15 Jan 09
Originally posted by PalynkaBy "situations", I meant to include (in fact was mostly referring to) abstract situations. I suppose the definition of intelligence in my example is just a transportation of practical ability into the world of abstract ideas; this may be deficient.
I didn't know the context, so it's much clearer now what you meant by it. Still, I do believe that there is more to intelligence than practical ability. I agree that there are many sub-categories of intelligence and one may excel in some and less so in others (hence my hatred of IQ tests). So the notion of intelligence as an encompassing term doesn't shock m ...[text shortened]... reflects the test creator, but we can still be aware of the problem and try to minimize it.
It's hard to pin general cognitive ability down; frequently one encounters two people handling the same abstract situation in very different ways, presumably applying very different low-level cognitive tools. (This is a recurring theme in the discussions with colleagues I referred to earlier, and I'm sure you're very familiar with this phenomenon.)
However, my personal and anecdotal experience is the same as yours -- there certainly are apparent differences in general cognitive ability, but except in extreme cases, one must know a lot about a person's thinking before any kind of "you know it when you see it" picture of that person's intelligence is apparent. I'm also not so sure why a test of whatever constellation of attributes determine general cognitive ability is particularly desirable, although a list of those attributes certainly is.