[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, I’ll take a stab at a definition, which quite likely is different than most:
Intelligence is that which enables a person, for reasons other than physical attributes, to perform tasks or activities that an animal cannot.
Greater intelligence in a given area relative to another person is exhibited by being able to in general perform the same tasks or activities in that area that the other person can and additionally perform many others that he cannot, again where physical attributes are not the involved factor, and assuming comparable exposure to education.[/quote]
I’m not really sure how animals relate to the discussion. I don’t see an animals ability to preform something having an effect on weather it is defined as an intelligent act.
I take it you don’t agree with the notion of kinesthetic intelligence either.
Intelligence is in the eye of the beholder. It is really too broad a topic to make really quantifiable distinctions at the general level.
Good at math, bad at music. Good at math in your head, bad at complex math using a calculator. Good with book smarts, bad with social smarts.
Or even if you are talking about good at math in your head, there are many nuances. Say one guy is faster at math in his head, while the second guy is more accurate. Who is “smarter”?
You must also note that many times individual abilities vary within a person. Some people can be bad at math in their head, but have an idiot savant type skill that is entirely dependent on it.
I don’t really find intelligence in a broad since to be an objective quality. It’s like comparing apples and oranges and bananas and granny smith apples and red delicious and strawberries and tomatoes and est. and trying to determine what flavor “fruit” is.
I for instance am really good at math/physics/engineering, but can’t spell or use proper grammar to save my life. Are I dum or is i smarts?