On a day to day shit chat, I use "intelligent" to call a person I perceive as good to conclude reasoning.

'Good' based on both speed and the minimal amount of info necessary to the conclusion.

Info is based on prev knowledge (culture, memory)

Speed is based on how good the person is on connecting the dots. ( I personally call that wisdom, or cleverness, or sagacity, its independent of knowledge )

Compare a idiot to a intelligent one (from my pov).

The idiot would take 10 min lurking on wikipedia to find stuff, more 5 min to make the reasoning on top of the knowledge.

The intelligent will already have the knowledge or need to research less topics, and take less time reasoning.

As you can see, that will vary from subject to subject (math, biology..). So youd need an average of all possible subjects to get to an intelligence grade for a person.

Intuition can sometimes aid intelligence, but there are many observations in the world that can defy intuition. Science is more like a cultivated fruit, while intuition is like a wild fruit.

Just as knowing things, intelligence is knowing where your limits are.

...when a person with a generally accepted "low level of intellect (e.g. poor IQ / exam scores)" achieves that of a person with a generally accepted "higher level of intellect" through insight, intuition and hard work (applying ones self etc).

Discuss. How do you define it?

IQ measures specific areas of knowledge, not intelligence. It's a misnomer.

Depending on the test given, I can score high or I can score low, if I've happened to memorize facts about that category of knowledge that they are testing me on. For example I, for fun, took an online IQ test given by the Mensa society (the "high IQ society"). I scored highly. Not high enough to join, but on the far side of their "intelligence" scale, significantly above average. The questions were things like, "Who was the prime minister of Britian during WW2?". Well, it happens I like history, so I guess being well-read in specific western-oriented semi-recent historical events makes me intelligent? Balderdash, they were testing knowledge (and specific areas of knowledge, at that).

I'm really knowledgeable, breadth and depth, but I'm only so-so with intelligence.

As another example, my adopted older brother was given an exam to place him in public school to see what grade he should be placed in. He scored so badly that the school thought he was an idiot... because he didn't know what a lamp was! Well, where he grew up poor in the inner city, before he was adopted by my parents, he had never seen a lamp on a table before!

Measurements of intelligence, if it's to have any real value, has to be universally applicable and not culturally-specific.

I seperate them out roughly like this:

- Knowledge (the amount of information memorized)

- Wisdom (the ability to make good decisions based off of knowledge)

- Intelligence (the ability to figure things out and work through things in your mind)

- Skill (the ability to apply knowledge in a practical way)

The actual literal english definitions of these words differ and overlap, but in personal use, I give them more distinct meanings.

Frequently, I hear people putting themselves down, calling themselves stupid ("lacking in intelligence"), because they haven't yet gained knowledge in a specific area. Knowledge and intelligence are different.

Frequently, people praise me for be smart/clever (intelligence), because I happen to know something they don't (knowledge), or I have practical experience doing something they've never done (skill).

This is a problem purely because I think people don't even bother attempting some tasks (or don't persist for long enough), because they allow themselves to buy into the excuse that they aren't smart enough, when intelligence really isn't the qualifying factor for those tasks.

[Edit:] *after reading the previous post*, I think "intuition" is also separate from knowledge and intelligence (or perhaps is a specific form or subcategory of intelligence?).

IQ measures specific areas of knowledge, not intelligence. It's a misnomer.

Depending on the test given, I can score high or I can score low, if I've happened to memorize facts about that category of knowledge that they are testing me on. For example I, for fun, took an online IQ test given by the Mensa society (the "high IQ society"). I scored highly. Not high enough to join, but on the far side of their "intelligence" scale, significantly above average. The questions were things like, "Who was the prime minister of Britian during WW2?". Well, it happens I like history, so I guess being well-read in specific western-oriented semi-recent historical events makes me intelligent? Balderdash, they were testing knowledge (and specific areas of knowledge, at that

Modern psychiatric tests are a lot more comprehensive. I was given the WAIS test a few years ago after I'd suffered from a few head injuries, and they do not do any testing of knowledge. It was administered over several days, and the first day was basically a calibration day, to measure my ability to actually take the test. Each session was conducted by two people, one who administers the tests, and one who observed to see if I was showing any signs of mental fatigue or confusion, at which point a break would be taken and then the testing resumed.

...when a person with a generally accepted "low level of intellect (e.g. poor IQ / exam scores)" achieves that of a person with a generally accepted "higher level of intellect" through insight, intuition and hard work (applying ones self etc).

Discuss. How do you define it?

IQ measures specific areas of knowledge, not intelligence. It's a misnomer.

Depending on the test given, I can score high or I can score low, if I've happened to memorize facts about that category of knowledge that they are testing me on. For example I, for fun, took an online IQ test given by the Mensa society (the "high IQ society"). I scored highly. Not high enough to join, but on the far side of their "intelligence" scale, significantly above average. The questions were things like, "Who was the prime minister of Britian during WW2?". Well, it happens I like history, so I guess being well-read in specific western-oriented semi-recent historical events makes me intelligent? Balderdash, they were testing knowledge (and specific areas of knowledge, at that).

I'm really knowledgeable, breadth and depth, but I'm only so-so with intelligence.

As another example, my adopted older brother was given an exam to place him in public school to see what grade he should be placed in. He scored so badly that the school thought he was an idiot... because he didn't know what a lamp was! Well, where he grew up poor in the inner city, before he was adopted by my parents, he had never seen a lamp on a table before!

Measurements of intelligence, if it's to have any real value, has to be universally applicable and not culturally-specific.

I seperate them out roughly like this:

- Knowledge (the amount of information memorized)

- Wisdom (the ability to make good decisions based off of knowledge)

- Intelligence (the ability to figure things out and work through things in your mind)

- Skill (the ability to apply knowledge in a practical way)

The actual literal english definitions of these words differ and overlap, but in personal use, I give them more distinct meanings.

Frequently, I hear people putting themselves down, calling themselves stupid ("lacking in intelligence"), because they haven't yet gained knowledge in a specific area. Knowledge and intelligence are different.

Frequently, people praise me for be smart/clever (intelligence), because I happen to know something they don't (knowledge), or I have practical experience doing something they've never done (skill).

This is a problem purely because I think people don't even bother attempting some tasks (or don't persist for long enough), because they allow themselves to buy into the excuse that they aren't smart enough, when intelligence really isn't the qualifying factor for those tasks.

[Edit:] *after reading the previous post*, I think "intuition" is also separate from knowledge and intelligence (or perhaps is a specific form or subcategory of intelligence?).

Eh no you got it all wrong, an IQ test actually has as close as possible to ZERO knowledge prerequisite because that's exactly what it measures, raw intelligence. Knowing who was prime minister has nothing to do in an IQ test.

But is the 'ability' to do something also dependent on memorized things?

You can by memory learn to use specific approaches and guide your mind.

Its just how specific memorized things you want to measure.

Theres just four factors:
-Memorized things (using a very broad definition of memory)
-Their evolution over time (as in forgetting, possible optimization happening during sleep etc)
-Formation of them
-Fetching of them

Eh no you got it all wrong, an IQ test actually has as close as possible to ZERO knowledge prerequisite because that's exactly what it measures, raw intelligence. Knowing who was prime minister has nothing to do in an IQ test.

Everything that appears in a so-called IQ test are abilities that can be trained by intense repetition over 1-2 weeks, and are trained by the vast majority of people prior to taking a test.

Training for 1-2 weeks will give a score anywhere from 10 to 50 points higher, and the only real measure of intelligence, or lack thereof, is the fact that some people (like me, 20 years ago when entering uni) are stupid enough not to do it, out of a wrong feeling of doing something "dishonest". Which is of course entirely the case, except nobody cares in hindsight.

Eh no you got it all wrong, an IQ test actually has as close as possible to ZERO knowledge prerequisite because that's exactly what it measures, raw intelligence. Knowing who was prime minister has nothing to do in an IQ test.

Everything that appears in a so-called IQ test are abilities that can be trained by intense repetition over 1-2 weeks, and are trained by the vast majority of people prior to taking a test.

Training for 1-2 weeks will give a score anywhere from 10 to 50 points higher, and the only real measure of intelligence, or lack thereof, is the fact that some people (like me, 20 years ago when entering uni) are stupid enough not to do it, out of a wrong feeling of doing something "dishonest". Which is of course entirely the case, except nobody cares in hindsight.

No it only means if you train for the test you're skewing your results nothing else, IQ is a comparative measure normalized at 100, it's value lies in testing people on equal grounds, if some are "training for it" then they're "cheating" nothing more nothing less. Also there's no way you'd gain "50 points" by training for a couple of weeks, 50 points is beyond massive (that's as big a diference as between a borderline retarded person and a very Superior intelligence person . . . ) you may gain "a few points" by finding common patterns in questions but meh, that's about it.

The only place where you can get a 50 point diference are all the fake "free online iq tests" that try to sell you results afterwards, those are skewed and worthless and will fluctuate massively over a few difference (it's not possible to both test a high range AND have precision with few questions anyway, so when you do a 20 question IQ test online and you get something silly like 150, be sure it's just fake)

IQ measures specific areas of knowledge, not intelligence. It's a misnomer.

For example I, for fun, took an online IQ test given by the Mensa society (the "high IQ society"). I scored highly. Not high enough to join, but on the far side of their "intelligence" scale, significantly above average.

For whatever reason, I always score VERY high on those "online" tests that are floating around.

Highest "score" so far is 156 .

IQ measures specific areas of knowledge, not intelligence. It's a misnomer.

For example I, for fun, took an online IQ test given by the Mensa society (the "high IQ society"). I scored highly. Not high enough to join, but on the far side of their "intelligence" scale, significantly above average.

For whatever reason, I always score VERY high on those "online" tests that are floating around.

Highest "score" so far is 156 .

As i said earlier most of those are total crap, if you ask your friends i'm sure you'll fine plenty in the 130-160 range yet they should mostly be in the 90-110 range like most people (to give you an idea 156 SD 15 means there's only 1 person every 10 581 that's as clever as you and you outscore 99.992% of people, does that sound like you? Do you feel you're likely the single most clever person in a city of 10 000 people?).

I've scored up to 180 on some of those "fake online" IQ tests, that would put me among the 3 or 4 most clever people in my country with a rarity of one per 20 million, somehow i doubt it is the case

If you're curious about your IQ take one that is taken a lot, in a standardized procedure and regularily re normalized to 100.