Wikipedia

Talk:Intelligence/Archive 2

< Talk:Intelligence
Latest comment: 14 years ago by WeijiBaikeBianji in topic Intelligence and its definitions
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Further reading

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I removed a bunch of the further reading books. I removed the journal articles as they are generally better served integrated as inline citations. Unless they're major review articles, focus on a single issue in intelligence isn't really a great further reading. In general, like external links, I don't see a long further reading section as particularly useful to readers - resources should be classic texts, peer-reviewed books published by major university presses, ideally the most recent available. Books and articles should be directly related to the page in the most comprehensive way, not focusing on a specific or single aspect of intelligence. I don't see the utility of books on psychometrics, unless the page is psychometrics, because that is only on the aspect of the tests and testing of intelligence - one, but not all, of the areas of study of intelligence. The further reading section should not be a holding section for articles and sources waiting to be integrated into the page - the talk page is a much better place for that. WLU (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please answer some questions:
  • How did you determine what is a "classic text"?
  • What criteria did you use to determine if a book or article "related to the page in the most comprehensive way"? Please cite specific reasons for deleting an item as non-comprhensive.
  • Please explain in more detail why psychometrics is not appropriate for an article on intelligence.
Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with WLU's edits. This is an article about intelligence, which in my opinion should cover its definition(s) and different types, outline the main theories of intelligence, as well as its presence in different species. It should guide the reader to various other articles that specialise each of these aspects. Further reading should list the key texts.
At the moment, the article has perhaps a little too much emphasis on psychometrics. Pgr94 (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Classic text - written by a historical scholar, such as Terman, who was recognized for his work on intelligence testing. Related in a comprehensive way - has 'intelligence' in the title, rather than 'psychometrics', is of substantial length, is published by a scholarly press, and has a title that indicates it is not linked to a single aspect of intelligence, like testing, psychometrics of tests, mental retardation (the opposite of intelligence - what makes people dumb, not smart, for lack of a more politically correct term), behavioral genetics, etc. I'm not against some further reading, but a massive section, particularly one made up of texts easily integrated into the main article (such as journal articles on narrow subjects) don't seem like good choices to me. Since the GTL doesn't offer much guidance here, I used common sense to reduce to a minimum of the most relevant. Did you have some specific texts you thought should be added? I'm not saying I was completely right, so let's discuss, if we need to, we can get a RFC or other external comment. Many of the books also seemed related to other main articles, and they should therefore go in those article, not this one. This one should be generic intelligence.
I also notice the referencing is a bit funny, such as the inclusion of an unpublished thesis (Horn never published his thesis?), no citation templates, no links to abstracts, so I might go through with geo wikifier and diberri to add them. WLU (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I used a combination of common sense and professional expertise to restore a few classic and very noteworthy readings. Ward3001 (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
They look OK to me, though perhaps the G factor book could be better placed on the general intelligence factor page - it supports only one focus of theories on intelligence rather than the more comprehensive books tackling general intelligence. WLU (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


I suggest checking out the short content of this site :

http://flvcrisan.tripod.com/

It is the most interesting thing I've read on intelligence. It even contains a definition of intelligence. 79.113.90.240 (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)flvcrisan

Unreliable. Won't gon on the page. WLU (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Kevin McGrew's website

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I restored the external link to this website. Kevin McGrew is a leader in the field of cognitive abilities. He has published hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles and several books, and is the co-creator of one of the leading tests in the field (Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery). The website contains links to scholarly publications, up-to-date lists of publications organized by topic, and input from many writers in addition to McGrew.
One editor who removed this asked me to "cite his work" (presumably his books and journal articles). Then another editor slashed out a substantial amount of the "Further reading" list. Since it is impossible to simultaneously include and not include a long list of a writer's works (i.e., "cite his work" and then have it "trimmed"), I am including it here as a defense for including his scholarly website in the external links. Here it is:

Qualifications

Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This link to a blog should be removed. It is selling advertising and has links to commercial websites. commercial links, advertising for sale.
The blog appears to be about psychometrics, not intelligence in general.
Finally, regarding the references, I think we have our wires crossed. I am trying to say that it is better to cite peer-reviewed work than blogs. Pgr94 (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I've looked at the blog. Unlike, say, Pharyngula (blog), which is in a scienceblog and a top-ranking one at that, with lengthy posts that are all substantive, the blog is a collection of links to things the author considers interesting, and there doesn't seem to be as much substantive content. This page is not about Dr. McGrew, and if you desire Dr. McGrew's work to be cited in the article, in-line citations would be the preferred way. Since we're stymied, perhaps a WP:RFC or posting on one of the noticeboards would be in order. Another suggestion would be to demonstrate the merit to the blog itself - links to some of the 'great' posts, that substantially discuss important issues. Also, given Dr. McGrew's lengthy contributions to the field, it's possible that blog entries that are referenced could be used as sources themselves, though naturally the preference is for journal articles. WLU (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Several points. Regarding advertising, Wikipedia articles have thousands of external links with far more advertising than this one. They are kept because they also have very useful information. As only one example, look at almost any of the thousands of Wikipedia articles about a film. There will almost always be a link to the IMDb page on that film. IMDb has much more advertising than McGrew's site. That's only one example.
Regarding Pharyngula (blog), give me evidence that it is more "top-ranking" and "substantive". I disagree.
Regarding WLU's suggestion that McGrew's "blog entries that are referenced could be used as sources themselves" and Pgr94's statement that "it is better to cite peer-reviewed work", that's hard to do when a deletionist such as WLU slashes out most of them. A link to McGrew's website is much more concise and efficient.
I am fine with WP:RFC as long as it is worded neutrally. Ward3001 (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Collapsed the list of works for ease of reading and preview
Check the first reference on Pharyngula. Does McGrew's blog have comparable notability from a journal of Nature's prestige? Also, Paryngula is part of ScienceBlogs, thus evidencing some degree of oversight and expertise. McGrew might be an expert, but his blog has no evidence of peer-review or editorial ovesight. It really does look like just a blog - a collection of cartoons, some suggested readings and some more substantive posts, but a very informal tone and far from what I would consider enough to merit being an external link on a page like intelligence. Given what I've seen, I would now hesitate to use the blog as a source even, barring very low-level statements.
If you are concerned about accessing the blog, well, I just removed it from the page, not the internet. If you're concerned about the resources removed, well, here is the version before my first edit to the page. WLU (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What I see on Pharyngula is Myers' (presumably an expert) personal opinions, links to what other people have to say, references and links that may lead to peer-reviewed publications. Very similar to how McGrew's website is set up. And the fact that a blog is part of a larger network of blogs does not give it more of a "peer-reviewed" status. McGrew's blog has input from many experts besides McGrew. I'm not denigrating Pharyngula. I just consider the accusation that McGrew's website is less "top-ranking" and "substantive" to be smoke and mirrors.
"If you are concerned about accessing the blog ... ": The Intelligence article isn't written solely for me. I already know about McGrew's website. The article is written for a general readership (including non-experts), who may not otherwise be aware of McGrew's website until they encounter it in a Wikipedia article. That argument is meaningless. Ward3001 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I was attempting to address your comment "...that's hard to do when a deletionist such as WLU slashes out most of them". I find McGrew's blog hard to navigate, very popular, and not focussed solely on intelligence. Plus, it's a blog. But let's let a RFC decide if we're agreeing to disagree. WLU (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
"it's a blog": And Pharyngula is not a blog?!?! This is making very little sense. I personally find McGrew's website easy to navigate, but I also consider that very low in importance as to whether it is a worthy external link. And you find it "popular". Again, I fail to see how that is an important issue, unless by that you mean "pop psychology". If so, McGrew's work, including his blog, is among the most respected in the field. Dr. Phil is pop psych. Dr. McGrew is serious research. I'm starting to wonder if someone hasn't confused Kevin McGrew with Phil McGraw. And aside from an occasional humor break, yes it focuses solely on intelligence. Tell me how it doesn't.
As I've also said (in fact I originally said it), an RFC is fine, if it is worded neutrally. Ward3001 (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Look for one later today. WLU (talk)

If you want to cite "Kevin McGrew's website," I would suggest using the following link, (http://www.iapsych.com/CHCPP/CHCPP.html) or at least a URL from this website. Although not peer reviewed, it is a website that is accessible to anyone with a connection to the Internet. And it is very similar to an academic book. As for an opinion, I believe that the link is worth adding. However, it suggests that further work is needed on the intelligence article to support CHC Theory. psychstud (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new section: Factors affecting intelligence

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to suggest a new section entitled Factors affecting intelligence. It should cover:

It should be made clear that it is difficult to separate correlation and causality (eg Height and intelligence) Feedback welcome. Pgr94 (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

First draft of this section has been attempted. Improvements and feedback are very welcome. Pgr94 (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have covered issues already discussed in Intelligence quotient#Heritability and Intelligence quotient#Public policy. Should these issues really be covered in both Intelligence quotient and intelligence? Pgr94 (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Had a go. WLU (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-work

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Substantial re-work to trim out unreliable, unnecessary or impossible to verify sources, citation templates across the board, wording changes, etc. Added a table. Have a compare, I don't think I removed anything too precious. I did trim the AI section more than a bit, since AI has its own page, tehre's no need for a lot of detail here. WLU (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The AI trim is fine, well done. Pgr94 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on the inclusion of McGrew's blog

Latest comment: 15 years ago43 comments13 people in discussion

Should Dr. Kevin McGrew's blog Intelligent Insights on Intelligence Theories and Tests be included in the external links section?

Here are my arguments against this link:

  1. The external link is to a blog which is selling advertising and has links to commercial websites. commercial links, advertising for sale.
  2. This article is about intelligence in general while the blog appears to be about intelligence testing / psychometrics. I fail to see how this blog contributes to an article on intelligence.
  3. There is no shortage of peer-reviewed publications that would make better references.
  4. Blogs in general are not reliable sources and the fact that there are economic interests at stake makes this even more questionable.

Pgr94 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

To which I will add:
  1. Significant content that doesn't discuss intelligence testing in a scholarly manner (cartoons, book reviews, links to other blogs he considers interesting)
  2. The page is not about Kevin McGrew; the blog would be wholly appropriate for his page
  3. McGrew is responsible for drafting an extant intelligence test, but there are other researchers who have worked on other tests. Their blogs are not here, and having this blog on the page would open the page for the inclusion of others. Obviously this would have to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, but WP:EL does say no blogs #12. It is only by Dr. McGrew's expertise that this is being considered at all.
  4. There is no editorial oversight on the blog besides Dr. McGrew. Therefore, there is no guarantee that coverage is balanced, portrays all sides of the issue honestly and thoroughly, and since it is a blog, there is no real impetus to do so beyond Dr. McGrew's own motivations. I'm not saying he's going to or has started a smear campaign on his opponents. But it's a consideration - lack of peer review increases the chance for an error or omission to occur. WLU (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for the link

  1. Dr. McGrew is definitely an expert in the field with an extensive publication record. See #Qualifications above. WLU (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


  1. Don't confuse Dr. Phil McGraw (pop psychologist on TV) with Dr. Kevin McGrew, a serious researcher.
  2. McGrew's work, including his blog, is among the most respected in the field. He has published many peer-reviewed journal articles and books related to cognitive abilities.
  3. The website contains links to scholarly publications, up-to-date lists of publications organized by topic, and input from many writers in addition to McGrew. It is much more efficient and concise than listing his works in the "Further reading" list (which was trimmed down extensively by an editor on the other side of this RfC).
  4. "Selling advertising" is blown WAY out of proportion. The best counter to this argument can be seen by visiting the website. There are one to two small ads that DO NOT sell or promote McGrew's test or anything else related to McGrew. No banners. No huge ads. No popups. Wikipedia articles have thousands of external links with far more advertising than this one (such is IMDb links on almost all film pages). They are kept because they also have very useful information.
  5. The argument "This article is about intelligence in general while the blog appears to be about intelligence testing / psychometrics" is inaccurate. McGrew's website focuses on cognitive abilities, not just ability testing.
  6. The argument "There is no shortage of peer-reviewed publications that would make better references" is OK, except WLU, on the other side of this RfC and self-professed "deletionist", has a history of removing huge amounts of external links. Listing McGrew's peer-reviewed publications, an extensive list, undoubtedly would be removed. Linking his website is much more concise and efficient.
  7. An editor on the other side argues "There is no editorial oversight on the blog besides Dr. McGrew", but this same editor cites above what he considers an "acceptable" blog, Pharyngula (which also contains advertising). This blog is linked in one form or another on several Wikipedia pages, and no one, including those opposed to linking McGrew's website, has removed it. I have asked for evidence that Pharyngula has more editorial oversight than McGrew's website, but none has been provided.
  8. Regarding the argument that McGrew is a co-creator of an intelligence test, and that "other researchers who have worked on other tests. Their blogs are not here": To my knowledge, no other creator of an intelligence test has a blog. If so, please provide a link on this talk page.
  9. "Cartoons": This is miniscule and occasionally inserted as a humor break. Many external links in Wikipedia may be 99.9% scholarly plus a bit of fluff. This is another argument that is blown out of proportion.

Ward3001 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Counterarguments - they're my opinions, and reflect why I disagree. Ward is defending his point vigorously and ably, I respect his opinion and right to it, even if I disagree - it's nothing personal. Thus:
1. Fair enough, but I don't think many people would make this mistake :)
2. Is his blog respected? ScienceBlogs are official, and reviewed. This is not a scienceblog, it's a regular blog. If there is indication and sources that point to the blog being a respectable site on the 'net for intelligence, that definitely adds to its credibility.
Yes, his blog is respected. What makes Pharyngula any more "official" than McGrew's website? And how is Pharyngula peer-reviewed in a way that's different than McGrew's website? I have asked for this information several times, but it has not been provided. Only the claims, not the evidence, have been repeated. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Please review the lead of Pharyngula (blog) and ScienceBlogs. WLU (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
That statement explains the endorsement by a journal; it does not provide evidence that Pharyngula is any more "official" than McGrew's webpage. I can make the statement that McGrew's webpage is endorsed by the Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Cross-Battery Assessment, and other organizations, but that doesn't make it any more official than Pharyngula. And where is the evidence that Pharyngula is more peer-reviewed than McGrew's site? Once again, I'm not denigrating Pharyngula. But I see no evidence that it deserves retention in Wikipedia any more than McGrew's website. Ward3001 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
3. The EL section and further reading should not be a parking lot for sources waiting to be added; currently there aren't any reference to McGrew's work in the references, and this is not a reason to include a complete McGrew bibliography on this page as it's about intelligence, not McGrew.
Okey, dokey. You tell me how many of McGrew's works listed above you will leave in a "Further reading" list. I'm happy to add all of them. So please tell me which ones you'll leave and which ones you'll delete. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Outside of RFC, but if you are interested in discussing start a new section and I'll go into detail. WLU (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Not outside the RfC in the sense that McGrew is a leading scholar in intelligence, and since listing all of his works is not feasible, then a link to his webpage is quite appropriate. Ward3001 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Advertising is advertising - IMDB is linked to despite advertising because the community as agreed it is useful. Similarly, the community has agreed that generally blogs are inappropriate, as are links with ads. It's inclusion will depend on the third party's assessment of the benefits of the blog compared to it's drawbacks.
Pharyngula advertises. Please explain the difference. Advertising is advertising. And the reason we're discussing this now is to decide if the Wikipedia community, not one or two editors, find McGrew's website useful, just like with IMDb. So don't state it as an accomplished fact that IMDb is useful and McGrew's website is not.
5. If the website focuses on cognitive abilities, it's less suitable as it should focus exclusively on intelligence to be an EL on this page.
No personal offense, but I believe your comment may reflect your lack of knowledge. "Cognitive abilities" are a subset of "intelligence". The concept of "intelligence" has changed dramatically in the last two decades. More experts in the field generally discuss the concept as "cognitive abilities". This argument has little meaning. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
6. You say 'deletionist' like it's a bad thing :) I removed the links per the EL guidelines. EL and FR shouldn't be a reference parking lot. Any links that could be fruitfully integrated into the body text can be recovered from the history. Listing McGrew's complete list of publications is inappropriate. They can be cited as in-line footnotes, which they aren't, any of them, but there's no real need to link to a blog that lists all of them. That would border on self/other-promotion in my mind, at the expense of the page. McGrew's expertise should be demonstrated by a wikipedia page perhaps, or the use of his references in the body text. Not by an EL (in my opinion).
I made no judgment, positive or negative, about the concept of "deletionist". I was pointing out the likelihood that a list of McGrew's publications will stay intact with your approach to editing. His website is a much better way to provide readers access to his writings. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Outside RFC. WLU (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Saying "Outside RFC" is a cop-out that avoids addressing the issue. If you argue that McGrew's webpage should not be included, how much of his works in either External Links or Additional Readings or similar list should be included from the standpoint of a deletionist such as yourself, considering that you removed a substantial portion of such a list within the last 24 hours? Ward3001 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Pharyngula is cited as a reliable source in numerous other pages, but as far as I know, is only used as an EL on PZ Myers page Pharyngula (blog), possibly pages related to the creation-evolution controversy (though it shouldn't be). It's also part of ScienceBlogs, which invites notable researchers to contribute, and is listed by Nature as a top-rank blog (both pointed mentioned in the leads of SB and P(b), but I don't think I explicitly mentioned this previously). McGrew's blog is just a blog. I don't believe they are comparable for these reasons. Further, there is a difference between external links and sources. It's possible that McGrew's blog could be cited as a source, but this doesn't mean it should be an external link. Also, Pharyngula is an example, not the standard or criteria for inclusion; it's something I'd link to as a source, probably not as an EL on a page other than PZ Myers or P(b). The standard is WP:EL as far as I'm concerned.
"though it shouldn't be": First point: Why haven't you removed it as a link in all of Wikipedia? Second point: McGrew "invites notable researchers to contribute. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
First point is outside RFC. Second point is again placing McGrew as the editorial overseer on his blog, while Myers was invited by ScienceBlogs. WLU (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
"Outside RFC": cop-out again. You are pushing to remove McGrew, but you do not remove another blog that you say shouldn't be there. "Myers was invited by ScienceBlogs." But does Myers have less editorial control over his blog than McGrew does his? And do you know who has and has not "invited" McGrew to maintain a website? Ward3001 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Even if other creators of intelligence tests had a blog, we are not obliged to link to them. Only if they meet the criteria of WP:EL, that the EL should offer something a wikipedia page never could (large media files, music scores, etc).
I never said that we are obliged to link to them. I was only countering the argument that other creators of intelligence tests are not included so McGrew should not be included. There are no other such blogs, as far as I know. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Meh, it's not major, but it's there, and I see it as a strike against inclusion. They are pretty prominent in my mind. WLU (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I can compile a list of external links on Wikipedia that have more fluff if you wish, but that would be a colossal waste of time that could be used much more constructively. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Given this is a publicly editable encyclopedia, unless it's a FA, it's not of much use to compare. Policy and guidelines are what govern content, not other articles. WLU (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you and I both know very well what will happen if I start removing links like IMDb and thousands of other links because they have some fluff in them. Don't forget WP:IAR, which although overused as an excuse, applies wonderfully in this case. WP:IAR is how the links that violate the stricter Wikipedia guidelines are maintained. That's one reason we are having this RfC. Let's see what the Wikipedia community says rather than blindly adhering to a policy. Ward3001 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I liked the blog as a vehicle for popularizing psychology and the study of human abilities. It's probably a good way for an instructor to stimulate students' interest. But I'm leaning toward *not* providing it as an external link in the article because it includes advertisements (one of which blinks), and quite a lot of content not directly related to the article. Another problem is that many of the links to articles it provides are effectively dead for readers without subscriptions to a particular bibliographic service. Nesbit (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: More of the links than not go to pdf articles available to anyone. I have downloaded dozens of them without a subscription. Ward3001 (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)=
  • Comment, if you search PubMed with the term "McGrew KS"[Author] you only get 8 hits, one a letter response to an author query, this is far less that you expect from an authority in an academic field. For example, I'm just a postdoc, but I have 10 papers published "Vickers TJ"[Author]. I would not support adding this blog. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Tim Vickers: Your comment, although well-intentioned, is rather meaningless. This is not a medical article, and PubMed is not an appropriate search vehicle. If you search on the American Psychological Association's website, you get the extensive list of peer reviewed publications and books listed above. Please click "Show" before you conclude that he only has 10 publications. I also question your search technique, although I'm not sure how you did it. If you entered "McGrew KS" in a field, I'm surprised you got any hits. If you enter "McGrew" in a field along with "Kevin" or "K" in another field, you may get many more hits. In any event, there is no doubt, even among those who oppose inclusion of the link, that McGrew is a well-published authority in the field of intelligence. Ward3001 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
PubMed contains over 40,000 articles on intelligence and about 700 on the specific topic of intelligence tests, while many minor journals are not listed on PubMed, publishing in low-impact journals such as the Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment is not a characteristic of somebody doing who is making a major contribution to their field. This guy just doesn't seem so important that adding his blog would be justified. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you looked at the list above??? Do I need to explain in more detail how to do it? McGrew has published in Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, by my count 17 articles (as well as other reputable journals); so obviously something is slipping through the cracks in PubMed's search process. Can we please take the simple approach here? Or do you think the list above is bogus? It's straight from APA's search engine. And are you denying the publications listed above are scholarly? PubMed is not the be-all and end-all for finding publications. Let's turn the tables. I could search a noted biological scientist in APA's search engine, which is exhaustive in the field of intelligence and related areas, and come up with nothing. This is an article on intelligence, not the physical sciences. There is no better search engine than APA's. I don't mean to assume bad faith, but you're making it a challenge. Look at the list above. Ward3001 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've looked at the list, and done a Google Scholar search so I can check how often these have been cited. My opinion is that he is publishing low-impact papers in minor journals and does not seem particularly important as a researcher. His biography also shows him as of mid to low-level importance as an academic. For me, to make an exception and include a blog you need somebody of international standing who has made a major contribution to their field. McGrew just doesn't seem to be of that level. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This is absurd. The Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment in the field of intelligence is a sterling example of a quality journal. How did you come to develop the authority to declare it a "low-impact" journal? I don't mean to be offensive, but frankly, your comments reflect your are grossly misinformed in this field. I could declare the journals that a biologist publishes in to be "low impact", but that would be meaningless because (1) it's not true, and (2) I'm not an expert. Regardless of whether the link belongs, you are flat wrong about McGrew's stature in his field. Read the comment above about his qualifications by someone who opposes the link. This is an article on intelligence, not the physical sciences. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Compare him to somebody like Howard Gardner at Harvard or Arthur Jensen at Berkley, if they wrote blogs they probably would be prominent enough to be included. For me this is a very high bar and this person, although I'm sure a perfectly competent researcher, does not seem to be of that level of importance. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but I don't care to indulge your idle speculations about things about which you have only a superficial knowledge from outdated information. There is a difference between an applied researcher like McGrew with more theoretical researchers like Gardner and Jensen. All are great scholars, including McGrew. Ask psychologists in the field of intelligence and you'll get high opinions on McGrew. Let me ask, where would you rank David Wechsler in the hierachy of scholars? How about Richard Woodcock? Are they less notable scholars than Gardner and Jensen? And one more point: If you think someone is a high-level scholar only if they are "famous" to people outside their field, you have a lot to learn about scholarship. Ward3001 (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to personalise this discussion about a source, I am not interested in your opinion of me, nor is it appropriate for you to make disparaging comments about editors attempting to give constructive feedback to resolve a dispute. Since you appear to be becoming increasingly hostile towards me, this will be my last comment on this talk page. As David Wechsler is dead, he won't be writing a blog, but if he did I'd support adding that since he was of international standing. Woodcock, as one of the developers of the Woodcock-Johnson tests seems reasonably prominent, but I'd have to check some more. Blogs are just too unreliable as sources to be included easily in general articles. If Kevin McGrew had an article, the blog would be a great addition to that specific page, but not, in my opinion, to the page on the subject of intelligence in general. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What you perceive as my hostility and "personalizing" is simply your reaction to coming face to face with a very weak argument (and I don't have an opinion of you as a person; only of your knowledge of psychology). OK, I think I understand you now. If someone has a Wikipedia article, that raises him in the "scholarship" hierarchy. That's one more point in the "fame" criterion. This is what I suspected and you have confirmed. So John L. Horn would be less scholarly than David Wechsler, even though Horn helped bring our understanding of cognitive abilities light years farther than all of the scholars named in this article. That's not to belittle the others, but your "fame" and "Wikipedia article" criteria fail miserably. So Horn's co-developers of CHC Theory, John Bissell Carroll and Raymond Cattell, would be greater scholars than Horn because they have articles; in fact, they would be greater scholars than Wechsler, because his article is shorter. I'm finished with this discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Useful external link, noted scholar, not commercial, etc. --Legalleft (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Seems to be a cheerful, popular blog. If it were scholarly, I can imagine how it might fit in that context. I saw this RfC listed at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Personal blog, not very well organised, carries advertising, lots of trivia not likely to be of interest to the general reader looking for info on the topic of intelligence. (I also got here via WP:RSN.) Jayen466 22:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I was contacted on my talk page because I am in the group "Wikipedian psychologists", a category which I started under another name. I do not know any of the other editors who are part of this discussion, and I don't think I've ever given any indication anywhere of how I might lean on this kind of issue. I read everything above, and I find almost all the arguments (and some of them in particular) against including this link less than compelling. What matters is the quality of the content on the external site, and whether it would be of value to encyclopedia readers. Some of the arguments against inclusion of this link misunderstand how psychology works. Every time a researcher like Dr. McGrew writes publicly (even for popular media), he is careful to be accurate and unbiased (part of the scientific method) because his reputation is on the line. Even though only a tiny percentage of web sites are peer-reviewed, you wouldn't want only that kind of highly technical discussion anyway. This is an encyclopedia. Ideal material is that written by an expert for a general audience. He doesn't have to be well-known outside his field, and he doesn't have to be known at all in another field like medicine that also studies intelligence. (Most people, even grad students in related fields, might be surprised how divided academic fields are from each other, even when dealing with the same subject matter.) There's nothing wrong with there being a little light-hearted material there to keep things interesting; to say the site is not scholarly is simply not accurate. I don't see anything at all wrong with there being some ads on the page, especially when we know that the content is not going to be compromised by the specific profit motives of the advertisers. What difference does it make whether the format is that of a blog? The content is what counts. What you don't want linked from Wikipedia articles is a typical blog consisting of the musings of a non-expert. The most compelling critique I read was the one immediately above that the site is poorly organized. I didn't thoroughly explore the site, so I won't take sides on this issue. Perhaps Ward3001 would like to address this point. (Maybe Dr. McGrew could even be asked to add some broad/general navigation links right at the top or upper-left.) -DoctorW 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- None of the arguments for deleting are compelling (see immediately above). -DoctorW 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete-- it fails multiple criteria of WP:EL, including the being about specific subtopic instead of the main topic, being promotional, and, heck, most of the criteria on that page. DreamGuy (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Useful external link, noted scholar, etc. The link is cited for further reading, not as a reference. And is offered for more reading, not recommended. It fulfills the role of further reading very nicely, and as well or better than a static site which repeats information already summarized herein. B. Mistler (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete--One should combine reference into the text. If he has published lots of good article then reference them. The blog is of over all poor quality.Doc James (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The middle ground -- hopefully, maybe: As I proposed above, if you want to cite "Kevin McGrew's website," I would suggest using the following website/link, (http://www.iapsych.com/CHCPP/CHCPP.html) or at least a URL from this website instead of the blog. Although not peer reviewed, it is a website that is accessible to anyone with a connection to the Internet. And it is very similar to an academic book. psychstud (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

IntelligentBytes

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Making Heavenly World God Exist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amathai1998 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of reference Legg and Hutter 2007

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

This reference was deleted by User:Ward3001:

Shane Legg, Marcus Hutter 2007 A collection of definitions of intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. Volume 157, pp.17-24. ISBN 978-1-58603-758-1

In the edit summary s/he says:

"The source, as cited, is not accessible and therefore cannot be used."

I'm not familiar with the guideline that references must be accessible online. Could you point me to the relevent policy? Thanks.

Besides it is also available at arXiv:0706.3639v1

pgr94 (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources do not have to accessible online, but if you cite an online source (as you did) it must be freely accessible. Did you obtain the information that you placed in the article directly from the book A Collection of Definitions of Intelligence? If so, cite the book but leave out the online link. If you got the information only from the web address http://www.booksonline.iospress.nl/Content/View.aspx?piid=5774, that has questionable reliability and should be avoided. Try to find the book itself; find the appropriate page numbers in the book, and cite the book directly. Ward3001 (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe you are wrong. Could you please cite the relevant policy to justify your deletion. Most (possibly all) the major scientific journals require a subscription and to my knowledge Wikipedia does not have a policy of excluding them. pgr94 (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Several points:
  • Read this: "one should avoid ... sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content"
  • Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say you couldn't use scientific journals. I said you can't use websites that require registration to access. As I have already stated, if you have access to the book, then please give the page numbers and cite it as such. Don't link to a website that requires registration.
  • Please watch your tone in edit summaries with use of words like "Nonsense". We should be having a having a civil discussion about what is an acceptable source according to Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. We should not be calling each other's comments "nonsense". Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see

What should be linked WP:ELYES: 1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.

The publication's official site is that of the publisher. My reading of the policy is that the link to the publisher is ok, but if you still have issue with the link then remove it.
The article is peer-reviewed, relevant and recent and I believe deletion of the complete reference is not justified.
My tone may be out of line, but this is the second time it has been deleted rather than corrected. Editors should not be deleting relevant peer-reviewed material because the reference wasn't in the right format.
Disclaimer: I do not know the authors nor do I have any connection with the publisher. pgr94 (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Several more points:
  • There is no need to continue your incivility by shouting (bolded print). Please. Keep this civil. Your being frustrated is no justification for incivility.
  • You are not citing "peer-reviewed material". You are citing a one-sentence summary that someone (not necessarily the author) has written about the book. My point, which I believe I am making now for the third or fourth time, is that you either need to cite the actual source (the book, with page numbers), or cite a link to the entire book that does not require registration to view. If you cite the book, any reader can go to the library, look at the book, and verify that what you say is accurate. If you cite a link requiring registration to view the book, then it is not available to the general reader. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Please cite something that is verifiable. If you want to do otherwise, please wait for consensus here before doing so.
  • (A minor point): Do you know for a fact that the book has been "peer reviewed"? Some academic books are not peer reviewed. Not being peer reviewed would not render the source inappropriate, but let's not call it peer reviewed unless we know that it is. Ward3001 (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Restored reference following WP:CIT. pgr94 (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to simplify this so the rest of us can get a straight answer. Did the information you placed in the article come from the book Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms (i.e., you looked at the book), or did it come from the web address http://www.booksonline.iospress.nl/Content/View.aspx?piid=5774? That's a very straightforward and simple question for which you should be able to provide a simple answer: The book, or the website? Ward3001 (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Neither. The information came from the author's website and I then cross-checked with the publisher's website. Is there a problem with that? pgr94 (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem with citing a source when the information did not come directly from that source. If the information came from the author's website, please cite the specific URLs (webpage addresses) that include reference to "at least 70 definitions of intelligence". If it came from more than one webpage, each needs to be cited specifically (in other words, making a general citation the author's website is not sufficient). In looking at the website, it appears that some of the articles are available freely in pdf format. If the information came from one or more of those pdf articles, providing links to them is sufficient. The problem arises when you cite the book Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms or the article "A Collection of Definitions of Intelligence" without actually getting the information directly from those sources. Then there is a potential mispresentation of sources, albeit done with good faith. Cite the specific source where you obtained the information. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Psychometric approach - Capitalization of the variable 'g'

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This section is confusing as both 'g' and 'G' appear in text referring to the same quantity. Either the sentences should be restructured to avoid 'g' starting a sentence or 'g' should replace 'G' at the start of sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.96.8 (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Every professional journal or other publication I have seen uses g (including the italics) without exception, even if it begins a sentence. I'm changing it. It can be changed back if a different consensus emerges. Ward3001 (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

conecting intelligence

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

intelligence cannot be tested by understanding of math or language because these are both things we have created with pre existing knowledge. math in particualar is only a way to express things that have been obsurved. any higher level of math is only a conection of branches that sprout from what already exists. nothing can be considered a part of intelegence if it was created by intelegence. intelegence is a ones ability to grasp concepts, connect the surounding world, and comprehend greater things while understanding them. intelegence never grows it could only be measured as a person full capacity of thought. After that peoples knowledge is what level they have achieved at unlocking their minds full capacity. a persons (IQ) should be measured as a percent of the person intelegence or full capacity of thought.

Chad Miller —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadman8000 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

THERE should be something on more recent evidence suggesting the seperation between 'fluid and crystallized' intelligences. SEE CLANCY BLAIR on fluid intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.7.182 (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


Measure of Intelligence (Intellect)

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to suggest the addition of a new section to your wonderful article about the Intelligence and human Intellect. This is a very unique and non-traditional, but revolutionary and much more precise approach (as opposed to, for example qualitative based, such as psychometric (IQ based) measurement) since it is using very new math-based formula. It is based on the new theory/hypothesis by Dr. V. Brandi. I was trying to publish an article in Wikipedia Measurement (Intellect) (or please refer directly to my user page, User:kreykh. Well, apparently, it has some issues with Wiki administration as for difficulty/comprehension, novelty, citation, References, etc. I thought the best way to do it is to to publish inside THIS relevant General term article, so the public would still benefit from it, as the opposite just publish it in the obscure science blog or Website. Perhaps at first it can be as the new section or at least as s paragraph referencing this as the alternative method of more PRECISE MEASUREMENT of Intellect or human Intelligence. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is the ONLY quantitative method exists right now. PLEASE, let me know what you think,or e-mail me: <mailto:kreykh@yahoo.com> Any of your suggestions will be appreciated.

--Kreykh (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that just does not belong here. Wikipedia is not the place to promote "very unique and non-traditional" theories. We need reliable sources showing worldwide notability and acceptability by mainstream scholars before mention can even potentially be made. DreamGuy (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Major Revisions

Latest comment: 15 years ago25 comments4 people in discussion

This article is currently rated as a B, but in my opinion is probably closer to a C. In an effort to improve the quality of the article, I would like to propose some revisions. First, I would like to focus on adding additional content. Specifically, I would like to add a brief review of past theories of intelligence starting with Charles Spearman. Although Francis Galton discovered individual differences (not intelligence), Spearman discovered general intelligence and provided the first theory of intelligence. I would also like to include theories proposed by Thurstone, Cattell-Horn, Guilford, and Carroll. I believe that their theories have had the most impact on our current conceptualization of what intelligence is, and would further contribute to the article by providing numerous descriptions of how intelligence has been described. I believe that we would handicap the intelligence article if we do not include Spearman, for example, and force readers to seek out Spearman's article on Wikipedia. I am also open to the addition of theorists and theories that I have not mentioned, but would like to start with the theorist I did mention. I submit this post in hopes of receiving feedback. After focusing on the addition of theories, then I would like to focus on adding a brief history of actual testing, which would start with Alfred Binet’s work (I don’t want people to think that I am leaving him out). psychstud (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that I overlooked the recent addition of some content I had suggested. As this paragraph is somewhat muddled and provides only three citations, I hope there isn't a problem with the revision and expansion of this paragraph. psychstud (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I have added Spearman. Thurstone is next. As I review the psychological literature, it may take me some time to add content. psychstud (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with some expansion. Please be cautious about two things. Don't expand too much, especially if there are links to other Wikipedia articles that provide the expanded information; otherwise the article is needlessly overbloated. Secondly, please always cite reliable sources. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Those are some good points. In general, I double check the other Wikipedia pages before adding content. Take the Spearman page for example. Although there is overlap, I believe that I provide additional information as it is related to Spearman in a succinct manner relevant to intelligence. Of course, I would like to read specific feedback about content I add and to see changes made in the spirit of improving the intelligence article. And I believe that you may find that I cite too much rather than too little. psychstud (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thurstone has been added. Cattell-Horn (Gf/Gc Theory) is next. I feel bad about leaving out Hebb's Intelligence A and B, but I believe that the impact of Hebb's contribution to intelligence does not merit inclusion in a Wikipedia article on Intelligence. psychstud (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Cattell-Horn (Gf/Gc Theory) has been added. Next is Guilford.psychstud (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
J. P. Guilford added. Next is Carroll.psychstud (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Carroll added. I also removed a paragraph that overlapped almost entirely with content I have added. I also wanted to note that Three-Stratum Theory and the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities are not the same things. Carroll doesn't discuss CHC Theory in his 1993 book (Human Cognitive Abilities), which was the citation for this statement. McGrew came up with CHC Theory. Next I plan on adding a more thorough review of the development of intelligence testing starting with Binet. This will require some re-organization of the article, as it doesn't really make sense for intelligence testing to fall under the broader Theories of Intelligence category. I also plan on editing the Multiple intelligences, Triarchic theory of intelligence, and Emotional intelligence sections. psychstud (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements to the article. A few things confuse me a bit, however. First and mostly important, it appears you have completely removed any mention of CHC theory (unless I missed something). There should at least be a mention of CHC and especially a link to CHC Theory. Secondly, I'm not sure I would agree that Three-Stratum and CHC are different; my understanding is that Carroll proposed Three-Stratum by building on earlier work by Cattell and Horn, and then it became more commonly known as CHC to acknowledge all three of the developers. Could you explain the difference here with a citation? Thirdly, I'm not sure that McGrew developed CHC theory. My understanding is that McGrew has done a lot of work on CHC, but that the term existed independently. I'm not even sure he was the first to use the term "CHC". Even if he was the first to use the term, that's not the same as developing CHC; it may be that he simply coined a term of a previous amalgamation of earlier theories. Could you expand on that here, again with a source if possible? I also notice that CHC Theory states that McGrew developed the theory, but it sources McGrew (1997), but that source is not in the references. I'm not criticizing some good work on your part, just wondering about some of the details. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up: I did a quick lit search and found the first mention of either "Cattell-Horn-Carroll" or "CHC theory" was in 2000 by Dawn Flanagan. Much of the discussion of CHC is in relation to cross-battery assessment (XBA), although those terms obviously are not interchangeable. The impression I get is that the term "Cattell-Horn-Carroll" was first used by Flanagan (and maybe McGrew) to describe their factor analytic and other empirical studies to confirm and extend the Three-Stratum Theory. I welcome any other insights, but I'm not convinced that McGrew actually created a theory; he's done a lot of work to confirm and flesh out a theory, but to me that's not the same as creating it. Ward3001 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You bring up some good points. I'm more familiar with Gf/Gc Theory and the Three-Stratum Theory than CHC Theory. I have never seen Cattell, Horn, or Carroll ascribe to CHC Theory. In fact, although there are many similarities between Gc/Gc Theory and the Three-Stratum Theory, Cattell/Horn and Carroll also had a number of disagreements. The primary disagreement was over the validity of including general intelligence as a topmost factor. Also, Carroll used a strict set of rules to conduct his factor analyses, and did not seek to specifically build upon the work of Cattell/Horn. Other than using some of Cattell/Horn's datasets, Carroll's work was an independent empirical replication, for the most part. I removed the statement, "Carroll expanded this hierarchy into a Three-Stratum theory, also known as the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities (or simply CHC Theory)." because it is factually incorrect. Also, Carroll never mentions CHC Theory in his Human Cognitive Abilities book, which was the citation for this statement. I believe that this link (http://www.iapsych.com/CHCPP/C.CHC(Gf-Gc)Investigations,Integrations,.html) should clear up some of our confusion (start at "CHC: The rest of the story"). In terms of defining intelligence, I'm not sure what CHC adds above and beyond Gf/Gc Theory and the Three-Stratum Theory. However, my intention was to delete a statement that was factually incorrect, and if CHC Theory does merit inclusion, for me or another editor to add some new content that was factually correct. I believe that I have already described the origin and an explanation of Gf/Gc Theory and Three-Stratum Theory with citations. What would need to happen is to add a brief section on CHC Theory with citations. Furthermore, I believe that there really needs to be justification for including CHC Theory as opposed to justification for not including it. I am open to further discussion. I would need to look more into CHC Theory to see what it adds.psychstud (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I can accept that Three-Stratum is distinct from but related to CHC. In my opinion CHC is a model that seeks to confirm and expand the amalgamation of the earlier works of Cattell, Horn, and Carroll; as such I'm not even sure the term "theory" is appropriate, although that term is so widely used that I have no objection to using it on Wikipedia. I may disagree that the default should be justification for including CHC rather than not including it. I think inclusion of CHC clearly is justified simply because there has been a vast amount of research by McGrew and others on CHC in recent years. CHC has taken empirical evidence and practical applications of Gf-Gc and subsequent theories to an entirely new level. As just one example, the research has advanced our understanding of learning disabilties by leaps and bounds, including influencing federal legislation (in the U.S.) pertaining to learning disabilties, as well as having a major impact on changes in cognitive/intelligence tests (including Woodcock-Johnson and recent revisions of the Wechsler scales). A simple look at the amount of research in the last ten years is ample justification for its inclusion in the article. I'll dig up some basic sources and add at least a brief mention (and a link to CHC Theory) when I have more time. Ward3001 (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that your addition of CHC Theory to the article adds to the quality of the article, especially as a replacement of a statement that was factually incorrect. So I don't believe we need to debate this issue any futher in this forum. psychstud (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for all your improvements. Ward3001 (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Na2boodie01 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)na2boodie01 There is a reference on Wikipedia to intelligence which is given as "the ability to apply knowledge in order to perform better in an environment.". I am of the view that the stated definition can be "shown to be the case", and its proof (mostly justifications)displayed, rather than the bold statement as it currently stands. Na2boodie01 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)na2boodie01 Na2boodie01 (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)na2boodie01

Sorry, but your statements are mostly incomprehensible. If your first language is English, please try again. If your first language is not English, you might want to get some help with translation. Ward3001 (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Na2boodie01, I would be interested in reviewing the source of your reference and quotes, if you could provide it, and further discussing the merit of including what you have suggested. To some extent, I believe that crystallized intelligence from Gf/Gc Theory (briefly discussed in the Intelligence article) covers what you quoted. psychstud (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Na2boodie01 (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)na2boodie01 The link has been attached, but unfortunately it currently resides in my personal domain. http://ca.geocities.com/na2boodie01/KNIT/index.html Na2boodie01 (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)na2boodie01 Na2boodie01 (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)na2boodie01

psychstud, if you had a chance to review the link, did you get the impression that the descriptions of Knowledge and Intelligence which were provided, have an ontological basis within the phenomenology of our world? If you did, it would then mean that there is no psychology involved, but it is a pure philosophical piece, from which psychology can branch outwards.

Na2boodie01 (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)na2boodie01 Na2boodie01 (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)na2boodie01

psychstud, you believe that crystallized intelligence from Gf/Gc Theory covers what was quoted. I minimally agree, however an aspect of the term "knowledge" which is used, has a very loose definition that includes "information" in its connotation, exampled by beliefs in Santa Claus. There are some differences that could be outlined concerning what entails "new information" as apart from "new knowledge". In short what I am trying to show as the case is that the correlates of intelligence are methods! Na2boodie01 (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)na2boodie01
Na2boodie01 (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)na2boodie01

There is no section on augmenting intelligence. Was this a dead end for psychology? Na2boodie01 (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)na2boodie01

As you’ll see Na2boodie01, I’m not sure that we speak the same jargon. Psychology treats intelligence and knowledge as constructs, or hypothetical concepts. They don’t actually exist, but can be inferred by assessing aspects of behavior, such as by using an ability test. I do believe that, to some extent, crystallized intelligence covers, “the ability to apply knowledge in order to perform better in an environment.” In psychology, a belief is different from knowledge. Belief is generally defined in the lay sense, as an emotional acceptance of some proposition, statement, or doctrine. Knowledge may be defined as the body of information possessed by a person. In general, psychology hasn’t had a problem with separating these two concepts. I’m not sure what you by saying the correlates of intelligence are methods. Could you give a few examples? And I have kind of lost the thread of where you would like to go with this discussion. Are there specific changes you are suggesting to the intelligence article? I also wanted to ask if you have a reference for what you are talking about from a scholarly journal or book. As far as augmenting intelligence goes, I don’t think that it belongs in a Wikipedia article on intelligence as it doesn’t help define what intelligence is. The corresponding article on Wikipedia is iintelligence amplification, and the military refers to it as augmented cognition. Augmented cognition is great in theory, but from the military research I’ve read about, augmented cognition just comes down to restricting the flow of information to humans, as judged by the machine, as the human becomes stressed or overwhelmed.yeswin1 (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Na2boodie01 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)na2boodie01 You must agree that to measure intelligence some demonstration has to be performed. Demonstrations are perfomed using regular effects. To have an effect, causes must be established. To have a regular effect causes must be regular. Regular causes are sequences of deployed instructions. A regular set of instructions designed to fulfill an outcome is a method. To do an IQ test (properly) the methods must be in place and better methods yield better results. The implication is clear, the correllates of intelligence are methods. Na2boodie01 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)na2boodie01

Correlation with Happiness Section?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think this would be worth including: Intelligence is generally seen as a desirable and beneficial trait, and yet there is no positive correlation with intelligence; in fact, if anything, there's a somewhat negative correlation. If we could round up some sources or statistics, I think this might be worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.34.13 (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Came here after reading about high IQ's people's characteristics - this article doesn't really discuss any of that, which it should. II | (t - c) 02:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad rewrite of lead section

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This rewrite of the lead really lowers the quality of the article tremendously, replacing an extremely well-written and balanced encyclopedia article introduction with one editor's "definition" of intelligence. User:Pooryorick, you'd be well advised to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold; you were reverted; now it is incumbent upon you to discuss why you think your proposed changes should stay. Dlabtot (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

umbrella term?

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The following edit has been reverted by three separate users, none of whom provided an explanation or responded to my reqests for one. Regardless, there seems to be a strong presumption against changing the lead paragraph, so I am bringing it to the talk page to lay out the rationale for the change. It needs work, but I'd like to see it worked on rather than reverted.

Passing intelligence off as an "umbrella term" is a convenient, but somewhat lazy way of sidestepping the problem of providing a reasonably robust definition. While it is true that the exact nature of intelligence is the subject of debate and controversy, the assertion that it is an "umbrella term" is bound to be as controversial or more so than other attempted definitions. The article itself refers to published articles which offer precise mathematical definitions of intelligence. It may be debatable whether that any of those definitions suffice, but the authors of those papers certainly wouldn't agree that intelligence is an umbrella term. If possible, it would be preferable to provide a definition which is general enough avoid any current controversies, yet specific enough to convey any details which are supported by consensus. Here is the proposal:

Intelligence is the ability of a entity, in a given context, to learn how to define an optimal outcome and the steps to achieve it. The number of contexts in which the entity can successfully accomplish this task is a measure of the generality of its intelligence, and the degree to which the entity can succeed at this task in those contexts is a measure of the level of its intelligence.
Many related abilities contribute to the intelligence of a system or organism, including properties of the mind such as the capacity to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, to recognize humor, and to learn. Traits related to intelligence include creativity, personality, character, knowledge, or wisdom. However there is much debate across various academic disciplines as to which traits are necessary and sufficient to define the phenomenon of intelligence.

Reasons it works:

It takes care to preserve (although in different order) most of the voices which were there to start with —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooryorick (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
it articulates one of the fundamental issues a beginner needs to become aware of when thinking about intelligence: The two dimensions of generality and level
it establishes that the intelligence of a system or organism is composed of various subsystems (which is not the same thing as an umbrella term)
the mention of different contexts makes it compatible with Gardner's proposal of multiple intelligences
subsumes Galton's ideas of general intelligence based on ability to react to cognitive tasks
"number of contexts", reflects Binet's observation that numerous dissimilar abilities are involved
"learn how to" corresponds to the faculty of adapting noted by Binet and Sternberg
"define a goal" comes from Wechslers ideas of purposeful action and Wechsler's statements about effectiveness in an environment.
"define the steps to achieve it" is all about the cognitive abilities which in everyone's estimation, including Burt and Gottfredson, are a necessary component.

This is a framework definition steers clear of the more controversial details regarding intelligence. It leaves space for special-purpose extension by discipline. By defining which specific components (wit, duplicity, whatever...) contribute to the intelligence of the system, it is possible to model intelligence in arbitrary ways. More importantly, it eliminates the crippling reliance on "umbrella term" and leaves open the possibility of developing of a more useful working definition. Pooryorick (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is any problem with the use of 'umbrella term'. At any rate, Wikipedia is not the place to publish your original definition based upon your synthesis of various sources. Dlabtot (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The Lede I propose does not advance an original conclusion, and it does not express any unpublished fact or analysis. It is a summary, not a synthesis, of the common criteria for defining and measuring intelligence. The proposal retains every point that was in the original paragraph, except "umbrella term", and adds the elements of context, generality, and level. It isn't necessary to mention these dimensions in the lede, but I think it would be helpful. 206.53.79.172 (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
"Intelligence is the ability of a entity, in a given context, to learn how to define an optimal outcome and the steps to achieve it." That's not original? From what source does it come? Does it enjoy near-unanimous consensus or is it just one of many points of view? Dlabtot (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I very strongly disagree that your edit "retains every point that was in the original paragraph". Rather, you replaced a very broad overview of the term with a very specific definition, radically changing the meaning of the lede. Dlabtot (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Relationship between the topic and the one of Empathy

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=intelligence+empathy&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en --222.64.25.91 (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

All those references appear to refer to 'social' intelligence. Dlabtot (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Intel" redirect

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I would like to suggest that the keyword "Intel" either re-direct to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Corporation or have a link at the top of the article to it. I personally feel like someone would type intel for the processor company (or the military use) and intelligence if they wanted the Intelligence article. I apologize if I put this in the wrong area. LeNoir679 (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Mathematical" definition of intelligence

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The "mathematical" definition of intelligence is a definition of machine intelligence, and isn't useful or relevant in an article on human intelligence. It might have a place in the article on artificial intelligence, but it is out of place here. I'm removing it. Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The title is Intelligence, not human intelligence. Human intelligence links to it but I'm not at all sure from the leader than non-human intelligence is excluded. The section you removed and the sections still there on other species and artificial intelligence aren't about human intelligence.
Anyone else have ideas about whether the article should be restricted to human intelligence? Or perhaps the other references left in as small sections that refer to other articles but nothing but human intelligence in the main section? Or is it about intelligence in general and human is just the main type? I can points for all three options. Dmcq (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The topic of the article is intelligence. The article is about intelligence. Not sure where you got the impression it was only about human intelligence. Dlabtot (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I used the article itself for guidance. There is a short section on animal intelligence, and an even shorter section on machine intelligence, each wiki-linked to a comprehensive article on the topic. The article, while attempting to address all aspects of intelligence, is de facto about human intelligence in its depth of coverage. A mathematical definition of intelligence would be undeniably useful in the article on cognitive science or artificial intelligence, but isn't useful to the discussion of human intelligence in the article, and isn't appropriate to the depth of coverage of artificial intelligence. But opinions differ. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
If you do keep the definition, one of you two should consider whether the text is supported by the sources cited. The Warren D. Smith paper is an unpublished manuscript archived by Smith's last employer, original research, not peer-reviewed. Hutter is of course a respected academic, but unless someone here has read Hutter's Universal AI then you must trust that the editor who added this text and its two references represented them in good faith.
I'd be cautious in this case. There isn't any "Hutter/Smith picture" of intelligence. Smith has never published on this topic, and has never co-published with Hutter. The definition cites Hutter's book, but it's Smith's theory that's described, not Hutter's. I believe that the editor who added this definition [1] used it, and the citation of a respected academic's work, to camouflage the link to Smith's unreviewed paper so that it wouldn't be immediately rejected as original research and self-promotion. In the past Smith's website [2] RangeVoting.org has been promoted this way by juxtaposing Smith's unreviewed research on RangeVoting.org to published work by Ronald Rivest [3] and Mary Myerscough [4], e.g..
I don't think this article benefits by including this definition, but if you keep it, please make sure that the sources cited actually support the statements. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It looks easy enough to remove the reference to Smiths work but I'm worried about the description being Smith's rather than Hutter's. I'll put a note on the Artificial Intelligence page, someone there might have an idea or want to use it somehow, it's a pity to just throw away citations if they are useful for something. Dmcq (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I've just come over from the Artificial intelligence talk page having read Dcmq's comment. Hutter's definition is not found in most AI textbooks. That isn't to say it is wrong, but it is certainly not an established or widely-held position. However, Hutter has a peer-reviewed survey of definitions of intelligence from various fields and that, in my opinion, is a valuable article that may be worth citing. pgr94 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The trouble is, no definition is given. The first sentence says "Hutter offered a definition," but doesn't give the definition. The next sentence says "Smith did it too, and on his own," but doesn't offer a definition. The third says "Mathematical definitions are better," and the last claims that Smith's mathematical definition has interesting mathematical properties, and could be the basis for a quantitative intelligence test, still without defining what is intelligence in this instance. Weasel-words and circular reasoning, but no definition.
The references to Hernandez-Orallo (2000) and Dowe and Hajek (1997) are copied from Legg and Hutter (2007). As presented by L & H (§4.2), Dowe proposed an improvement to the Turing test, which of course isn't a definition of intelligence at all but rather a tactic to avoid having to define intelligence, and Hernandez-Orallo attempted to correlate human intelligence with a measure of sequence complexity. Both sources are poorly chosen. Dowe is a minor variation on the well-known Turing test, and Hernandez-Orallo is an instance of complex sequence prediction.
So, if you want to include Turing's famous solution of begging the question of what is intelligence, or even the role of Kolmogorov complexity in assessing machine intelligence, you'll want more relevant sources anyway. Yappy2bhere (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence vs Human intelligence

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

As mentioned in the above section this article describes human intelligence instead of intelligence in general. I think we should rename the article to "Human intelligence" and remove the animal and machine intelligence sections (links to the corresponding articles can be added to the "See also" section). I thought that if I rename it it will be reverted in no time so I'm asking here first, any objections ? --George (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it good to have a general article that covers all forms of intelligence. If you think there is a need for a separate article that focuses on only human intelligence, I see to no problem with that, provided there aren't already other articles that do that. pgr94 (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I oppose splitting up or renaming the article, especially as I haven't actually heard any reason suggested as to why we should do so other than "I think we should". Dlabtot (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw someone removed the mathematical definition of intelligence from the article on the grounds that it doesn't belong to this article, and should belong to Artificial Intelligence article. I guess this could be one of the reasons why George wanted to rename the article. In addition, this article doesn't have a real definition of intelligence, only a set of reputable (or not) opinions. 87.239.86.199 (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read the mathematical definition part but I agree that intelligence is a philosophical/mathematical/abstract concept that is not limited to people. The article talks about theories of human intelligence and its measurement, individual differences, its evolution, and factors affecting it and this is why I think it should be called "Human Intelligence". I also think there should be a separate article that discusses intelligence in general (algorithmic description, examples from nature, philosophical points of view, human and non-human intelligence, extraterrestial intelligence,...). George (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have now noticed that there are several parts of this article are excessively human-centric. An article about intelligence in general might indeed be a good step, along with a link to a more detailed article about human intelligence. pgr94 (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Modern bias

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article doesn't even mention ancient or medieval theories of intelligence. This is a grave oversight. -Pollinosisss (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Caption for Main Illustration on Article

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

The article opens up with a lead paragraph, which I see from other sections of this talk page has been controverted recently, and also with a very prominent graphic of a Gaussian curve. The illustration caption currently reads, "The IQs of a large enough population are calculated so that they conform to a normal distribution." What is the source for this? In particular, what is the verifiability of "are calculated so that they conform," which is contrary to all sources I have at hand about how the standard scoring of currently normed IQ tests is defined? (Note: any data distribution has a standard deviation, so deviation scoring of IQ tests, which is the current form of standard scoring, makes no assumption that the score distribution is Gaussian.) The caption should be rewritten, or at a minimum have a [citation needed] tag added, rather than make that factual assertion without a verifiable source. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but it's generally correct. IQ tests were originally normed so as to produce a normal distribution (μ = 100, σ = 15), at least within 2 or 3 σ depending on the sample set. I could agree with the {{cn}} tag, certainly, but there's no reason for immediate removal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I still think that "IQ tests were originally normed so as to produce a normal distribution" is not the description of IQ test development that I have found in any source. Rather, the sources I have at hand (my first task here will be posting those source citations to the Further Reading section) suggest that scoring began on the mental age/chronological age basis that resulted in the term "intelligence quotient," and then it was observed (by Lewis Terman, for example) that scores on that basis fit a normal distribution to a good approximation. I'll lurk here on this point, noting your suggested edit, to allow other editors a chance to comment.
I will put in the [citation needed] tag now, annotating it for other Wikipedians. I will also continue to ponder the issue of how well this illustration fits this article. The same illustration is prominent on the article Intelligence Quotient, which by division of labor appears to be where the subtle issues of psychometric approaches to human intelligence are treated in most detail on Wikipedia. I think there may be a better public domain image available as a lead illustration for a general article about intelligence as a broad subject, and I will go looking for one. (P.S. My two paragraphs at this indentation level were written on separate days; the time stamp of the first seems to have been eaten by a failed edit that timed out yesterday.)

WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! It was me who wrote that caption, however I did not say originally. "My" sentence is: "The IQs of a large enough population are calculated so that they conform to a normal distribution." I totally agree with you that this is not how it was done originally, but as far as I know, this is how it is done today. Unfortunately, I don't have a specific source for it, but it is basically what I have understood from reading lots of intelligence-test-manuals, books on assessment and intelligence, etc.
There is no research that says that "amount of intelligence" is distributed across the population in the same way as a normal distribution, but this is the way IQ-tests are made.
For example, if a small country suddenly gets a high influx of highly intelligent immigrants, suddenly more than 50% of the population would have an IQ of 100 or higher. But instead of changing the normal distribution, the next time when they standardize the IQ-test, they take a representative sample of 1000 or 10,000 inhabitants, and the ones that have an average intelligence get IQ 100, the 2% most intelligent people get IQ 130 or more; the 2% least intelligent people get IQ 70 or less.
This is how I have understood the statistics behind IQ. However, I am not a statistics specialist at all, so please correct me if I am wrong! Lova Falk talk 16:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Lova, for the background on the illustration and its caption. What is indisputable any currently normed IQ test is that the standard scores (the "IQ" numbers) are reported in units based on how the test-takers' performance compared to the mean and standard deviation observed during norming of that version of the test. I had earlier announced that my current project is updating the further reading (on this page) and bibliography (on Intelligence Quotient ) to add a lot more sources. I am steadily typing away and testing the appearance of the updated lists on a user subpage of mine before committing the edits. Once we all have sources at hand, it should be easy to verify the statement I just made here. My subtle point of disagreement with the current caption is that there is no necessary requirement that the score distribution be normal, or be assumed to be normal (Gaussian) for that form of scoring to work. Any data distribution has a standard deviation, whatever the nature of the distribution. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Weiji, please feel free to edit this sentence. I don't quite understand the thing you write about standard deviation. I mean, yes of course, also non-normal distributions have a standard deviation. But normalization means that roughly two-thirds of the population are supposed to get results within 1 sd from the mean, that there is 14% on each side that gets results that are between 1 and 2 sd's from the average, etc. And that is what is assumed in intelligence tests, and how they calculate the scores.Lova Falk talk 19:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The interesting discussion here reminds me that this Intelligence article is more broad-ranging and less limited to psychometrics as a topic than the Intelligence Quotient article. And reading the article here, which I note identifies Francis Galton as an early scientist in the field of human intelligence, reminds me of a Francis Galton quotation (now in the public domain, worldwide, of course) that would make the basis for a beautiful illustration. And I think I may be able to find a public domain source of such an illustration. I'll look for that right after I update the lists of sources. Thanks for your comments. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I will be adding numerous references and bibliography entries.

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Last year I began a major revision of a working paper project (begun in 2006, based on shorter research notes I began compiling as early as 1993) largely on this Wikipedia topic. As the talk page templates note, "Intelligence was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list." Currently the article here is listed as a C-class, top-importance article for WikiProject Psychology, so the more improvements the sooner, the better. As a courtesy to the editors who have long been here, I will note that I will begin adding the dozens of books and articles I have at hand for my non-Wikipedia project (a literature review for popular audiences interested in the primary source literature on IQ testing) to this Wikipedia article. At first I will add books and articles from various points of view to the bibliography. Then I will add more references to verify the statements that have already long stood in the article. (I hope to add specific page numbers to both the references I add and the existing references that I am able to look up here.) At some length, I expect to expand sections with additional facts, perhaps add a few subsections, and from time to time do substantive edits under the NPOV principle, as the sources report various points of view. Thanks to all of you who have already worked on this very detailed article. I am lucky to have access to a very comprehensive academic library at which I have circulating privileges, so I am delighted to add some V and NPOV to various Wikipedia projects. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been following the ArbCom case on one of the closely related topics, but in my more pleasant use of time I read books and articles about intelligence, which I will add to the reading list I have as a subpage to my user page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is an update on the bibliography project. I have posted a bibliography of Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles related to intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in all aspects of intelligence (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he [the soul] is even higher than the intelligence. PURPORT The senses are different outlets for the activities of lust. Lust is reserved within the body, but it is given vent through the senses. Therefore, the senses are superior to the body as a whole. These outlets are not in use when there is superior consciousness, or Kṛṣṇa consciousness. In Kṛṣṇa consciousness the soul makes direct connection with the Supreme Personality of Godhead; therefore the hierarchy of bodily functions, as described here, ultimately ends in the Supreme Soul. Bodily action means the functions of the senses, and stopping the senses means stopping all bodily actions. But since the mind is active, then even though the body may be silent and at rest, the mind will act — as it does during dreaming. But above the mind is the determination of the intelligence, and above the intelligence is the soul proper. If, therefore, the soul is directly engaged with the Supreme, naturally all other subordinates, namely, the intelligence, mind and senses, will be automatically engaged. In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad there is a similar passage, in which it is said that the objects of sense gratification are superior to the senses, and mind is superior to the sense objects. If, therefore, the mind is directly engaged in the service of the Lord constantly, then there is no chance that the senses will become engaged in other ways. This mental attitude has already been explained. paraḿ dṛṣṭvā nivartate. If the mind is engaged in the transcendental service of the Lord, there is no chance of its being engaged in the lower propensities. In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad the soul has been described as mahān, the great. Therefore the soul is above all — namely, the sense objects, the senses, the mind and the intelligence. Therefore, directly understanding the constitutional position of the soul is the solution of the whole problem. With intelligence one has to seek out the constitutional position of the soul and then engage the mind always in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That solves the whole problem. A neophyte spiritualist is generally advised to keep aloof from the objects of the senses. But aside from that, one has to strengthen the mind by use of intelligence. If by intelligence one engages one's mind in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, by complete surrender unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then, automatically, the mind becomes stronger, and even though the senses are very strong, like serpents, they will be no more effective than serpents with broken fangs. But even though the soul is the master of intelligence and mind, and the senses also, still, unless it is strengthened by association with Kṛṣṇa in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, there is every chance of falling down due to the agitated mind." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.181.71 (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding some books to Further reading section of article.

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've reviewed criteria noted above on this talk page for adding books to the Further reading section of the article, namely that the books be

  • classic texts,

or

  • peer-reviewed books published by major university presses, ideally the most recent available.

It was also suggested by an earlier editor that "books and articles should be directly related to the page in the most comprehensive way, not focusing on a specific or single aspect of intelligence." I'm about to edit the Further reading section accordingly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Image by the article table of contents.

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Earlier editors have commented on this talk page that the scope of this Intelligence article is meant to be broader than the scope of the Intelligence quotient article, which deals specifically with the psychometric approach to study of human intelligence. With that in mind, I have been looking at foreign-language versions of this article to see what images they have near the top of the article by the article table of contents. Some foreign-language Wikipedias have short articles on intelligence with no image at all. Some follow this English-language article quite closely and use the same illustration. But some take some interesting other approaches. I haven't looked at all the other Wikipedia articles on intelligence yet, but both the Spanish-language article and the Serbo-Croatian-language article have interesting images that are more general in topic scope, visually appealing, and licensed consistent with Wikipedia policies. Let's consider a new top image for this article, to make clear its broad scope. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the current image is not sufficiently broad in scope. Both the images you suggest have their merits even though they represent only human thinking/intelligence. I think capturing human/animal/plant/artificial intelligence will be hard. pgr94 (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I wonder what some of the editors here think. There is a great copyrighted image of human cognition that I may be able to obtain permission to use from the original author, but that will take a while. Meanwhile, the Intelligence article image from the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia shows the deep historical roots of intelligence theory, and might be a good way to go for a change here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence and its definitions

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've been reading Spearman's The Abilities of Man: Their Nature and Measurement and see that he devotes several chapters of his book to definitions of intelligence, from quite a few different points of view, with history stretching back well before his time (the first few decades of the twentieth century). I did some copyedits of the definitional section of this article this evening with that in mind. Previous editors have distinguished this article, Intelligence, from the Wikipedia article Intelligence quotient that particularly focuses on the psychometric perspective on intelligence. It would be interesting to hear from all of you who currently watch this article what kind of touch-up on the lede and on the definition section of this article would best make clear its place among the several related articles on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligence/Archive_2&oldid=1136819642"