What is intelligence? It is a subjective concept, but Psychologist Howard Gardner’s Seven Types of Intelligence, as they apply to children, is a good place to start:

1. Linguistic –
   Children with this kind of intelligence enjoy writing, reading, telling stories or doing crossword puzzles.

2. Logical-Mathematical –
   Children with lots of logical intelligence are interested in patterns, categories and relationships. They are drawn to arithmetic problems, strategy games and experiments.

3. Bodily-kinesthetic –
   These kids process knowledge through bodily sensations. They are often athletic, dancers or good at crafts such as sewing or woodworking.

4. Spatial –
   These children think in images and pictures. They may be fascinated with mazes or jigsaw puzzles, or spend free time drawing, building with Legos or daydreaming.

5. Musical –
   Musical children are always singing or drumming to themselves. They are usually quite aware of sounds others may miss. These kids are often discriminating listeners.

6. Interpersonal –
   Children who are leaders among their peers, who are good at communicating and who seem to understand others’ feelings and motives possess interpersonal intelligence.

7. Intrapersonal –
   These children may be shy. They are very aware of their own feelings and are self-motivated.

   These seven are just the tip of the Iceberg. Each one may be subdivided into an indefinite number of sub-categorizations. Additionally, they may be cross-referenced to create specific types of genius, think of the combination of kinesthetic and spatial intelligence that goes into being a pinball wizard.

   ---

   Quantifying IQ’s

   Mensa is an international organization that requires applicants to score in the top 2% of test takers on a widely accepted Intelligence Test such as the SAT, IQ, or ACT for membership. The focus of these tests being solely on two types of intelligence, linguistic and logical-mathematical, seems almost pedantic in the vast mosaic of intelligence types.

   So this raises the question: How do we measure Intelligence? If Mensa, the top 2% of the world’s Intelligencia, cannot (or will not) develop a more substantive measure for intelligence, then we must explore the cultural and intellectual pluralism that makes such measurement impossible:

   Specialization Barriers.

   In a civilization as enormous the human race, without the specialization of knowledge and labor it would all break down. Agriculture, chemistry, physics, social engineering, market science, production science, information technology, mechanical, on and on, lose any one of these specializations and an entire sector of goods and services disappears with it, potentially generating a domino effect on the whole as other, dependent systems fail. In spite of this understanding, we still persist on elevating some types of knowledge above others.

   The perceived value of some specializations over others creates one barrier to comprehending Intelligence. In America, we compare Intelligences based on their economic value. When my car breaks down, I value the Intelligence of an Auto mechanic as superior to mine own. On the Internet, we value Rhetorical Intellect above others, whoever creates the most entertaining appeal wins the hits. Thus the value of Intelligence is dependent upon its context.

   Demographic Barriers

   Rap music and Poetry Slam’s employ metaphors, similes, rhyme, double entendres, and a host of other techniques to create melodious verbal “flow”. They combine musical and linguistic intelligences with ingenious results, but because of Rap and Bohemian argots, these artists cannot be accurately gauged through contemporary Intelligence Tests. The test and individual are incapable of communication.

   This is because IQ Tests are immersed in the constructs of Linguistic Intelligence. Albert Einstein would test low on an IQ test written in English, because German was his native tongue. IQ Tests are written in the language of the most popular culture. Is it any wonder then, that Mensa cites verbal proficiency as the single most important factor in improving one’s Intelligence?

   Temporal Barriers

   Intelligence is malleable, both subject to improvement and recidivism. As an English Major in College, I had strong Linguistic Intelligence, but never took Calculus-level Mathematics. My IQ was 118. Then I began working in programing and was forced to work out complex logical problems on a daily basis. Next thing I know, my last three Mensa scores were 128, 129, and 129, genius-level being 130.

   I gave up on Mensa because of Ideological differences, but with enough effort and time to make that effort, I could have made that 130 score. Free time is crucial to improving Intelligence. Effort is even more important, but that is within the realm of an individual’s control. Temporal freedom is a struggle against all of our daily demands: working to pay off bills, fighting sickness, adhering to the State’s bureaucratic demands. Intelligence depends very much on resources.

   ---

   Artificial Intelligence

   Possibly one of the biggest influences on popular Artificial Intelligence development is the Turing Test. Alan Turing’s proposed method for evaluating an Artificial Intelligence involved having a human being on a computer converse with both a human and an AI. If the person couldn’t tell the difference, then we have AI success.

   As one might expect, limiting the scope of discussion improved results for the AI, another example of Intelligence in relation to context. For instance, AI’s designed to imitate humans may run around multi-user online games virtually indistinguishable from human players. Because their discourse is limited to the subject of the game and the conversations are brief enough to prevent arousing suspicion, the deception is managed with very simple programming.

   The Turing Test’s focus on simply fooling human Intelligences has led to the popular field of Chatbots, computer programs capable of holding a moderately engaging conversation with a human. Using a process of reducing inputted sentences down to groups of related key words to determine the subject, the Chatbot selects from a database of pre-entered responses and returns the most relevant. Again, reducing the scope of the conversation to a specific subject improves the result. For this reason, Chatbots are becoming useful as Software and Website Helpers, similar to the MS Word Paperclip, but more personable.

   While Chatbot development can be entertaining, it does little to advance the field of Artificial Intelligence except through increasing its popularity. The Intelligence-Imitators do not make any attempt to understand the information given them. They do not store information in a growing database of details similar to a human mind’s Cognitive Schema. Nor do they construct hypothesis out of stored data. Without at least these functions, there cannot be Intelligence.

   Currently the greatest advances in Artificial Intelligence theory comes from Germany, where a science of breaking down sentences into a mathematical form holds wonderful potential. “The cat is black” becomes “cat = black,” but this is just the tip of deconstructing the language iceberg.

   ---

   Conclusions

   Software attempts to describe real life functions through mathematics and logic. The logic in your computer’s calculator program expresses elementary mathematics. In a sense, these are concrete ways of quantifying the complex system that is reality.

   AI’s are Intelligence expressed through structured logic and mathematics. As we evolve them, we will learn more about how our own Cognitive Schemas are structured and function. Already we see the comparisons between us and them: Specializations of Intelligence, the significance of Intelligence dependent on context, the importance of Linguistic aspects, the benefits of different Programming Languages used to write the AI, and so on.

   On a Social level, an understanding of Intelligence argues for the need to respect all forms of Intelligence, from the Jock to the Bookworm. When we get to the Marketplace of Ideas, we will need to keep this principle in mind. All Ideas may not be created equal, but they must be treated with equal respect.

Throughout world history, people have found newer and more effective ways to bring issues out for discussion and debate that would otherwise never see the light of day under the control of an insensitive majority. In American government, politicians have employed the filibuster, the physically and mentally demanding strategy of employing prolonged speechmaking to obstruct the legislative process. In the 1960’s, African Americans engaged in “sit-ins,” taking a right denied them by law, in this case, the right to sit where they wanted in public places. Recently, this same tactic was used by homosexual couples getting married. These are known as acts of “civil disobedience.”

Then there are demonstrations, organized assemblies of citizens to express a collective voice for a cause. This is the most traditional form of bringing attention to an issue. The problem is that it does not always bring the attention desired.

Dying your hair funny colors, sporting T-shirts and signs with outrageous, and often, offensive slogans, and getting yourself arrested for vandalism or violence may get your face on television, and that’s fine, if that’s how you want to spend your fifteen minutes, but your face will also become the face of your movement. If you are demonstrating for something you feel very strongly about, then you must go about it seriously and responsibly.

I admit it. I love grassroots displays. I think that is what democracy is all about, the people. That being said, here’s my advice:

Dress Respectably: Appearance is important. You wouldn’t go to an important job interview in cut-off jeans and a tie-dye shirt, so why do people demonstrate in such attire? You are selling an idea, and how you present yourself affects how you present your idea.

Yes, I know it’s unfair. In a perfect world, we could wear whatever we want and people would still see the substance over the style, but that’s naive. Put on a button up shirt and tie, put on that best dress, or borrow a friend’s, be uncomfortable, and be proud. You are presenting an image of your cause, one of traditional respectability, not of aliens from outer space.

Organize: One of the biggest problems I see in modern demonstrations is that everyone has their own cause to flaunt. I love pluralism, but my love of moderation trumps it when pluralism is taken to an extreme and becomes confusion. We attend demonstrations for a cause. Leave the individualism at home for a day and revel in the wonder of knowing that everyone around you took the day off work because the cause was important enough.

Either Drape Yourself In the Flag, or Leave it Alone: “This land is your land. This land is my land… This land was made for you and me.” I respect the constitutionally protected right to desecrate the flag, but I question its effectiveness. Remember, the ultimate goal of protest is persuasion. Destroying the flag generates anger and rejection, reactions contraindicated to convincing the opposition.

I also question the implications of it. Flag desecration seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The protester who engages in this tactic is mistakenly equating the current occupants of the three Branches of Government with the foundation of Democracy. Those red, white, and blue stars and stripes represent the U.S. Constitution and the electoral process. They existed long before the majority voted whatever current politician offended. They protect our right to demonstrate and assure us that the system can change. They provide hope.

That is everyone’s flag. Don’t give it to the opposition. Wrap yourself in it and do a dance. Revel in what it promises. Don’t let those you oppose take if for themselves. That flag belongs to everyone, demand your share. Take it back.

Last but not least, HAVE FUN: Political Demonstrations can be a great deal of fun. If you are protesting, remember to support a cause as well. Supporting an alternative to what you are protesting is a positive action that will put a smile on your face and make you more appealing to outside observers… Make people outside the protest want your happiness.

Then they’ll want what your selling too. : )

The Marvel Comics revolution, led by Stan Lee, was so immensely successful because it moved the focus of superhero stories from the purely fantastic nature of these beings into the characters behind them. Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman all had alter egos that were difficult for audiences to identify with. They were two-dimensional, cardboard props until they dawned their costumes and became someone.

Peter Parker, aka. Spiderman, on the other hand, was an everyday kid, dealing with homework, working his way through school, ostracized by his peers, and fumbling through an occasional love interest. Bruce Banner, the Hulk, was a man grappling with a curse that brought potential disaster every time he lost his temper. The X-Men portrayed a flip-side to the superhero icon. Instead of being revered and praised, they were feared and persecuted for their otherness despite their heroic deeds.

Kurt Busiek is an author who revels in characters. In 1994 he collaborated with Alex Ross to write the graphic novel “Marvels.” Now considered a classic, it followed the entire history of the Marvel Comic Universe through the eyes of a reporter, taking photos and relaying his reactions to many of the more famous events in Marvel comic’s history.

The story was something new, another angle on stories we were already familiar with. Instead of running with the superheroes on their adventures, we stood on the ground and watched their battles way up above. We experienced the uncertainty, the fear, the helplessness of being an ordinary citizen in such a world.

The story’s medium was also something new. Busiek and Ross used oil-paintings and live models to convey their story. The result is characters whose faces tell us everything about their personalities in one frame. It was an effect similar to a Rockefeller painting. Here were characters we had seen for decades in simple, cartoonish drawings, and now they were detailed, they were real people.

The problem with “Marvels” was that only readers well-versed in the Marvel legends and lore could truly appreciate it. It was like reading one long series of inside-jokes. It did little to reach out to new readership, but served as more of a fanboy story, preaching to the quior. It was simultaneously fantastic and a waste of talent.

Understanding this history of the shortcomings of comic book stories is important to understanding why Busiek’s later work, “Astro City” was such an accomplishment. Here were characters, built around traditional superhero stereotypes so they could break their moulds. Here was an entire universe from scratch, filled with all the classics, but with new twists.

Take the story of Samaritan, a “Superman” style hero, who we follow around for a day to see what his life is like in the issue “In Dreams.” He dreams of flying, free, like a bird, just for the enjoyment of it, but then his superhero alarm goes off and he must save the world again and again, flying to and fro across the globe in split-seconds. At the end of the day, he tallies how much flying time he was able to get in…

Then there is the Junkman, from the issue “Show ‘Em All,” a burglar so skilled he’s robbed the safe and is long gone before the superheroes can arrive. The problem is that he was so good that he received no recognition, while the superheroes take all the fame. So he goes for another burglary, this time he slips-up on purpose, when the heroes arrive…

Or how about the novelty of getting to play a fly on the wall as we follow the two biggest male and female names in super-heroism as they go out on their first date?

There are epic battles taking place throughout the series; however, they take place in the background of the dramatic situations. Busiek recognized that the audience reads a comic book and since the best narration takes place in the illustrations, this leaves dialogue as the focus. The characters speak for themselves and their facial expression convey the rest.

The comic is the segway between books and video. Kurt Busiek, in “Astro City,” know best how to maximize this medium.

Note: After working with Busiek, Alex Ross went on to do the dramatic “Kingdom Come,” DC Comic’s answer to “Marvels.” It told the story of the superheroes from DC in their later years, after being replaced with the new superheroes of Generation X. It’s also an excellent tale, which explores the conflicting values between generations, but also suffers from the same “inside-joke” issue that was detrimental to “Marvels.”

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”

– Sir Isaac Newton

Closer to Truth
A televised talkshow about issues in science.

Discover Magazine
A monthly popular science periodical.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS)
From the PNAS Website: “One of the world’s most-cited multidisciplinary serials. Since its establishment in 1914, it continues to publish cutting-edge research reports, commentaries, reviews, perspectives, colloquium papers, and actions of the Academy. Coverage in PNAS spans the biological, physical, and social sciences.”

New Scientist Magazine
A bi-weekly Science Periodical.

Popular Science Magazine
A science magazine with an emphasis on technology.

Science Friday
The homepage for NPR’s Science Friday talkshow. Contains endless archives of interviews with professionals of all branches of science.

Science Online
A website maintained by the AAAS.

Scientific American
A monthly Science Periodical.

SciTech Daily
An excellent Science Periodical portal, bringing some of the most thoughtful articles from a variety of sources.

The Scientist
A news journal for the Life Scientist.

At one point in Frederico Fellini’s 8 1/2 Guido, an idealistic film Director, sits in his car, staring at the towering skeleton of a set for his now abandoned film. Sitting in the passenger seat is a film critic consultant, telling him this is all for the best, that it was better to let the film die, unfinished, than leave such a failure in his cannon:

“We critics… do what we can. Our true mission is sweeping away the thousands of miscarriages that everyday… obscenely… try to come to the light. And you would actually dare leave behind you a whole film, like a cripple who leaves behind his crooked foot print. Such a monstrous presumption to think that others could benefit from the squalid catalogue of your mistakes!”

This is the film’s “Ah-Ha” moment.

But to understand how we got here: The film opens with Guido Anselmi returning from a two week lapse in his most recent film’s production. The production is on hold, apparently due to Guido’s inability to articulate what his film is about. He hires on a deeply pessimistic film critic, Daumier, to analyze his screenplay, and the man holds it in complete contempt, but this is only one of Guido’s problems. Surrounding the Director is an entourage of characters, a Producer, an aging Actress, Magazine Writers, Set and Costume Designers, his wife, his mistress, all demanding his time, pulling his attention this way and that.

This film falls into a subcategory of avandt garde cinema that is reflective, self-critical. Throughout the film, characters comment on the director’s style, as when his Doctor asks him if he’s making “another film without hope?”

Others ask after his purpose, “I’ve figured out what you’re trying to talk about,” his Producer tells him, “Man’s inner confusion. But you’ve got to be clearer.”

The film crew even has a professional critic, Daumier, like an artistic conscience, providing a running commentary on the production’s pretentiousness. “The film lacks a problematic or a philosophical premise,” he warns, “making the film a series of gratuitous episodes.”

The film is brimming with women. There is Carla, his bubbly mistress who reads Donald Duck. She contrasts with his wife, Luisa, serious and business like. There is the grotesque and sexually charged Saraghin. The wild and exotic Gloria. Madeleine, the aging French actress. The virgin Mary. Each woman beautiful and desirable in her own uniqueness.

Many of these women ask Guido why he never makes Romances. The answer seems to stem from the prevalent culture of Catholicism running throughout his life and the shame of lust. There is also Guido’s infidelity, and the lying at which he is so pathetically inept. This brings us to film as a lie and Guido’s struggling desire to tell the truth, if only the truth did not hurt other’s so. But these are all, ultimately, fragments of a painting, none of which capture the whole.

This world is Guido’s perspective as an artist, his brain forever muddling away about how to complete his most important work. As a result, even when we are firmly grounded in reality, the film is surreal. Voices are dubbed, poorly. Are we are hearing what the character’s are saying, or what Guido hears?

The film is nostalgic, apologetic, beautiful, fantastic, romantic, but as a blur of moments, trying to articulate something that language cannot hope to convey. The film’s original title “La Bella Confusione” (The Beautiful Confusion), seems very apropos considering its prevalent theme. As the critic argues, the world is confusing, and therefore meaningless. Optimism holds no place in it.

At that moment, near the end, when the critic espouses his fatalistic point of view and we see Guido staring off into the distance, a parade of nostalgia taking place before his mind’s eye, everything becomes clear. The critic helps us see it.

Not because he is right, but because of how very wrong he is.

Similar Films: Adaptation, Deconstructing Harry, CK-1