Quote from: Moloch on October 02, 2018, 12:22:03 PM

Quote from: m.roth on October 01, 2018, 04:25:55 PM

There are many models and definitions of intelligence. The IQ usually is measured in an academic form, regardless of the culture of the subjects being tested. Therefore we measure, what WE think intelligence is, bringing disadvantages for certain groups. Intelligence needs to be considered always with the context someone is in.

For me, intelligence is how to be smart and cognitively adaptable compared to others in the same surrounding and it should also include the emotional intelligence and creativity and other non-academic measures.

Please don't try to redefine intelligence to include "emotions, creativity and other non-academic measures"... that is NOT intelligence

It sounds like you are trying to give everyone a participation trophy for intelligence

Intelligence is what it is... some people have it, others don't... similarly, some people are good at sports, and others are not... you don't need to pretend that chess is a sport in order to make intelligent people feel better about sucking at physical activity...

Some people are creative, others intelligent... these are 2 completely different things... why try to put them in the same category?

Redefine? Please give me the one definition of intelligence where everybody agrees on. As a said, there are many models and models are constructed. You can e.g. factor-analyse what specific criteria load on a central intelligence construct (e.g. spearmens g- and s- factor), there is not one clear definition of intelligence till now. Yes, there might be models which are more reliable and valid, which does not make other models completely obsolete.

E.g. Gartner postulated a multiple intelligence model, including musical / rhythmic and interpersonal intelligence. I know, those multiple factors do not clearly relate to one superior intelligence construct. And i give u that creativity is probably something different than intelligence, social intelligence though is very much a form of intelligence to me, although it's a non-academic measure.

In many intelligence test, comprehension, vocabulary and other verbal tasks are part of the test. Imo this clearly differs from other domains like processing speed, working memory, logical thinking and so on. It correlates still with a superior intelligence factor to a certain extent. But is it accurate to speak of a general intelligence mixing verbal skills and mathematic skills together? And the reliability of verbals tasks is also a bit limited and can depend heavily on the interviewer.

You will always have different subdomains, which you can measure more or less accurate. Those subdomains are somehow combined to an intelligence construct. What subdomains have to be within this intelligence construct will always be an approximation and is not as clear as it is what it is!