A topic that has interested me since high school is intelligence: where it comes from, why some people score higher on it than others, and the different theories that explain it. I believe intelligence is usually a good indicator of success, whether it is a measure of someone’s creativity, natural ability, or insight. All the varieties of intelligence that people demonstrate are equally fascinating to me, in a manner that leaves me awestruck by individual capabilities. In this paper I will examine theories of intelligence from cognitive, physiological, and environmental perspectives.
Most theories that describe intelligence have elements of all three, though psychologists often lump it into the cognitive field. This is due to a simplification called the g factor, which is thought to represent basic cognitive ability. Traditional I.Q. tests were created to theoretically measure the g factor, or one’s general intelligence. The weaknesses of this one-dimensional model are that it can be culturally biased, and it does not measure elements of intelligence that predict success in each career (Woodruff, 2013). For example, an I.Q. test may only measure spatial and mathematical abilities, which would help predict someone’s success in careers like engineering and science. But it fails to measure other aspects of intelligence, like social and emotional understanding, which would better help predict careers in teaching and counseling.
Other theories of intelligence attempt to reach a broader understanding of it. For example, the Cattell-Horn theory shows equal elements of physiological and environmental factors. One aspect of it is called fluid ability, which is “the physiological efficiency with which a person deals with novel tasks, solves problems, and takes charge of short-term memories...” (N. Pam, 2013). Another is referred to as crystallized ability, or the “learned and acquired aspect of mental ability as seen in one’s knowledge of language, vocabulary, and general information” (N., Pam. 2013). Crystallized intelligence is more of an environmental factor since one’s knowledge can vary depending on their upbringing and behavior.
Another theory was proposed by Howard Gardner, called Multiple Intelligences. Gardner maintained that aspects of intelligence could be strengthened or weakened, associating it with having a strong environmental influence (Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 2004). According to Gardner, humans possess nine types of intelligence in varying amounts, each person having different areas of strengths and weaknesses. Some of these areas coincide with those abilities measured by I.Q. tests, such as spatial and mathematical. Some of the others that Gardner includes is musical, verbal, and kinesthetic intelligence. This is a radical departure from the traditional idea that I.Q. is strictly cognitive- that people are born with a fixed amount of intelligence that does not change over time.
Physiology also plays a role in determining one’s level of intelligence. This is more based on verifiable research than on theory. Studies done on twins have determined that intelligence is heritable. The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart is one of the most well-known. This study concluded that “about 70% of differences between IQs in twins is due to genetic variation (Dixon, 2019). The same study concluded that the remaining 30% is caused by environmental factors, stating that these numbers line up with previous research.
I think the physiological and environmental perspectives complement one another nicely. The concept of Range of Reaction combines them both when it comes to the nature vs. nurture debate about many traits, least of all intelligence. According to Range of Reaction, genetic potential is fixed while environmental stimulation either increases or decreases intelligence, creating a balance between the two. As for the cognitive perspective, it seems to have become a little dated, but modern psychologists still find relevance in the concept of the I.Q. This is because out of all the theories of intelligence, general intelligence has the most empirical support.
My opinion is that Gardner has the strongest theory for intelligence, even if it does have holes in it. It fails to quantify how much genetics plays a part in the evaluation process, relying solely on development instead of natural cognitive ability. Cognitive psychologists cite that there is no empirical evidence to its validity (Marcenus, 2020). Yet there is much to be said for the fact that I.Q. only describes a couple facets of the many possible types of intelligence. And there may be even more than Gardner alluded to, like humor, street smarts, creativity, emotional, and moral intelligence. My feeling is that reducing intelligence to a single factor is an oversimplification. That is probably why our education system has been more open minded to cognitive development through multiple intelligences instead of just one.
References:
N., Pam. (2013, April 7). Cattell-Horn Theory of Intelligence. Psychology Dictionary. https://psychologydictionary.org/cattell-horn-theory-of-intelligence/
Woodruff, Austin. (2013). The Problem with IQ Tests. Educational Connections Tutoring and Test Prep. https://ectutoring.com/problem-with-iq-tests
Educational Broadcasting Corporation. (2004). Tapping into multiple intelligences. Concept to Classroom. https://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/mi/index.html
Dixon, Travis. (2019, February 11). Key Study: The Minnesota Twin Study of Twins Reared Apart. IB Psychology.
Marcenus, Michele. (2020, June 9). Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/multiple-intelligences.html
No comments:
Post a Comment