To this twenty-four hours. how precisely to specify intelligence is still debated. There are. nevertheless. two major schools of idea on its nature and belongingss. This paper examines and evaluates the two opposing theories on the nature of intelligence. The two opposing theories of intelligence are the one general intelligence school of idea and the multiple intelligences school of idea. The general intelligence advocates believe that there is one factor from which all intelligence is derived ; the multiple intelligences advocates believe that there are different sorts of intelligence. Each theory has merit and grounds to back up its claims. In the last decennary of the 19th century. a Gallic doctor named Alfred Binet was commissioned by the school system to develop a manner to distinguish those pupils who were uneducable. or badly mentally handicapped. from the other pupils. He developed an intelligence trial to make so. The really first intelligence trials. introduced a decennary earlier. emphatic centripetal undertakings. physical steps. and simple procedures.
Unlike these trials. Binet developed an intelligence trial that consisted of points that required complex procedures of the head and examined the comprehensive person. Consequently. the consequences from Binet’s graduated tables were successful in know aparting between the two types of pupils. The success of Binet’s trial led to a much greater inquiry to be asked: what precisely are these trials mensurating? What the trials claimed to step was intelligence. But. if they measured intelligence. so the following inquiry that arose was this: what precisely is intelligence? It is at this point that the great argument on the definition of intelligence began. There is a general consensus that there are different degrees of intelligence. and that different persons have different capacities of intelligence. In other words. “individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex thoughts. to accommodate efficaciously to the environment. to larn from experience. to prosecute in assorted signifiers of concluding. to get the better of obstructions by taking thought” ( Neisser et al. . 1996. p. 77 ) . But. how many and what sorts of different types of intelligences exist. and how to specify intelligence. is still at argument.
Two Theories on the Nature of Intelligence
Today. there are two major schools of idea on the nature of intelligence. The first. supported by such psychologists as Eysenck. Galton. Jensen. and Spearman. believe that all intelligence comes from one general factor. known as g. The advocates of the other school of idea include Gardner. Sternberg. and Thurstone. These psychologists think that there is more than one general type of intelligence. or in other words. that there are different types of intelligences. An interesting note about this school of idea is that there is dissension. even within that cantonment. on precisely how many different types of intelligences there are. One General Intelligence
There are strong statements to back up the theory of one general type of intelligence. The most convincing grounds for a individual general intelligence theoretical account is the fact that there is cogent evidence of a individual general factor that governs the degree of intelligence of an person. This is besides known as the positive manifold ( Spearman. 1904 ) . Furthermore. there is a really high correlativity between IQ and really simple cognitive undertakings. which supports the theory of one general intelligence ( Eysenck. 1982 ) . Positive manifold. The first statement in support of one general intelligence is the fact that there is a high positive correlativity between different trials of cognitive ability. Spearman ( 1904 ) . in making his research. administered to many people different types of trials. covering several different countries of cognitive ability.
When he examined the consequences of these different trials. he found that there was a positive correlativity between the trials for a given person. In other words. if a certain individual performed good on a trial of verbal abilities. so that same individual besides performed good on another trial of another cognitive ability. for case. a mathematics trial. Spearman named this positive correlativity among trials the positive manifold. This positive manifold was besides called the general intelligence factor. or g. This is the individual factor that determines the intelligence of the person. Jensen ( 1997 ) supported the theory of one general intelligence by saying. “the positive correlativity between all cognitive trial points is a given. an grim fact of nature. The all-positive inter point correlativity matrix is non an artefact of trial building or point choice. as some trial critics erroneously believe” ( p. 223 ) . This positive manifold led Spearman ( 1904 ) to happen a big first factor that was dubbed general intelligence. or g.
Chemical reaction clip and g. Another strong statement in support of one general intelligence is the fact that there is a really high correlativity between reaction clip and IQ. Harmonizing to Eysenck ( 1982 ) . “IQ correlatives really extremely ( . 8 and supra. without rectification for fading ) with trials which are basically so simple. or even straight physiological that they can barely be considered cognitive in the recognized sense” ( p. 9 ) . For case. an illustration of the type of trials used to mensurate reaction clip is a trial in which a visible radiation is turned on. The participant is asked to press a button every bit shortly as he or she sees the visible radiation travel on. From trials such as these. the reaction clip can be measured. Give that merely really simple sensory and motor motions are necessary to react. it is hard to reason that cultural. environmental. gender. socio-economic. or educational disagreements will impact the participants ability to react to the testers’ inquiries ( Eysenck. 1982 ) .
Common definitions of intelligence are “success in job resolution. ability to larn. capacity for bring forthing noegenetic solutions. apprehension of complex instructions or merely all-around cognitive ability” ( Eysenck. 1982. p. 8 ) . A common yarn in all of these definitions of intelligence is that they all require the nervous system. particularly the encephalon. and centripetal variety meats to be working decently. Furthermore. in order for these types of undertakings to be completed. they require that the information processing that goes on within the bodily systems is comparatively without mistake.
Jensen ( 1993 ) . every bit good as others. synthesized these facts and conjectured that “the most obvious hypothesis is that velocity of information processing is the indispensable footing if g. and one possible neurological footing of velocity of processing is the velocity of transmittal through nervus pathways” ( p. 54 ) . The velocity of information transmittal can be moderately good measured or extrapolated from reaction clip tonss. Therefore. if an person has faster nervous processing velocity. so he or she have a better reaction clip. In bend. given that reaction clip is extremely correlated with IQ. so those persons with faster nervous processing velocities have higher IQ’s. Consequently. nervous treating velocity determines the degree of intelligence of the person ; this intelligence is the one general intelligence. g.
Summary. Sternberg and Gardner ( 1982 ) summarized the theory of one general intelligence by saying “general intelligence can be understood componentially as deducing in portion from the executing of general constituents in information processing behavior” ( p. 251 ) . And Spearman ( 1973/1923 ) concluded that “cognitive events do. like those of natural philosophies. admit throughout of being reduced to a little figure of decidedly formulatable rules in the sense of ultimate laws” ( p. 341 ) . These psychologists. every bit good as many others. believe that intelligence can be defined by a individual factor. Whether that individual factor be termed positive manifold. nervous treating velocity. or g. the complexnesss of the human head and its procedures can be reduced to a individual factor. defined as intelligence.
The different advocates of one general intelligence all agree that there is a individual factor that determines intelligence. and the advocates of multiple intelligences agree that there is more than one individual type of intelligence. However. the different advocates of multiple intelligences do non hold on how many different intelligences there are. or could be. I believe that the theories put forth by Gardner and Sternberg have the most virtue. Both of them have their ain theory on multiple intelligences ; Gardner ( 1983 ) believes there are seven signifiers of intelligence ; Sternberg ( 1985 ) believes there are three signifiers of intelligences. Gardner’s theory. Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences suggests that there are seven different signifiers of intelligence. They are lingual. musical. spacial. bodily. interpersonal. intrapersonal and logico-mathematical. In developing his theory. Gardner ( 1983 ) attempted to rectify some of the mistakes of earlier psychologists who “all ignore [ vitamin D ] biological science ; all fail [ erectile dysfunction ] to come to clasps with the higher degrees of creativeness ; and all [ were ] insensitive to the scope of functions highlighted in human society” ( p. 24 ) . So. Gardner based his ain theory of intelligence on biological facts. Li ( 1996 ) summarizes Gardner’s theory as follows:
Premise 1: If it can be found that certain encephalon parts can distinctively map with certain cognitive operation ( A ) . so that cognitive operation can be isolated as one campaigner of multiple intelligences ( B ) . ( If A. so B ) . Premise 2: Now it has been found that certain encephalon parts do distinctively map with certain cognitive operation. as evidenced by certain encephalon harm taking to loss of certain cognitive map. ( Evidence of A ) . Decision: Therefore. multiple intelligences. ( Therefore B. ) . ( p. 34 ) Gardner’s theory has a really solid biological footing. Premise two takes into history the encephalon as a major physical determiner of intelligence.
By analyzing persons who had speech damage. palsy. or other disablements. Gardner could place the parts of the encephalon that were needed to execute the physical map. He studied the encephalons of people with disablements post-mortem and found that there was harm in specific countries. in comparing to those who did non hold a disablement. Gardner found seven different countries of the encephalon. and so his theory consists of seven different intelligences. each related to a specific part of the human encephalon ( Li. 1996 ) . Gardner looked to develop a theory with multiple intelligences besides because he felt that the current psychometric trials merely examined the lingual. logical. and some facets of spacial intelligence. whereas the other aspects of intelligent behaviour such as strenuosity. musical endowment. and societal consciousness were non included ( Neisser et al. . 1996 ) .
Sternberg’s theory. The triarchic theory of intelligence developed by Sternberg is “a comprehensive theory. more across-the-board. . . because it takes into history societal and contextual factors apart from human abilities” ( Li. 1996. p. 37 ) . Sternberg ( 1985 ) felt that the theories that preceded him were non wrong. but. instead. incomplete. Consequently. his theory. like Gardner’s. takes into history originative or musical intelligence. But as for the other six intelligences from Gardner’s theory. Sternberg classifies them into two different types of intelligences: analytic ( or academic ) and practical. These two types of intelligences differ and are defined as follows: Analytic jobs tend to hold been formulated by other people. be clearly defined. come with all information needed to work out them. have merely a individual right reply. which can be reached by merely a individual method. be disembodied from ordinary experience. and have small or no intrinsic involvement. Practical jobs tend to necessitate job acknowledgment and preparation. be ill defined. necessitate information seeking. have assorted acceptable solutions. be embedded in and necessitate anterior mundane experience. and necessitate motive and personal engagement. ( Neisser et al. . 1996. p. 79 )
If an person could work out one or the other of these types of jobs good. so that person would hold a high analytic or practical intelligence. severally. Besides. there exist ace. or persons who are highly talented in the all right humanistic disciplines. these people would hold a high originative intelligence.
One ground why Sternberg’s theory has received so much acclamation is that in real-life state of affairss. is has proven itself. For illustration. Brazilian street kids can make the math that they need to cognize in order to run their street concerns. but they are unable to go through a math category in school ( Carraher. Carraher. & A ; Schliemann. 1985 ) . Evidence such as this shows that there are two different types of mathematical intelligence. an academic schoolroom mathematical intelligence and a street wise practical intelligence.
Other theories. In add-on to Gardner’s and Sternberg’s theories on multiple intelligences. there are other theories as good. including Thurstone’s and Guilford’s. Both were advocates of multiple intelligences. Thurstone ( 1924 ) stated that “the biological map of intelligence is to protect the being from bodily hazard and to fulfill its wants with the least possible opportunity of entering failure on the environment” ( p. 162 ) . With this in head. he found several primary mental abilities. As expected. these abilities are those abilities that the single utilizations in order to last and win in society. He found this utilizing factor analysis. like Spearman. but Thurstone took the factor analysis a measure further and rotated the factors. He arrived at 13 different factors as opposed to Spearman’s one and called these primary mental abilities. These factors included spacial. perceptual. numerical. logical. verbal. memory. arithmetical logical thinking. and deductive abilities ( Thurstone. 1938 ) . Guilford ( 1967 ) found that the construction of mind was composed of 4 contents. 5 operations. and 6 procedures. Each of these was assorted and matched to come up with 120 different combinations of abilities.
There are two distinguishable schools of idea on the nature of intelligence. The advocates of one general intelligence have a theory that explains the biological grounds for intelligence. Given that they see nervous treating velocity as the root for intelligence. their theory has an effectual causal account. On the other manus. the theory of one general intelligence does non embrace all peoples. In the illustration with the Brazilian street kids. they would most likely mark ill on an intelligence trial. and be labeled with a low general intelligence. However. they are intelligent plenty to be able to make all of the math that they need to cognize how to make. A drawback to the general intelligence school of idea is that it is to a great extent dependent on psychometric ratings. Consequently. it can non take into history the huge array of different endowments that people have. As for multiples intelligences. there are many theoreticians in that school of idea every bit good. Some of the theories presented by the advocates of multiple intelligences are inordinate and have excessively many concepts to mensurate for illustration. Guilford’s theory.
But there are sensible accounts of intelligence put Forth by those from the school of multiple intelligences. Gardner’s theory has a really clear causal account for intelligence. like the account of one general intelligence. But. unluckily. it is really hard to nail and corroborate Gardner’s hypotheses by experimentation. because of the daintiness involved with the human encephalon. Sternberg’s theory does non hold a biological footing to it. and that detracts from its cogency. But that may besides be its strength. The theory does non concentrate on the encephalon and biological maps. but on different societal state of affairss. Therefore. the theory applies to different societal state of affairss and environments. as none of the other theories does. But. given that there still is a significant argument about the nature of intelligence. and no 1 theory is accepted by all. there is still room for betterment on any given theory.
Intelligence: Two Major Schools of Thought
Valerie L. Dammann
I enjoyed reading and rereading Paik’s reappraisal paper sing intelligence–one versus multiple. Paik does a good occupation of covering the two different schools of idea sing intelligence and what each psychologist believes to be true. I agree with Neisser et Al. ( 1996 ) that there are different degrees of intelligence and each person has a different step of intelligence. I besides believe that individuals’ rational public presentation varies depending on the state of affairs in which they find themselves. This is why I tend to hold more with the psychologists who believe in multiple intelligences. such as Gardner. Sternberg. and Thurstone. instead than those who believe in one intelligence. such as Eysenck. Galton. Jensen. and Spearman.
After researching articles written on these theories. Paik has covered the chief points good. although I would wish to hold seen him travel into farther item sing Gardner’s seven different signifiers of intelligence. Paik does a nice occupation of explicating Gardner’s Premise 2. which takes into history the encephalon as a major physical determiner of intelligence. Paik besides does a nice occupation of saying the chief points of Sternberg and Thurstone. although I would wish Paik to hold talked a little more about how Thurstone took Spearman’s method of factor analysis one measure farther by revolving the factors ( Thurstone. 1938 ) .
Paik concludes his paper by repeating the two distinguishable schools of idea sing intelligence. He briefly covers the chief points for one general intelligence every bit good as for multiple intelligences and concludes with the argument about the nature of intelligence and how no one theory is accepted by all and there is still room for betterment on any given theory. Overall. I enjoyed reading Paik’s reappraisal paper on intelligence and gained a small more cognition about the topic.
Naming Attention to More Divers Approaches to Intelligence
In the article “One Intelligence or Many? Alternate Approaches to Cognitive Abilities. ” Paik summarizes and evaluates the two major schools of idea on the nature of intelligence. As Paik right notes. some research workers such as Spearman and Jensen argue that there is one general intelligence. or g. which many abilities have in common. whereas other research workers such as Gardner and Sternberg think there are many different intelligences that are independent of each other. However. there is non merely an either-or attack to intelligence such as one versus many. There are still other attacks that try to do a via media between the two opposing attacks. The other attacks “opt for a multifactorial description with factors hierarchically arranged and something like g at the top” ( Neisser et al. . 1996. p. 96 ) .
Therefore. although Paik argues good plenty about the two opposing theories of intelligence in footings of the dealingss among many different abilities–one versus many–what is further needed for better apprehension of the nature of intelligence is to give more attending to diverse attacks to intelligence. This is needed because. “in a field where so many issues are unsolved and so many inquiries unanswered. the confident tone that has characterized most of the argument on these subjects is clearly out of place” ( Neisser et al. . 1996. p. 97 ) . That is what Paik besides concluded in his paper as “there still is a significant argument about the nature of intelligence. and no 1 theory is accepted by all. ”
Other attacks besides the psychometric and multiple intelligence attacks to intelligence should briefly be mentioned here. Paik has
already discussed the psychometric and multiple intelligence attacks in item. The other attacks considered here are developmental attacks and biological attacks ( Neisser et al. . 1996 ) . These attacks give us a broader understanding about the development and physiological construction of intelligence.
In the developmental positions on intelligence. two research workers deserve to be mentioned. One is the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget and the other is the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky. They were interested in how intelligence develops in the first topographic point. Piaget thought that intelligence develops in all kids through “the assimilation of new information into bing cognitive constructions and the adjustment of those constructions themselves to the new information” ( Neisser et al. . 1996. p. 80 ) . He devised a method to measure children’s apprehension of preservation. the rule that material measure is non changed by alterations of form. In his method. a kid watched H2O being poured from a little container to a big one and was asked if the big container had less H2O in it. The reply indicated the development of that child’s intelligence. Whereas Piaget thought that intelligence of course develops to the full in all kids. Vygotsky believed that intelligence is societal in beginning and has possible to develop throughout life. He thought that “language and thought foremost look in early interactions with parents. and go on to develop through contact with instructors and others” ( Neisser et al. . 1996. p. 80 ) .
From the biological attacks to intelligence. research workers study the encephalon to understand intelligence. Developments of encephalon anatomy and physiology refering the cortical nerve cells. intellectual glucose metamorphosis. elicited potencies. nervus conductivity verlocity. and sex endocrines give new thoughts about what intelligence is and how to mensurate it ( Neisser et al. . 1996 ) . For illustration. the encephalon is studied utilizing PET and MRI scans to understand single differences in intelligence. The biological attacks give us high hopes that many anomalousnesss about intelligence will be resolved in the close hereafter by progresss of research methods.
As briefly reviewed here. there is a broad scope of constructs of intelligence. Paik reviewed the psychometric attacks and multiple intelligence attacks good in his paper. However. there are still other attacks that have contributed to our apprehension of intelligence. I have reviewed merely some of them here. such as developmental and biological attacks. In a field such as intelligence with many anomalousnesss. we should non restrict our survey to an either-or attack. Alternatively. we should analyze diverse attacks and hesitate to reason excessively early.
Extra Theories of Multiple Intelligences: A Barrage of Opinions
Han S. Paik
After reading the equal commentaries on my article. “One Intelligence or Many? Alternate Approaches to Cognitive Abilities. ” it seems that there is a general consensus among the readers that there is a deficiency of development of the theories of multiple intelligences. There was an overall sense of a sufficient sum-up of the two different theories and the paper in general. but observers seemed to experience that the subdivision on multiple intelligences was missing in deepness and comprehensiveness. None of the readers commented on the treatment of one general intelligence. but all of them did remark on different parts of the subdivision refering multiple intelligences.
In response to the remarks put forth by Dammann and Jang. I feel that the suggestions that they offer would add more item and supply a more expansive position of other theories of multiple intelligences. but that was non my aim in composing this paper. I attempted to discourse. and non needfully measure. the two opposing major schools of idea. the cantonment of one general intelligence and the cantonment of multiple intelligences. In the treatment of these two different positions on intelligence. I tried to supply an nonsubjective position of the two different cantonments. and non befog the reader’s perceptual experience of either theory with my ain judgements. Consequently. I did my best to pass an equal sum of clip explicating both of the theories.
Unfortunately. there are inherently rather a few more different theories on multiple intelligence. compared to the figure of theories on one general intelligence. In my elaborate account of one general intelligence. there is in that cantonment widespread understanding on many things. On the other manus. there are several different theories of multiple intelligences. and all psychologists do non wholly agree. As a consequence. I was forced to take those theories of multiple intelligences that I felt would outdo represent that cantonment.
In her commentary. “Intelligence: Two Major Schools of Thought. ” Dammann cites Gardner’s seven different signifiers of intelligence and Thurstone’s method of factor analysis compared to Spearman’s method as countries that could utilize more attending to detail. I attempted to supply an overview of Gardner’s theory. so I stated the biological grounds to back up his theory and the different signifiers of intelligences that he believed exist. I did non travel into farther item sing Thurstone’s usage of factor analysis. viz. that in making his research. Thurstone rotated the different factors to get at 13 factors alternatively of Spearman’s one factor.
Jang provinces in his equal commentary that there is a demand “to give more attending to diverse attacks to intelligence. ” This would give a better apprehension of the nature of intelligence. I concede that a farther treatment would give my article on the theories of intelligence a more comprehensive position of the theories that exist today. The two attacks that Jang references that I excluded from my article are the developmental and biological attacks to intelligence. As I stated before. I did non desire my article to overrun with the many different positions on multiple intelligences while the theory of one general intelligence went by the roadside. The ground that I did non include a treatment of the developmental attacks to intelligence in my article is that what Jang discusses is non needfully a theory of intelligence. It is closer to a method to prove intelligence. or a psychometric rating of a individual. It is similar to Binet and his trials and theories. This is non within the range of my paper. The biological attack that Jang references in his commentary is really similar to the one general intelligence school of idea. It is related to the nervous processing velocity and the statements and premises that come with that
theory of intelligence.
All of the unfavorable judgments from each of the equal observers were good accepted. I true did non include many of the different theories of multiple intelligences that exist today. but I did non make so for a ground. There is equal virtue to both schools of idea. and I did non desire one or the other to rule an article that was intended to stand for both every bit.
Carraher. T. N. . Carraher. D. . & A ; Schliemann. A. D. ( 1985 ) . Mathematicss in the streets and in schools. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 3. 21-29. Eysenck. H. J. ( 1982 ) . Introduction. In H. J. Eysenck ( Ed. ) . A theoretical account for intelligence ( pp. 1-10 ) . New York: Springer-Verlag.
Gardner. H. ( 1983 ) . Frames of head: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Guilford. J. P. ( 1967 ) . The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jensen. A. R. ( 1993 ) . Why is reaction clip correlated with psychometric g? Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2. 53-56.
Jensen. A. R. ( 1997 ) . The psychometries of intelligence. In H. Nyborg ( Ed. ) . The scientific survey of human nature: Tribute to Hans J. Eysenck at 80 ( pp. 221-239 ) . New York: Elsevier.
Li. R. ( 1996 ) . A theory of conceptual intelligence: Thinking. acquisition. creativeness and giftedness. Westport. Connecticut: Praeger.
Neisser. U. . Boodoo. G. . Bouchard. T. J. . Jr. . Boykin. A. W. . Brody. N. . Ceci. S. J. . Halpern. D. F. . Loehlin. J. C. . Perloff. R. . Sternberg. R. J. . & A ; Urbina. S. ( 1996 ) . Intelligence: Knowns and terra incognitas. American Psychologist. 51. 77-101.
Spearman. C. ( 1904 ) . “General intelligence” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology. 15. 201-293.
Spearman. C. ( 1973/1923 ) . The nature of “intelligence” and the rules of knowledge. New York: Arno Press.
Sternberg. R. J. . & A ; Gardner. M. K. ( 1982 ) . A componential reading of the general factor in human intelligence. In H. J. Eysenck ( Ed. ) . A theoretical account for intelligence ( pp. 231-254 ) . New York: Springer-Verlag.