Typical dictionary definitions of intelligence describe it as: 1. The ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations; the skilled use of reason. 2. The ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria or tests (Merriam-Webster, 2014).

Scholarly definitions of what they call ‘general intelligence’ include Schmidt and Hunter’s (2000) description of it as the ability to learn and solve problems. Gardner and Hatch similarly define human intelligence as “the capacity to solve problems or to fashion products that are valued in one or more cultural setting” (۱۹۸۹, p. 5). Resnik (2002) also refers to learning, and an ability to apply “reason” appears in many discussions of intelligence (e.g., Cismaru & Chiochina, 2014, p. 4). In summary, these and other common definitions associate intelligence with learning and applying knowledge; with dealing with new situations; with understanding; and particularly with applying reason and thinking abstractly with a view to solving problems. While the key concepts identified in these definitions are useful in disrupting populist notions of intelligence – that is, intelligence is not simply about brain cells or something innate that we are born with at a fixed level, but rather it is created through learning, gaining knowledge, and practicing to gain abilities – there are elements of these common definitions that are troubling and warrant challenge. The first is the focus on reason and objective criteria, which implies a logico-deductive scientific approach and positivist or post-positivist thinking informed by quantitative research methods. Postmodern researchers argue that humans are interpretivist and constructivist and that their perceptions and behaviors areinfluenced by affective as well as rational cognitive processes (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). Beyond mechanistic and systems thinking, Shockley-Zalabak (1994) argues that “interpretative-symbolic-culture” orientated approaches need to be applied to communication (pp. 3–۵). In short, the human mind is essentially humanistic as well as capable of scientific processes. Also, the focus on solving problems suggests a functionalist view sociologically and in organizational contexts and an implicit objective of effectiveness which, in the face of inequities in power and neoliberal capitalistthinking, can resultin intelligence being used to manipulate one’s environment and fashion products in socially inequitable and undesirable ways. But such concerns have been overtaken by a number of new theories and arguments about intelligence that raise new notions, possibilities, and questions.