When it comes to intelligence, many people reference IQ. But, as I've said many times before it's not a complete picture of intelligence. IQ tests were designed to determine services for people who have low intellect.
There are so many different ways to be intelligent. I'm not sure it's all quantifiable. Such as the child that can pitch a ball with speed and precision, the ability to sense emotions, or just general social skills often go unmeasured.
And, I often hear people say they know someone is intelligent. Sometimes, I think people use it to say "I agree with this person."
So, how do you decide whether or not you think a person is intelligent?
Nice post thanks! I remember taking an I.Q test for a work assessment the assessors said after a full days work - I had a great score but, sorry to point out that my spatial awareness was seriously low and that I wouldnt be able to be a potter as I wished - I gained several prizes for my raku pots and achieved a first in fine and applied arts despite my 'apparent ' disability, the tests were proven not to be accurate, good job I never listened. I agree many many ways to be intelligent
I think children who are able to play the piano, or something similar, at a level far above the average have talent, not necessarily intelligence. If those same children are able to learn at an above average rate, they are intelligent. Intelligence includes social, "street", knowledge as well as academic training.
In my opinion, @Akfishlady nailed it regarding emotional intelligence ... highly under-appreciated. And while I greatly admire and respect pure savant-like intellect, I believe we've become so consumed with specialized talent that sometimes forget what it means to be 'well rounded.' Where are the Renaissance men and women today? The high IQ, artistic, athletic, engineering geniuses who have emotional intelligence?
My late 2nd wife pegged the IQ tests somewhere north of 140, but that was because the test measured a narrow aspect of intelligence -- IQ tests ignore emotional intelligence for example and don't test for how rationally you apply what your know, they don't measure the sophistication or well-roundedness of your artistic tastes, and on and on.
I loved her to death but she was very conventional and provincial and unsophisticated in many ways. For her, the proof that there must be an afterlife was that so many people believed there was. This was literally her entire take on the matter and she never saw a reason to look further than that. Case closed. This was not an intelligent aspect of her. Nor was her obsession with Thomas Kinkaide paintings a reflection of a wide-ranging curiosity about art. Yes she could read a hexadecimal core dump like it was a Stephen King novel and yes she got straight As in high school and college and yes she was considered the leading expert in software development at a large multinational corporation. But those things aren't the whole picture of what intelligence is.
Everyone's intelligence is selective -- some more than others. Truly remarkable intelliegence is well-rounded and indiscriminately curious. My current wife and I could not best my prior wife on an IQ test (though we're no slouches either) but I think we are more well rounded and have breadth as well as depth. This is no knock against the dead; its just an honest assessment. I wasn't and am not "better" than her or "smarter" or "dumber", but I am more broadly curious and I think that this is the best marker of intelligence. A lot of what passes as intelligence is an excess of raw processing power, like a computer with a very fast clock speed, but without much software to actually run on it.
I think that the greater intelligence shows it self in making many and lasting connections between things which are not obviously connected - hence progressing human knowledge. It is not connected with remembering knowledge although both tend to occur together . I picture something in the brain wildy waving arround to try to connect to a different waving something from another retained thought.
It's highly contextual and relative. Need to define skills and talents separately. Their effective correlation with your environment can be considered intelligence.
A person good in spatial intelligence need not be good in other spheres like verbal intelligence and vice versa.
I am good in observation and I can identify small changes in people's behaviour to me but I lack in communication or expression so basically I fail to reciprocate to people in the way they want. Am I intelligent or not?
if a person is capable & willing to discuss a topic controversially without losing the thread & getting personal, especially personally insulting - that's already a good indicator for intelligence in my eyes. distinguishing facts from opinion, rationale from emotions, personal preference from the big picture & .... humility before everything else.