I was having an interesting discussion the other day about intelligence and the person was saying that IQ tests are irrelevant as they only test if someone can take IQ tests and, people who would be classed as intelligent today would not be classed as intelligent in the past because what they are good at now would not have been something sought after then.
<h3>I disagree</h3>
Yes, IQ tests themselves (I have never taken one) are largely irrelevant but, they are an indicator of ability to think through various areas and on average, people who score higher on IQ tests perform better in socially constructed areas of success.

I also disagree with the idea that someone (they used Bill Gates as the example) intelligent now would not be classed as intelligent 200 years ago because their type of intelligence is not required. The reason I disagree is because of the nature of intelligence itself, it is an adaptive feature. It is in the ability to adapt to an environment that predicts success in that environment and the more quality mental tools one has at ones disposal, the more chance of adaption and, the better that adaption is likely to be.

<a href="https://imgur.com/l3aGPVD"><img title="source: imgur.com" src="https://i.imgur.com/l3aGPVD.jpg" /><br></a>
<h3>Unchained intelligence</h3>
If we get out of the head and look at physical intelligence, we will see the same thing. Michael Jordan who is credited with changing the way basketball is played wasn't pigeonholed into basketball. He wasn't basketball specific. He was also a damn good baseball player and can swing a pretty mean golf club. I would posit that even at his age now, put him in just about any sport that requires a high level of hand/eye coordination and control and he will outperform the average.

Would giving a person a comprehensive physical test not be indicative of physical intelligence? Sure, they could train for it and only ever take physical tests however, if they were thrown into an environment that required physical expertise, they will likely survive much better than someone who is unable to pass the testing bars.

This is the same for mental ability as even though an IQ test is irrelevant to real life, it does give some indication to the potential in real life. Of course, there are other factors involved such as <em>ability and openness to change</em> but, that affects <em>everyone</em>, high IQ and low IQ alike. This means that the IQ test is still indicative of probability based on the average.

Essentially, when it comes to intelligence over time, when people think that is is a social construct they are mistaken as they are limiting the skillset they know of the person as the only skill they are capable of learning or exhibiting. It is not that this <em>couldn't </em>be true for an individual but on average, the most intelligent will be adaptive to their environment.
<h3>What and who and how</h3>
But, this isn't really what I wanted to write about so I am not going to go into more detail about it but suffice to say, there are a lot of other factors involved than <em>just </em>IQ when it comes to success however, intelligence itself is a large component.

Le's go back to Bill Gates 200 years ago in agrarian (farming) culture. The assumption could be made that his relatively feeble body and lack of manual skills is not cut out for success in that environment but, this is not true at all. Again, it comes down to adaptability and Bill is likely intelligent enough to be able to use it to gain advantage <em>even if </em>he is unable to directly have the skills himself.

When it comes to talented programmers, old Bill wasn't necessarily the best but, he was competent enough to do what was necessary at the time. However, where his real talent lay was in his ability to gather the best around him. Bill is a community builder, not just a software developer. As I see it, that skill is transportable no matter the environment except, if he had to defend for himself on a deserted island full of tigers. Even then, being wily would be advantageous to survival.

And this is what I would actually like to think about a little in this post. A lot of people look at success as either personal skill levels or, who you know and although these are part of the equation, the most important part is the combination of those things and, who you can gather around you to support goals. That is a skill, well, a large grouping of skills in combination.

<a href="https://imgur.com/V2gIC7I"><img title="source: imgur.com" src="https://i.imgur.com/V2gIC7I.jpg" /><br></a>

It isn't just what you know, or who you know, it is how you are able to combine them to create something of value and that normally means, useful and effective for people who you don't know. Getting the right people is the ability to solve larger problems and create solutions with much more depth than any one person can provide alone.
<h3>An attractive proposal</h3>
The ability to gather people is a type of intelligence and one that doesn't appear on the IQ tests but, knowing what is required to solve various issues are skills that are indicated by IQ testing as they are problem solving areas. Being able to identify those who have the various talents to fill gaps is another set again.

One of the core factors of human domination over other life forms and environmental conditions is our ability to communicate and therefore negotiate to cooperate at all kinds of levels. This is true if one wants to build a house or, a rocket to Mars. Where we currently are is because of billions upon  billions of interactions between billions of people who have combined their skillsets to solve their immediate problems.

The most successful of these are the ones who were able to identify the right people at the right time with the right skills and attitude to build well. Of course, success here doesn't necessarily mean it is <em>beneficial for humanity as some </em>of the greatest atrocities are performed by people who were able to gather the correct group of individuals for their harmful cause. But, that doesn't mean they weren't intelligent.

To connect this a little to Steem, let's have a look at the coming future with SMTs, communities and how they may combine in different apps.

For example, someone might be thinking of building an '<em>Art'</em> based community and make it a place where artists of all kinds can hang out, create and collaborate. That would be great except, to have that space is going to require it to be built and that is going to require technical people who have the skills to build the vision. This takes organisation and planning and technical people often need to be wrangled into focusing on a project, staying on target to limit scope creep and not getting bogged down in irrelevant detail. A visionary is rarely the persona that is best suited to talent management so, other skills need to be found.

<a href="https://imgur.com/sSIAWwS"><img title="source: imgur.com" src="https://i.imgur.com/sSIAWwS.jpg" /><br></a>

This is a very simplified version but essentially to get even the simplest community gathered is going to take a large amount of people an skills and the more complex the vision, the wider the range. Oh, then there is the promotion and the onboarding of the population required to fill the space. Who will do that?

This is one of the areas that many people are missing at the moment as they come into this space and want to have it all but, they are only engaging with people they enjoy and can relate to. An artist might love hanging out surrounded by beautiful artwork but, if one wants to build a community of artists, more talent is needed than just with a brush.
<h3>An attractive proposal</h3>
Of course, there is not just the gathering required, there is also the attracting of talent and that generally requires some kind of charisma and or offer that provides talent with a space to grow. Talent nurturing. This is something that a lot of people fail to do here when they onboard, they do not create the space for a newbie to grow, they can't offer them support nor the connection to support. Onboarding a lot of users doesn't make you a leader, developing your onboards does.

And this is a large reason retention is so poor here, there aren't many community leaders with the will and means to both onboard, provide vision and consistently support until they can run autonomously. Of course, autonomous isn't really possible in a community unless well, it is one filled with bots.

Pretty much, all of the troubles facing Steem today aren't going to be solved by anyone, they are going to be solved by <em>many anyones </em>as people will finally start interacting less as independents wanting to gratify themselves, and more with the intention to satisfy community needs. This of course will end up giving the individuals the best chance at getting what they want at a personal level anyway.
<h3>Community me</h3>
When it comes to intelligence, it is the understanding that the best way to solve the large problems we face is to gather the best people who can cooperate to solve them and then, do it. Each one becomes a part in the puzzle of the greater picture and although it will often be one or a small handful of individuals who will get the accolades, it is a community that has backed it.

<a href="https://imgur.com/nKA7CQu"><img title="source: imgur.com" src="https://i.imgur.com/nKA7CQu.jpg" /><br></a>

The future here is going to be filled by communities with possibly very different ideas on what is quality, what is useful and definitely, what is considered interesting. While most people are spending their time trying to earn Steem by doing what they love, it will be the intelligent ones who are earning Steem by gathering good people around them that will build the foundation for future success here.

Those who are happy only playing where they are comfortable will be among those looking for a community later and where they will end up is connected to the nodes of the community builders now.

What I think is that if Bill Gates was sent back 200 years and put on a farm, he would likely have been successful in developing and building a network of talent connected to vision there too. One interesting thought is that what if his entire empire was built to become a charity from the start?

These days, the lone wolf entrepreneur doesn't really exist except in romantic sentiment as to be successful means to adapt to a very fast changing environment. This adaptation isn't limited to the individual though as the globalized world is too large and complex to navigate alone so, the most successful are able to adapt with others and the best chance of quality adaption is diversity of thought, skill and vision all willing to communicate and cooperate for improvement.

Would be nice to see a little more of it here.

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]