Thanks for your response.
First, nowhere do I say that intelligence cannot be measured. I’m saying it’s not being, and cannot be, measured using simplistic tools like the IQ test, for reasons expounded throughout the article.
Also, whether there can be “more” or “less” of intelligence isn’t the same as whether it can be measured. So I’d say you actually have 3 points in your list:
- whether or not intelligence can be measured
- whether there can be “more” or “less” of intelligence
- whether or not IQ measures intelligence
So you are addressing the 2nd point. This comes across as a straw man, since you’re attempting to refute an argument that was never presented. You later summarize my article as “it’s all too complex to figure out”, which points to the same fallacy. Nowhere did I say this in my article (and it completely misses the point). But for the sake of discussion I’ll assume this wasn’t your intention and address your point anyway.
You’re saying it’s a fact that intelligence has been increasing over the course of human history. Since you mentioned planning settlements and choosing battlefields I assume you mean relatively recent history (compared to the greater part of the 7 million years of hominin lineage). Knowing what cognitive features early humans possessed is not a settled issue, let alone the assumption that recent humans were any less intelligent. What task today do you find more challenging than planning battlefields?
If you’re referring to our technological progress, this has been possible by “sitting on top” of inventions from previous generations. No generation starts from square one. Add to this the fact that progress is more appropriately understood as a process of trial-and-error. Of course previous generations lacked abilities we have today, they had less to “sit on.” Thus framing recent technological progress in terms of some increased innate cognitive ability is unfounded.
But of course the previous paragraph is inconsequential regardless our opinion on human history. I never argued intelligence couldn’t scale, or that it couldn’t someday be measured. Also, stating that intelligence has been increasing in recent history gets us back to assuming we know what intelligence is. You can’t say “and yet it moves” until you’re in possession of a valid way to define and measure that which apparently moves.
Finally, I am not expressing intelligence in terms of complexity for the sake of “awe.” Intelligence as a phenomenon bears the hallmarks of complexity, period. The article says nothing about “it’s all too complex to figure out” … rather it discusses the need to use approaches that are commensurate with complexity.
Thanks for the question.
