Construct · 6 fields · 14 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one name, six constructs Nearest construct by meaningemotional intelligencecompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to intelligence is emotional intelligence.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
A very general mental capability that involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience, the definition 52 researchers signed in Gottfredson's 1997 editorial. Spearman had found the empirical core in 1904: scores on any set of cognitive tasks correlate positively, and the shared variance is a single factor, g. Intelligence in this meaning is a latent property of a person, estimated from performance on a standardised battery and expressed as a deviation IQ with a mean of 100.[1][2]
The ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions, Salovey and Mayer's 1990 definition, later refined into four branches: perceiving, using, understanding, and managing emotion. Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso's 2008 review drew the line that matters: emotional intelligence is a set of abilities measured by right-and-wrong performance tests, and the self-report "mixed" models that sell under the same name measure personality traits instead. It borrows psychology's test logic and applies it to a domain g was said to miss.[4][5]
A group's general ability to perform a wide variety of tasks, measured the way Spearman measured individuals: give many groups many tasks and extract the first factor from the correlation matrix. Woolley and colleagues did this in 2010 and found a c factor that explained more variance than the members' average or maximum individual intelligence, and that was predicted by social sensitivity, equal turn-taking, and the proportion of women. Malone and Bernstein's handbook widens the term to any group, human or computational, acting collectively in ways that seem intelligent. The unit shifts from a mind to a collective, and the question becomes design rather than selection.[6][7]
Whatever it is that lets an agent achieve goals across a wide range of environments. Turing's 1950 move was to refuse to define it and replace the question with a test: a machine is intelligent enough if an interrogator cannot reliably tell it from a person in conversation. The 1955 Dartmouth proposal set the field's working conjecture that every feature of intelligence can be described precisely enough for a machine to simulate it. Legg and Hutter's 2007 universal intelligence formalised the goal-achieving reading (expected reward across all computable environments, weighted by their simplicity) which drops the human benchmark entirely. Intelligence here is judged by what the system does, never by what it is made of.[8][9][10]
The techniques, technologies, systems, practices, methodologies, and applications that analyse critical business data to help an enterprise better understand its business and market and make timely decisions (Chen, Chiang, and Storey's 2012 framing of business intelligence and analytics). Luhn coined the phrase in 1958 for an IBM system that would route documents to the people who needed them, defining intelligence as the ability to apprehend the interrelationships of facts in a way that guides action toward a goal. In this meaning intelligence is not a capacity of anyone; it is the output of a pipeline (warehouses, queries, dashboards), and it is good when decisions improve.[11][12]
Knowledge, the organization that produces it, and the activity of producing it (Kent's 1949 triple, written to give American policymakers a discipline for foreign affairs). Warner's 2002 survey of definitions added the feature Kent left implicit: intelligence is secret state activity to understand or influence foreign entities, and the secrecy is what separates it from research. Here intelligence is a product, an estimate or a report, and its quality is judged by whether it was accurate, timely, and acted on.[13][14]
Next
Combine items across the intelligence scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct