Human Intelligence

As historian Walter Laquer has warned us, so far no one has succeeded in crafting a theory of
intelligence. There are probably as many definitions of intelligence as there are scientists who
study it. The term is defined anew by each author who addresses it, and these definitions rarely
refer to one another or build off what has been written before.
In the following I shall attempt to do the same…

I. Definition
Intelligence represents the amount of experience an individual gains in a given time unit. High
intelligence means that a large amount of experience is obtained over a short interval of time,
while low intelligence means that little experience is obtained over a long period of time. Simply
put, intelligence measures the rate at which a person acquires new experience through individual
acts of comprehension. The relationship that defines intelligence is the following:

where ∆Exp is the amount of experience obtained in the time unit ∆t.
Here are some examples to illustrate this relationship:
The person who solves a problem in 20 minutes is more intelligent than the one who solves the
same problem in 60 minutes because it acquires experience faster. In this example ∆Exp has the
same value for both - they both solve the same problem - but the time interval ∆t is different.
Another example : researcher A makes 3 scientific discoveries in one year, while researcher B
makes 1 discovery in the same amount of time. In this second example ∆t has the same value for
both, but the experience gained is different. According to the above relationship we can assess
that scientist A is more intelligent than B because he accumulates experience faster.
Until today intelligence research has focused on measuring experience, while completely
ignoring the time factor. Suppose person X is the world champion in mathematics and the time
he spends with this discipline is about 18~20 hours a week. Now, suppose person Y is just as
good at mathematics as X (this means he has the same amount of experience in mathematics as
X) but Y exercises mathematics 9~10 hours a week. By ignoring the time factor it would be
impossible for us to determine which of the two possesses a higher intelligence quotient, both
having the same amount of experience in that area. But by calculating the experience/time ratio
we can assess that Y is more intelligent than X because it has acquired the same amount of
experience in half the time.

Some may recognize a certain analogy between this definition (experience/time) and other
definitions from physics, such as that of speed (distance/time) or power (energy/time). The
difference is that the definition of intelligence seems to be a purely theoretical relation,
numerical values been almost impossible to obtain, for both experience and time components.
While the distance traveled by an object or the energy put out by an engine can be measured
without any problems, the assessment of experience in numerical values is very problematic, if
not impossible. The grades given in school actually represent a type of percentage evaluation:
The student which reproduces 70% of the given lesson or solves 70% of the given problems
receives the grade “7”, the student which reproduces 90% of the given lesson or solves 90% of
the given problems is given “9” and so on. This involves the existence of an integer (“you have
to learn A, B and C”) and the establishing of a fraction (“you’ve only learnt A and C”).
Unfortunately, there is no measure unit for human experience. Experience exists, it is chemically
stored by the brain, but by present day means it cannot be evaluated.

Determining the time component ∆t could also prove difficult. Measuring time is not a problem,
but determining the object of attention can be problematic. We all know the example of the
student “reading” his book (after two hours of “reading” he doesn’t seem to know much on the
subject – so how much is ∆t, how long has he been focusing on the subject of the book?)

Unless a proper way is found to determine the level of experience in an individual and the
amount of time in which that experience was built up, the relationship ∆Exp/∆t is of no practical
use. However, this fraction remains the theoretical definition of intelligence.

II. The nature of intelligence – an act of understanding

As the use of intelligence implies an act of understanding, in the following I shall give examples
of activities which involve acts of understanding, and activities which do not. In common speech
the act of understanding is are referred to by expressions like “to figure out” “to make sense” “to
get it” “to catch on”.

a) using other individuals’ intelligence, communication

This is a study of human intelligence as the intelligence of an individual. Collective intelligence
as the intelligence of a group, an organization or an entity of any kind is not the object here.
From the perspective of an individual, there is a fine line between the notions “intelligence” and
“knowledge”. The intelligence of an individual represents the conclusions acquired by the own
intellect of that individual. However, the term knowledge covers a much wider area, including
conclusions obtained from external sources as well. In this respect, the difference between
knowledge and intelligence becomes obvious. For example, we may be aware of the theory of
evolution, but we didn’t figure it out ourselves. The discovery (the act of comprehension) arises
from an external source – C.D. Another example: we may know about elliptical orbits, but we
didn’t figure these out ourselves; again, the discovery arises from an external source – J.K.
In this respect, one of the definitions of intelligence – “capacity for knowledge and knowledge
possessed” – is wrong, as it ignores that “knowledge possessed” may arise from external sources
and not involve an act of comprehension (or any other mental activity) from the subject.
Communication (written or spoken) enables the exchange of information among individuals,
providing the possibility for transmitting data, conclusions, ideas, concepts, models of logical
reasoning etc. Teaching, assistance, advice, instructions provide us with solutions “the easy way”
– by using other individual’s intelligence. Figuring things out by ourselves is “the hard way” – it
involves use of our own intelligence.

b) using previous experience, memory

Intelligence learns from previous experience. This means once the solution to a problem is
figured out, similar or identical problems no longer pose difficulty in solving. This feature was
observed by numerous scientists and conveyed under various formulations : “ability to solve new
problems” “ability to adapt to new situations” “adaptability to changes in the environment” etc.
However, it seems odd to claim intelligence is tested by new problems or new situations and at
the same time consider giving iq tests to people who have a long previous training with iq tests.
It seems rather absurd that one should not apply his own claims in practice… How are iq tests a
new problem for the mensa people?
In my opinion standardized iq tests offer a correct measure of intelligence when they pose a new
problem for the subject (when the subject has never seen iq tests before). Otherwise we’re testing
previous experience. The alleged increase of iq over the generations is in fact an increase of iq
tests’ popularity. It just shows now we’re testing more and more individuals with previous
experience.

Author : Crişan Flaviu

flvcrisan@yahoo.com
http://flvcrisan.tripod.com/flvcrisan
http://flvcrisan.hi5.com