Theories of Intelligence - I

(I am discussing this topic from IGNOU MPC-001-02-01, the official notes for which are easily available, both online and offline)

Students are often seen to have a strange mindset. They postpone studying theory till the very end, thinking its no big deal. They begin with practical, find it too difficult and throw it aside as well. Then, before the exam, they look at theory, and come across something like this:

which throws them aback. Though I've begun on a note of poor study habits, I intend to continue this post with a discussion of a topic that is seemingly difficult - 'Theories of Intelligence'; and is a part of a seemingly difficult subject - 'Cognitive Psychology.' I bring forward the ease in the topic, and simultaneously discuss why it seems to be such a challenge in learning.

I am discussing from an understanding point-of-view in this part, and not an answer-writing one, for learning is not all about examinations. In the next part though, I will discuss about remembering for and writing in exams. The poor study habit I have discussed above also contributes to a lack of knowledge of psychology, despite coming to the masters level, since no student can grasp a year's load of study in a matter of days. It is advisable therefore, to begin learning purposefully from the beginning.

Before beginning, I would like the IGNOU student to know that (s)he is fortunate to learn topics like intelligence which have been omitted in other universities, or are tackled only very superficially, due to the current trend of reducing the length of syllabus.

 What is intelligence?

The chapter begins by proposing that intelligence is hard to define, and fails in an attempt to simplify it. Its explanation in this section is lost in poor editing. However, the idea of introducing the Indian interpretation of intelligence is commendable.

Intelligence is a frequently heard term, not only by students of psychology, but people in all spheres of life. It is a term that rouses emotions, for nobody likes to be called a 'moron' or even be told that (s)he possesses lesser intelligence than what is found on an average. Students, teachers and parents often associate intelligence with academic performance; employers associate it with an employee's performance; self-proclaimed modernists associate it with a fame and money making capacity. What is intelligence then? Let's see what the present text has to say in this matter - 

Simply put, this section describes intelligence as the decision making power that individuals possess, a faculty containing learnt values as well as felt emotions. Both laymen and psychologists understand the concept of intelligence subjectively, which makes it difficult to come to a single, common definition.

It seems we aren't the only confused souls when it comes to intelligence, for even experts have historically debated over the concept. This lack of resolution has led to many different theories of intelligence being produced and investigated, which we look at in the next section.

Theoretical Definitions of Intelligence

In any book of Cognition, this section consists of a collection of numerous definitions, and thereby a lot of jargon that can be difficult to deal with. To add to this, the present notes contain blatantly reproduced numerical results of a past studies, which contributes to the confusion of what is important to be remembered from this section. On the bright side though, this section is again very thoughtfully rendered, bringing forth the most crucial developments in the field.

Avoiding repetition of what has been already discussed, the crucial fact is that thirteen different experts proposed thirteen different definitions of intelligence in the symposium of 1921, the proceedings of which were published in the Journal of Educational Psychology. Four crucial definitions of Psychology are then presented - those by prominent theorists in the field of intelligence - Binet, Terman, Stern and Spearman. Here, what is more important than the definitions themselves, is the nature of the definitions. In that respect-

• Binet's definition focuses on the individual components of intelligence
• Stern's definition focuses on the utility of intelligence
• Terman's definition associates intelligence to a single ability of an individual
• Spearman's definition focuses on the utility of intelligence, and is very similar to that of Stern

What is the student to take away from this? Two important pieces of knowledge - one, that different researchers have conceptualized intelligence differently; two, that intelligence is a very vast term, its scope ranging from the characteristics that contribute to intelligence, to the applicability of it. No surprise then that there is so much literature looking into this topic from so many different perspectives.

Sternberg and Determan, 1986

Sternberg and Determan compared the findings of the above symposium with a survey they conducted in 1986. In their 1986 survey they found that twenty-four different scholars had proposed twenty-four different definitions of intelligence.

They found the following three factors to be most repeatedly seen in the definitions of the 1921 symposium:

• intelligence was equated to higher-order abilities like abstract reasoning, mental representation, decision-making and problem-solving
• intelligence was understood as an ability to learn
• an ability to adapt to new challenges of the environment was taken as a very important part of intelligence

Similarly, they found the following three factors to be most commonly seen in the definitions of the 1986 survey:

• intelligence was again equated with higher level abilities
• intelligence was seen as an ability that helped the individual adapt to his/her specific culture
• intelligence was seen as more of a practical skill than a passive talent

So far, we see that though everyone seems to have presented a varied definition, some consensus regarding the most important aspects of intelligence is present across these definitions. Looking at the above section, we see that being able to deal with abstract problems, and being able to apply one's knowledge are crucial components of intelligence. This effort to uncover exactly what intelligence is was taken further, as we see in the next section.

Snyderman and Rothman, 1987

Snyderman and Rothman took a noted the most important factors in intelligence as found in the previous studies, and found a total of thirteen characteristics (descriptors) that could be vital to intelligence. They then asked more than a thousand experts from different fields like sociology, education, psychology, etc. to rate these descriptors - that is, to indicate according to them, in a descending rank order, which are the most to least important factors in intelligence.

For the interested student, the complete table is presented in the text, with a column indicating the consensus of importance given to every factor individually. What is more important here, though, is to grasp which were the most and least important factors, and what this contributes to our understanding of intelligence.

The three main components of intelligence that emerged from the research are - abstract thinking, problem solving, and capacity to acquire knowledge.

Abstract thinking refers to the ability to think about objects and principles that do not exist physically, like thinking about what numbers are, rather than how many days are there in the week, like thinking about what courage is rather than what a courageous man did to save a drowning child. Problem solving is the ability to deal with challenges, and resolve them successfully. A capacity to acquire knowledge refers to being able to add new information to one that already exists, and correct information held which is wrong. These three abilities are agreed to be vital to intelligence.

Sensory acquity, goal directedness, and achievement motivation were least agreed upon to be important to intelligence.

Sensory acquity refers to the sharpness of our senses; goal directedness is working towards a definite object to be achieved; and achievement motivation is the willingness to take effort towards accomplishing goals.

Contrasting the two ends of what has been agreed and not agreed as comprising intelligence, we note that it is an ability to accomplish, and not the desire to accomplish objectives. It is the innate power to engage in higher order thinking and not a physical capacity. 

We are lucky to come across a very frequently cited and comprehensive definition of intelligence, if not a commonly agreed upon one. This one has been given by Weschler, the name you must have come across while reading about intelligence tests like the WISC.

 Wechsler (1944) defined intelligence as, "Intelligence, as a hypothetical construct, is the aggregate or global capacity, of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with his environment."

Very precisely, this definition proposes the following:

- intelligence is a hypothetical construct - just like any other construct, it is an idea that we define for our convenience and for its utility, It is not something that can be physically observed, measured or manipulated.

-intelligence is an aggregate or global capacity - intelligence is not confined to any one capacity. We have heard of verbal intelligence, mathematical intelligence, etc. These may be sub-types of intelligence. But intelligence is the umbrella construct that is present in all of these capacities. It is pervasive in all our activities. 

-intelligence is the capacity to act purposefully - someone who does things at random is not considered intelligence. For e.g., if I go to the supermarket and buy whatever comes my way, I am not really being intelligent. But if I at least consider whether I need the items I see, whether I can afford them, etc. - then I am acting purposefully and being intelligent.

-intelligence is the capacity to think rationally - someone who thinks without reason is not considered intelligent. For e.g., if I think that a song playing on the radio has been written keeping my life situation in mind, I am certainly not being reasonable. But if I think that a song playing on the radio really matches my life situation very well, then I'm being intelligent.

-intelligence is the ability to deal effectively with one's environment - everyone's environment presents challenges from time to time. If I lose a job that was running my family, I need to deal with my emotions and come to a decision for my next step soon. If, instead, I perform rituals like making making animal sacrifices or chanting mantras, and wait for a job offer to come to my doorstep, I am not being intelligent.

This is an excellent definition that covers thinking as well as behaviour, and their effectiveness. Undoubtedly then, it is the most popular definition of intelligence. 

Wechsler  updated his definition in 1975, and made it more concise - "(Intelligence is) the capacity of an individual to understand the world about him and his resourcefulness to cope with its challenges."

What has changed in this definition?Not much. It is simply more succinct, for the 'ability to think rationally' from the earlier definition has been replaced with 'capacity to understand,' and the 'capacity to act resourcefully to deal with the environment effectively,' has been replaced by a 'resourcefulness to cope with challenges.' The phrase 'aggregate or global capacity' has been removed for the definition has been made more generalized, and intelligence has not been mentioned as a 'hypothetical construct' for that has been taken as unnecessary to be mentioned. 

Another definition presented is that by Gardner, one that is very detailed. Gardener defined intelligence ('intellectual competence') as, “…a human intellectual competence must entail a set of skills of problem solving—enabling the individual to resolve genuine problems or difficulties that he or she encounters, and, when appropriate, to create an effective product—and must also entail the potential for finding or creating problems—thereby laying the groundwork for the acquisition of new knowledge." 

What has Gardner explained about intelligence? Let's breakdown his definition for better understanding:

-a set of skills of problem solving - like Wechsler, Gardner is referring to the ability to solve challenges posed by the environment.

-resolution of genuine problems or difficulties - meaning real-world, practical problems, and not merely theoretical problems like those found in algebra or language. Therefore, here, a person who can solve mathematical or verbal problems competently, but fails in solving his own marital conflict, will not be considered intelligent.

-creation of an effective product - this is an inclusion of creativity in intelligence. Most students must remember 'multiple intelligences' when the name Gardner is introduced. He believed that we all possess intelligence in our own specific ways. For e.g., someone has mathematical intelligence, another has verbal intelligence, another musical intelligence, etc. Thus, Gardner believed that intelligence leads to production which can help us progress in life. For e.g. an intelligent person may create a product of communication which may help him/her effectively deal with a conflict. 

-potential for finding or creating problems - it seems illogical that an intelligent person should get into problems. What Gardner means here is explained in the next half of his proposal:

-laying the groundwork for the acquisition of new knowledge - this proposal about intelligence makes Gardner's definition so important. Intelligence is not stagnant, it is not a one time achievement. Rather, it is continual acquisition of learning over a lifespan, which means taking up challenges that will help us add to our existing knowledge and skills. 

Yet another definition is presented in the text, that by Sternberg.


I hope it is now apparent that this topic is certainly not difficult to grasp, if learnt with a correct direction. This topic on intelligence has so far shown the growth of understanding of intelligence,  a history of its theories. An understanding of the evolution of a topic - why and how it came about, and what it contributes to our field of knowledge - lays a strong foundation in learning the topic, one that mere reading of the subject cannot establish.