intelligence

--129.13.72.198 (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Having just worked on rewording and attempting to add clarity and links to this article, I see that the section that is the article Intellect would be a nice fit here. It reflects a more human philosophical, psychological and sociological tone than this text does. This is the scientific article. That one is the emotional balance. I wish I could have used that text here, actually. Needs wikilinking and possibly simplified a bit. Fylbecatulous talk 23:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that this is a great idea! 168.212.66.156 (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to take this on board. As it stands, the article falls between several stools. It gives a weak account of intelligence tests, and evades some of the important issues. It's a difficult subject to write about. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have extended the article a little, now it also contains some references. As far as I understand, intelligence involves "learning". This means that if an organism solves a problem three times, but the solutions to the problem are fundamentally different, this organism is probably not intelligent. Yet, it has the problem-solving skill ("intellect"), but does not remeber the solution. What is also still missing is the notion of time: The solution of a recent problem might be remembered; the solution of one that was solved long ago might be forgotten. --Eptalon (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)