We can think of IQ, wisdom and intuition as components of intelligence because they are all manifest in the widely accepted definition of intelligence articulated by psychologist Linda Gottfredson:
Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience. It is not merely book-learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings, “catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.
Wisdom, intuition and mental acuity (as measured in IQ) are all manifestations of intelligence in that they each demonstrate an ability to gain insights and solve problems. We might think of these three entities as overlapping circles in a Venn diagram. The number of people in the intersection of the three circles could represent the proportion of people who possess strong measures of IQ, wisdom and intuition. The fact that the circles are not nested, i.e., contained within each other, indicates that a person can be strong in one or two of these components, but weak in the third component.
Mental Acuity vs. Wisdom
For example, those who have a high mental acuity (high IQ) are not necessarily wise. Over 2300 years ago, Aristotle wrote in Nicomachean Ethics:
Although the young may be experts in geometry and mathematics and similar branches of knowledge, we do not consider that a young man can have Prudence. The reason is that Prudence includes a knowledge of particular facts, and this is derived from experience, which a young man does not possess; for experience is the fruit of years.
Aristotle recognized that experience is a necessary, though not a sufficient condition, for the acquisition of wisdom. Those who gain this most valued gift acquire it through years of reflective observation of life, human behavior, and personal introspection. Knowing oneself, the origins of one’s goals and ambitions as well as personal vulnerabilities and fears enables a person to understand the emotions of others. As the years turn into decades, those who travel through life with such a reflective habit of mind begin to see patterns in life, in human behavior and in those things that foster trust or create hostility.
Conversely, there are some people who have acquired wisdom from lifelong experience and observation, but who may not have the mental acuity to solve highly abstract problems. To attempt a measure of wisdom, Robert Sternberg, Professor of Psychology at Cornell University has presented a triarchic model, presenting wisdom as consisting of 3 components:
• analytical intelligence, as manifest in the ability to complete problem-solving tasks, such as those used in traditional intelligence tests.
• synthetic intelligence, the ability to formulate a course of action to deal successfully with novel situations by drawing on existing knowledge and skills.
• Practical intelligence, the ability to adapt to everyday life by drawing on existing knowledge and skills to determine a course of action.
While the triarchic definition is useful in viewing wisdom as high intelligence coupled with some acquired personal skills, the dependence of wisdom on acquiring knowledge means that it varies across domains. For example, Mahatma Ghandi, generally regarded as a wise man in his political battles against the British occupation of India, was a failure as a parent. Believing that character is more important than knowledge, he denied his children a formal education. He was wise in matters of state, but perhaps, not so in matters of parenting. Wisdom may be relative to a specific domain.
Einstein, recognizing the difference between mental acuity and wisdom, is reputed to have said that intelligence (mental acuity) is knowing how to solve problems; wisdom is knowing how to avoid them.
Mental Acuity vs. Intuition
Our intuition resides somewhere below our conscious level, drawing us toward some people and away from others. In its most powerful manifestation, it is so compelling that we are prepared to abandon doubt, ignore advice, and submit to its dictates, whatever the consequences. On occasions, when we overrule a negative first impression of someone who offers friendship, only to discover subsequently that their solicitations were disingenuous, we relent, “I should have listened to my intuition.” Those occasions when intuition serves, reaffirm our trust in “gut feeling;” the occasions when it fails, are quickly forgotten.
In Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking, Malcolm Gladwell tells the story of John Gottman, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Washington, who has received wide acclaim for his research into marital stability and divorce prediction. By viewing a one-hour interaction between a husband and wife, Dr. Gottman is said to predict with 95% accuracy whether that couple will still be married fifteen years later. The idea underlying his technique is that the strength of the relationship is revealed by just a few “signature” characteristics that are transmitted by body language and verbal clues. Years of analyzing interactions of married couples have enabled Dr. Gottman to sense even the slightest hint of contempt toward a spouse–a strong indicator of a potential marriage killer. Although a one-hour intuitive assessment of a relationship is not the blink of an eye, it is significantly less than the analysis of hundreds of hours of videos of a couple’s interactions. Dr. Gottman can describe the clues he seeks, but there is no known algorithm that could be programmed into a computer for recognizing contempt or identifying a stonewalling behavior. His intuition has evolved from years of accumulated experience; acquiring this so-called “sixth sense” takes time, but applying it does not. Joseph Heath, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto, observes:
An intuitive judgment is one you make without being able to explain why you made it…How do you tell the difference between an eighteen-year-old and a twenty-five-year old? The judgment is intuitive, not rational. We can go back afterward and try to figure out how we made the decision, but the basis of that decision is not available to consciousness as we are making it.
So, mental acuity, wisdom and intuition are all manifestations of intelligence. We suspect that they are highly correlated, but we are unable to obtain a reasonable estimate of this correlation because we lack precise measures of wisdom and intuition. However, it’s reasonable to assume that your intuition is at least as good as the intuition of your local fortune-teller.
