At present, intelligence is a diffuse concept and
there are multitudes of theories that attempt to explain it. Some involve a
‘general intelligence’, some involve situational factors, and some involve
both. None of them satisfactorily deals with the scope of intelligence.
INTRODUCTION
‘‘Intelligent’
imparts positive feelings, encourages esteem and a sense of worth. Yet, what is
intelligent and smart? This has been the focus of theories, definitions and
philosophies dating as far back as Plato; yet most presumably, dating prior to
this historical figure, might be due to the fact that humankind is himself
intelligent. One way to seek understanding of intelligence is simply to define
what it is. Sternberg (1986) purports two principal classifications of
definition of intelligence—the operational definition and the ‘‘real’’
definition. Operational intelligence is measurable. Real intelligence is one
that inquires the true nature of the thing being defined. As with the plethora
of definitions of intelligence,
there are numerous theories of intelligence.
From examining how smart one is to how to measure one’s smartness, how to
measure how one is smart, theories have come and gone and some have endured to
be pondered and proven over time.
THEORIES
OF INTELLIGENCE
There are different theories about
intelligence, none of which agree with each other. Every approach to thinking comes up with its own
different perspective and assumptions, often contradicting.
Faculty
theory: It
is the oldest theory regarding the nature of intelligence and flourished during
18th and 19th century. According to this theory, mind is made up of different
faculties like reasoning, memory, discrimination, imagination, etc. These
faculties are independent of each other and can be developed by vigorous
training. Faculty Theory had been under criticism by experimental psychologists
who disproved the existence of independent faculties in the brain.
One
factor/UNI factor theory
: It
reduces all abilities to a single capacity of general intelligence or ‘common
sense’. This would imply that they are all perfectly correlated,
and would make no allowance for the unevenness of people i.e. abilities
along different lines. Since it goes against the common observation that ‘‘an
individual does possess different levels of different abilities and does not
shine equally in all directions’’—it has no ground to stand.
Spearman’s
two-factor theory :
It was developed in 1904 by an English
Psychologist, Charles Spearman, who proposed that intellectual abilities were comprised of two factors : one
general ability or common ability known as
set of
abilities. He distinguished
the following fou‘G’ factor
believed that nothing like
General ability. Each mental activity requires
an other a group of specific abilities known as ‘S’ factor. ‘G’
factor is universal Inborn ability.
Greater
‘G’ in an individual leads to greater success in life. ‘S’ factor is acquired
from the environment. It varies from activity to activity in the same
Individual.
Thorndike’s multifactor theory ;
Thorndike
aggregate of different r
attributes of intelligence :
(a) Level—refers to the level of difficulty of a
task that can be solved.
(b)
Range—refers to a number of tasks at any given degree of difficulty.
(c)
Area—means the total number of situations at each level to which the individual
is able to respond.
(d)
Speed—is the rapidity with which we can respond to the items.
Thurstone’stheory
: Primary mental abilities/Group factor theory :
States
that Intelligent Activities are not an expression of innumerable highly
specific factors, as Thorndike claimed. Nor is it the expression primarily of a
general factor that pervades all mental activities. It is the essence of
intelligence, as Spearman held. Instead, the analysis of interpretation of
Spearman and others led them to the conclusion that ‘certain’ mental operations
have in common a ‘primary’ factor that gives them psychological and functional
unity and that differentiates them from other mental operations. These mental
operations then constitute a group. A second group of mental operation has its
own unifying primary factor, and so on. In other words, there are a number of
groups of mental abilities, each of which has its own primary factor, giving
the group a functional unity and cohesiveness. Each of these primary factors is
said to be relatively independent of the others. Thurstone has given the
following six primary factors:
(i)
The Number Factor (N)—Ability to do Numerical Calculations rapidly and
accurately.
(ii)
The Verbal Factor (V)—found in tests involving Verbal Comprehension.
(iii)
The Space Factor (S)—involved in any task in which the subject manipulates the
imaginary object in space.
(iv)
Memory (M)—Involving ability to memorize quickly.
(v)
Word Fluency Factor (W)—Involved whenever the subject is asked to think of
isolated words at a rapid rate.
(vi)The
Reasoning Factor (R) found in tasks that require a subject to discover a rule
or principle involved in a series or groups of letters. Based on these factors
Thurstone constructed a new test of intelligence known as ‘‘Test of Primary
Mental Abilities (PMA).’’
CATTELL’S
FLUID AND CRYSTALLIZED THEORY
The
fluid aspect of this theory says that intelligence is a basic capacity due to
genetic potentiality. While this is affected by the past and new experiences,
the crystallized theory is a
Capacity
resultant of experiences, learning and environment.
GARDENER’S
THEORY OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCE:
Howard
Gardner in his book ‘‘Frames of Mind, The Theory of Multiple Intelligence’’
(1983), puts forth a new and different view of human intellectual competencies.
He argues boldly and cogently that we are all born with potential to develop a
multiplicity of Intelligence, most of which have been overlooked in our testing
society, and all of which can be drawn Product resulting from the operation. He
further classified content into five categories, namely, Visual, Auditory,
Symbolic, Semantic and behavioral. He classified operations into five
categories, namely, Cognition, Memory retention, Memory recording, Divergent
production, Convergent production and evaluation. He classified products into
six categories, namely, Units, Classes, Relations, Systems, Transformations and
Implications.
Gardner chose eight abilities that
he held to meet these criteria: musical–rhythmic, visual–spatial, verbal–linguistic, logical–mathematical,
bodily–kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. He later
suggested that existential and moral intelligence may also be worthy of
inclusion. Although the distinction between intelligences has been set out in
great detail, Gardner opposes the idea of labeling learners to a specific
intelligence. Each individual possesses a unique blend of all the
intelligences. Gardner firmly maintains that his theory of multiple
intelligences should "empower learners", not restrict them to one
modality of learning.[4]
VERNON’S
HIERARCHICAL THEORY :
Vernon’
description of different levels of intelligence may fill the gaps between two
extreme theories, the two-factor theory of Spearman, which did not allow for
the existence of group factors, and the multiple-factor theory of Turstone,
which did not allow a ‘‘g’’ factor. Intelligence can be described as comprising
abilities at varying levels of generality:
1.
The highest level: ‘‘g’’ (general intelligence) Factor with the largest source
of variance
between
individuals. (Spearman)
2.
The next level : major group factors such as verbal-numerical-educational
(v.ed) and
Everyman’s
Science upon
to make us competent individuals. The potential for musical
accomplishments, bodily mastery and spatial reasoning, and the
capacities to understand ourselves as well as others are, Gardner
argues, ‘‘the multiple forms of intelligence that we must add to the conventional—and
typical tested—logical and linguistic skills long called I.Q.
The
multiple intelligence theory is that people possess eight types of intelligence:
linguistic,
logical, spatial, musical, motor ability,
interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalistic intelligence.
Sternberg’striarchictheor
:
This was developed by psychologist Robert
Sternberg (1985) has constructed a three—pronged, or triarchic theory of
intelligence. The Three types are:
Analytical
Intelligence—is what we generally think of as
academic ability. It enables us to solve problems and to acquire new knowledge.
Problem—solving skill includes encoding information, combining and comparing
pieces of information and generating a solution.
Creative
Intelligence—is defined by the abilities to cope with
novel situations and to profit from experience. The ability to quickly relate
novel situations to familiar situations (that is, to perceive similarities and
differences) fosters adaptation. Moreover, as a result of experience, we also
become able to solve problems more rapidly.
Practical
Intelligence—or ‘‘street smarts’, enable people to
adapt to the demands of their environment. For example, keeping a job by
adapting one’s behavior to the employer’s requirements is adaptive. But if the
employer is making unreasonable demands, reshaping the Environment (by changing
the employer’s attitudes) or selecting an alternate environment (by finding a
more suitable job) is also adaptive.
ANDERSON’S
THEORY: COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Anderson
proposes that human cognitive architectures will have adapted optimally to the
problems posed in their environment. Therefore, discovering the optimal
solution to the problem posed by the environment, independent of the
architecture, is equivalent to discovering the
Mechanism used by the architecture. A
‘Rational Analysis’, as it is called, takes into account the available
information in the environment, the goals of the agent, some basic assumptions
about computational cost (in terms of a ‘general’ architecture mechanism), and
produces the optimal behavioral function. This function then of course can be
tested empirically and assumptions modified if it proves inaccurate. A
contrasting point of view to this is espoused by Simon, and is centered around the claim that, in a rational analysis,
the assumptions about the architecture actually do most of the work.
Ceci’s
Biological Theory
Ceci
(1990) proposes that there are multiple cognitive potentials. These multiple
intelligence’s are biologically based and place limits on mental processes.
These are closely linked to the challenges and opportunities in the individual’s
environment. In his view, context is essential to the demonstration of
cognitive abilities. By context, he means domain of knowledge and other factors
such as personalities, motivation and education. Context can be mental, social
or physical.
THEORY
OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
According
to Goleman (1995), Emotional Intelligence consists of ‘‘abilities such as being
able to motivate oneself and persist in the face of frustrations; to control
impulse and delay gratification; to regulate one’s moods and keep distress from
swamping the ability to think : to
empathize,
and to hope’’. The main areas are : knowing one’s emotions, managing emotions, motivating
oneself, recognizing emotions in others, and handling relationships.
CONCLUSION
Until
a clear-cut definition of intelligence canbe given, theories will continue not
to be able to explain it. The likelihood of such a definition occurring is
virtually zero, as there will always be alternatives given, and so theories o
f intelligence are bound to be
self-defeating
No comments:
Post a Comment