Hacker News Reader

Can't we agree? with redefining what intelligent means on the basis of your reasonably well written discussion post? NO, we can't agree on that at all.

Your post is thoughtful and well meaning, but intelligence means... well I'm not an expert at defining it (I know my limitations, learn from me), but the people who are experts at it have devised tests for measuring it, and it's extremely well documented, and measurable, and if you have it you score high on IQ tests, and if you don't you don't.

I have it. It's been measured. And I know it when I see it in other people, and always have, even before it was measured. If we sat down to play a new board game that neither of us had seen before, I'd most likely learn it quicker and start kicking your ass sooner.

Does that guarantee success in my life? no. Does it give me some potential? yes. For some of reasons that you give. You wrote a good post. Just don't try to redefine the word intelligence just so it can be a compliment paid to a different set of people. And while we are at it, can we stop saying that people are beautiful on the inside? "Beauty is only skin deep" is an expression because that's what the word means.

Yes, I'm aware that it is in the nature of language that words evolve and humans like extending the meanings of words and making analogies and metaphors, and that it can have perfectly understandable meaning to say that people with "emotional intelligence are beautiful on the inside", but that doesn't redefine the words nor rename the concepts.

/rant

> Just don't try to redefine the word intelligence just so it can be a compliment paid to a different set of people.

I believe the word "intelligence" should pay a compliment to those people who life pays compliment to, in terms of their ability to find solutions to real world problems, and carry out their execution. If we can't do that (and I'm not saying we can), then measuring some idea of "intelligence" and assigning a flat score to it is counterproductive.

How quickly one picks up on board games... I don't know. Maybe it matters. Maybe it means something. What if those who pick up on board games slower are building a much deeper model in their mind and can reach deeper insights than their opponents? Would speed then be a misleading indicator?

Take me, I pick up on new things slower than many might. But over time I get a much better idea about it and become frustrated with the superficial way my peers see it. Am I stupid, am I smart? Who knows. Sometimes gaining too much insight is actually harming performance for real world problems. Sometimes it helps. I'm neither ashamed nor proud by this arrangement. I just have my dials set this way.

Is life like a big logical puzzle? Shouldn't we judge people by their life performance if it is? Should we not judge people by simple puzzle games if it isn't?

Lots of questions, and if you dig deeper, you'll find the experts don't know much better than us after all.

The way we measure intelligence is much like we measure candidate performance during job interviews. It's full of "experts" with recommendations, and yet the questions and challenges have little to do with the actual job, or the job performance of the candidate when hired.

We can judge people on life performance, nobody has any problem with that.

Why do you want the word for successful life performace to be intelligence?

or to put it another way, the article you are responding to is making that point that high IQ people aren't always successful for some reasons. How is the point the author is making enhanced by changing the definitions? if intelligence means that your company will be successful, how will the OP write his article to make his point, because his point would still apply. Are you proposing another word?

> Being good at school is not a sure sign of high intelligence - school is an artificial environment that values short-term memorizing of facts, over critical analysis and independent decision-making.

This is a common but mislead read of the situation. "Intelligence" (per IQ) as typically defined is abstraction/calculation ability. This is very useful in highly rational environments where being correct matters, such as academic ones.

OTOH, in "life", it's _far_ more important to succeed in social environments where being analytically correct is largely irrelevant and thus those abilities have limited direct value. For example, it doesn't necessarily "make sense" on the surface to simply support a direct manager regardless their arguments' quality; yet that may be the socially optimal course of action. IOW, it should come as no surprise there's limited correlation when using an orthogonal metric. Some have even introduce separate metrics ("EQ") to account for such discrepancies.

The societal problem here is that we often expect those well-training and successful mostly in the former environment to thrive in the latter. Whether the issues is in preparing them for the wrong place or society doesn't live up to what we believe how students will live is another discussion.

> Can't we agree "intelligent" is the skill of setting good goals, achieving them, and making good decisions in light of limited facts, limited time...

The reality is that traditionally intelligent people are good at these things, esp when their talents are specifically applied. For example, they can be good at figuring out their shortcomings at overemphasizing risk when it's explained.

However it's unrealistic to assume those prepped all their life only for one enviro will adapt autodidactically.

Also, I don't think just redefining words like what success/intelligence means is an adequate resolution.

I concur. Great post.

About the "curse of smart people", which also applies to those who are better at sports, or something else, one cannot forget the Rocky 3 effect - sometimes, external circumstances will allow you took relax and stop progressing in your skills (and thus, not much effort) while still being successful. When a big problem/challenge arises, it will "hurt" more to leave the comfort zone, and then it depends on oneself...