Psychologists struggle and debate and argue over the definition of the word “intelligence.” Spearman, Thurstone, Gardner, Sternberg…
And one thing I see in common with them is this. They allow for the assumption that “intelligence” is a commonly and consistently understood entity that people are trying to qualitatively and quantitatively define. And this assumption is wrong.
The debate over the term “intelligence” will not ever be over unless they all agree that no one is thinking the same thing when they talk about “intelligence” and that’s why it can’t be defined this way.
Say, you and I agree that “beauty” is something that is pleasing to the eye and touches a soul. But once we start defining it qualitatively and quantitatively, I say a curvy woman, and you say a lean muscular man. I say a green forest, and you say a vacant rocky shore. To define “attractive,” I say “helpful, considerate, and insightful,” and someone may say “someone who can help me gain better social approval and self image.”
My point is that some things can only be defined as a concept, not what it actually looks like.
“Intelligence” is the “naturalcor acquired neural predisposition to excel.”
And it’s OK if everyone has a different definition from there on. Just make sure you add an adjective. Like the “g” intelligence, emotional intelligence, athletic intelligence.