Intelligence

Is there a Latin original for the English word intelligence? Or would a Latin neologism have to be created? Intellect names the power, intelligence names a quality related to the power.

Now there has been some dispute over whether the intelligence quotient (I.Q.) really means anything, besides being some sort of score derived from a test. Others have argued for the existence of other forms of intelligence, e.g. emotional intelligence.

In teaching one comes across in education workshops and such the elaboration of different types of learning, with the implication that the teacher must be aware of the existence of different types and use the corresponding methods of teaching.

Perhaps the question that should be asked what intelligence names, and what is the nature of the power in which it resides. Is the intellect or corporal power or a spiritual power? And if it is a spiritual power can it directly be enhanced in any way other than learning or reasoning?

Memorization is not the same as the acquisition of a science, though the latter depends on imagination and memory, but memory not of words on a text, but on actual experience of the objects being studied. Hence I am skeptical of reports on academic achievement, when the majority of tools a teacher uses measure memorization and not reasoning. It is possible for one to be a good "learner" as defined by contemporary techniques, and be unable to reason well. (Of course, the effect of memorization that is not coupled to inquiry and reasoning is indoctrination, and often in false and even harmful opinions.)

It seems true to say that taken in the abstract, the power of the intellect is the same for all. Still, is it possible for one to be gifted with a better intellect than another? A more powerful active/agent intellect? Or to be naturally more quick at reasoning? (With the acquisition of the intellectual virtues, one's abilities will be 'enhanced' but is it possible for there to be natural differences?)

When looking at the interaction between the senses and the intellect, differences in people's ability to understand can be explained even better. The existence of such differences seems obvious--differences in memory and imagination especially. It should be no surprise that if certain brains are naturally oriented towards three-dimensional projection; one would expect that people with such brains would have a better time acquiring the science of geometry than those who don't.

On the other hand, with respect to natural science and metaphysics, one needs first-hand experience of the objects being studied to have a genuine science, and not just a body of opinion. Understanding and science rely upon our phantasms of sensed [real] objects, not "imaginary" objects that we imagine while reading a text. In an contemporary academic setting, one would expect that those with a better imagination and memory will do better in science exams than those who don't. Nonetheless, such exams are poor indicators of what they actually know. While some tests may ask one to dabble in some reasoning (what happens if protein x is removed or if protein y is used), I find such questions to be rather "dishonest" and inappropriate to the level of understanding achieved by the students--that is, the questions expect the student to be able to imagine what is going on without first-hand experience of the things (or derivatively, through work on experiments in a laboratory, for example). Besides, perhaps there is nothing that is worse for sound scientific inquiry than fostering a habit of a priori reasoning from what one imagines to be the case, rather than from what a true understanding of the actual nature of the thing.

Of course the moral virtues have some role to play--it is hard to engage in intellectual inquiry if one's desires draws him to something else, or he is easily distracted. There may even be bodily defects that impede learning; for example, ADHD, to the extent that it is a real disorder. Similarly, one needs to be able to concentrate on observing a thing's behavior and to be open to the possibility that one has not observed everything yet. That is, coming to know the nature of thing will always be a work in progress and unlikely to be completed exhaustively in a lifetime.
Hence, the importance of humility for aiding us to refrain from making judgments and conclusions without proper observation of a thing's behavior and a firm grasp of it.

wiki entry on intelligence

Howard Gardner
his research homepage
official page
"howard gardner, multiple intelligences, and education"
info at Human Intelligence
wiki on the man, and his theory

Triarchic theory of intelligence
homepage of Robert J. Sternberg (also Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, Tufts)
Human Intelligence page
bio
wiki

Stuff on "emotional intelligence"
eqi.org
EI Consortium
wiki

I suppose one sort of evidence for the existence of emotional intelligence is the privation of such in mentally handicapped people, for example those suffering from autism. Still, I wonder if the account of emotional intelligence could not be better. How much of it is due to native "animal" perception and instinct?