Cherry and a few others have been exploring the questions of
"intelligence". My perspective is "organisational intelligence" and
thus not always a match for individual intelligence. But the larger
phenomenon of intelligence is not much different for each domain, I
think.
Fist, let's put "IQ" in its place. Historically, the idea was
developed by a German who was exploring "capacities". He was not
looking for system of labelling nor quantifying static capacities.
The IQ test as a measurement came much later and missed most of what
he was pointing to. For instance, the idea that "intelligence cannot
be increased" popular with IQ people is not valid and was opposite to
his point.
Cherry points to some of the limits of IQ when she mentions
"emotional intelligence". There is some recent work that counts many
different manifestation and/or expressions of intelligence.
I prefer the idea that intelligence is the broadest phenomenon which
is the capacity for sensing the environment, processing information
which is internally generated, and developing the capacity to take
action based on the results of the previous two - in never ending
iterations of feedback and generative possibilities.
I don't know what an "Organisational Quotient" refers to. If it's
"organisational intelligence quotient" and it isn't making the same
mistakes as IQ then it has possibility. My position is that
intelligence is a function of organisation - using both in their
broadest sense. (Certainly more broadly than corporation as
organisation.) That is, the way that things are organised provides
them with intelligence as a phenomenon and also with the particular
possibilities of that intelligence. This ties in with Ben's
definition of intelligence except that I'm not sure "quick" has much
to do with it (even if IQ tests make it important). It has a great
deal to do with patterns, making meaning, understanding and
flexibility. I especially don't focus on "accuracy" but rather on
usefulness. Many innacurate but useful models will generally be
worth more than one accurate respresentation.
"Stupid entities are intelligent ones which are inhibited or thwarted
in some way." That is, to be "stupid" implies the existence of
intelligence.
I start from the premise that the universe is intelligent or, at a
minimum if that formulation doesn't work for you, that the universe
is organised in a way that is a match for intelligence. More, it is
a match for intelligences of many kinds, forms or varieties. That
is, a bat and a bee also make sense of the universe they find
themselves in and hence it is a match for their intelligences too.
>From this starting place, intelligence is a phenomenon which matches
internal "realities" with an external universe so that creative,
generative action is possible. In this sense, organisations as
entities are intelligent.
Some possible measures of intelligence are capacities, processes,
results, variety, etc.
Michael McMaster : Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk
book cafe site : http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe
Intelligence is the underlying organisational principle
of the universe. Heraclitus
--Michael McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>