Web Geniuses Or Web Dimwits?

ScribeCity writes "The Washington Post has a provocative piece about online experiments at identifying experts. One wonders when someone will come up with a truly effective formula for measuring human intelligence — or take a stab at doing so — that exploits all the stuff people are publishing online." From the article: "This wisdom of the crowd could be outsmarted by what Michael Arrington, editor of the TechCrunch blog, recently dubbed the 'wisdom of the few.' Sites like PicksPal rely on input from the masses chiefly as a venue for auditioning prospective experts, on the theory that these virtuosos could provide even more accurate information and predictions than the crowd. 'If you figure out which ones did the best and get rid of the ones who have no idea, you'd do even better. Distill it down to the people who really know,' Arrington said."

Comments

That's why I read at +5 and use friends

[davidwr]

1) Read old threads at +5, new threads at +2

2) If a person has a lot of insightful/informative posts, check their posting history

3) If they are consistently +3/4/5 informative/insightful, add them as a friend

4) add points to friend's posts so they start out +2.

OK, seriously, I don't do that but if I did, I'd see posts of "wise ones" and ignore posts from those that don't make the cut.

Different "intelligences"

[blueZ3]

My mother is a professor of education at a college in California and this is something that educators have been talking about for a long while. Google for "multiple intelligences" for a lot more information, but basically there's a theory that says that "intelligence" can be divided up into a number of categories and that people tend to excell in one or two of these areas, but few are outstanding in all of them.

The standard breakdown is something like:

• Linguistic intelligence
• Logical-mathematical intelligence
• Spatial intelligence
• Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence
• Musical intelligence
• Interpersonal intelligence
• Intrapersonal intelligence
• Naturalist intelligence

Atheletes tend to excell at Spatial and Kinesthetic, while the stereotypical geek is strongest in Logical-mathematical and weakest in Interpersonal.

I'm not sure I completely agree that this is the end-all-be-all for understanding intelligence, but it does provide an interesting look into ways to classify people who might not be "book smart." For instance, a terrific ballerina might not have excellent Interpersonal or Linguistic intelligence, but she certainly has some special "intelligence" that allows her to excell in an area where I would certainly be an abject failure.

I encourage anyone interested in this idea of multiple intelligences to poke around and do some research. Again, it may not be the final answer, but it provides an interesting framework for thinking about the topic.

Re:Different "intelligences"

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest problem with this categorization is that it's simply politically correct nonsense. Unfortunately, some people are overly swayed by the positive connotations of the word "intelligence" to the point that they think you can have no human value if you're not "intelligent". Gifted athletically, even if you're not smart? You must be "bodily-kinesthetically intelligent". Talented musican or artist? You must be "musically intelligent" or "chromo-visio-spatially intelligent". The word "intelligence" gets smeared around so many different categories that it loses any meaning beyond more general words like "talent" or "ability".

The problem here isn't that intelligence tests don't let musicians score well. IQ tests measure what they measure just fine. The problem is the value system of people that want so badly for everyone to be "intelligent" that they have to change the definition of the word.

The correct response is to realize that intelligence simply isn't all that. (I know this point will be a tough sell on Slashdot, where intelligence is particularly valued.) It's perfectly ok not to be "intelligent", and play to your other strengths.

Identifying those strengths and weaknesses is important in being able to choose activities in which you'll be successful, or at the very least in being realistic about the extra hurdles you're going to face. There's a reason I didn't become a musician or an NBA star, and it wasn't lack of "intelligence". That, I manage just fine, but I'm sadly lacking in other talents that people value. However, the self-esteem-uber-alles crowd picked the word "intelligence" to glorify, rather than say "athleticism", which is why people are trying to force-fit abilities into names like "bodily-kinesthetic intelligence" instead of pounding the round peg into the square hole and trying to console me that I have "mental athleticism" or "cerebral coordination".

If you call his tail a leg, how many legs does a three-legged dog have?