Intelligence Questions. Please no flaming in this one.

[Clinotus]

My job has me attending a leadership/development program and the part of the course is a discussion on intellence and catagories of that intelligence. I got a homework assignment and if you fellow techers would share some insight...it would be great.


Where does intelligence come from?

How do you know how smart someone is?

How intelligent/Smart are you and How do you know?



This is just a series of questions for tomorrows roundtable. Any input/thoughts/comments will be appreciated.

 

[vi edit]

I recently was shown a differing thought on intelligence. It was Howard Gardner's 7 types of intelligence.

If you think about it, it really makes sense.

 

[vi edit]

More info on the 7 types of intelligence.

 

[palad]

I have long held a theory that intelligence is based (at least in part) on a measure of speed. Specifically, we know that the electrical charges in the brain have to jump gaps known as synapses in order to carry the pulse onward. I feel it is possible that some people may have either smaller 'gaps', or lower resistance across the gaps. This means that a given impulse could travel farther and/or faster without having to be resent. This would make recall of data easier and faster for that person, which could give rise to what we call 'intelligence'.

As such, a good part of intelligence would, naturally, be based on heredity, but I imagine such things could be affected by environment as well, especially during the formative years when the brain is still establishing patterns.

How do you know how smart someone is? I find that to be an odd question, and I'm having trouble understanding the reason behind asking it. As long as that person is able to supply his own physical, emotional, and mental needs, and is a productive member of his comunity, able to give to others, they are 'smart enough.' How smart am I? Smart enough to be happy with who I am. Smart enough to provide for my family. Smart enough to realize that I can learn something about everything, and that I have a long way to go before I am finished growing.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

any basic intro text to psychology covers the area of intelligence.

 

[vi edit]

<< but I imagine such things could be affected by environment as well, especially during the formative years when the brain is still establishing patterns. >>




palad, there is quite a bit of truth to that. I need a physiologist or a medical student to back me up here, but there are &quot;tracks&quot; in your brain that develop through adolecence. These tracks are no longer able to form when a person gets older. It's proven that children can learn multiple languages much easier than adults. There is a theory that this is because these &quot;tracks&quot; haven't closed up yet in a child's mind.

In essence, you build the bridges through stimulation. Once you get older, you can't build the bridges anymore.

I'm talking out of my ass because this is what my girlfriend was trying to explain to me when she was studing for her physiology class

 

[palad]

Cool, vi, fits right in. What I think more about, though, is the overall electrical resistance of the brain paths, rather than their existence. Perhaps, thru much use, the resistance tends to 'wear down' to the point where the electrical bursts just naturally travel down some paths easier. Kind of like etching a circuit board, if you want an analogy.

 

[Iron Woode]

Palad:

I feel it is possible that some people may have either smaller 'gaps', or lower resistance across the gaps.

Your theory has at least one flaw. There is no resistance in the synapse. The electrical signal is converted to a chemical signal at the synapse, Acetalcoline. Even the electrical signal in a nerve is really the potential difference between + and - ions in and out of the nerve fibre itself. In other words the synapse is a chemical link to another nerve and by and large the gaps don't vary much.

 

[syzygy]

i dont like any of those categories. they all seem to describe the same dimension of analytic
intelligence we all possesse. many of those characteristics are dubiously categorized and grouped where most people are endowed with various skills and talents to develop abilites in
many areas of applied intelligence. generalizations are the end all for pontificating in the laboratory but they translate poorly to actual people. these kind of vague and generalized groupings sow bias into psychometric measurements of a person's intelligence.

how about emotional intelligence ? or wisdom ? who cares if you can suck up information and
then regurgitate the latest theory if you are not able to properly exercise this knowledge to
to some beneficial purpose. i most value someone who is able to overcome a tendency to erupt at the slightest trigger by learning to control the emotional surges.