What is intelligence?

[Iruka-Senpai]

I was wondering what you think intelligence should be based off of. Many people say that I am an intellectual because I know a lot about history and math. While some people say that I am intelligent because I have the ability to form philosophical views and can understand and form deep thoughts. Then there are people that I mostly meet on message boards who call me foolish because I don't know enough about one thing or I can't remember something. So, do you think intelligence should be based off what the mind obtains or what it perceives. Also, do you think it is right to mock another's intelligence based on their lack of information. After all, if somebody was an idiot based on their inability to remember something then wouldn't everyone be just as foolish as him/her? What do you think?:amuse

[rimpelcut]

Well I think that there isn't anything to measure intelligence. Smartness depends on how focused and motivated you are on resolution and if you have that then the speed in which you react on one fact that you perceive is how intelligent you are. This means how fast you think. That is why in IQ tests they use one part for knowledge testing another for solving problems where you do not have to have prior knowledge. But like I said, if you train concentration and staying on a calm but fast path towards understanding a problem you will find the answers faster. Trust me when I say that it makes a big difference. That is why I say that intelligence cannot be measured.

[Kush P]

Yeah I think you cannot measure intelligence. Although could it also have to do with experience? If a certain situation never occured then we would never knew any ideas to react to it...

[rimpelcut]

Yes that too. For instance remember when you first started to learn math. You learned to memorize numbers and then how to do + and -. But it is hard to do a IQ test with different shapes and you have to see a connection. I guess you could learn a teqchnique to see different connections and discern differences. All of this is purely knowledge. Your intelligence only does this: if this then that if this then that if this then that. So intelligence would have to do something with biology, genetics.

[Kush P]

Sort of like linking patterns then...We link and relate things together to somehow get a better idea of understanding

[Peliqua]

I don't think there's any way to really tell. In the end, even if you're great in high thinking and talking pretty, there will always be someone out there with a practical life that is much more useful than you, fixing cars and drains... and vice-versa. Nobody can ever have universal knowledge, so unless you're measuring one's smarts in the field that its applied, you can't compare people to one another...
Although I do put a great amount of value in steadfast people with loyalty. Emotional understanding is worth infinitely more than an analytical genius, because that person will connect and relate to others. They are the poets and artists of our worlds, who bring understanding and hope. And as one of those poets once said, without hope, we are nothing.

[Dark_wolf247]

For me, there are only two definitions for intelligence.

1: Abscence of stupidity.
2: The ability to comprehend.

[martryn]

Intelligence has two subgroupings. Your intelligence would be an average of the two I suppose. First, you have things you know. Knowledge that you can spit out. These are things that are memorized and include historical facts, number systems, how to perform certain things like math operations and English rules, languages you can speak, books you can summarize. Second, and equally important, is your ability to analyze. This is problem solving and deduction. How good your logic is. Your ability to reason.

It does little good to be "intelligent" in only one of these categories. If you know alot but can't put two and two together, what good are you? And at the same time, if you have great reasoning skills but don't have the knowledge necessary to solve a problem, for example knowing the method but not the right equation to use, you're also doomed to fail.

That's my take on it, and that's why I think intelligence can be measured, but its nigh impossible to do so.

[Yasha]

Many think that intelligence is too subjective and doesn't have any material basis at all but that is totally wrong. I will tell you a story of the smartest man in the history and what's so special about his brain.

Half a century ago, one of the greatest scientists of all time passed away. His body was cremated and the ashes spread at a secret location after an autopsy. However, there was one part of his body that wasn't cremated together with the others--his brain. A pathologist called Thomas Harvey, who performed the autopsy, stole the brain, chopped it into 240 sugarcube-size pieces and kept them in secret inside a big mayonnaise jar for 50 years. All sorts of studies were carried out on the poor scientist's remains and something special about the genius' brain was uncovered. As opposed to what many people think, the brain size is well within the normal range. However, the brain samples were discovered to contain more glial cells (which offer structure and support for the nerve cells) than the average male in all four areas of the brain being studied. The conclusion of the studies was, the higher glial cells to neurons ratio a person has, the higher is the rate of metabolism of his brain and hence the better thinking abilities he will possess. In other words, if you want to be a genius, you want to have more glial cells in your brain.

Oh, and if you still do not know who I was talking about, his name was Albert Einstein.

[darkneshieca_NejiFan]

For me, there are only two definitions for intelligence.

1: Abscence of stupidity.
2: The ability to comprehend.

You're right there. Anyone who isn't stupid in doing stuff and can comprehend is intelligent.

I believe that intelligence isn't measured by how many facts you know rather how you can comprehend to stuff. Believe me when I say that intelligence is very much different from knowledge.

Intelligence is also achieved by genetics. Anyone who received their genes from an intelligent family has a 90% possibility of being intelligent.

If you say knowledge, that is very different from intelligence. Of course, someone who didn't come across something can never do or answer a question regarding something she/he doesn't know. If someone can answer it, then he/she has knowledge in that aspect. Therefore, people say that this person is intelligent. But this is not the true measurement of intelligence because I believe that intelligence cannot be measured so easily.

[mushi]

I agree with the above, Intelligence is the opposite of knowledge. Although they may mix with each other they represent two different sides to one story.

[Peliqua]

Many think that intelligence is too subjective and doesn't have any material basis at all but that is totally wrong. I will tell you a story of the smartest man in the history and what's so special about his brain.

Half a century ago, one of the greatest scientists of all time passed away. His body was cremated and the ashes spread at a secret location after an autopsy. However, there was one part of his body that wasn't cremated together with the others--his brain. A pathologist called Thomas Harvey, who performed the autopsy, stole the brain, chopped it into 240 sugarcube-size pieces and kept them in secret inside a big mayonnaise jar for 50 years. All sorts of studies were carried out on the poor scientist's remains and something special about the genius' brain was uncovered. As opposed to what many people think, the brain size is well within the normal range. However, the brain samples were discovered to contain more glial cells (which offer structure and support for the nerve cells) than the average male in all four areas of the brain being studied. The conclusion of the studies was, the higher glial cells to neurons ratio a person has, the higher is the rate of metabolism of his brain and hence the better thinking abilities he will possess. In other words, if you want to be a genius, you want to have more glial cells in your brain.

Oh, and if you still do not know who I was talking about, his name was Albert Einstein.

Well, more glial cells would from birth, allow for the potential of genius. However, if this potential goes unused, for example if that person gets a cocaine habit or something... then they're neither practical nor high-thinking, and pretty much useless.
Intelligence, or genius, to me is only good when useful.

(No offense meant, but where are you getting the glial thing anyway?)

Intelligence is also achieved by genetics. Anyone who received their genes from an intelligent family has a 90% possibility of being intelligent.
I disagree. Even if someone is born from a smart family, with the potential to be smart, if their mind doesn't 'develop' (so to speak), then what good are they? A Lifetime makes a man, or so they say... the collective expriences from a lifetime. You have to be exposed to things in order to broaden your mind, so being born from a smart family isn't going to make you smart right away.
(Where'd you get that statistic?)

[rimpelcut]

I don't think there's any way to really tell. In the end, even if you're great in high thinking and talking pretty, there will always be someone out there with a practical life that is much more useful than you, fixing cars and drains... and vice-versa. Nobody can ever have universal knowledge, so unless you're measuring one's smarts in the field that its applied, you can't compare people to one another...
Although I do put a great amount of value in steadfast people with loyalty. Emotional understanding is worth infinitely more than an analytical genius, because that person will connect and relate to others. They are the poets and artists of our worlds, who bring understanding and hope. And as one of those poets once said, without hope, we are nothing.

a analyctic genius can have emotional understanding.
yasha do you know what makes them grow?

[Yasha]

Well, more glial cells would from birth, allow for the potential of genius. However, if this potential goes unused, for example if that person gets a cocaine habit or something... then they're neither practical nor high-thinking, and pretty much useless.
Intelligence, or genius, to me is only good when useful.


Of course.



No offense meant, but where are you getting the glial thing anyway?


I don't see anything offensive in your post.:huh You can find all these stuffs by googling "Einstein's brain"



I disagree. Even if someone is born from a smart family, with the potential to be smart, if their mind doesn't 'develop' (so to speak), then what good are they? A Lifetime makes a man, or so they say... the collective expriences from a lifetime. You have to be exposed to things in order to broaden your mind, so being born from a smart family isn't going to make you smart right away.


Agree. I think training and experiences do help a bit, but not as much as the genetic factor.



a analyctic genius can have emotional understanding.
yasha do you know what makes them grow?

Well, I think many of you have heard of the difference between left-brainers and right-brainers, right? Left-brainers are said to be better in maths and analysis while right-brainers have more creativity and spatial awareness and are usually more emotional. Left-brainers can make great scientists and researchers while right-brainers are born artists. However, recent studies show that this logical-creative split is nothing more than just a myth. I just read a nice article on this and here is the link:
http://www.rense.com/general2/rb.htm

Human brain is much more complicated than we can ever imagine. We still do not know what kind of chemicals in our brains that make a person more emo than another person. But I do know that many maths or analytical geniuses have the difficulty to express their emotions appropriately. They are not emotionless, they just don't know how to express their feelings. :laugh :) :oh :( :cry

[Peliqua]

However, recent studies show that this logical-creative split is nothing more than just a myth.


:eek I dunnoooo... I just feel better accepting that some people are good at some things, and some aren't. I've always been told I'm a right-brainer because I tend to be artistic, so I guess I like the idea of the brain-sides thing because.. well.. Makes me feel special.:nuts

[rimpelcut]

Human brain is much more complicated than we can ever imagine. We still do not know what kind of chemicals in our brains that make a person more emo than another person. But I do know that many maths or analytical geniuses have the difficulty to express their emotions appropriately. They are not emotionless, they just don't know how to express their feelings. :laugh :) :oh :( :cry

Well that is probable because 1> they had a .... life 2> they think about the emotions and with that create duality. emotions show what you want. If you disrigard your emotions meaning then you are doing it because of standard you yourself have created or act by because of religion or society standards. Well you need to think of how you act to understand this.
It's a pain in the but when you don't know if scientists say something because they "think" it's like that or actually have proof. Often even when I read that proof I can think of many ways to interpret that proof because that proof lacks other proof. It's like there is a system you do not know of but you only see a fraction with which you say: this is how the system works.

[Svenjamin]

If you are intelligent, you can:

-Avoid problems by predicting the most probable outcomes of your actions.
-Argue your case well with many points while being unbiased
-Caluculate numbers and think quickly
-Anticipate another's actions based off their supposed level of intelligence
-Have very many philosophical views on life
-remember many, many things
-be completely aware of the impact your actions have on other people

I can do all of the above and I'm quite proud of it actually. And I'm striving to improve my intelligence. I really do feel sorry for people who do very stupid things in their lives without considering the consequences. That's why I think that to determine a realistic IQ, we need many IQ tests that test a different part of your intelligence each time. I would love to know how I rank compared to all the other people I know.

I'm sick of my friend Peter telling me he's smarter than me just because he got more than me with his ENTER score at the end of year 12. He got 80 something when I got 60.65.

It's not something that determines our intelligence, it varies due to the subjects you chose to study, and ofcourse how much you studied. There are too many factors that interfere with this to conclude it as something that determines your IQ, such as problems at home and what teacher and class mates you had.

These forums need more intelligent people, I need more people to agree with when it comes to certain topics.

[rimpelcut]

if you want me to agree with you, you need to talk to me.
what you said is true. intelligence is when you can beat a man without beeing strong. when you know that when you fear that fear is nothing. when you can make a joke out of each sentance somebody says.
while there are certain things you can do intelligently only the one that understand intelligence and applies it to everything can be considered a intelligent man.

[GOD'S BITCH]

I think to earn the right to be called intelligent you have to have common sense and a great deal of knowledge. This also leads to being wise.

[Zed Of Blades]

i think u r intelligent once u know wot is right or wrong, knowing wot those 2 r will always help u in ur life.

[Deathinstinct]

I think to earn the right to be called intelligent you have to have common sense and a great deal of knowledge. This also leads to being wise.While I agree with you, common sense can't be measured and quantified easily.

It's not something that determines our intelligence, it varies due to the subjects you chose to study, and ofcourse how much you studied. There are too many factors that interfere with this to conclude it as something that determines your IQ, such as problems at home and what teacher and class mates you had. True, to a degree, but the various IQ tests still demonstrate a general degree of an individual's intelligence.

[AestheticizeAnalog]

Intelligence and being knowledgable do not always coincide. An intellectual or someone who is intelligent is a person who can analyze a situation and make deep perceptions about it and see what is truly going on. Some people are very oblivious to history and anything else you might learn in school but are amazingly intelligent and can still see through a situation and solve a problem if necessary.

[Kinkatsuo]

Intelligent people seack knowlage.... ergo, if you know alot, your intelligent. Iq tests, tests alot of different skills, memory, logic exectra.

[rimpelcut]

as long as you don't how your consciousness works you can't measure your full intelligence.

[Beren]

Intelligence is very subjective. Personally, I differentiate between knowledability and intelligence; there is def. some correlation between "how much u kno" and "how does ur brain deal with the information". It might be wise to compare to artificial intelligence as well, since computer scientists also study cognition.

First off, the amount of knowledge certainly doesn't rate intelligence; a computer could contain a lot of information, but all it can do is spit it out.

One proposed test to for artificial intelligence (which does have its critics) is the so-called "Chinese Room Test" which u can read more about on wikipedia. The experiment essentially consists of one individual (computer or human) who doesn't speak Chinese that is locked in a room with a book of Chinese characters and rules governing these characters. Supposedly the locked-up individual is sent messages to translate into chinese according to the book; if the individual can eventually translate messages into what would seem like a native chinese speaker's words (according to the grammar and characters), than the individual is deemed "intelligent". This test assumes that the intelligent individual has not actually learned Chinese, merely how to manipulate characters according to the rules of grammar in the book.

This test does have flaws, but I hope I gave u an idea for what some ppl might call "intelligence". There are many such tests for humans and computers, some of the quite interesting

[Son Goku]

intellegence is how much knoledge you know but to intellengence is more of a word to make some ppl feel superior to others which are mainly called average
or stupid inteelengce to me is to determine someones place in education and in life

[Sorian]

Intelligence=Your ability to obtain and comprehend knowledge.

[Raikoh]

Intelligence is a word with many definitions. In my opinion, true intelligence should be defined by it's animalistic founding. An individual's ability to learn, comprehend, and adapt using information (regardless of the source¹) are the only indications of an individual's intelligence.

¹Source: Any medium through which information can be achieved, from common sense (an inner source) to external perception (an outer source).

What good is your IQ if you lack the common sense to step out of the way of an oncoming bus while lost in thought?

A person who is truly intelligent is a person who can analyze a situation almost instantly, retain information, and act on this process efficiently.

[Insipidipity]

Like several people above mentioned, I believe intelligence is mutually independent of knowledge. I believe intelligence can incorporate faster thinking, but I feel efficient thinking is more important.

Problem solving abilities are at the core of it, but many factors are important. For instance, while the ability to calculate numbers quickly is important, an intelligent person would not become stuck with one convention or another. Being able to handle binary should be nearly as easily handled with virtually no training as the learned system(usually base 10). This can also be further applied to being able to quickly learn even a new system of numbers and symbols given the proper understanding of principles.

Learning principles quickly are important but the ability to apply them are moreso. Also, one should not require everything be spoonfed. Logic should be absolutely crucial. To be able to discern information with as little knowledge or calculations as necessary to do is shows signs of intelligence.

Furthermore, a unique part of intelligence is critical thinking, which can involve defying common sense and coming up with solutions that are not obvious. This is somewhat related to ingenuity.

So I'd incorporate a lot of words into intelligence: Logical, witty, clever, ingenuity, foresightful(planning ahead), insightful, analytical, observant.

I'd say its virtually impossible to measure but somewhat simple to notice and very possible to make relative judgements. The main problem behind measurements is that it would take a brilliant person to come up with tests to do so. Essentially the smartest person in the world would be necessary to create a test to determine true intelligence, but since that can't be determined without a test, its a catch 22. Even then, it would potentially be hard for them to completely ignore other conventions and whatnot.

But I have a little idea of how I would convey the difference between increasing levels of intelligence
The scenario is that theres a food shortage from overpopulation.
An intelligent person is someone who kills the excess people to meet the need so that at least the number of people who suffer is lessened
A more intelligent person would know the value of human life and come up with the idea to plant more food.
And an even more intelligent person knows that people should change their eating habits and mating habits so that they can sustain the food supply in the future.
See, the first example comes up with a solution, the second takes into account all variables at hand
The third also plans for the future.
Of course that example is limited by my own level of intelligence.

[Beren]

Good points... tho I'm not sure about the food shortage part. That scenario ignores the question if an intelligent being is willing to act or think against his/her own morality. I'm sure there there are ways to maximize individual vs. societal needs at that moment, that are "best" different ppl

[Insipidipity]

Good points... tho I'm not sure about the food shortage part. That scenario ignores the question if an intelligent being is willing to act or think against his/her own morality. I'm sure there there are ways to maximize individual vs. societal needs at that moment, that are "best" different ppl
Yea, I wasn't sure if that was a good example either. My idea of morality is that it can be completely replaced with logic though. Some people say too much logic is a bad thing, I think its just that its not logical enough. Logic has to be able to incorporate everything, not just the basics. For example, in the movie I,Robot, they said the difference engine determined who to rescue based on survival chance. I'd say thats illogical, that ignores potential for growth, consequences of death of a child, heck, even the cost of the drop in efficiency from grieving over a child. So I think an intelligent person wouldn't be one who pretends to be logical while relying on simplistic models that don't represent the whole story and can seriously distort the results.
So I think an intelligent person should be able to do whats most logical instead of following what people's ideas of most moral is. In the end, I think thats where morals came from in the first place, logic, it just evolved to become simpler and simpler so people would be able to blanket everything under the same terms without having to think about it. But once you become intelligent enough, you no longer need a generalization.

[rimpelcut]

Intelligence is very subjective. Personally, I differentiate between knowledability and intelligence; there is def. some correlation between "how much u kno" and "how does ur brain deal with the information". It might be wise to compare to artificial intelligence as well, since computer scientists also study cognition.

First off, the amount of knowledge certainly doesn't rate intelligence; a computer could contain a lot of information, but all it can do is spit it out.

One proposed test to for artificial intelligence (which does have its critics) is the so-called "Chinese Room Test" which u can read more about on wikipedia. The experiment essentially consists of one individual (computer or human) who doesn't speak Chinese that is locked in a room with a book of Chinese characters and rules governing these characters. Supposedly the locked-up individual is sent messages to translate into chinese according to the book; if the individual can eventually translate messages into what would seem like a native chinese speaker's words (according to the grammar and characters), than the individual is deemed "intelligent". This test assumes that the intelligent individual has not actually learned Chinese, merely how to manipulate characters according to the rules of grammar in the book.

This test does have flaws, but I hope I gave u an idea for what some ppl might call "intelligence". There are many such tests for humans and computers, some of the quite interesting

although you do need to use your intelligence you cannot measure once intelligence. You need time measurement for that. Someone that is not good in concentrating and taking it easy has to understand that first before he can start translating chinese. For instance if you are greedy to get the answers you loose time because you are not using your intelligence. Then you have also the brains stamina. If you train concentration your brain will get more stronger because it can store more energy (glucose or something like that). Also the amount of serotonine in your brain is essential. If you have not enough serotonine your brain cannot channel your thoughts proficiently. Therefore you have to have perfect health. I think that intelligence can only truly be measured by dna. That cannot be done yet because scientists do not understand the full mechanism. Also Like a said someone might not even reach it's dna potential. Like someone that trains the body. His potential for maximum long usage might not be reached.

[trebors]

if you have more inteligent you can increase your magic attack and it increases your sp and mp too

[Kin]

Something I don't have :noworry

[Azure-kun]

well I do have some priror knowedge but if you ask me the basic point of intellect isn't to test one's mental strenght. but perhaps to help yourself question and anwser theoreical problems or by helping with everyday advise. . . to make a long story short I look at intelligance as a multi-purpose tool givin to use as a gift for our humanity :jir_thumb

[Jordy]

lol but i do hav a large dicc

This, is certainly not.

[Pestilence]

I determine a species to be intelligent when it is within that species to commit suicide.

[Chamcham Trigger]

Intelligence isn't the knowledge attained. It is the ability to attain knowledge. How you use this knowledge you gained can also be seen as intelligence. Just because you know a lot doesn't mean you're intelligent, because the knowledge can be applied in stupid ways as opposed to it being used in intelligent ways (not...not that I've done that before :sweatdrop). In the end one can know as much current events or academics as the encyclopedia britannica (or whatever comparison you wanna use), but in the end that doesn't automatically make one intelligent.

[hesd]

Just want to share with you Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence:

In Frames of Mind Howard Gardner treated the personal intelligences 'as a piece'. Because of their close association in most cultures, they are often linked together. However, he still argues that it makes sense to think of two forms of personal intelligence. Gardner claimed that the seven intelligences rarely operate independently. They are used at the same time and tend to complement each other as people develop skills or solve problems.

In essence Howard Gardner argues that he was making two essential claims about multiple intelligences. That:

The theory is an account of human cognition in its fullness. The intelligences provided 'a new definition of human nature, cognitively speaking' (Gardner 1999: 44). Human beings are organisms who possess a basic set of intelligences.

People have a unique blend of intelligences. Gardner argues that the big challenge facing the deployment of human resources 'is how to best take advantage of the uniqueness conferred on us as a species exhibiting several intelligences' (ibid.: 45).


Linguistic intelligence involves sensitivity to spoken and written language, the ability to learn languages, and the capacity to use language to accomplish certain goals. This intelligence includes the ability to effectively use language to express oneself rhetorically or poetically; and language as a means to remember information. Writers, poets, lawyers and speakers are among those that Howard Gardner sees as having high linguistic intelligence.

Logical-mathematical intelligence consists of the capacity to analyze problems logically, carry out mathematical operations, and investigate issues scientifically. In Howard Gardner's words, in entails the ability to detect patterns, reason deductively and think logically. This intelligence is most often associated with scientific and mathematical thinking.

Musical intelligence involves skill in the performance, composition, and appreciation of musical patterns. It encompasses the capacity to recognize and compose musical pitches, tones, and rhythms. According to Howard Gardner musical intelligence runs in an almost structural parallel to linguistic intelligence.

Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence entails the potential of using one's whole body or parts of the body to solve problems. It is the ability to use mental abilities to coordinate bodily movements. Howard Gardner sees mental and physical activity as related.

Spatial intelligence involves the potential to recognize and use the patterns of wide space and more confined areas.

Interpersonal intelligence is concerned with the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people. It allows people to work effectively with others. Educators, salespeople, religious and political leaders and counsellors all need a well-developed interpersonal intelligence.

Intrapersonal intelligence entails the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations. In Howard Gardner's view it involves having an effective working model of ourselves, and to be able to use such information to regulate our lives.


Other forms of intelligence he took into account:

Naturalist intelligence enables human beings to recognize, categorize and draw upon certain features of the environment. It 'combines a description of the core ability with a characterization of the role that many cultures value' (ibid.: 48).

Existential intelligence, a concern with 'ultimate issues', is, thus, the next possibility that Howard Gardner considers - and he argues that it 'scores reasonably well on the criteria' (ibid.: 64). However, empirical evidence is sparse - and although a ninth intelligence might be attractive, Howard Gardner is not disposed to add it to the list. 'I find the phenomenon perplexing enough and the distance from the other intelligences vast enough to dictate prudence - at least for now' (ibid.: 66).

The final, and obvious, candidate for inclusion in Howard Gardner's list is moral intelligence. In his exploration, he begins by asking whether it is possible to delineate the 'moral domain'. He suggests that it is difficult to come to any consensual definition, but argues that it is possible to come to an understanding that takes exploration forward. Central to a moral domain, Howard Gardner suggests, 'is a concern with those rules, behaviours and attitudes that govern the sanctity of life - in particular, the sanctity of human life and, in many cases, the sanctity of any other living creatures and the world they inhabit' (ibid.: 70). If we accept the existence of a moral realm is it them possible to speak of moral intelligence? If it 'connotes the adoption of any specific moral code' then Howard Gardner does not find the term moral intelligence acceptable (ibid.: 75).

[rimpelcut]

all in all it's simply intelligence, I don't see why they are seperated.

[Insipidipity]

I'm going to reword a quote on the complexity of the universe/human body to fit into intelligence.

If intelligence were so simple that we were capable of clearly defining what that intelligence was, we would be so simple that we could not.

Basically it goes back to my argument that the only person qualified to judge and define intelligence would have to be the smartest person there is. Since intelligence can not be defined until then, we can't determine who that person is

[rimpelcut]

...we don't know yet what intelligence is determened by so . I don't get why the smartest person is the only one that..

[BlueBleach]

I don't think that intelligence is sumthing that can b measured.I think that intelligence is not only the gaining and experience of knowledge and wisdom,but its the application of that knowledge and wisdom that constitutes intelligence

[darkgem499]

Inteeligence is all in opinion.There are many diffrent types of intelligence,from acedemic,wisdomly,to even sports.It's all peoples opinion.

[sharingan_clan213]

intelligence is whatever you can remember over a period of time.

[Tousenz]

Intelligence is everyone realizing im right and they're wrong.

[Cæk]

in my opinion Intelligence is having the abilty to understand right from wrong and aquring certain knowlegde about everyday life matters.