Success is Working SMARTER and harder by Cliff Morris
Home and
Author Index and Subject Index
Success is Working SMARTER and harder by Cliff Morris
Home and
Author Index and Subject Index
Welcome and thanks for stopping.
The pages of this notebook outline my way of scratching the tip of the human intelligences iceberg. Grasping its nature, development, and measurement has been a pursuit of cognitivists, scholars, and society at large, for years. Yet in spite of hundreds of empirical studies by countless intelligence researchers, fundamental questions still persist, remain unanswered, and continue to irritate scores of human intelligence theorists.
Throughout this down-to-earth site, I look into commentaries, disagreements, and debates over this cerebral construct, an area of personal curiosity for some time. To aid me in my understanding of all of this, I picture the overall nature of our smart as to a cognitive continuum, with the general g (IQ-type) theorists at one end and the g plus (many intelligences) theorists at the polar opposite end.
To that end, I have developed eight (8) human intelligence-type themes (Overview of human intelligence, Is human intelligence just 'g' or is it 'g plus'?, Human intelligence is g, Human intelligence is g plus, Intelligence quotient (IQ), Nature times (x) nurture, Human intelligence and race, and Deliberate practice), each theme launched by four (4) questions. For ease of viewing and wherever possible, I begin every link of each theme by stating its year of (known) first author publication. Finally, I conclude this interchange with a Discussion and a Summary. And, as is the case with all of our many malleable minds, this site is continuously under construction.
Human Intelligence themes
To read these themes on a single page, click here
Discussion
I do not believe that we are total slaves to our genes. Nor is it my stance that we are complete prisoners of our background. Conversely, I am convinced now, more so than ever before, that our overall (societal) success stems from a combination of best exploiting the natural intelligences that our biological parents passed on to us (aka the hereditarian stance) and by developing the supplementary intelligences that we have nurtured over the years (aka the environmental standpoint). To demonstrate what I am attempting to state, and as you read these lines, glace periodically to my interpretative schemata, positioned immediately below and to your right. There, you will see how I have likened the broad field of human smarts as to an Intellectual Continuum (See the horizontal line segment, labeled "Intellectual Continuum", with the label intelligence quotient (IQ), at the extreme left end and "Many Intelligences" as the label at the extreme right end). To repeat, each end of this theoretical smart continuum houses a major cerebral camp re the notion of human intelligence.
At the IQ extreme, reside the hereditarian campers, some senior members being:
These
intelligence theorists are all proponents of
the unilinear construct of general
intelligence (or, for short, simply
g). The extreme hereditarian viewpoint of
human intelligence is plain, and simply this: nothing in the environment can affect
intelligence. Today,
more often than not, those who reside within this 'older' psychological
community continue to think that human intelligence is a fixed,
innate talent, unitary and general
(commonly referred to by the single italicized lower-case letter
g). Put
another way, conservative psychologists and conventional psychometricians
still believe that intelligence testing, which came into vogue in the early
twentieth century, in the Parisian state-funded public school system, could
yield this single g, or
IQ number. At that time, it was Binet who founded this French School of intelligence.
Back then, intelligence tests were regarded as
the most practical means of separating the 'brights' from the 'dulls', with intelligence quotient (IQ)
being regarded as simply an average of numerous dissimilar abilities ... not as a
true thing with definite properties that could be studied. Today (i.e.,
in 2012), contemporary intelligence theorists still maintain this out-of-date belief ... that
smarter folks are more intelligent than are others because they possess the
appropriate genes ... that genes operate only deterministically. As an
aside, most (IQ) type tests in use today
concentrate on this general ability assumption. To sum, these
'old' campers argue that our cognitive capabilities include stronger biological
underpinnings, and are more genetically influenced.
Towards the right end of this continuum reside the Many Intelligences campers, some seniors being:
These human intelligence researchers are often referred to as the 'New Environmentalists'. They believe that human intelligence is composed of a number of separate abilities -- that IQ tests alone represent an imperfect way to assess our overall bundle of smarts. According to them, human intelligence is more than just g, that being smart is not a singular or genetically fixed attribute but an amalgamation of different mental capacities, with each capability having its own strengths and limitations. In short, it is their conviction that, within all of us, lie a set of several higher order cognitive faculties that are, more or less, autonomous to each other.
To return to my schemata, I postulate a superior cerebral approach towards a more meaningful model of human intelligences. As one of many possible intelligence theorists, I show how one might illustrate Howard Earl Gardner's (HEG) multiple intelligences theory (MIT). To display HEGs MIT, note my eight (8) alternating line segments continuously intersecting a horizontal (x-axis) intellectual continuum, and a vertical (y-axis) affective continuum. As illustrated, those eight (8) alternating line segments symbolize Gardner's hypothesis that all of us are capable of multiple abilities ... or to coin his 1983 terminology, multiple intelligences. As the figure tries to show, societal success is depicted to rest the upper right-hand corner of the quadrant.
In short, I infer that our successes in life stem from a combination of best using the natural IQ-type of intelligences that our biological parents passed on to us, as well as by developing the Many Intelligences which we have nurtured over our years. In other words, I believe that all of us are capable of becoming promising learners (See the upper right-hand quadrant labeled "LD = Learning Differently, Learners "at promise"). Most of our enjoy learning differently (LD) as we attempt to blend our various intelligences with a strong internal locus-of-control and high level of self-efficacy (Again, see the upper right-hand quadrant of the schemata). To repeat what I initially stated at the outset of this brief discussion, I do not believe that we are entirety slaves to our genes or total prisoners of our background. Those who think this, disagree strongly with the contents of my immediate above paragraph, disputing the more hereditary stance by arguing, instead, that it is also environmental circumstances which strongly influence gene expression. For some time, I have been intrigued with this latter viewpoint, including how the role of excellence via deliberate practice plays such a practical relevance within human performances. Still others prefer to argue that individuals tend to select optimum environments to suit their particular abilities. This belief complicates considerably the (age-old) nature-versus-nurture debate. Instead of attempting to tease apart these two types of influences, perchance a heredity-times-environmental stance might better maximize individual potential.
Summary
Few psychological constructs in cognitive psychology have stimulated as much commentary, controversy, and heated attention as the two (2) words "human intelligence". Unfortunately, today, more often than not, conventional psychological communities continue to believe that human intelligence is a fixed, innate talent, unitary and general (commonly referred to by the single italicized lower-case letter g). Put another way, conservative psychologists and conventional psychometricians still believe that intelligence testing, which came into vogue in the early twentieth century, in the Parisian state-funded public school system, could yield this single g, or IQ number.
As already mentioned, contemporary intelligence theorists still maintain the belief that smarter folks are more intelligent than others because they possess the appropriate genes ... that genes operate only deterministically. Most (IQ) type tests in use today centre on this general ability assumption. These campers argue that our cognitive capabilities include stronger biological underpinnings, and are more genetically influenced. "To be sure, IQ tests have evolved considerably since the days of Binet's early experimentation, but using IQ scores to predict the cognitive performance of individuals is still chancy business" (Nickerson, 2011, p. 108).
Put another way, are we who we think we are due mainly to biological determinism (the belief that human behaviour is innate, fixed, and thus cannot be altered), agreeing that genetics play a single-minded factor in our overall cognitive structure ... or, conversely, can we attain success by boosting our cerebral smarts via premeditated deliberate practice and by best utilizing different mental processes? In the interim, and to seek partial replies to the above themes, I sorted a pile of files outlining viewpoints by intelligence theorists and their standpoints into the above series of themes, as well as into two (2) alphabetized indexes. An author index contains information about intelligence researchers and a subject index lists topics arranged around their viewpoints.
The jury has been out ... and will be out for a long time among intelligence scholars as to whether we have one general type of intelligence or a set of several separate abilities ... or some form of bridging over both. Where do you rank yourself on that intellectual continuum? That is, in which cognitive camp are you? Might you be sleeping in the IQ camp with the general ability campers, some senior campers being who have been arguing that our smarts can be best described as a single entity? Such mainstream theorists believe that each one of us have one general level of cognitive ability. They maintain that smarter folks are more intelligent than others because they possess the appropriate genes, that genes operate only deterministically.
Home and Author Index and Subject Index
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Revised by Cliff Morris on Tuesday, 15 May, 2012
Subject index I
