People often say that there are different kinds of intelligence. But I swear I’ve never meant anyone who actually knows what this means.
We typically measure intelligence using things like the IQ test, or a combination of “raw” intelligence and knowledge with things like SAT and ACT. The two are related, and for the most part measure the same type of smarts (there is even an equation you can use to convert between them).
These tests work like this:
Most IQ tests include items from various domains, such as short-term memory, verbal knowledge, spatial visualization, and perceptual speed. Some tests have a total time limit, others have a time limit for each group of problems, and there are a few untimed, unsupervised tests, typically geared to measuring high intelligence.
blah blah blah
I was watching an interview the other day by Michael Eisner of Goldie Hawn. I was struck, as oft I am, at how totally brilliant this supposedly dumb blonde was. She probably would score low on an IQ or SAT test, but she’s wildly successful and I really doubt its due purely to luck. As she told stories about her experiences throughout her career in Hollywood, it was clear she had a handy command of the social forces that were at play around her. IQ has no ability to measure this.
This of course is not a new idea. in 1920 the term “social intelligence” was coined to describe just this quality. Later “multiple intelligences” was developed which identified 10 distinct types of smart which it puts into categories such as interpersonal or extrapersonal.
This is all well and good but I’m curious about a deeper measure of intelligence. Something that can get at the actual computational capabilities of a person. What if we could measure somehow the actual neural activity of specific neurons in the brain, or better yet all or most of them. Then what if we could measure the configuration of neurons to assess something like calculations per second of a given brain in a given environment… How would Einstein compare to Goldie Hawn in different problem domains?
Say you take and Einstein-like intelligence and do this evaluation as it solves physics problems and you’d get some number. His brain seems to have been optimized for physics-type-stuff, so I’m sure he’d score “high”. His brain through training, talent, and other factors (they say that his parietal lobes where abnormally large) all contributed to his unique ability to process that type of information. But they also say he was notoriously bad at common-type problems such as finding his way around his house. Do the same measurement of all the neural activity and the connection matrixes when he’s on his way to the bathroom and perhaps he scores “low”.
Now compare what you’d get if you measure the neural processing of Goldie Hawn, say, navigating some industry party in Hollywood. All the input of peoples faces, their postures, incorporating knowledge gleaned from gossip and etc. I wonder how all that activity between all the neurons would compare the Einstein on the physics problems… It is possible that both intelligences could be equal in terms of total calculations / second?
