Human intelligence
Human intelligence is also thought to encompass their capacities to recognize patterns, plan, innovate, solve problems, make decisions, retain information, and use language to communicate.
[11] However, while IQ test scores show a high degree of inter-test reliability, and predict certain forms of achievement effectively, their construct validity as a holistic measure of human intelligence is considered dubious.
In the first edition of his book Frames of Mind (1983), he described seven distinct types of intelligence: logical-mathematical, linguistic, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal.
Schmidt and Hunter[17] suggest that the predictive validity of specific aptitudes over and above that of general mental ability, or "g", has not received empirical support.
On the other hand, Jerome Bruner agreed with Gardner that the intelligences were "useful fictions", and went on to state that "his approach is so far beyond the data-crunching of mental testers that it deserves to be cheered.
First, younger children have a discriminative ability that shows the logical capacity for cognitive operations exists earlier than previously acknowledged.
[30] Based on a review of 37 neuroimaging studies, Jung and Haier proposed that the biological basis of intelligence stems from how well the frontal and parietal regions of the brain communicate and exchange information with each other.
This assumption is deemed plausible as it is unlikely that the reverse causal relationship could occur;[41] implying that the negative correlation would be higher between fluid intelligence (gf) and conscientiousness.
Subsequently, during school-going ages, more conscientious children would be expected to gain more crystallized intelligence (knowledge) through education, as they would be more efficient, thorough, hard-working, and dutiful.
Instead, the current perspective describes it as a general capacity[clarification needed], comprising not only cognitive, but motivational, social, and behavioural aspects as well.
The theory suggests that individuals with the same level of knowledge and skill may perform badly, averagely, or excellently based on differences in self-efficacy.
On the other hand, persons with high levels of self-efficacy hold a task-diagnostic aim[clarification needed] that leads to effective performance.
Genetic enhancement experiments on mice have demonstrated superior ability in learning and memory in various behavioral tasks.
However, some activities – like reading novels – that require long focused attention-spans and do not feature ongoing rewarding stimulation may become more challenging in general.
Impacts may vary to a degree such studies have not yet taken into account and may be modulatable by the design, choice and use of technologies and platforms, including by the users themselves.
[66] A 2008 research paper claimed that practicing a dual n-back task can increase fluid intelligence (gf), as measured in several different standard tests.
[70] Eugenics has variously been regarded as meritorious or deplorable in different periods of history, falling greatly into disrepute after the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II.
[71] The approach to understanding intelligence with the most supporters and published research over the longest period of time is based on psychometric testing.
[14] Regardless of the method used, almost any test that requires examinees to reason and has a wide range of question difficulty will produce intelligence scores that are approximately normally distributed in the general population.
[75] Intelligence as measured by Psychometric tests has been found to be highly correlated with successful training and performance outcomes (e.g., adaptive performance),[76][77][78] and IQ/g is the single best predictor of successful job performance; however, some researchers although largely concurring with this finding have advised caution in citing the strength of the claim due to a number of factors, these include: statistical assumptions imposed underlying some of these studies, studies done prior to 1970 which appear inconsistent with more recent studies, and ongoing debates within the Psychology literature as to the validity of current IQ measurement tools.
The psychologist Charles Spearman early in the 20th century carried out the first formal factor analysis of correlations between various test tasks.
He interpreted it as the core of human intelligence that, to a larger or smaller degree, influences success in all cognitive tasks and thereby creates the positive manifold.
This is problematic, however, because there are substantial gender differences on the Raven's,[84] which are not found when g is measured directly by computing the general factor from a broad collection of tests.
[86][87] The 1995 American Psychological Association's report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" stated that IQ tests do correlate and that the view that g is a statistical artifact was a minority one.
[89] In the same vein, collective intelligence research aims to discover a c factor' explaining between-group differences in performance as well as structural and group compositional causes for it.
In The Mismeasure of Man (1981, expanded edition 1996), evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould compared IQ testing with the now-discredited practice of determining intelligence via craniometry, arguing that both are based on the fallacy of reification, "our tendency to convert abstract concepts into entities".
For example, in the language of Chi-Chewa, which is spoken by some ten million people across central Africa, the equivalent term for intelligence implies not only cleverness but also the ability to take on responsibility.
This concept encompasses the ability to recognize and appreciate the diverse values, behaviors, and cultural differences of others, driven by intrinsic interest rather than solely to enhance interaction effectiveness.
Individuals with higher levels of motivational intelligence tend to exhibit greater enthusiasm for learning about other cultures, thereby contributing to their effectiveness in cross-cultural settings.
The therapist creates an environment conducive to change without imposing their views or attempting to force awareness or acceptance of reality onto the client.
