of many semi-correlated skill-sets
IQ on the other hand is a well-defined test, but it is not free of bias. It measures only a subset of what we would call “intelligence”, and really only reliably predicts how well someone will do on future IQ tests.
“Intelligence” is one of my favorite examples of Reification—a cluster of concepts that were grouped together into a single word to make communication easier, and as a result is often falsely thought of as a single concept, rather than an abstract collection of several separable ideas.
Knowledge of relevant facts, algorithmic familiarity, creativity, arithmetic capabilities, spatial reasoning capabilities, awareness and avoidance of logical fallacies, and probably dozens of others are all separable concepts that all could reasonable be described as intelligence, but that correlate with each other to an unknown degree, and the effects of which can be observed in [near] isolation.
While intelligence remains useful as a word, it is a troublesome one.
IQ is no less troubling. It measures only a small fraction of the skills that could be described as intelligence. In addition, it appears to measure significantly more than just intelligence, with variation as big as 20 points being subject to cultural, or unknown environmental factors. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1987-17534-001
One problem I remember reading about was the “odd item out” style of question historically found in many IQ tests—four objects were presented, and subjects were supposed to decide which one didn’t belong. Unless 3 out of the 4 objects were identical, this task is ambiguous—and one anthropologist [citation needed] found that different cultures can have a different generally accepted “correct answer” to such a question.
TL;DR “Intelligence” isn’t only vague, but it is an abstract combination of many semi-correlated skill-sets IQ on the other hand is a well-defined test, but it is not free of bias. It measures only a subset of what we would call “intelligence”, and really only reliably predicts how well someone will do on future IQ tests.