From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Fri Sep  4 09:41:21 EDT 1992
Article 6731 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Don't try to "define" intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Aug29.170256.14176@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <exukjb.105.715022628@exu.ericsson.se> <1992Aug29.143021.8163@Princeton.EDU> <1992Aug29.151333.24453@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 17:02:56 GMT
Lines: 12

In article <1992Aug29.151333.24453@u.washington.edu> wcalvin@hardy.u.washington.edu (William Calvin) writes:
>Human estimates of intelligence in other animals seem, to me, to be based
>on an animal's versatility.

>Human estimates of another human's intelligence are often based, not on
>versatility but on the speed of thinking and on how many things can be
>juggled "in mind" simultaneously (as needed for analogical reasoning) 

Yes, this is a discrepancy.  In my view, the way we look at human
intelligence is very misleading.  We would be better off looking at
human intelligence in the same way we look at animal intelligence.



