Thinking about ways to measure 'intelligence' I realized:
- intelligence (effective behavior) is not homogeneous
- effective behavior can take limitless shapes (multiple intelligence)

The best thing seems to measure different talents (effectivities), i.e. to make tests like:
- Albert Schweitzer test (effectivity in curing illnesses)
- Albert Einstein test (measuring effectivity in using logic, not only rational logic)
- Buddha test (measuring effectivity in using relative logic)
- Elvis test (effectivity in music performance)
- Bloodhound test (effectivity in using smell)
- Hercules test (effectivity in physical strength)
- Stanley Kubrick test (effectivity in combining picture and sound)
etcetera

These tests also give a good idea of what artificial intelligence SHOULD be able to do.
It is not much use looking it what it CAN do ('ability').

A remark: measuring behavior works fine to measure effectivity, and is not measuring a 'mind'-property

A perfect example of linear behavior (within paradigms exist only continuous and 'smooth' predictable paths) was "Journey to the Center of the Earth" by Jules Vernes. Innovative but not really surprising. What he did was just extending the activity of digging into the extreme. Personally I find behaving this way much less stimulating than using 'upforce' in flying as its opposite 'downforce' in racecars. Though this example is linear too.
Mixing riding using wheels and engines in automobiles SEEMS bright, but using wheels has many disadvantages. These all eat 'energy', and automobiles slurped billions of dollars research funding. If using air cushions had received billions too, then the world would now be without millions of asphalted transport strokes. Using wheels on the planet Mars is crazy behavior.
This kind of predictable extending of behavior can be expected from the artificial intelligence of linear computers. Super high sky scrapers, extremely long bridges, deep diving submarines; in short Extreme Engineering. Jules Vernes was good in describing extremely predictive behavior.
Of all people taking Jules Vernes as example of someone with imagination was EXTREME linear behavior and destructive. Lots of engineers from then attracted attention with building big. I would instead have taken Leonardo da Vinci. His constructs were stimulating and working. Small and creative is beautiful.

What was chosen in the Western World was a poor man's surrogate for creativity. Confusing is that this limited dimension of creativity attracted the minds of most wealthy Western people, and that poor people are often quite inventive. But most of them are used by unimaginative wealthy people as miners to come closer tho the center of the earth. And unfortunately but logical for lots of 'poor people' becoming wealthy in hard cash just like for 'rich' people became an inviting goal.

I imagine thousands of cheep ant-like (that means also with space saving ant 'intelligence') mini robots dismantling a huge millions of dollars worth quasi intelligent tank, that shouldn't be awfully difficult. Not as agression, but as defense. Forget about power being linear and only big, and think creative. And forget about artificial viruses and poison gasses (power thinking disguised). Humans couldn't yet beat fire ants...., but these ants get hungry when sensing electronics. And they penetrate virtually everything, from traffic lights to power distribution centers. You don't need to be smart to destroy computers that only can think big.

In the meantime humans trained their associative talent a lot. And for me intelligence is something like an octopus(sy) fast like a gecko and 'addictive' like a number 1 video clip. I.e. playing piano 'mad' like Beethoven, shaking its ass like Madonna, being an excellent cook, an lover like Casanova and having loads of humor. That's quite different from the present robots, takes intelligence but not necessarily a high IQ.

Making math compulsory for certain studies is close to discrimination. It only means that in this field people who were stimulated to culture a mathematical view are temporarily dominant. What is meant is a logical view, but that can also be seen by good results in something like Logic or Philosophy. Studying for music director takes talent in making music, but nobody would make playing piano compulsory.

Roughly the behavior of learning can be divided in 2 methods: .

Learning 1. By training common sense behavior (outside Western World). 99% Imitation, awfully effective and as fast as a running gecko 2. Modelling reality (creationism, Western World). Like Architecting, very powerful but as slow as 'praying' gecko's (in difficult words called cognitive learning). Has an enormous bycoming risk of drowning in own architected world.

Locally combining both methods is SUPER SUPERFASSST

Imitation is 'cut and paste' learning. It's how people learn to use their cellphone, without understanding its working. And it's how chicken can do complicate things very fast without model. Because 'understanding' is only a 'rational' model that gets material through language. But 'rational' words are interpreted in hundreds of ways. You don't practice sex with a book in your hand, and if you do it's awfully slow and far from satisfying.

I program by imitating without 'thinkin'. I.e. I use the effect of Javascript without 'understanding'. Only when things DON'T work then locally I 'dive' into the matter. Proceeding that way is very fast, lots of fun and doesn't take a high IQ. It's how technicians with 'medium level' education often master things far better than their bosses with university degree. You don't fix cars with rational university 'understanding'. Low-tech often often more creativity than high-tech.

Imitation
Doing something similar to others is the kid way of learning, training behavior. And it proved VERY successfull. To forbid imitating with the wishful fantasy copyright, like in the Western World, is completely weird.
The speed of learning slows down when getting adult. That is because then in education for some reason the preferred teaching method became 'architecting'. Placing a 'model' between reality and common sense (virtual reality). But if imitation was continued also in education the progress would be bigger, faster and MUCH more reliable. Better not learn using your bike in architecting way. Then afterwards you have all the papers to start a bicycle shop, BUT still can't drive.

Architecting
If your profession is designing bicycle, THEN locally it is useful to have architect knowledge. You learn much faster to DRIVE your own design by imitating, but changing the design takes expert knowledge. Because your profession is only a tiny part of life, for all the rest you rely on imitation.

Distance learning
Internet is ideal for the 'cut and paste' method of imitation. Instead of spending most of your day in a boring school with boring teachers you can study in your own time. If you like even at night.
As guides teachers will remain quite usefull, but you only need e-mail for that.

To make sense of tough miscommunications in society, the usage of the model 'paradigm' as introduced by the 20th century philosopher Thomas Kuhn to me proved extremely useful. I struggled for a long time with explaining the difference between knowledge in 'rational' science and the ancient common sense behavior 'wise'. Being scientist is no guarantee for acting wise, although well paid members of Western or Christian Science generally think otherwise.

I took Einstein as example of a genial 'rational' researcher. As well educated engineer I can vaguely reduce his ideas to basic units of 'rational' knowledge. Einstein's units of knowledge are 'rational', and just like this logic use the 'rational construct 'time'.

In using 'rational' basics to produce 'science fiction' Einstein was a genius. As typical wise person (in common sense terms) I took Gandhi. What strikes immediately is that Gandhi's wise behavior doesn't go into logical depths, but on the contrary is accepted in wide circles.

Einstein was an introvert person, and the lawyer Gandhi extravert social. Einstein excelled more in logical knowledge ('rational' logic) and Gandhi more in experience applicable in his collective (common sense).

Seen that way present society struggles with joining the young unproven logic 'rationality' and millions of years old common sense . I join the extremes of the growth directions of 2 paradigms as in the picture.

You can't dig deep like Einstein and also be like Gandhi. In social life wisdom like that of Gandi is needed.

In rationalism 'rational' knowledge is valued much higher. Like a paradigm that only got technically brilliant. That caused Einstein not being seen as brilliant socially or politically.

Don't misunderstand me, nothing wrong with being introvert. It seems to accompany thinking individualistic. Either one seeks knowledge in depth, or one chooses for social wisdom. Persons can't have both, but society without any doubt needs both.

Present societies overrate abstract fantasies called 'scientific knowledge', and neglect 'common sense'. I.e. politicians like Harry Potter's prefer abstract fantasies or fairy tales about reality (called 'scientific'), and undervalue the through intuition straight from reality derived 'feelings'.

No references found. Anyway I hate articles with miles of references. In case you have a question just send me an e-mail

Henk Tuten,