Increasing intelligence cannot be separated from the issue of measuring intelligence. However, measuring human intelligence is a complex matter. The primary reason is that human intelligence is a holistic manifestational complexity. There have been many different types of intelligence identified by psychologists (both as manifestations and as constituents). It is long debated whether the role of nature versus nurture in intelligence (genetic and environmental causes) are to be exposed. But measuring also boils down to questions such as how intelligence is represented in the brain and how to interpret the meaning of group differences in intelligence. The classical measurement approaches combined testing by cognitive interrogation and challenging action. Many psychologists now believe that there is a generalized intelligence factor that reflects abstract thinking and that expresses the abilities to acquire knowledge, to reason logically, to adapt to new circumstances, to benefit from experience, and to make semantic relationships between concrete and abstract things, respectively. However, the generalized intelligence factor is not able to properly handle specific domain intelligence (i.e. competences related to a narrow domain). This is also not a measure of that intelligence, which manifests in team/group level, or community/society level, or mankind/humanity level. Intelligence has been conceptualized by some researchers as fluid intelligence (the capacity of learning to solve problems and performing activities in new ways) and as crystallized intelligence (asset of having and using the accumulated knowledge of the world). This conceptual distinction makes the identification of the parameters that have a positive correlation with intelligence complicated. Other question is whether analytical intelligence, creative intelligence, or practical intelligence should be increased? In this context, Gardner’s definition of eight specific intelligences (linguistic, mathematical-logical, spatial, performing, bodily, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalistic) should be taken into consideration. In a nutshell, too many influential factors, too many parameters, and too many complications ...

Hi Imre 

Thanks for comprehensive and useful information.

Yes, Intelligence changes body language and gestures also and therefore, we can use these parameters.

I think first a decision on the kind of intelligence to be enhanced in the given or chosen societal context is to be made. Then, a detailed analysis of the influential factors or parameters should be completed. Afterwards, ranking the factors or parameters is to be done considering the (assumed or experienced) strength of their influence on positive changes. Finally, some form of empirical validation seems to be necessary.

Approaching this question from the point of view of artificial intelligence engineering, it's clear that there will be a variety of designed processes in any AI system contributing to the overall pattern(s) of behavior that we loosely call "intelligence". A better and more powerful  design for any of these processes will tend to enhance the system's "intelligence".  For example I am particularly interested in the processes of abstraction (discarding relatively unimportant details) and planning (including plan formation, revision and execution) -- it is intelligent to plan at the highest level of abstraction that is effective in the particular context being addressed.

So how do we make humans better at abstraction and at planning?

Cheers

Jim