January 13, 2004


Is a question that has troubled me. Why is that a question? The question is, what is it?

People frequently confuse knowledge with intelligence. People confuse wit with intelligence. Or don't they? Where does knowledge end, and intelligence start?

Consider this, when we sit here, discussing stuff, what part of the discussion is intelligence? If I tell you something you dont know, is that intelligence? Or is that knowledge? When I give you a fresh perspective, is it because I can process stuff faster or because I have had this experience before? And this knowledge itself. How much of it is conscious and how much of it sub-conscious?

If knowledge can be sub-conscious, then where is the line between intelligence and knowledge?

Look at an example. Someone tells you that a deal he is involved in is going well because of something very attractive that the opponent is offering. Suddenly warning bells start ringing. And you try to analyse that something might be wrong.

Why did the warning bells ring. Is it only because you are stupenduously intelligent than he is, that you saw a mole where he did not? Or was it that you have been given a raw deal before? Or is it because you have been brought up in an environment that made it difficult to trust people (knowledge again)? Or was it that you have heard of something like this before? How much of it is original knowledge, and how much is original processing or intelligence.

The reason I am talking about this is because I had taken one general IQ test somewhere. And I scored a 136, which according to the scale meant I was up there with Einstein. Which of course is not true. But many of the questions in the test, I was able to ace through because I had worked with those types of questions before. So for me it was a cakewalk. That does not mean I am a genius.

If it is difficult to separate intelligence from knowledge, why are we trying? What is this IQ test all about? Finally, shouldnt we have different semantics to deal with this difference?

keep thinking :),

- ravi

No comments: