1

If we define intelligence as above in the title, is the following statement true?

The question whether the above operational definition is too broad does not depend on whether what it actually measures is intelligence, but rather something else, such as diligence or resilience.

  • 3
    The question seems nonsensical to me: First, if we take this definition for granted and ask for consequences, then it is out of the question whether IQ "actually measures" intelligence or not, as intelligence is defined as being what is measured by IQ, making it trivial that it indeed measures intelligence. Second, what is "too broad"?! There is some context missing imho. – Philip Klöcking Oct 28 '17 at 14:53
  • whether A is B does not depend on whether A is C. can we infer A is C? i don't think we can, whether or not A is B. we didn't learn anything about whether A is C. but context may well show that the statement in bold implies that A is by definition C, if only because arguments aren't always used well – user29299 Oct 28 '17 at 15:11
  • There is no such thing as IQ, it is a construct measured by numerous different tests. s – jobermark Oct 29 '17 at 0:14
1

Operational Definition: 'Intelligence is the property measured by IQ.'

That is not a definition at all, really.

IQ is measured with various instruments that do not all agree. And those instruments are based upon specific theories of intelligence, which share some common aspects (e.g. thinking speed matters, not just the quality of the outcome; creative approaches are not essential, consistency is; etc.)

But if they all measured exactly the same thing, they would merge and we would stop having multiple competing versions. That is a goal. Defining the goal by the current state leaves one navigating without a compass.

The question whether the above operational definition is too broad does not depend on whether what it actually measures is intelligence

This is not logically possible if you have defined the one to be what the other measures.

but rather something else, such as diligence or resilience.

Those are not necessarily 'something else'. Measures are interdependent. If what you measure has correlates or parts, then measuring it involves measuring those, too.

A science teases apart the right things to measure over time by seeing what measures are stable when others vary. It may be possible that there is no stable definition of 'resilience'. It may be that people are more or less resilient in different contexts, so things that depend upon resilience would do better to measure a number of other stable factors instead and predict the appearance to which we lend the informal label of 'resilient'. The resulting composite exists if we use the word, but it may be subjective or contingent and not a good measure.

If IQ tests are meant to be developed, compared, and chosen between, they must actually measure something. So then questions about what the contributing factors are to what is being measured cannot be irrelevant to whether the test is a good one.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.