Sorry, I only skimmed what you guys've put in so far, so if I talk about anything you've already been over, forgive me.
It really depends on what you mean by "intelligence" in the first place.
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION
Here, it's the ability to learn, apply what you've learned, and apply it effectively. So intelligence could be referring to mental resilience- how well and how rationally someone responds to change. Someone who is bipolar (or has another emotional disorder, or any disorder like that, whatever) could be learned, but if they can't respond well to sudden shifts in environment or something, or if they can't do it reasonably, then that rules out their intelligence under one definition. Also, one could very knowledgeable and smart without an ounce of common sense (Einstein, for example, was a brilliant man, but would forget to put on pants in the morning, or would wear them backwards), but wouldn't be considered very intelligent because they wouldn't be applying a "skilled use of reason." Then, there are people with learning disorders who may retain information and use it perfectly once they've gotten it down, but have a very difficult time comprehending what they are being taught at first.
In my opinion, an I.Q. test is really a measure of POTENTIAL intelligence, and not very accurate at all for the measure of "actual" intelligence. A lot of the questions on an I.Q. test are pretty abstract, and some people (me, for one
) do a lot better with concrete problems.
I mean, how you were raised, where you were raised, how and where you were taught, age, and lots of other things all factor in. Compare a child from the Western world (one who goes to a public school, has access to references, media, technology, ect.) to maybe a native from Africa or something (a kid who doesn't have access to any modern technology or teaching). Of course the Western child is going to be more "intelligent", but is he, really? He will have the television, the internet, books, whatever, but he won't learn to care for himself (cook, work, ect.) until he's older, and he might play video games (
) all day. He learns very passively, and may not be very socially adept. A native, however, would be taught from an early age how to fulfill their role in the community, and would be much more socially and imaginatively active (not saying that all Western children AREN'T, just trying to make an example here). So culture and environment are a big part of it, so is age. It's usually the case that a normal thirty year old is going to know more than a smart ten year old. With age comes experience, and with experience come knowledge, which generally plays a role in intelligence.
Errr, if you don't want to read all of that, here's my opinion-
I don't think there is a good way to measure intelligence.
Discord
Light Style