Science has never been able to give a single objective answer to all questions. And even more so, she cannot do this when the answer becomes partly philosophical. This is also the dispute about intelligence: on the one hand, it is obvious that there are people who are smarter than those around them. However, a genius writer is not necessarily a good mathematician. Therefore, neither sophistry nor genetic engineering can give an exact definition of the phenomenon of rationality.
Instructions
Step 1
Formally, intelligence is considered the ability to understand and solve problems of any kind, using all available methods of cognition. In this case, problems can mean both the solution of mathematical problems and the analysis of a work of art. In addition, an indicator of intelligence is the ability to draw the maximum number of conclusions based on the minimum amount of information. An excellent example of this is the legendary Sherlock Holmes, who, all other things being equal, could draw much more logical conclusions than his colleagues.
Step 2
Based on these definitions, an IQ was generated. To determine it, a person is given a number of tasks and a certain period of time to solve them - usually an hour. The basis of the test is that it offers the solver problems of completely different kinds, sometimes only outwardly similar, sometimes absolutely the same structurally. The number of points is divided by age - this compensates for life experience - and the result is the final value. As a rule, tests are arranged so that the standard value is 100 points.
Step 3
IQ tests do not always provide correct information. First of all, the result largely depends on the mental and physical state of a person, his ability to concentrate. On the other hand, the intellect of too smart or stupid people cannot be defined in this way, because the further the value is from the norm, the greater the error it implies.
Step 4
IQ has also been criticized for being based on conditional puzzles. It does not in any way take into account the logic of thinking, the breadth of the horizons and the elementary curiosity of a person. So, a brilliant speaker who perfectly finds a common language with people can get an amazingly low score in the Eysenck test, because such tasks have nothing to do with the occupation.
