Extension 22- Assessing of the intelligence theory F against a scientific definition

Here I look  to which extent the Theory F corresponds to the definition for intelligence prepared by Reesing-Drenth (Dutch authors with a scientific status, they wrote a book on Intelligence, 2007, pag. 25.)

The source text is an ongoing list. That is presented below in paragraphs that are numbered also.

Intelligence is a conglomeration of mental capabilities, processes and skills, such as

1. Able to reasoning abstractly, logically and consistently

2. Able to discover, build and see through relationships

3. Problem solving,

4.Able to discover rules in seemingly unordered material,

5. Able to solve with existing knowledge new tasks,

6. Able to adapt flexibly to new situations,

7. Be able to demonstrate his ability to learn without direct and incomplete instruction.

A direct comparison is not possible because the source-definition describes the effects of intelligence while the intelligence theory F describes the brain power which enables this intelligent way of thinking.

The comparison is now as follows:

I search by each numbered element for corresponding examples in book texts or in case of lack I commit a reasoning that leads to the element.

1. Able to reasoning abstractly, logically and consistently

Chapter 4 section e describes how with Creatio abstract and logical thought processes. It is the outcome of Creatio abstract  that corresponds to this element.

2. Able to discover, build and see through relationships

I think with "relationships" is meant the relations between persons and groups.

Here one can still distinguish between: social-intelligence, such as is described in paragraph 5 g or business relations as laid down in paragraph 8i about organizational-intelligence.

But also in the physical world one can speak of relationships. For example, the force of water on a submerged body has a fixed relationship with that body which is equal to the amount of water displaced by that body. Discovered by Archimedes as described section 4 d.

We are talking about relationships in 3 different meanings. The said paragraphs show how that discovering, laying (is building) and see through (is understanding) works.

3. Problem solving

Sometimes Creatio plus can solve a problem because a previously devised manipulation can also be used. This is described in section 4b. 

The element 1 can also solve problems, so with help from Creatio abstract, described in section 4 d. 

But a powerful means to solve a new problem is Creatio trial-and-error.

In chapter 4f this is described with an example (a chimpanzee who first finds an egg).

So these 3 Creatio┬┤s have this element as an outcome.

 4. Able to discover rules in seemingly unordered material,

Chapter 8, section c describes how Distinctio red hair allows us to distinguish similarities in a multitude of objects or beings. This distinctio has this element as an outcome.

5. Able to solve new tasks with existing knowledge

Creatio plus does that, see element 3

6. Able to adapt flexibly to new situations

I interpret "flexible" as a case where he encounters unforeseen problems and solves that routinely as the references in the elements 1 and 3 point out.

7. Be able to demonstrate his ability to learn without direct and incomplete instruction.

This ability is described in Chapter 4, section d. Creatio PCB concerns the optimizing of invented or learned manipulations without instructions. So this is the outcome of this element.

So In my opinion, the theory has for each element one or more equivalents. I have to wait and see if this can withstand criticism.