You are on page 1of 3


21101547 ENG101-83

The Mystery behind Intelligence The article Intelligence Considered edited by Phil Yam is about the definition of intelligence, types of intelligence and the accurate measurement of intelligence. Intelligence is always been a mystery for humans. For centurys philosophers, scientist sociologists are trying to find the exact definition of intelligence. They defined it as adapting to the environment or capacity of knowledge, but it has not found yet what makes Einstein smarter than others, why people are saying that Amadeus Mozart was a genius. It is not clear that intelligence is coming from birth or it is augmentable. Although it is not defined and its source is not known the measurement of intelligence is available with I.Q test, which are actually calculating the ratio of persons mental age to his chronological age and giving this ratio as a score with multiplying a hundred. These tests are only quantifying persons analytical and verbal skills. Besides IQ, there are also other types of intelligence. For instance EQ (emotional quotient), social intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence Phil Yam claims that intelligence has many different components and cannot be based on an I.Q test score. Yam argues the ideas ,I.Q tests cannot reach to persons all skills to qualify him and the test scores are not the only predictors to succeed in school and work, are well-argued and convincing however the argument that high emotional quotient is not always embody in kindness and adjustment to the environment, is not well supported and weak. The editor states that I.Q is not capable to acquire all skills of a person. The human intelligence contains many different components and types that cannot be totally captured

with standardized I.Q tests. The argument is well argued and supported by using Howard Gardners research results and with paraphrases from Gardners book A Multiplicity of Intelligence. The phrase That test cannot capture all of a persons skill in a neat number () by Howard Gardner. shows his use of Gardners ideas as a supportive expert views. He bases his argument on Gardners research results and explanations. Moreover Yam claims that I.Q test scores are not the only predictors for persons success in school and in life. There are also many other factors besides I.Q which are effective on a persons life success and many of these factors, for example willingness to school or responsibility, cannot be measured by any I.Q test. The editor supports his argument well and it is strong. He supports his argument by paraphrasing form the book of R.J. Sternberg, he refers to the research result about the change of I.Q test scores under different stress conditions and gives an example. The paraphrase Sternberg notes () assess analytical skills but fail to measure creativity and practical knowledge (...). is the expert view which he uses to prove his argument. The example Anyone who has toiled through college entrance exams will testify that test taking skills are also matters (). supports his view that there are other factors to success. Yam explains on another argument that people with high emotional quotient cannot be always persons, who are well adjusted and kind to society. High E.Q does not mean that the person is extrovert and social, some people does not use their high E.Q to adapt to the society and they may be introverts. The editors argumentation is weak because the idea is not well supported with any research results or experts views. There is only single examples think Hannibal Lecture., which is a well-known movie character. This example suggests to the irony of high E.Q and cannibalism, but has not any supportive effect on the idea; in fact it weakens the argument.

Phil Yam argued that intelligence is something more complicated to be based on a simple test score. The types and the components of intelligence are making it hard to define and measure. He argued his ideas that I.Q tests cannot acquire all persons skills and the I.Q test scores are not the only predictors to succeed in life , are clearly and well-argued however the argument that high E.Q does not always embody in kindness and adjustment to social environment, needs to be supported and it is weak. In general the topic under discussion is well argued and the arguments are strong because of the use of supportive elements. The mystery still exists; the exact definition and the comprehensive measurement of intelligence are not found yet. The continuous search will go on till humans found what the Einsteins secret was by physics and Steve Jobs on creative computing.