Is intelligence important?

[civver_764]

By that I mean, are there really some people that are inherently smarter than others?

Obviously we can point to the mentally disabled and say yes. That's fine, I'm not going to contest that idea in this post(I do have my doubts, but they aren't really based on anything). There are savants too, who I'm also going to throw into the "other" category. I'm talking about everyone else. Does a person's IQ score, for example, really mean anything in regards to their life or say anything about what they're able to achieve?

Most of the IQ differences between most humans seem pretty miniscule to me. One thing I often wonder about is if the difference is even noticeable by us. If all other variables were kept the same, and I somehow received 10 extra IQ points, would I actually feel smarter?

Note: I'm aware that IQ tests are pretty controversial, I don't know much of details. I just need a term to quantify intelligence, so if you want just replace 'IQ' with whatever seems most appropriate to you.

I think "being smart" has more to do with being interested in subjects that "smart people" are generally interested in, rather than some sort of inner level of intelligence. I think ease of learning comes from being interested in the subject, not in higher levels of intelligence.

If every human on the planet had their IQ raised by 10 or 20 points, should we expect to see an increase in everyone's quality of life? An increase in technological innovation? An increase in open-mindedness and all that other good stuff? I'm not convinced.

I'm aware that I'm not really saying anything revolutionary here, but I think this viewpoint has lots of implications for our society that aren't generally recognized. We need to shift our priorities. Schools shouldn't be seen as places where kids are sent to learn how "smart people" do things, they should be seen as tools for us to expand our knowledge. We shouldn't compare people based on standardized tests, grades, or even performance in general. Students shouldn't feel pressured to demonstrate their intelligence, they should be given the tools and resources to learn things and explore the subject areas that interest them. The focus of education shouldn't be to be smart and perform well(I'd even eliminate performance measures altogether), it should be to learn stuff.

Our educational system is set up like a competition. We point to certain people that have developed interests in certain subjects(mostly sciences) as being more intelligent. And then we give them some of the highest-paying jobs, the highest quality of education, etc.

Most people accept that as fair, but it really isn't. Most people could've developed interest in those fields and performed just as well, but didn't for whatever reason. There's nothing wrong with that, but our society punishes these people. They're branded as failures, given few resources to secure a good job, and many times end up doing the work that nobody else wants to do simply out of necessity. They often times also develop a self-fulfilling prophecy where they feel stupid and incapable of learning, which could have serious consequences for the quality of their lives.

That's discrimination, it's wrong, it's unhelpful, and it causes more problems than it solves. What if, instead, we didn't evaluate students based on their performance, and instead focused entirely on assisting them in the pursuit of their own educational interests? What if universities were made open to the public and anybody, at any age, with any academic background, could utilize the resources their for their own educational benefit? I think we'd see happier people, "smarter" people, people with a larger amount of skills, and of course, a freer society in general.

Would that be a better society, or am I just a naive anarchist? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

 

[Dachs]

I think "being smart" has more to do with being interested in subjects that "smart people" are generally interested in, rather than some sort of inner level of intelligence. I think ease of learning comes from being interested in the subject, not in higher levels of intelligence.

hahaha what

 

[Andvare]

IQ have a correlation with the ability to think abstractly.
Racism have an inverse correlation with the ability to think abstractly.

If they do have a causal link, and that is likely, then yes, intelligence, as in IQ, is very important.

But we can cut down the second part altogether, IQ have a correlation with the ability to think abstractly, and that ability is very important.

 

[civver_764]

hahaha what

What's wrong with that? To understand something it usually helps if you want to understand that thing in the first place.

I mean a common thing we hear all the time is how smart mathematicians and scientists are(or people with A's in those classes). But that's completely missing the point. They aren't who they are because they have a higher intelligence than you(well, not necessarily I guess I should say), they've just somehow developed interests in those subjects that naturally led them to understand more about the subjects.

 

[Joecoolyo]

What I learned in Brain Studies is that no one is born "good" at something, but rather, if you want to become skillful, or "smart" at something, you just need to put a crapton of practice into it. And honestly, that's it.

They did studies of musicians, and the musicians who were considered the best were simply those who put the most time into practice. To master something I think you need something around 10,000 hours of practice or so (don't quote me on that specific number though).

If you want kids to do the best in school, give them as many opportunities to practice their studies as possible. Homework, after school stuff, whatever. The kids that excel are the ones who put the most effort into learning the material and mastering it. The kids that don't do so well, well, they've put the least amount of work into it.

Those kids shouldn't be left behind, but they need to be taught that practice makes perfect, or that you need to work hard if you want to get anywhere in life. I think this quote is pretty nifty:

"The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary"

 

[Kennigit]

I'm not scientifically backed on this (maybe I am, but I'm not looking up any statistics right now), but I generally feel that early childhood education (ages 3-12) will be the biggest determining factor in later "intelligence", at least for academic success. And academic success is needed for most STEM majors.

and I'm not talking about the "really" smart kids, some of whom probably don't work at all until like college even, or the below average intelligence kids, but for the majority just getting a good basics in reading, writing, and math goes a long way. And getting a 1-up on reading at age 7 or so is going to make things so much easier for you; if you're a 9 year old that can't read well the natural curiosity of the kid is going to be limited by how well he can read/the resources he has, and that may be the age the kid starts to get disinterested in valuing education. Because a 6 year old does nothing but ask questions about every damn thing; they want to learn and have a lot of fun learning.

I'd imagine people of higher socioeconomic incomes more often push their 9-12 year olds to really excel academically, while parents of kids who are behind tend to think "Well my kid can just catch up in middle school" or don't really understand how kind of predetermined kids are when it comes to math/science background. You can probably go to a classroom of 7th graders and, after speaking with them, accurately predict which ones will go to STEM fields; people who are mediocre to poor at math/science in 7th grade (um 13 age?) generally aren't just going to "catch up" in high school or be interested in math/science.

There probably would be a lot more female engineers/scientists if girls ages 6-12 were encouraged to learn math the way a lot of boys are by their families/society.

To also offer a thing about university education, I really do think that public universities/government should weigh the major some in either financial aid or scholarships available, or have more programs that bind the graduate to public service work for a year or two (in public sector or a job like teaching or something). That's a bit hard to implement though, but GDP generated from R&D and technological jobs is probably disproportionate to the amount spent on R&D: ~%2-3 GDP, ~4% of revenues for a company I think. The government/states should make university more affordable, but I think it's in the government's interests (and society's interests) to generally reward a student trying to go into a STEM major rather than random person #12313461234 go into a public institution's "english" program and both get similar the same financial aid access.

Because not to knock on english majors or anything, but a STEM or business degree will pay back the state & economy more than that of some majors.

 

[Quintillus]

I endorse Kennegit's post as a really good post, even if isn't similar to what I'd planned to post. It's a really good example of why environment matters.

Still, I think that the answer to your first question is "yes". As you mention yourself, there's clearly outliers far out in both directions; it'd be silly to think that there wasn't variance closer to the middle as well. It's just not as noticeable closer to the middle. If Person A has an IQ of 85, and person B has an IQ of 115, they'll both be able to carry on conversations that you find meaningful, and you likely won't notice intellectual ability differences unless you work with them directly (and possibly quite closely). Both will make good points at times, and both will occasionally do stupid things. They'll both seem "normal". But that doesn't mean that all "normal" people are equally intelligent.

Interest in the subject absolutely impacts the ease of learning, but I think once you have similar levels of interest, natural intelligence in that area can make a difference. Previous background will also have a huge impact on apparent progress. So intelligence is certainly not the only factor. But I think there does come a point where, even with interest and background, some people are more naturally suited to certain subjects than others.

As for people who are interested in "smart subjects" "being smarter"... I think that's, at least in a decent chunk, perception. It depends on how you are dicing it. I'm not going to argue that a nuclear physics researcher isn't likely to be smarter than the average basket weaving major. But there are very smart people studying fields that have less cadre as being intellectually demanding. It might sound less impressive if someone introduces themselves as a sociologist versus a rocket scientist, but that doesn't mean that once you get to know the sociologist, you won't come to think they're really smart.

I agree with some of what you say about education, but not other parts. Expanding knowledge is good, but I think it is valuable to learn how smart people do things - how they solve problems, how they weigh alternatives, etc. Knowledge is great, but if you focus too much on that, you end up with people who would probably do great at Jeopardy, but aren't so great at analysing what they know. Obviously we don't want to say, "This is how smart people do things, so do it this way" (for multiple reasons), but oftentimes, they way smart people do things is a fairly good way to do them.

I agree more with placing less of an emphasis on evaluation, testing, and so forth. There probably needs to be some form of feedback just so students (and their parents) have some idea of whether they are on the right track, but the pressure to do well can be counterproductive and discourage education long term. It's a bit of a quandry, as testing encourages putting in the effort short and medium term, but long term, tends to decrease enthusiasm for learning (does anyone really enjoy tests?). And standardized testing is generally deadly dull. Three-quarters of that problem is simply the preparation for them, as that detracts from a curriculum focused on learning, tends to take more of the school year than it should, and who actually enjoys a class that's all "taught to the test"? It's possible to still make such a course interesting, but in general, it's less so than it would be otherwise.

I also agree that, in general, we should encourage people to follow the areas that interest them. But I think there is still room to encourage certain majors that are needed for increased prosperity (generally, STEM ones) through additional investment, programs, and so forth. The idea isn't so much to favor people who naturally happen to find science fascinating, but rather to get more mechanical engineers and so forth, since we generally don't have enough of them to meet demand (that's also why the salaries tend to be higher).

The area where it's really more of a gray area is where there's insufficient supply, but nevertheless plenty of demand. I'm thinking of doctors in particular. There aren't enough doctors, but there's actually plenty of people trying to get into med school. From what my friends who are actually on that track tell me, a large part of the issue is finding enough residencies for additional med students - even if the med schools took twice as many students, they couldn't all become doctors. Here, doctors are rewarded for their skills and expertise, we need lots of them, and lots of people are interested in that career path, but we can't actually train that many, so we do get that super-competitive atmosphere, which can be counterproductive.

 

[Borachio]

Intelligence as a concept has always been problematic for me.

I simply don't know what it is. And as far as I can see, no one else knows either.

I, myself, value kindness and friendliness above everything.


(As for intelligence being rewarded, I don't think the "cleverest" people necessarily are. Unless that is how you define clever, of course. And, incidentally, I don't think "intelligence" (whatever it is) is a fixed quality in any case.)

 

[schlaufuchs]

No, there's definitely differences in intelligence. Sure achieving a level of professional competence in a field requires an asston of work, nobody is denying that, but some people have a much easier time acquiring knowledge and remembering things than others. For example when my German class learned adjective endings, which involves a decently large amount of memorization for forms, and a decently good grasp of declension and German cases. I spent about 5 minutes studying the forms in class and had them down pat by the end of the day. A friend of mine spent hours upon days upon weeks studying the forms, putting the work, doing flashcards, anything possible, and she still struggled on the chapter exam. I think there is something to be said to base "intelligence", specifically how easily someone can acquire and internalize knowledge or information given to them. There's also certainly something to be said to creativity; the ability for someone to take knowledge given to them and draw new and interesting conclusions from them. I don't think this degree is equal in everybody, some are simply better at it than others.

 

[Mise]

Since this is the tavern, I won't go into too much detail on my thoughts (though I appreciate the others in here who have). I will simply say that some people are clearly more intelligent than others; some people are clearly less intelligent than others; and this has nothing to do with their interest in any particular subject. As a quick counterexample, I know plenty of people who were deeply interested in a subject but still performed worse at the subject than people who had no interest in it whatsoever.

Personally, I got A's in everything at school: there was no real bias one way or the other in terms of subjects. Yet there were clearly subjects I loved (e.g. Physics) and subjects that I had no interest in whatsoever (e.g. French). I'm smart though, so I still got A's. Other people struggled to get decent grades in school, despite a keen interest in the subject, and despite working, quite frankly, harder than I will ever work in my life.

There's nothing wrong with being less intelligent, just like there's nothing wrong with being short or being skinny or being bad at sports or whatever. But intelligence will help you in life, and lack of intelligence will hinder you in life. IMO being lazy, greedy, envious, etc are worse things to be, and I think most ethical philosophy will back me up here.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes. It's real, and I think it's important.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

It's generally important, but it's not sufficient.
Intelligence means nothing if you don't have the discipline to use it correctly.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

We shouldn't compare people based on standardized tests, grades, or even performance in general. Students shouldn't feel pressured to demonstrate their intelligence, they should be given the tools and resources to learn things and explore the subject areas that interest them. The focus of education shouldn't be to be smart and perform well(I'd even eliminate performance measures altogether), it should be to learn stuff.

You know, I keep hearing about people who complain about standardized testing, but I never hear of any concrete alternatives. "Eliminate performance measures" sounds like a really terrible idea. Open-ended goals aren't things best pursued by public resources. Does the current educational system not allow people to pursue what they are interested in? Or is it really the current economic system and its system of valuation of certain fields of study that you are griping about?

 

[warpus]

IQ tests are a bunch of BS and don't really do a very good job of telling you how intelligent you are. Sure, if you scored a 130 you are probably more intelligent than someone who scored 80, but that's about as good as it is as a means of measuring intelligence.

As for the OP's questions..

Yes, some people are more intelligent than others. There are idiots out there, there are geniuses, and there's everything in between.

One thing that's important is not to confuse intelligence with being educated or intelligence with "smartness"

And does it matter? Of course. The less idiots on this planet, the better.

 

[Mise]

fewer*

 

[Borachio]

fewer= comparative for discrete variables e.g. people
less = comparative for continuous variables e.g. rain

But fewer and fewer intelligent, less well-educated people know this these days. And why not? That's how languages change.

 

[schlaufuchs]

fewer= comparative for discrete variables e.g. people
less = comparative for continuous variables e.g. rain

yes, and?

 

[Borachio]

yes, and?

Yes, and, and?

 

[History_Buff]

Good Post

Agree with everything Mise has to say here, but less competent at French.

IQ tests are a bunch of BS and don't really do a very good job of telling you how intelligent you are. Sure, if you scored a 130 you are probably more intelligent than someone who scored 80, but that's about as good as it is as a means of measuring intelligence.

And this. IQ tests are almost entirely BS, and hugely biased culturally.

 

[Glassfan]

I consider myself an intelligent person (as obviously do many here), but I have found in life that character and personality are just as important. Furthermore, mere intelligence is not as good as wisdom.

I've always been attracted to, and dated bright coeds - but I married a warm, honest woman with a delightful sense of humor.