Types of Intelligence

It seems that there are three kinds of intelligence that the IQ tests don't take into consideration. Those are:

cultural intelligence
adaptative intelligence
creative intelligence


Cultural intelligence

Definition Cultural intelligence are the things that you learn from a culture. Not the traditions, but wisdom that is passed over generations. This is particularly important to first nations and tribes in Africa. For example, they might know which herbs can be used to treat which diseases.

Significance Level in the IQ tests(1-10): 1
Real Significance Level(1-10)¹: 7


Adaptative intelligence

Definition Adaptative intelligence is how fast and accurately you adapt to different situations and circumstances. People that possess such intelligence can adapt quickly to any ambient. They often like to travel and meet new people. They often know many languages.

Significance Level in the IQ tests(1-10): 0
Real Significance Level(1-10)¹: 10


Creative intelligence

Definition Creative intelligence is the ability to bring different things together in order to form something new. Music and painting are examples of that. For example, in a piano, you have many notes. The notes by themselves have no particular "meaning". But once you put them in a certain order, with a certain rythym and with a certain emphasys, you have composed music. Creative intelligence also includes the ability to imagine things.

Significance Level in the IQ tests(1-10): 0
Real Significance Level(1-10)¹: 10



None of those types of intelligence depend on level of knowledge (besides the cultural one). So they should be considered different kinds of intelligence. I added the cultural one because it seems that the IQ test completely ignore it. The IQ tests were made using basically the north american culture (including what the north american culture values). It does not take into account what is considered valuable in different cultures, particularly non-materialistic ones.


Oh! And there's also the good olde "Emotional Intelligence", which I'm not going to talk about. But feel free to do so....



Sites:
http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/grady/diff_intell.html
http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq02.htm
http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/intell/intelligencepart1.html
http://www.carleton.ca/~rlwest/psyc1400/Intelligence-genetics.htm


¹Real significance level based on the importance of those things in life and the importance of those things in evolution.

Note:Those ideas came primarly from either my own mind or cultural intelligence, not from the sites.



Btw.... I got a score of 124 in my IQ test.
So.... no. I'm not writting this because my score was low...... :D :D

Just out of interest, what would you consider the 'cultural intelligence' of western society? You also missed out the ability to learn and motivation, which are important factors in intelligence, and possibly wisdom, defined as knowing how to apply knowledge, although that is kind of similar to 'adaptive intelligence'.

Finally someone! ;)
Just out of interest, what would you consider the 'cultural intelligence' of western society?
Whatever the IQ test tests! :)
Which is basically a cold emotionless logic with not flexibility whatsoever.
And materialistic knowledge.

You also missed out the ability to learn and motivation, which are important factors in intelligence,
Well... according to some people the test does test the ability to learn. Altough I don't believe it does. But that is directly linked to adaptative intelligence. Good point.... that's what I was forgeting to specify. Adaptative intelligence also includes how fast you learn, which is a varitaion of "how fast and accurately you adapt to different situations and circumstances". In this case the situation is "learning".

As for motivation.... I don't think it is a kind of intelligence...

and possibly wisdom, defined as knowing how to apply knowledge, although that is kind of similar to 'adaptive intelligence'.
They are the same.... :)
Well... actually... they intersect each other. There are things that are wise but shouldn't be considered adaptative and there are things that are adaptative that should not be considered wisdom, even tough it is intelligent. Wisdom is a broader concept compared to intelligence, and oddly enough it seems to entail less things than intelligence.

But this thread is not really about wisdom....
I mean... we seem to not even be able to grasp the concept of "intelligence"... imagine "wisdom"!

The problem here is ignorance, not g or the IQ concept. This is reflected by the vote
results: even if Gardner's MIT is included in definitions of Intelligence, the IQ concept
and the measure of a general intelligence factor are not invalidated.

It ignores more then 50% of one's intelligence.. :bugeye:

isn't there 9 types of intelligence and not 3?!

and isn't your IQ calculated : your Mental Age divided in your Physical Age?
So, those online tests that you do that do not ask you for your age provide you with a score far from the truth i would guess.

isn't there 9 types of intelligence and not 3?!

It depends on whom you ask.

Charles Spearman believed in a general intelligence or 'g factor', which underlied all other aspects of intelligence.

Robert Sternberg believed a person had 3 kinds of intelligence: analytical, creative and practical.

Howard Gardner thinks there are many different kinds of intelligence. The different abilities enabled our ancestors to cope with different environmental challenges (finding their way home, reading others' emotions, solving problems).

isn't there 9 types of intelligence and not 3?!

and isn't your IQ calculated : your Mental Age divided in your Physical Age?
So, those online tests that you do that do not ask you for your age provide you with a score far from the truth i would guess.

IQ is no longer calculated using ratios. Instead, percentile ranks are used with
help from the standard bell curve distribution...

isn't there 9 types of intelligence and not 3?!
If you can cite that many, then yes. And it is not 3, it is actually five. There's a more general intelligence (logical, actually) and emotional intelligence.

and isn't your IQ calculated : your Mental Age divided in your Physical Age?
If it is, it is more accurate then I thought.....
But still not accurate enough....


Looks like others here have done well describing kinds of intelligence....

My opinion:

Accurate at measuring functional intelligence only.

They will not tell you the capacity for leadership of an individual.

... which is more of a personality trait than a subset of intelligence. Of course,
the latter may have tremendous impact on the former.

If my IQ is only 10 points greater than truthseekers I guess they aren't accurate.
Ironically you might be right about something.

I believe that IQ tests are very good at testing for INTELLIGENCE. If you are trying to figure someone's emotional age, or sociability or their street smarts then there are other tests for that (life being the biggest test). If you are determining someones ability to quickly interperate patterns, respond to stimuli etc etc then you take an IQ test. IQ tests aren't and never were the final say on a persons ability to live life.

IQ tests are designed to test for real intelligence in a person, and a key use is on people doing poorly in school to see if their are naturally slow and have led to the discovery that they are indeed very intelligent and simply do not show it with current teaching and testing practices. This was done on a friend of mine who was doing poorly in school and led the school and his parents to believe he had some sort of learning disability. His amazing score showed them that he indeed did have high potential and I have NO doubt that this test changed his life. Without it they might have stuck him in a "special" class and led him to believe he was stupid his entire life and he wouldn't be where he is today. IQ tests have potential for a lot more than just patting the ego or the intellectual elite.

If you score low on an IQ test it doesn't mean you will fail in life or are less of a person, it just means that maybe you shouldn't pursue an MD. Do not complain about a valid testing procedure for intelligence because it won't tell you how good a painter or piano player you are.

Accurate at measuring functional intelligence only.
And what do you call "functional" intelligence?

They will not tell you the capacity for leadership of an individual.
They should. That's a big part of intelligence...


If my IQ is only 10 points greater than truthseekers I guess they aren't accurate.
Ironically you might be right about something.
Oh thank you! I guess.... :D


I believe that IQ tests are very good at testing for INTELLIGENCE. If you are trying to figure someone's emotional age, or sociability or their street smarts then there are other tests for that (life being the biggest test).
There are other types of intelligence that doesn't include emotional age and sociability. Creativity, for example. Why is it not a sign of intelligence?

IQ tests are designed to test for real intelligence in a person,
What do you call "real" intelligence? Cognitive? Analytical?

and a key use is on people doing poorly in school to see if their are naturally slow and have led to the discovery that they are indeed very intelligent and simply do not show it with current teaching and testing practices.
Why I have the awful feeling I can relate to that....? :rolleyes:
I would say "they" are simply bored..... :p

This was done on a friend of mine who was doing poorly in school and led the school and his parents to believe he had some sort of learning disability. His amazing score showed them that he indeed did have high potential and I have NO doubt that this test changed his life. Without it they might have stuck him in a "special" class and led him to believe he was stupid his entire life and he wouldn't be where he is today.
I've heard of that. Too bad we don't have those in Brasil. Or at least nobody thought about it when I was at school there. Geeeeezzz.... those were freaking boring years.... So much time wasted....

If you score low on an IQ test it doesn't mean you will fail in life or are less of a person, it just means that maybe you shouldn't pursue an MD. Do not complain about a valid testing procedure for intelligence because it won't tell you how good a painter or piano player you are.
Shall I tell you what piano did with my life? It made me much more logical. Before I played piano, I used to listen to rock and didn't study at all. But piano stimulated my mind. That's because piano is one of those rare things that combines the two sides of the brain in a single activity. The right side takes care of the notes and tempo, while the left side takes care of the melody and tone of the music. Piano enhances the flow of information in the corpus callosum and stimulates the hypothalamus.

Btw... women have the corpus callosum much more developed then men. That's why they are good at things that uses both emtion and logic at the same time, like pyschology, for example....

Anyways... it's tiring to see the lack of awareness about those things.... Art is not just art. It is much more challenging and stimulating than logic all by itself.


Just found this (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=39872) thread about the corpus callosum. Huummm.... guess who said it...?

"Well... that's a relatively easy question for a pianist...
The answer is, yes, emotions and math are connected. But emotions don't necessarily affect the way you learn math. Of course, if you feel really bad, there will be too much environmental noise and that will affect your math and everything else, for that matter.

But the most significant relationship between math and emotions lies on the fact that all math is done in the right side of the brain, while the emotions on the left. When it comes to piano, for example, piano enhances the connection between those two sides. The brain is divided in those two sides and they are connected by a single organ, which name I've forgot. I think it's the hypothalamus or something like that [correcting myself... now I remember, it is the corpus calossum]. Well... anyways. As greater is this organ, as faster and more intelligent you are. Girls have this organ naturally bigger and more effective than guys. In fact, guys use this organ much less then women.

However, through the study of things such as piano, this connection is enhanced. This happens for two main reasons. First of all, you need a greater hand coordination in order to play piano. So you need to enhance that. Your right hand and your left have to act independently. Each side of the brain control one of the hands. If you play piano and you train your brain, it becomes more and more effective on exchanging information between the two sides, since there must be a connection between them (although they are independent, they have to play certain notes at the same time). Secondly, piano develops both your emotions and your intellect. To interpret the music you need to be emotional. That also helps you getting to know yourself better. Besides that, reading the music sheets, finding the rythm and all this kind of mathematically precise actions develop the right side of your brain.

In other words.... playing piano make you close to a genius (or it really makes you a genius!). "

well i am 15 and have an IQ of 130 and am quite smart in knowledge and understanding and my school subjects. but grades and IQ tests dont mean anything becasue i dont really have that much common sense for some reason. i mean i do some stupid things sometimes i dont know why.

today while helping a friend out at a kitchen takeaway i poured bleach where washing up liquid should of gone, grabbed a knife by the blade, packed the wrong food, washed the wrong things, did half the things i was asked to do wrong etc. etc.

but i still dont understand because i seem like a smart guiy in a conversation and am just normal otherwise but for some reason this only happens mainly in NEW things. i mwan i dont make dumb mistakes like that on the PC or on things i always do but do on new things like in the kitchens

I did not vote and did not read many of the posts. I am sorry if I am repeating something already posted.

I am not familiar with modern intelligence tests. The intelligence tests used up to about 1950-1960 or perhaps later were designed in such a way that they were excellent predictors of academic success in the standard high schools and colleges of that era.

It was assumed in the early 20th century that academic success was equivalent to intelligence. The tests were tinkered to make sure that academically successful students scored high. This despite the fact that many successful entrepreneur types were not good students, but are generally considered intelligent by those who know them.

It is sad that hardly anybody recognized the implications of this design. Many who got low scores were not very bright. However many who could learn in a different environment got low scores and were classified as not very bright.

Up until some time in the early 20th century, you could become a doctor, lawyer, engineer by working for a successful practitioner for some number of years. It was an informal system similar to the apprentice system for trades like carpentry, plumbing, et cetera. There were no licencing requirements, even for doctors. There was no set period of apprenticeship. In most cases the apprentice was viewed as an assistant or employee and paid for his services.

There are many people who can learn professional level skills like engineering and surgery by watching and doing, but do not learn well in a classroom environment. Those people have not done well in our culture since the advent of IQ tests and the requirement for doing well in an academic environment.

It is interesting that there were no courses designed to teach computer programmer when computers were first developed. Between 1950 and about 1965, there were many who learned programming by doing. Programmers were scarce, and employers were will to give to give a chance to almost anybody who showed a willingness to try to learn. Many with little academic background were given a chance to learn on the job and became very proficient.

Too bad that in modern times a diploma is so important.

BTW: I had an excellent education and did well on IQ tests, so the above was not posted due to any problems I faced. I am aware of the above because my father was a very competent engineer who paid for his college education many years after being a highly successful engineer via the apprentice system. I was a programmer in the early 1950's, hired due to my mathematics background, which was considered a good indicator of programming skills. In those early years, there were several excellent programmers whom I trained on the job, who had taken few or no college courses.

That is a lot of support for my thesis..... :D:D