http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_in ... nce_factor

g (general intelligence) is basically some dominant factor that attempts to explain positive correlation on cognitive tests

one problem i find with g is that it is presumed to be a dominant factor affecting one's general intelligence. cognitive tests don't measure intelligence in areas that cannot be picked up by such tests. for example, an amazing artist like da vinci or mozart might not be good at cognitive tests like the lsat but might be extremely intelligent in other areas that lend toward their artistic or musical genius. i personally don't believe there is likely to be positive correlation between one's strength on cognitive tests versus one's strength in other areas that cannot be picked up by such tests (like art or music). i tend to think there are no parts to the whole (no encompassing factor for general intelligence) - there are just parts (different types of intelligence). this can also be seen in non-human animals whom might be less intelligent than us in many areas, but might be more intelligent than us in some other specific areas (e.g. bats' ability with echolocation). but then again, is this intelligence or is this innate ability that shouldn't be counted as intelligence? if echolocation is innate ability, what about artistic or musical genius? you might argue that since not all humans have this, it is not likely innate ability. but if you are a believer in darwinism, you might wonder if it actually is, because this artistic/musical genius might be manifested in certain genes in da vinci and mozart. had da vinci or mozart killed everyone else and recreated the human population using only their offspring, artistic and music ability might actually be common traits to all humans, and then could be considered innate ability. the same could be said not only for artistic/music genius but also for cognitive abilities as measured on cognitive tests. there's probably some bridge between intelligence and instinct that we haven't discovered or proven yet. what are your thoughts on this?

Those who can find it are intelligent people.

Skills or innate abilities are not intelligence. Calling a bat's echolocation (or a shark's electric sensing) "intelligence" is just ridiculous.

Yes

Don't mind me, I was semi-high when I wrote this.

I didn't mean to say that intelligence and innate ability are equivalent, only that there is some connection between them (but this seems trivial).



Why?

I'm not sure I want to start to actually write down the whole explanation...

Agree.

On the other hand, echolocation or electric sensing is not quite equivalent to the distinction between say, writing a novel and drawing a painting.

It's true that the underlying skill might be learned (i.e., how to form letters/type into a keyboard or reproduce the image from your mind) but the base concept either exists or it doesn't.

I really do believe there is general intelligence... but i don't think this necessarily translates to, "someone who can draw really well is intelligent". The skill of drawing is not necessarily one of intelligence, but someone who is really intelligent may be able to visualize great things, and if they also learned how to draw, they could be come an amazing painter (for example).

OMG, I deserve a fucking medal for getting through that OP.