Psychology for Dummies (19 page)
Read Psychology for Dummies Online
Authors: Adam Cash
Tags: #Psychology, #General, #Body; Mind & Spirit, #Spirituality
So far thinking looks like this:
Input →→ Memory →→ Operations are performed
What’s left? The output of the thinking process is the “action” phase or outcome. If I receive numbers to solve a math problem, I access my memory about subtraction, perform the operations mentally, and then my brain tells my hands to write the solution on the paper. This output is sometimes called a
motor program
because it involves movement of muscles (like those in my head). The solution of the subtraction problem is also output, but instead of being a muscle or motor program, it is “mental” output that might then be verbalized by using the muscles of my mouth. Then it becomes a motor program.
Psychologists have been trying to figure out what intelligence is for a long time. Plenty of examples of a lack of intelligence exist. Just take a look at those goofy home-video shows. The guy who forgets to turn the electricity off before trying to rewire a room. Or the lady who tries to feed to a polar bear and almost becomes dinner. Maybe we are entertained by this misfortune of others caught on videotape because these people couldn’t have been any less intelligent. Another more controversial possibility is that we feel giddy because we did not suffer their fate.
We all differ in our abilities to solve problems, learn, think logically, use language well, understand and acquire concepts, deal with abstractions, integrate ideas, attain goals, and so on. This impressive list of abilities represents some of the ideas of what intelligence actually is, these things
are
intelligence.
For a more concrete definition,
intelligence
is a collection of abilities that allows a person to experience, learn, think, and adapt successfully to the world. Such a broad definition allows for such concepts as street smarts, something a lot of psychotherapy patients claim that therapists don’t have.
Oh, if only it were that simple. Ever since psychologists started studying intelligence, they’ve relied heavily on psychological tests for their concepts. The first and still most popular form of intelligence is called the
two-factor theory.
In it there are (surprise) two factors:
g-factor:
Some psychologist comes up with a test of mental abilities and gives it to a lot of people. When a score is calculated and averaged across abilities, a general intelligence factor is established. This is factor one of the two-factor theory, commonly referred to as the
g-factor,
or the general intelligence factor. It is meant to represent how generally intelligent you are based on your performance on this type of intelligence test. This is often called the
psychometric theory
of intelligence.
Psycho
means psychological, and
metric
means measured by a test.
s-factor:
The individual scores on each of the individual subtests represent the s-factor. It represents a person’s ability within one particular area. Put all the s-factors together, and you get the g-factor. Commonly measured s-factors of intelligence include memory, attention and concentration, verbal comprehension, vocabulary, spatial skills, and abstract reasoning.
So, intelligence in the psychometric theory is your score on an intelligence test. How can this be? Each test is made up of a group of little tests or subtests. Typically, people who score high on one test also will do well on the other tests. In other words, there is a relationship between each of the individual abilities measured by the subtests represented by the general intelligence concept underlies that relationship.
In a related theory, Thurston came up with a theory of intelligence called
primary mental abilities.
It’s basically the same concept as the s-factor with a little more detail. For Thurston, intelligence is represented by an individual’s different levels of performance in seven areas: verbal comprehension, word fluency, number, memory, space, perceptual speed, and reasoning. However, this theory has a couple of problems. It has received very little research support, and some psychologists have developed lists of over 100 primary mental abilities. Some people decided it was time for something a little simpler.
Robert Sternberg developed the
triarchic theory
of intelligence in part to address the street smarts controversy. An urban myth claims that Albert Einstein was extremely intelligent and gifted in mathematics and physics, but he couldn’t even tie his own shoes. I don’t know if this is true or not, but Sternberg seems to agree that an important aspect of being intelligent is to possess a good level of common sense or practical intelligence. The three intelligence components of his theory are
Componential:
Componential intelligence
is basically the same factors measured by traditional intelligence tests (memory, verbal fluency, and so on). This is the book smarts aspect of intelligence. Sternberg emphasized that these abilities are often disconnected from ordinary life, issues, and problems. Einstein seemed to have possessed this component.
Experiential:
Experiential intelligence
encompasses the ability to deal with two different types of problems: new problems and routine problems. It requires the ability to recognize new problems, as opposed to everyday problems; search for and generate solutions; and implement the solutions.
Contextual:
Sternberg’s last component is a type of practical intelligence that allows people to go about their daily lives without walking in front of cars, telling police officers to get lost, or letting the trash pile up to the ceiling. This is the street smarts aspect of intelligence that we psychologists seem to lack in the eyes of our clients.
Have you ever wondered what makes Michael Jordan such a good basketball player? What about Mozart? He wrote entire operas in one sitting without editing. That’s pretty impressive! According to Howard Gardener (1983), each of these men possessed a specific-type of intelligence that is not usually considered intelligence at all. They are usually considered talents.
Gardener generated a theory known as
multiple intelligences
from observing extremely talented and gifted people. He came up with seven types of intelligence that are typically left out of most people’s ideas of what intelligence actually is:
Bodily-kinesthetic ability:
Michael Jordan seems to possess a lot of this ability. People high in bodily-kinesthetic ability have superior hand-eye coordination, a great sense of balance, and a keen understanding of and control over their bodies while engaged in physical activities.
Musical ability:
If you can tap your foot and clap your hands in unison, then you’ve got a little musical intelligence, just a little. People high in musical intelligence possess the natural ability to read, write, and play music exceptionally well.
Spatial ability:
Have you ever gotten lost in your own backyard? If so, you probably don’t have a very high level of spatial intelligence. This intelligence involves the ability to navigate and move around in space and to the ability to picture three-dimensional scenes in your mind.
Linguistic ability:
This is the traditional ability to read, write, and speak well. Articulate, well-spoken people, along with poets, writers, and gifted speakers, are high in this ability.
Logical-mathematical ability:
This intelligence includes basic and complex mathematical problem-solving ability.
Interpersonal ability:
The gift of gab and the used-car salesman act are good examples of interpersonal intelligence. A “people person” who has good conversational skills and knows how to interact and relate well with others is high in interpersonal ability.
Intrapersonal ability:
How well do you know yourself? Intrapersonal intelligence involves the ability to understand your motives, emotions, and other aspects of your personality.
Any one of us can have varying degrees of Gardener’s intelligences. I might be one heck of a baseball playing, singing, math wiz but I might get lost in my own backyard, can’t carry a conversation, and am the last one to realize if I have a feeling or not.