From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!ogicse!news.u.washington.edu!hardy.u.washington.edu!wcalvin Fri Sep  4 09:41:20 EDT 1992
Article 6730 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!ogicse!news.u.washington.edu!hardy.u.washington.edu!wcalvin
>From: wcalvin@hardy.u.washington.edu (William Calvin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Don't try to "define" intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Aug29.151333.24453@u.washington.edu>
Date: 29 Aug 92 15:13:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug29.151333.24453
References: <BILL.92Aug11130136@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> <1992Aug13.044325.16707@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <exukjb.105.715022628@exu.ericsson.se> <1992Aug29.143021.8163@Princeton.EDU>
Sender: news@u.washington.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington
Lines: 11

Human estimates of intelligence in other animals seem, to me, to be based
on an animal's versatility.  Omnivores such as bears and crows have a lot
of ways of detecting and acquiring food; they can sometimes mix and match
those sensory and motor abilities to undertake something novel.

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) 
Indeed IQ tests heavily weight those tests which involve speed of
recognition and number of items (digit span, analogical reasoning).
    William H. Calvin   WCalvin@U.Washington.edu


