intelligence (standard definition + Boring’s definition + its cons)
EDWARD BORING’S DEFINITION: “Intelligence is whatever intelligence measures”
EDWARD BORING’S DEFINITION DOESN’T TELL US:
- why some people are ‘smarter’ than others
two perspectives of approaching intelligence
PSYCHOMETRIC:
- focused on measuring/testing intelligence- the “what”
- Francis Galton
- Alfred Binet
- Charles Spearman
EXPANDED MODELS:
- focused on idea of multiple intelligences (no testing)
- non-traditional
- Louis Thurstone
- Raymond Cattell
- Robert Sternberg
- Howard Gardener
Francis Galton + intelligence measuring + results of his tests
FRANCIS GALTON
- believed intelligence is the by-product of sensory capacity
… people with superior sensory capacities acquire more knowledge than others
FRANCIS GALTON’S TESTING:
- first to attempt systematic “mental test” (both physical and sensory tests)
- created sensory and physical tests and measured:
- speed of processing information**
- grip strength
- size of your head
- ability to detect subtle differences (discriminating between different sounds/pitches e.g.)
RESULTS:
- people’s scores were poor predictors of academic success
Alfred Binet (& Theodore Simon) + intelligence measuring
ALFRED BINET
- first to develop the INTELLIGENCE TEST: tool designed to measure overall thinking ability
Charles Spearman + intelligence + factor analysis + concept of “g” and “s”
CHARLES SPEARMAN
- believed intelligence is something general
- developed a statistical procedure called FACTOR ANALYSIS: study of factors that account for individual correlations (that were found on Binet’s intelligence test, showing that when people got one thing right, they were more likely to get other things rights)
- examines responses to a large number of items
“G” (GENERAL INTELLIGENCE):
- hypothetical factor that accounts for overall differences in intellect among people (by accounting for differences in performance on an intelligence test from one person to the next)
“S” (SPECIFIC RESIDUALS):
- items not explained by “g”/general intelligence
Louis Thurstone + multi-faced intelligence/seven primary mental abilities
LOUIS THURSTONE:
- found that some intelligence test items relate more highly to each other than do other items
… These items form clumps corresponding to different intellectual capacities
PRIMARY MENTAL ABILITIES:
- 1) verbal comprehension
- 2) verbal fluency
- 3) perceptual speed
- 4) inductive reasoning
- 5) spatial ability
- 6) numerical ability
- 7) memory
Raymond Cattell + crystalized/fluid intelligence
RAYMOND CATTELL:
- “expanded” models of intelligence
- argued that intelligence is a mixture of two related but somewhat different capacities/forms
CRYSTALLIZED INTELLIGENCE: accumulated knowledge of the world , acquired over time
- culture bound
- lasting knowledge in long-term memory
- e.g. knowing 2x4=8
FLUID INTELLIGENCE: ability to learn new ways of problem solving
- not culture bound
- more likely to decline with age
- more highly related to g (may best capture the power of the ‘mental engine’)
- e.g. solving a puzzle we’ve never seen before
both intelligences interact
- e.g. you cannot solve a problem without crystalized intelligence
Robert Sternberg + intelligence + Triarchic theory
ROBERT STERNBERG:
- argued theres more to intelligence than g
- argued that intelligence is CONTEXT dependent
1) Analytical intelligence
- ability to reason
- closely related to g
2) Creative intelligence
- ability to apply knowledge to new tasks- coming up with effective solutions to problems
- Divergent thinking - multiple solutions to a problem/thinking “outside the box”
- Convergent thinking - single best solution to a problem
- … is it really independent of g though?
3) Practical intelligence
- ability to solve problems that involve the social world- “street smarts”
- understanding one’s own strengths and weaknesses
- is it really independent of g? maybe its just a subtype of g
Howard Gardner + multiple intelligences + where he derived this perspective + cons
HOWARD GARDENER:
- argued theres more to intelligence than g
- argued that there are entirely different domains of intellectual skills
- certain mental abilities are separate intelligences
- i.e. intelligence is SPECIFIC, not general
WHERE HE DERIVED THIS PERSPECTIVE:
1) Clinical evidence
- I. Brain damage and isolated impact on one cognitive skill but not another
- II. Language, musical, math, and spatial abilities show this isolation
2) Exceptionalities- Prodigies and savants
- Savant: exceptional ability in one domain alongside intellectual disability
- Prodigy: usually have normal range intelligence in most domains, except for one or two
- Music and math are most frequent for the two
- Savants and prodigies are exceptional examples of what is seen in the rest of the population (only to a lesser extent)
CONS
- However, its unclear why certain abilities classify as intelligences, while others don’t (e.g. humour intelligence, romantic intelligence, memory intelligence)
Stanford-Binet IQ test
STANFORD-BINET IQ TEST: intelligence test devised to identify children who needed remedial education
IQ definition + calculating IQ
INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT: an index of general intelligence that “relates to knowledge acquisition in diverse settings”
- Quantifying differences among people in their intelligence
Two concepts:
1. Chronological Age (CA): a child’s biological age
2. Mental Age (MA): level of age-graded problems that child can solve (child’s intellectual performance)
FORMULA
IQ = (MA / CA) * 100
- Stern’s contribution (intelligence is best represented as ratio)
- E.g. an 8-year-old child with a mental age of 10 ((10 / 8) * 100 = 125)
IQ Terman’s contribution- norms
NORMS: baseline IQ scores in the general population for adults in each age category
DEVIATION IQ: statistics and a norm we use in adults
- An expression of each individual’s IQ relative to their same-aged peers
- Where your score falls in comparison to the average score of everyone else in your age category
distribution of IQ scores- the bell curve + intellectual disability
BELL CURVE: distribution of scores in which the bulk of the scores fall toward the middle, where scores on the ends are statistically rare
- 95% of the population falls within 70-130 IQ
- There are two ends of the curve– intellectual disability and genius
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY: a condition defined by three criteria– not just IQ:
1) Onset in childhood
2) IQ below 70
3) Inadequate adaptive functioning (inability to engage in daily functioning)
biological bases of intelligence (correlations)- brain activity and intelligence correlation (neural efficiency hypothesis)
Measured intelligence shows correlations
- Brain size itself isn’t relevant and doesn’t correlate with measured intelligence within species
- Rather, the density and volume of neurons in certain areas (frontal, pre-frontal, parietal) does show a modest correlation of 0.3 - 0.4
- i.e. The more volume, the more density, the more intelligence/neural-connections
Person who scores higher on intelligence test shows lower brain activity
- NEURAL EFFICIENCY HYPOTHESIS: less overall brain activity on cognitive tasks because they show more efficient processing of information
- Higher speed of processing (faster reaction times with solving tasks/making decisions)
- Long maturation of cortex (intelligent brains take longer to mature)
heritability, genes, and the environment
HERITABILITY: the degree to which the trait in question is due to genetic variations within the studied population
- The degree to which the variations in the bell curve are due to genetic variations in that study proclamation
Your genes represent your potential
- Environmental opportunities must be present for your full potential to be realized
the premise of behaviour genetics research KINSHIP DATA- twin studies, adoption studies, family studies
KINSHIP DATA begins with premise that both genes and environment contribute to traits
kinship studies- twin studies
TWIN STUDIES: compare correlations in a trait in identical (monozygotic) and fraternal (dizygotic) twins
- Identical twins share twice as many of their genes as fraternal twins, making the correlations comparable and sugegsting genetic influence on a trait
- MZ: share 100% genes, DZ: share 50% genes
- If genetics… expect MZ twins to be more similar on IQ than DZ twins
- r= .7-.8 for MZ : 3-.4 for DZ
MZ twins reared apart show higher concordance (72) than DZ and non-twin siblings reared together (identical twins who are separated showed highest concordance of intelligence)
The twin findings tell us that IQ is influenced by genetic factors, but they don tell us which genes are relevant to intelligence
- Its clear that intelligence isn’t due to only one gene, but rather an enormous number of genes
The twin findings also show us that environmental influences also play a role (given that identical twins share 100% of their genes, they would correlate 1.0 if genetic influences alone were operative, but they correlate less than 1.0)
PROS:
- Represent a unique subset of population that shares an in utero environment
- 100% genes (MZ twins) vs 50% genes (DZ)
- A great quasi experiment
KINSHIP STUDIES- adoption studies
ADOPTION STUDIES: Look at r (correlation) between adopted child’s IQ and scores of the adoptive vs biological parents
- Allow us to separate environmental factors from genetic effects on IQ because adopted children are raised by parents with whom they share an environment but not genes
- If genetics, r (child-biological parent) > r (child-adoptive parent)
- You’d expect that the intelligence test scores are similar to their biological parents
Adoption studies tend to show that IQs of adopted children tend to be similar to their biological parents (Same for other traits, such as body mass)
- This offers evidence of genetic influence
Adoption studies also establish a clear contribution of the environment to IQ
- Adopted children who come frome extremely deprived environments show an increase in IQ when adopted into homes with enriched environments
r (child-biological parent) increases as children get older
KINSHIP STUDIES- family studies
FAMILY STUDIES: determine the extent to which a trait “runs” in intact families (those in which all family members live in the same home)
- “Target” individual’s trait assessed, also close and distant relatives
Galton’s studies confirmed that IQ runs in families
Examine IQ scores for siblings, parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, etc.
- Biological parents: r = above 0.4
- Siblings: r = 0.45
- Cousins: r = 0.15
… But note that it should be around the same as DZ twins
GE CORR (families tend to live close by, even when they dont select environments that are similar)
Galton concluded that there’s a genetic basis to intellectual greatness
- But, he didn’t take into account environmental factors: when a trait runs in families, we don’t know whether it’s for genetic reasons, environmental reasons, or both
cautions around heritability (kinship studies)
h (heritability) does not provide you with an individual analysis of your IQ
… Its a stat that relates to the research sample that provided that data; we can only make inferences about the sample from which it was drawn
A trait with a high h does not imply unmalleability
- High h does not mean that the trait is unresponsive to environmental changes
- Even identical twins raised apart do not show exactly the same outcomes
- Environments will always matter
Heritability estimates vary by type of kinship study design; often, the strongest estimates come from twin studies
- Kinship studies are based on unique samples, so we should use caution when attempting to generalize results– We cant say they apply to everybody
Heritability estimates change depending on the population that is studied
- E.g. high socioeconomic status, low socioeconomic status
bottom line about (IQ) heritability
grwoth vs fixed minset … learning vs performance goals - carol dweck
By Carol Dweck
GROWTH MINDSET: a belief that our abilities can change/develop
- Tend to take more academic risks and persist after failing
- Incramental theorist holds this mindset
LEARNING GOALS: learner engages in situations in which they might be challenged
“POSITIVE EFFORT BELIEFS”: “effort is a good thing, as it helps grow my ability/talent”
MASTERY ORIENTED RESPONSE TO SETBACKS: induce a strategy-focus
- More resilient kinds of attributions
FIXED MINDSET: a belief that our abilities are unchangeable
- Tend to take fewer academic risks, and feel discouraged when failingXE
- entity theorists holds this mindset
PERFORMANCE GOALS: learner avoids situations in which they might possibly be challenged
- Reveals incompetence/lacking ability
“NEGATIVE EFFORT BELIEFS”: effort= indication of attempt to compensate for low/lower ability than others
- “If I have to work really hard, or put effort, then it may reveal a lack of ability/natural talent”
HELPLESS ATTRIBUTIONS: in reaction to setbacks, failures, or challenges
- “I’m not intelligent/smart enough”
achievement theory- carol dweck
Carol Dweck wanted to find out:
- Why do students with mostly similar abilities make different kinds of attributions?
- Why do students with mostly similar abilities make different responses to failures?
She suggested that the difference is in the student’s focus: performance vs learning goals
mindset theory - carol dweck
The more appropriate questions, then, are:
- “To what degree do i believe that my abilities, like intelligence, are set in stone?”
“- To what degree do i believe that my abilities can be changed?”
Dweck asserts that we can shift our location on the continuum at different times in our lives