Posted on March 20
What is intelligence, anyway? Great question if there ever was one. Put it around you: good luck finding a consensus. The knowledge ? Academic success? The artistic talent? All this at once? A few thoughts to see more clearly (or get more involved…).
Little consensus
The Larousse alone offers no less than five definitions of intelligence, each more abstract than the other, ranging from mental function to capacity, through aptitude and quality, combining mastery, spirit, discernment , insight and understanding, lark. Already lost? Normal. In fact, even researchers have a hard time agreeing. And according to their disciplines, the visions vary, and have done so for decades. For good reason: the case is indeed abstract, and as a cultural bonus.
In three quotes (to confuse things a bit more!)
We measure the intelligence of an individual by the quality of uncertainty that he is able to bear.
Immanuel Kant
Reason is intelligence in exercise, imagination is intelligence in erection.
Victor-Hugo
Intelligence is not the ability to store information, but knowing where to find it.
Einstein
To popularize
Basically, for lack of consensus, let’s dare a definition of our own (as broad as it is vague, certainly functionalist, but which has the merit of achieving more or less consensus among the experts – ethicist, psychologist and neuropsy – consulted here):
Intelligence would be the ability to solve a given (complex and new) problem.
Stupid (!), finally? Intelligence is therefore not an aggregate of knowledge (true and justified), but rather an “ability” to mobilize said knowledge (using in passing the subtle art of adapting), to respond to a problem (complex and new ) given. In short: generate solutions. Are you still following? Oh yes, and that often involves a notion of creativity, too.
Psychometrics to see clearly
Alfred Binet (the inventor of psychometrics, intelligence quotient tests) is credited with [QI], etc.) this quip: “Intelligence is what my tests measure! Moreover, these famous tests were first invented with the aim of making the thing (as abstract as it is) objective, through empirical observations. The IQ test is a bit to intelligence what the thermometer is to temperature, if you will: it quantifies intelligence. How? ‘Or’ What ? By evaluating certain academic skills (language, abstraction, reasoning, etc.), easily measurable elements, it should be emphasized. Originally, these questionnaires were also used in schools, to identify children in difficulty, who would have special needs.
Caution
If you feel like taking such a test online (and there are plenty of offers!), resist: “No, no, no! insists Isabelle Blanchette, psychologist at Laval University, specialist in cognition. A real IQ measurement takes a lot of time, must be done by a professional, and interpreting the result is extremely complex. Forget the idea of knowing if you are gifted in five minutes, what.
One or several intelligences?
Moreover, like all tools, however “scientifically proven” they may be, these psychometric tests are not perfect and they are not unanimous either. Why ? In particular because they focus exclusively on “academic” intelligence, thereby discarding everything related to the arts, human relations, nature, etc. (concepts that are certainly difficult to measure, we will come back to this). Hence the idea, in the 1980s, with a certain Howard Gardner, of considering not intelligence in the singular, but rather the intelligences in the plural (typically, eight intelligences: musical, spatial, environmental, kinesthetic, etc. ). His theory of multiple intelligences has greatly appealed to popular culture and the world of education, since it has made it possible to value students here in all their potential.
No consensus again
But here it is: are these “intelligences” in the strict sense, or rather talents? “These are super rich skills, advances Élodie Authier, neuropsychologist and giftedness specialist, but it cannot necessarily be evaluated. We don’t have the tools. We have never been able to prove the theoretical and neurocognitive basis of these intelligences. In short, scientifically, the theory of multiple intelligences does not hold water, since these (whether musical or interpersonal skills) cannot be measured in a robust and reliable way.
And emotional intelligence, then?
The notion of emotional intelligence, popularized in the 1990s by science journalist and author Daniel Goleman, has more or less the same shortcomings. Defined as the quality of perceiving, grasping, understanding and managing the emotions (of oneself and of others), this concept, however attractive it may be (it is more akin to a personality trait, and not an intelligence, underline skeptics), supposedly more important than IQ in predicting professional success, does not pass the test of scientific rigor either. “It’s very complex because we’re talking about emotions,” continues the neuropsychologist. Scientifically, it cannot be assessed. »
The issue of heredity
Going back to intelligence with a capital I, is it hereditary? Does it feed? Yes, in part, and yes, in part. “They say it’s 40% heredity and 60% environment,” continues Élodie Authier. These are big numbers, but that’s how we try to sum it up. Which is great news, in that yes, stimulation and nurturing can affect IQ. But not in the very short term, with accelerated training (of the “quick fix” type), nuances the psychologist Isabelle Blanchette, from Laval University. Know this: you can certainly increase your ability to answer an IQ test (thanks to the many tips and other tricks available online, for example), but to say that you will be smarter, “it’s not the same thing…”
And artificial intelligence, is it really an intelligence?
A fascinating article from the magazine Social science asked the question. Response ? If neurosciences have made it possible to estimate the number of neurons in the human brain at 86 billion (and 1 million billion connections), that of Intel, one of the most powerful digital brains in the world, does not count any. than 100 million. The equivalent of a rat’s brain. A rat very good at playing chess, for example, but less so at transferring knowledge from one area to another. From there to say that this artificial brain is not intelligent, there is a step. Because once again, it all depends on how you define intelligence. “But if we stay with the initial definition: the ability to solve a complex problem, then yes [l’intelligence artificielle est une intelligence], concludes with a laugh Martin Gibert, philosopher and researcher in the ethics of artificial intelligence. It is complicated ! We haven’t gone around! »