Why is a knowledge of history associated with intelligence?

I would say that general knowlege on any major academic subject is associated with intelligence. To understand history means people may have a better understanding of the workings of different countries and they may be able to use their knowledge in future situations.
personally i hate political type history, the kind of stuff you learn in school. I find it dry and just uninteresting. I did very much enjoy the history of museums and public understanding of science.
I think everyone will find one kind of aspect of history interesting whether it be the history of football or the history of how past civilizations lived. maybe you need to find a type of history that suits your tastes.

I don’t know where the correlation comes from (intelligence – historical knowledge)?
All i know is that in high school i was not interested in history what so ever, maybe due to the boring teacher or the fact that (in my memory at least) it always was about the second world war.
Now, when i am a bit older, i find that i have interests in particular kinds of history.
Just because i am intrigued by some periods in history that came to me via documentaries and books that i read (documentaries and books that need not be about history at all).

Perhaps because historical knowledge is not something that tends to be acquired casually, and so anyone well versed has sought out that information rather than just stumbled on it or seen a reference Jeopardy. And those that seek out knowledge tend to be more intelligent (or at least better informed).

Are you confusing “knowledgeable ” and “intelligent”? I do think people who expect to be considered knowledgeable should have some grounding in history; however, there are many intelligent people who lack background in a certain area.

Well, these responses bring me to yet another question. What should I make of general knowledge on “non-academic” subjects? I happen to particularly enjoy video games, and I’ve come to realize that I’ve garnered quite a bit of knowledge on the subject, both historical and “practical” over the years. With a bit of thought, I could probably tell you a few things about popular gaming trends, my own feelings on the “games as art” debate, which games of the past were popular and why they were, and I could probably tell you why I feel the subject is worthy of study and pursuit.

I’m met with an overwhelming feeling that the general public would be slow to attribute any sort of “intelligence” to me based on the historical knowledge alone, though. So, I’m led to wonder why it is people have so much more respect for the “history of America” than they do for “the history of Super Mario Bros.”

I’ve never really analyzed the difference between being “knowledgeable” and “intelligent,” @janbb, but I’m led to believe that I’m not the only one. It seems to me that one is considered to imply the other.

Intelligence is subjective.

But even if it’s in a subject no one cares for, and let’s face it, not too many of the general public cares for learning about computer programming, history, most of the sciences, current events, or even the thematic subtexts of the media they consume, being able to make correlations, comparisons, draw conclusions, analyze events and discover causal relationships (e.g. The Versailles Treaty’s ruinous effect on the German economy was one of the main reasons why Hitler was able to come into power) are aspects that people attribute to intelligence. Knowledge about a subject is one thing. Being able to make use of that knowledge, either practically or in an analytical sense is using intelligence.

In my opinion.

I wasn’t really aware of any correlation between knowledge of history and intelligence. However, if that is a common belief, I agree with @syz and I would assume that it is because to gain knowledge of history, one must read up on it and make an effort to pursue the information.

Personally, I feel like anyone being highly knowledgeable in almost any subject hints at at least a certain amount of intelligence.

@aprilsimnel just proved her own point: She has knowledge of a lot of words, and she can put them in an order (making use of her knowledge) so that people like me think; “That is exactly how i think it, but never can i word it so perfectly.”
Jeez, you are clever, @aprilsimnel .

Perhaps; history is related to long periods of time, which is related to age, which is related to old people, which is related to wisdom, which is related to intelligence. Just a guess…

@MissAnthrope – You are right, which means I should have said, “Gaining knowledge about a subject shows a type of intelligence, being able to make use of that knowledge… is another type.”

@rebbel – Aw, thanks.

Memory retention.

History is the stories of mans actions. Understand (comprehend) history, navigate your future.

I think it is because without knowledge of history, man is doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. It is intelligent to want to know about the lessons of history for our world today.

Also, history is acquired wisdom.

Knowledge of previous mistakes lessens the likelihood of making them again, at least in theory. Historical knowledge of ones particular field is vital; must know what has already been done or tried to plan for future advancement. General history, however, is often subjective, nationalistic and culturally biased; written by the “victors”.

History is associated with wisdom because our tribal precursors valued the experience of elders, who were the repository of the oral tribal history; knowing history made one higher status within the tribal structure.

@janbb said it best. People confuse knowledgeable with intelligent.

Any phoole can do an online search or open a book, so knowledge, although very handy, does not equal intelligence.

Now… if you can compile facts, spot trends, draw valid conclusions from them, and make predictions using logic and reasoning, that could be a sign of intelligence.

I haven’t read all of the other responses here, so someone may have already answered for me… but it seems to me that your idea of “history” is pretty simplistic.

History is a lot more than “dates and facts”. It’s “reasons why” some things are facts in the first place. It’s also the study of what “facts” really are. If your idea of history is as simplistic as reading about the Creation Myth in Genesis, for example (not to cast aspersions on Christians who do believe that), then you will never “know” history. All you will “know” is whatever myth has been handed down to you.

For another example, you may know from history that Ronald Reagan was elected president of the USA in 1980 and served two terms. Why was he elected? Why was Jimmy Carter not elected a second time? We don’t even have to get into the two parties’ disagreement over what the “facts” of the Reagan administration were. The “facts” are not just a list of treaties signed, bills passed into law and Supreme Court appointees, among others, but also economic “facts” about the way the country was working (or not) under the various administrations, and suppositions about the reasons why.

That’s all history, not just “On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed”—why was it signed? That’s history.

Because if you are not careful history will repeat itself.

Well, when you put it that way @CyanoticWasp, it certainly does sound much more interesting. Hm. I guess my previous experiences just haven’t instilled within me a sense of what true “history” is. I’m supposing that this is what I’ve been missing. I will have to contemplate this.

I agree with CyanoticWasp, and add that the people who made those dates and events happen are fascinating and interesting to study. What made them leaders, villains or heroes? Can we recognize those traits and behavior patterns in others? People are history too.

@Slide20xl thanks.

I will admit freely: I didn’t start to learn a bit of history—nothing that mattered worth a damn, anyway—until long after I had left school. (It’s not that it wasn’t possible in school or that I had incompetent teachers; it was entirely my own failing.)

@CyanoticWasp You beat me to it. Memorizing dates and facts is not a knowledge of history. The schools have got it all wrong.

What @CyanoticWasp said, and I’d give more than one GA if I could.

Knowing large swaths of “why” helps people not repeat the same mistakes as before, too. There was a question on here a while back, about “how far back do I have to know history to understand the future?” or something like that. What I really wanted to answer was, “Well, how far back are the mistakes you want to repeat?” If you don’t know that WWII was basically set up by WWI, or that the 90s happened because of the 80s which happened because of the 70s which happened because of the 60s… etc etc., you could easily mistake things going on for being “completely new and unlike anything which has gone before.”

In short, while intelligent people may enjoy history, a knowledge of history helps people understand things they might not understand without it. It’s all about the narrative flow.

I think it is more associated with education than intelligence.

There is no future without history.

Thinking otherwise just shows a lack of intelligence.

Okay, @cheebdragon… it isn’t really an enlightened statement to say that there’s “no future without the past.” Nevertheless, I suppose it’s a valid point… I just wish you would elaborate a little.

Everything in life is trial by error. History shows us our errors so we can find new solutions, whether it happened 1000’s of years ago or even just 10 minutes ago we use that knowledge to advance and move forward, each generation gets better and better.
What do you suppose would happen if we erased everything that has happened in history and tried to live from this minute, forward? Sure, we might still have our skyscrapers and houses, but would we know how to survive? Our ancestors taught us how to hunt, cook, fight, build, cure and prevent. They taught us how to live.
I don’t know about you but I can’t even live without starbucks, my ass would be dead within 2–3 weeks, I’m sure.

For all the talk about not repeating history, all I see is the same stupid mistakes being made over and over.

That’s because not everyone pays attention. ;)

@tinyfaery That’s because people think the individual facts are what History is all about, and they don’t understand the underlying principles, which is a requirement in order to avoid them.

My sister is a good example. She has gone through so many marriages and divorces, it’s hard to keep track. She thinks each and every one is different – she told me #2 was nothing like # 3 because one was a truck driver and the other was a food processor. AS IF.

I actually have come to believe that it’s a load of crap that “those who don’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” I think even people who do remember the past repeat it because human beings seem to be too stupid or greedy or hateful or something to ever learn much, i.e., Exxon Valdez. However, I still think it’s important to know what has happened in the past and to attempt to make connections with what is happening now.

@janbb – I think it’s more like, “Those who don’t take heed and learn from the past are doomed…” – Remembering without action is fairly worthless.

It’s associated with education. And a good education requires a certain minimum of intelligence.

@laureth Yes, and I am coming to believe we are thus doomed.