Psychology: I'm not an expert on the subject, but something's wrong

[Jasper]

I would define intelligence as the capacity to observe reality and adapt.

[navkat]

I would define intelligence as the capacity to observe reality and adapt.

Pattern recognition.

[Jasper]

Pattern recognition is an inadequate description of intelligence because it does not account for adaptation.  Just noticing a pattern does not signify intelligence.  Being able to decide whether the pattern is significant, what to do about it, to induce what it means for the future and deduce what it means about the past, with regard to how it may help or hinder you.  That is a huge element to intelligence that mere pattern recognition does not include.

[Eater of Clowns]

I would define intelligence as the capacity to observe reality and adapt.

Pattern recognition.

They were more practically adapted to survival, yeah, but smarter, I don't think so. 

What do you define intelligence as?

Oof.  Big question.  I'm behind the idea that it's an amalgamation of critical thinking, analytical thinking, memory, reasoning, knowledge, application of knowledge, etc.  I generally support multiple intelligences, in which case I could see us being dumber in many practical ways as time goes on but smarter in other ways.

Pattern recognition.

That's an oversimplification.  It's probably a significant part of intelligence, and it plays into creativity, but pattern recognition is essentially law of fives, which is a reminder that if you rely entirely on pattern recognition you're likely to see links where they don't actually exist.

Pattern recognition alone would also lead to a conflation of correlation and causation, being that a pattern is present, but without any analysis it'd be a mistake.

[navkat]

There are different types of intelligence. All of them sprout from some form of pattern recognition, more or less.

I do NOT define intelligence as the ability to observe reality and adapt because that limits intelligence to those who are really good at managing everything from social interaction to addiction to fucking HORRORS and it disenfranchises those who are really good at math with Asperger's.

Intelligence has many manifestations. I'm articulate and well-written. I can comprehend complex messages from the things I read. I do math at roughly a 9th grade level and I'm a social fucking retard who puts my foot in my mouth daily and fails to recognize patterns in my love life over and over and fucking over again.

Kai is a brilliant mathematician and scientist. I don't dare challenge him on any matters pertaining to those areas. Cain has a library in his head and I've learned to take a seat a stfu in many instances where knowledge of history and politics are challenged. I have a friend who's a social genius...to the point where he can practically read minds. He can predict what people are going to say or do before they know themselves.

Specialized brands of pattern recognition.

[navkat]

I would define intelligence as the capacity to observe reality and adapt.

Pattern recognition.

They were more practically adapted to survival, yeah, but smarter, I don't think so. 

What do you define intelligence as?

Oof.  Big question.  I'm behind the idea that it's an amalgamation of critical thinking, analytical thinking, memory, reasoning, knowledge, application of knowledge, etc.  I generally support multiple intelligences, in which case I could see us being dumber in many practical ways as time goes on but smarter in other ways.

Pattern recognition.

That's an oversimplification.  It's probably a significant part of intelligence, and it plays into creativity, but pattern recognition is essentially law of fives, which is a reminder that if you rely entirely on pattern recognition you're likely to see links where they don't actually exist.

Pattern recognition alone would also lead to a conflation of correlation and causation, being that a pattern is present, but without any analysis it'd be a mistake.

Pattern recognition, not pattern makey-upedness.

[Eater of Clowns]

So pattern recognition would account for noticing a familiar situation.  What about, uh, reacting or adapting to that situation?  If you're about to get hit by a bus, can reference that the bus is about to strike you, but don't actually move out of the way, your definition would argue that such an action is an intelligent one.

[Jasper]

When I say "observe reality and adjust", I'm being intentionally broad.  It can be anything.  When you observe that people who get hit by cars often don't come back from the ER, you adjust to that fact by avoiding cars and other large, fast objects to also avoid not coming back from the ER.  When you observe a complex phenomenon, it's the same thing.  It's just a different kind of observing reality and making up an appropriate adjustment.

EDIT:  Damn EoC, took my getting hit by cars example!  *shakes fist*

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Saying that the potentiation of each neurotransmitter in the brain is the software is a big mistake.  It's an abuse of a metaphor that was shaky to begin with.  Brains are un-computerlike.  They do not work on algorithms in the same sense.  It is true that there are algorithms for neuronal behavior but they are approximations of biological behavior.  They are not the rules that create brains, but a description.

Computers are mechanistic, so are brains.  Computers take data from hardware into "working memory" and perform operations on it.  That is what software is.   Brains are the working memory.  They do not have hard drives or working memory.  Brains are therefore more circuit-like than computer like.  Circuits don't have programs, they embody them.

Not to mention, it's not the neurotransmitter alone that matter. it's a whole slew of variables. Neurotransmitters come in many flavors. When they open protein gated channels on the dendrites across the synapse, it could be one of four ions that rushes in. These ions are of different strenghts in terms of generating an action potential, either excitatory or inhibatory. The axon may be sending either inhibitory or excitatory signals. It may be interacting with one other neuron, or more likely, dozens. It could be receiving excitatory ions from one part of the dendrite and inhibitory from another, all from different other neurons. When the charge reaches the hillock, if it tips the balance the neuron fires. We're talking ionic eletrotransport of signal that can be altered in a massive amount of ways within a multi-billion cell network. It's all "hardware", that is, it's all physical connections, but the connections and the /temperment/ of the connections are malleable.

There isn't really a good computer "hardware versus software metaphor" for neurology, because our computer systems have components that are either physical circuits or magnetic (yet easily erasable) storage. You could said that neuropathy is hardware with software like malleability, but that doesn't make any sense.

Thanks Kai. I walked away from my computer going UNNNNNNNNNG! but then I walked back to it and read this.

[Kai]

Also, Navkat, while it's nice to hear the endorsement, I am not a mathemetician.

[navkat]

 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm sticking with the dictionary definition.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That's a neat definition.  We make immediate reactive deicisions on a daily basis, which are based on previous learned experiences in something even as simple as driving.  What do you do when the semi driver doesn't see you in the lane when he changes into it?  How do you act when that SUV didn't check its massive blind spot and is about to take out your front end?  That can be a life or death situation as much as a pillaging army or blight, and one that we practice on a very regular basis.  But I don't think that's a definitive answer to intelligence.

I'm gonna argue based on experience that driving decisions are made by habit, experience, and reflex, not by outright intelligence.

I'm arguing that because we have such a wealth of accumulated knowledge that we need to apply on a regular basis, we have become more intelligent in order to adapt to that.  Whether or not our hardware has changed, the average person needs to draw upon a greater amount of information and for that we've become more intelligent.

Established, accumulated knowledge doesn't necessarily imply intelligence.  I'd argue the other way, stating that you don't need to use your brain as much if the knowledge is handed to you.

As for dropping a westerner in the middle ages, do the same for someone in the middle ages.  They'd probably get hit by a car.

It's more likely that they'd go insane.

However, I definitely agree that it's easier to get by these days than it was back then.  Lack of intelligence is protected to a greater degree than ever.

Sure.  But I wasn't even considering genetic load.  I'm arguing that people are less intelligent for the same reason that they're physically weaker.  They don't need to use their muscles or their brains as much.

[Kai]

That's a neat definition.  We make immediate reactive deicisions on a daily basis, which are based on previous learned experiences in something even as simple as driving.  What do you do when the semi driver doesn't see you in the lane when he changes into it?  How do you act when that SUV didn't check its massive blind spot and is about to take out your front end?  That can be a life or death situation as much as a pillaging army or blight, and one that we practice on a very regular basis.  But I don't think that's a definitive answer to intelligence.

I'm gonna argue based on experience that driving decisions are made by habit, experience, and reflex, not by outright intelligence.

I'm arguing that because we have such a wealth of accumulated knowledge that we need to apply on a regular basis, we have become more intelligent in order to adapt to that.  Whether or not our hardware has changed, the average person needs to draw upon a greater amount of information and for that we've become more intelligent.

Established, accumulated knowledge doesn't necessarily imply intelligence.  I'd argue the other way, stating that you don't need to use your brain as much if the knowledge is handed to you.

As for dropping a westerner in the middle ages, do the same for someone in the middle ages.  They'd probably get hit by a car.

It's more likely that they'd go insane.

However, I definitely agree that it's easier to get by these days than it was back then.  Lack of intelligence is protected to a greater degree than ever.

Sure.  But I wasn't even considering genetic load.  I'm arguing that people are less intelligent for the same reason that they're physically weaker.  They don't need to use their muscles or their brains as much.

So, you're speaking in sense of exercise and childhood development rather than some sort of genetic change.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That's a neat definition.  We make immediate reactive deicisions on a daily basis, which are based on previous learned experiences in something even as simple as driving.  What do you do when the semi driver doesn't see you in the lane when he changes into it?  How do you act when that SUV didn't check its massive blind spot and is about to take out your front end?  That can be a life or death situation as much as a pillaging army or blight, and one that we practice on a very regular basis.  But I don't think that's a definitive answer to intelligence.

I'm gonna argue based on experience that driving decisions are made by habit, experience, and reflex, not by outright intelligence.

I'm arguing that because we have such a wealth of accumulated knowledge that we need to apply on a regular basis, we have become more intelligent in order to adapt to that.  Whether or not our hardware has changed, the average person needs to draw upon a greater amount of information and for that we've become more intelligent.

Established, accumulated knowledge doesn't necessarily imply intelligence.  I'd argue the other way, stating that you don't need to use your brain as much if the knowledge is handed to you.

As for dropping a westerner in the middle ages, do the same for someone in the middle ages.  They'd probably get hit by a car.

It's more likely that they'd go insane.

However, I definitely agree that it's easier to get by these days than it was back then.  Lack of intelligence is protected to a greater degree than ever.

Sure.  But I wasn't even considering genetic load.  I'm arguing that people are less intelligent for the same reason that they're physically weaker.  They don't need to use their muscles or their brains as much.

So, you're speaking in sense of exercise and childhood development rather than some sort of genetic change.

Yep.  I think it even goes beyond that.  I think you can take an average adult and make him measurably smarter, simply by changing his environment and his behavior.  I know I think better after an adulthood of studying higher math, and then troubleshooting complex industrial systems.

I'm pretty sure intelligence as described in the dictionary is to some degree a learned behavior.  A human - probably - has a band of intelligence that goes from "couch potato" to "very intelligent", and where they fall on the scale is to some degree determined by what they DO with their brain.