Intelligence?
We use that word all the time. Or some form of it or synonym of it. What do we mean when we use it? Do we even have a common conception of what intelligence is? Is there a science of intelligence that is anything more than theory?
Early “experts” on intelligence in western civilization had very “rigorous” methods of evaluating intelligence. They measured the exteriors of peoples’ skulls, surveyed the bumps, catalogued the shapes of skulls, and concluded that certain skull characteristics corresponded with different levels of intelligence. Dominated by white men, phrenology’s extreme rigor led to interesting discoveries:
(To be read with a snotty sounding British accent)
“After thorough and exhaustive studies, we can only conclude — based on carefully measured data — that the most intelligent humans are … well, us: Caucasian men.”
This so-called scientific approach gave white men a justification for relegating other races, ethnic groups, and the female sex as lesser humans.
And then as the 20th century turned, the intelligence “experts” took a much more scientific approach: intelligence testing. While it may seem less pseudoscientific, it was not without bias, and largely led researchers to the similar conclusions that white men were intellectually superior to other groups of humans. But it also gave a single measurement — IQ — that could then be used to categorize a person’s intelligence level. Even Alfred Binet, who created the earliest IQ tests didn’t think that something as complex as intelligence could be boiled down to a single numerical measurement.
This conception of human intelligence and conclusion about it was similarly used to justify limiting immigration from certain countries, denying women political rights, and even gave rise to the eugenics movement. It was a pretty extreme type of hierarchical thinking.
You can read all about this pseudoscience in The Mismeasure of Man or The History of White People. Both have interesting accounts.
Today, we still widely use IQ as a measure of intelligence in several aspects of society. Sure, the test has been revamped a few times, but really? Do we really believe that a person’s intelligence can be adequately measured and described in a 2-3 digit number? Even when the originator of the idea didn’t really believe it? Do we even have any idea what we are measuring? Or trying to measure?
Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory represented a shift in thinking about human intelligence. He originally proposed eight different types of intelligence and later added a ninth. It’s interesting stuff, and maybe he is on to something. At least his approach considers the variation in human populations and steps away from the single-mindedness of earlier intelligence theories.
Despite Gardner’s efforts to empirically evaluate the types of intelligence, many psychologists disagreed with his approach and claimed that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of the types of intelligence, and no way to measure them.
So, again, no agreement on what intelligence actually is and whether/how it could be measured, evaluated, or understood. But we still use intelligence testing and we still use the concept of intelligence as if it has a particular and agreed-upon meaning.
Despite all of that, we do tend to think of ourselves as the most intelligent species. I mean we have created 7,000 or so languages, built all kinds of nifty buildings, engineered flying machines, made music, explored the oceans and space, built and programmed computers, harnessed the power of fossil fuels to grow our populations and economies, developed medicine and diagnostics, devised science, designed art, conceived philosophy, found religion(?), catalogued most of the species we share the planet with, and probably did a bunch of other cool stuff. We’re pretty impressed with ourselves — much like the early intelligence “experts” that concluded they themselves were clearly the most intelligent humans.
But we’ve also invented all manner of weapons for destroying each other; invaded all ecosystems on the planet; plundered resources like there is no tomorrow (and eventually there won’t be); filled the air, water, and soil with hazardous pollutants that may last forever; altered the planet’s physical systems that all living beings depend on for survival; tinkered with the DNA of organisms without thinking about the consequences; grown our populations to the point of nearing the carrying capacity of the Earth; invented societies where the majority of the people struggle to survive; entertained ourselves to the point of somnambulation; triggered one of the largest mass extinctions in geologic history; and
By any concept of intelligence, do we seem to measure up?
We haven’t even been able to figure out how to make war obsolete. To stop ourselves from killing each other over petty slights. To see the humanity in each other. We still create hierarchies and discriminate against each other. Refuse to allow everyone to have the same rights, the same opportunities, the same dignities, the same chance to survive because of imaginary things that we have willed into existence, like race, or borders, or class, or caste, or religions, or ethnicity, or socio-economic status, or education level, or gender. Over and over again. We don’t learn history’s lessons.
​
Does this seem intelligent by any conception?
And we keep going. Keep pushing for more economic growth, population growth. More ways for rich people to get richer. We build more bombs, more guns, more ways to destroy each other. More ways to destroy the planet that gave us everything, the life forms that spin the web that sustains us. And now we can’t stop ourselves from building artificial intelligence.
Can we pause for a moment?
Can we stop to realize what we are doing? To reconsider our own intelligence? Or to ask if we should create an artificial version of a concept that we don’t really understand or agree upon?
What is the meaning of intelligence if we destroy everything (including ourselves) in our quest to prove how intelligent we are?