To define intelligence is no simple task. There is no unchallenged definition to date. To put that in perspective, we have a better understanding of the universe than we do of intelligence. In fact, scientist have more math on parallel universes than they have on intelligence.
In orgtology, we look at how people apply themselves in diverse situations. We then aim to find out whether these applications are useful to Org. It is not our task to define intelligence. Rather, we aim to understand how people solve problems, mitigate risk, deal with trauma, influence others, etc. We thus assume that an intelligent entity will be able to control diverse situations.
For any person to be meaningful to Org, he/she must be a Relevant and Performing Individual (RPI). I.e., he/she must push the boundaries of Org, without destroying the processes that gives Org its shape and function. Also, he/she must abide by the processes of Org until there is adequate conviction of a better way. Therefore, if intelligence does not help one to be both relevant and performing, it will serve no purpose to Org.
If we do not know what intelligence is, then we can only use the term to describe a phenomenon. A person will view any result beyond own capability as unusual (a phenomenon).
The average person's capability will be the baseline from where one can draw a scope of "normality". Anything beyond this scope will be disruptive because it is unusual. If one can repeat a phenomenon with much less effort than what is "normal" for others, then one is either talented or disturbed. Throughout history, we often regard both as highly intelligent.
We praise expressions of logic as intelligent. Yet, where feats are physical or emotional, we label them phenomenal. If anything can do or achieve something beyond the scope of "normality", then such thing is intelligent, because it can do something that is extremely difficult for others to do. If so, then great athletes; entertainers; spiritual guru's; artists; authors; etc., were as intelligent as Einstein and Newton.
Even the simplest form of life on this planet is highly intelligent. To know exactly how high, one would have to compare it to other similar life forms. In so, compare apples to apples, artists to artists, athletes to athletes, etc. Intelligence has no rules. It could manifest at any time in any way – its only limits being itself.
If intelligence enables a person to perform and stay relevant, then we can measure it so. Performance will show how useful a person is in helping Org to produce its outputs. Relevance will show how a person can help Org to respond to complexity.
The easiest way to survive is to find a way to be useful to a community. In so, we have evolved to be part of one or more organisations. This is evident since most humans have an inherent ability to perform. Most humans are also inherently willing to perform. The ability at which they perform will define their implied intelligence.
To stay relevant is not that simple. An entity can only exist within an environment. This makes survival complex because environments change. Thus, dealing with relevance means dealing with complexity. In absence of relevance, a person will also lose his/her ability to perform. This is because performance that is not relevant will self-destruct.
Thinking "outside the box" is the only sensible choice when your box begins to crumble. This means that one must create intent beyond purpose. A plant, for instance, cannot do that. This is because the process of being a plant implies all its intelligence. In animal life, a species can form intent, but mostly within its process. A giraffe, for example, can decide to eat leaves from this tree instead of that one. But it cannot decide to eat meat. Its intent is always locked within the boundaries of its purpose. Primates, such as chimpanzees, are known to plan murder, which is intent beyond purpose.
From all known species, humans have the greatest ability to create intent. Because of this, humans are most able to work with complexity. This means working with the disruptive change that an environment imposes. There is only one way to control chaos and that is to lock it out through order. When we create intent, we begin to organise activity around its execution. This creates an order, which reduces uncertainty, which minimises risk. Doing that is intelligent because it is beneficial to the survival of Org.
To know how useful intelligence is to Org, we must understand how it manifests. In his 1983 book, "Frames of Mind", Howard Gardner writes that we have multiple intelligences, and not only one. His theory was criticised a great deal by neuroscientists. Of course, the criticism is justified. To date there is no shred of evidence that humans have independent intelligences of any sort. Evidence shows that any person holds one intelligence. We might apply it in diverse ways, but it still is one thing.
In organamics we study six levels of intelligence application. One should be able to use these levels to measure any entity from a human perspective.
This is the intelligence of the body. In orgtology, we call this implied or crystalized intelligence. It is what our DNA holds. Humans have an organic form, meaning we can heal ourselves and grow old. Our physical form holds this intelligence.
The best way to test physical intelligence would be to measure the speed of healing. If sick with e.g. flu, how long does it take to recover? Also, the ability to grow old and stay healthy is a good measure of physical intelligence. An entity that has high physical intelligence will have great power to fight or flee.
You will need this if you work in harsh conditions. Construction workers; farmers; game rangers; field workers; shift workers; etc., are good examples of jobs where one will need high physical intelligence.
This is the power of your brain to create neural networks and to process data. A good measure of this will be to test the mathematical and linguistic skill of a person. Also, can he or she use such to solve problems and grasp verbal and non-verbal communication? Mostly we use IQ (intelligence quotient) tests to rate "logical" intelligence. It is also this intelligence that AI has an abundance of.
You will need cognitive intelligence if you must use math and language to solve complex problems. These may include engineering; medicine; accounting; law; general science; etc.
An emotionally intelligent person can choose how to react, and so, he or she has the skill to be happy, to move on, and to have meaningful relationships. To be so, one must be self-aware, do much introspection, and get along well with others in a changing and diverse world.
The only way to measure this, is to test how aware a person is of him or herself, and of others. We call this, intra- and inter-personal awareness. It is hard to rate because it is abstract. One must make conceptual assumptions about the behaviour of another. The ability to move on after an emotionally disturbing event and negotiation skills often show high emotional intelligence.
Emotional intelligence is an extremely important skill for managers. You cannot manage others, if you are prone to stress, find it hard to be firm, or if you do not know how to deal with conflict. In Org, there is a direct relationship between authority and emotional intelligence. This means that if the one goes up the other one should follow. In fact, to manage, is much more a matter of emotional intelligence than it is of knowledge or experience.
When you defy all the boundaries of what should be, and then create that which was not, you are highly creative. This is a rare application of intelligence, but easy to test. Creative people can disturb current norms and relate to the world's objects and subjects in ways that others cannot.
There are quite a few ways to measure creativity. Yet, all of them will assess a person's skill to work with abstract associations and problems. One test is to give limited time within which a person must relate two unrelated objects. E.g., giving a participant 5-minutes to explain what he/she can do with a bucket and water?" The participant will get one point for all 'common sense' answers such as "wash my hands"; "water flowers", etc. Three points for all answers that are creative, but only mediocrely practical, such as "making holes in the bucket and using it as a shower", or "putting it on the roof for a geyser". One will get six points for each "million-dollar" idea. I.e. ideas like "a cartoon show, 'The bucket family', who lives in a lake, like SpongeBob Square Pants"; or "a glass bucket hotel, where quests can scuba dive from one room to the other".
Creative people, on average, do not like institutions and I have found very few of them there. If you work with marketing; advertising; product development; strategy; etc., you will need creative skill.
In the Battle of Arbela, it was not the skill or number of troops that gained Alexander the Great his feat. Nope, it was his startling contextual intelligence that kept him his crown. Through this skill, one must grasp an environment or status quo, and then predict its future. In Org, we often call this "strategic intelligence".
To measure contextual intelligence, one will have to test a person's knack to grasp and link the math of a process with the dynamics of a relationship. This will include spatial awareness and an ability to see the big picture.
Contextual intelligence is a skill that anyone who deals with strategic issues and risks must have. Executive teams, boards of directors, or any person who has a leadership role in Org, must have this.
You are spiritually intelligent if you will not compromise your values for your needs. In other words, your values must outweigh your needs. E.g. if one of your values is honesty, will you steal if hungry?
You must have spiritual intelligence if you want to lead others. People do not follow people, they follow values, and a leader is the guardian of those values. There should be no doubt about the spiritual intelligence of any person who leads a cause or a community.
The model below shows a rationality / normality continuum. In the model "absolute rationality" is in contrast with "total irrationality". Scientific evidence defines rationality. Absence of logic shows irrationality. So, on the one side we have science and on the other we have beliefs. E.g., An obese wife asks her husband: "Do I look fat in this dress?" A rational answer would be "yes" whilst an irrational one will be "no". Of course, this conundrum extends beyond married life. Great visions, religious beliefs, dreams, ideas, etc, are mostly all irrational in the beginning. Yet, these things shape humanity.
Rationality without irrationality is meaningless, thus they must co-exist. This means annihilation of one will also kill the other. In fact, rationality in an absolute state will become irrational. One is a metric to the other.
"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality." - Bertrand Russell
We define "normality" somewhere between rationality and irrationality. That is where intelligence becomes meaningful. "Normality" is an internalised process. I.e., when entities behave in a consistent way, such behaviour is their "normal". Deviation from this "normality" is disruptive because it threatens what they are. In so, to be useful to Org, the six applications of intelligence must be useful within the scope of what is "normal".
Without organisations, humans will be primitive beings. Org reflects human ability, values, beliefs, and consciousness. Therefore, human intelligence must be useful to Org to be of use to humanity.
The rationality continuum above correlates Theory Ix of Intelligence with Theory 2I of Orgtelligence. Humans can never reach the rationality of algorithmic systems intelligence. In so, AI can never reach the irrationality of an abstract human mind. Their co-existence makes Org possible. We run Org through rational process efficiency. We change Org through irrational thinking – vision, innovative ideas, emotion, dreams, etc.
The six applications of intelligence given here will be meaningful if it helps Org to perform and stay relevant. I.e., it will best serve Org within a scope of "normality". This does not mean that pushing boundaries beyond that scope is meaningless. On the contrary, the ROI for rebellion against "normality" is high. But it is also dangerous. Once you venture beyond that which is normal, you stand the risk of total rejection. This is not necessarily a dreadful thing. Org will always favour tried and tested methods, until proven outdated, which means that someone has pushed the boundaries beyond what was. That is the essence of intelligence.
© 2020-07-23: Derek Hendrikz