The True Nature of Intelligence

8/9/2019 The True Nature of Intelligence

1/3

Solution-Focused Change The True Nature of Intelligence

2004, Coert Visser, [email protected] http:/ / solutionfocusedchange.blogspot.com/

1

The True Nature of Intelligence

2004, Coert Visser

Coert V isser ([email protected]) is a consultant, coach and trainer using the solution- focused change approach. T his approach is focused on simply helping individuals, teams andorganizations to mak e progress in the direction of their own choice. Coert wrote many articlesand a few books. More information: http:/ / solutionfocusedchange.blogspot.com/

Keywords: Intelligence, Interpersonal intelligence, Multiple intelligence dimensions,

D eveloping intelligence, D avid Perk ins, Carol D weck , G rowth M indset

Summary - Intelligence has fascinated people ever since antiquity. What is it? H owimportant is it? Are all of us equally intelligent? Is it inborn? Can you develop it? Does

education have an important impact on the development of intelligence? Below is adescription of the most prevalent views on intelligence. Next, an invitation follows tostart viewing intelligence differently.

H ow do we view intelligence?Both laymen and experts use widely varyingdefinitions of intelligence. Try and ask yourfriends and colleagues what they think

intelligence is. You will probably getreferences to solving problems, being able to adapt,quick think ing, quick learning, being creative, beingsmart, reasoning logically, being sensible, analytic

qualities, and so on. Interestingly, althoughthe variation in answers is great, most laymanand experts seem to agree on certain aspectsof intelligence.

Most people implicitly or explicitly assumethat intelligence has the following three

characteristics:

1. Intrapersonal: intelligence is acharacteristic of individuals. In other words:it is intrapersonal. It is inside you and isindissoluble from you as an individual.Personnel selection psychologists often basetheir advises to a large degree on individualmeasurements of intelligence. Laymen tooview intelligence mainly as something that isinside the person.

2. One-dimensional: both laymen andexperts acknowledge that differentdimensions or aspects of intelligence can bedistinguished but both groups treatintelligence mainly as if it were a one-

dimensional concept. Selection psychologistsspeak of the so-called G-factor, the generalintelligence factor and summarize thefindings of intelligence measurements into asingle (IQ-) score, while laymen tooimplicitly talk about intelligence as if it wereone thing (She has a high intelligence.)

3. Unchangeable: intelligence is acharacteristic that is mostly unchangeablefrom the age of about 17. The assumed

unchangeability, or stability, of intelligenceimplies that people keep the sameintelligence level both across differentsituations and at different ages. In short: it isinside you, it is one thing and it is largelyunchangeable.

Additional views

Experts on intelligence base theirconvictions on an impressive amount andquality of thinking and research (for an

example see the website of Linda


2/3



2

Gottfredson). What follows is not an attemptto attack the traditional view on intelligencebut an attempt to provide a complementaryview.

Intelligence can be seen as intrapersonal,one-dimensional and unchangeable but alsoas:

1. Interpersonal: intelligence does not needto be seen only as something that is insidethe head of the individual but can also beseen as something that emerges betweenpeople when they co-operate. This viewmakes opens the possibility that intelligencealso happens between people. Every time

when two people deliver intellectualperformances that they could not haveaccomplished on their own, we see anexample of the interpersonal aspect ofintelligence. Hard to imagine? Think aboutthis. The human brain is a network ofapproximately 100 billion brain cells(neurons) of different kinds that each areconnected to very many other neurons. It alladds up to an estimated total of 100 trillionconnections. Although the brain is capable

of impressive intellectual feats, the neuronsof which it is built are not very intelligent.The intelligence of people is not in theneurons but in the connections between theneurons, so between the neurons, or in thenetwork. The comparison between the brainand co-operating people should not be takentoo far, if it were only because brains areunimaginably more complex that even themost complex organization. But the analogydoes make it easier for us to imagine

organizations as networks of interconnectedpeople in which the value and intelligence ofthe organization is not solely in the peoplebut also between the people. It makes it easierto think in terms of a collective intelligence.

2. Multidimensional: Intelligence does nothave to be viewed only as something thatis general and one-dimensional but canalso be seen as a complex of a set ofdimensions (see Sternberg, 1985). I am

not pleading for a rather great stretching

of the intelligence concept (like Gardner,1991 does) by also labeling phenomena asathletic ability as a kind of intelligence.Instead, I would propose to reserve theword intelligence to the cognitive domain.

But also within this domain there aredifferent relevant dimensions to bedistinguished. One of the most convincingmodels I find to be the one by DavidPerkins (1995) who distinguishes asimportant dimensions:

1. N eural intelligence.This intelligencereflects the general informationprocessing capacity of the person, anaspect of intelligence that may touch

on the G-factor.2. E x periential intelligence. Intelligence

that is based on experiences and thatare manifested both explicitly andimplicitly. You could call this adomain-specific or situationalintelligence.

3. R eflective intelligence.This refers totactics and techniques that you canapply to make use of your neural andexperiential intelligence as effectively

and efficiently as possible. You mightcall this meta-intelligence or strategicintelligence.

3. Developable: viewing intelligence as amultidimensional phenomenon opens thepossibility to see it as developable. While theG-factor indeed seems to be fixed or hardlydevelopable, the other important dimensionsdo seem to be developable. Experientialintelligence can be very well be developed

(although this process goes very slowly).Reflective intelligence can even be developedquite quickly (Perkins, 1995).

Practical implications

Although both laymen and experts(sometimes) acknowledge that intelligence isto a certain degree interpersonal,multidimensional and developable, theydont seem to use these views in practice alot. If it is true that intelligence is also

interpersonal, multidimensional and


3/3



3

developable than there are importantpractical implications. Below are twoexamples.

Personnel selection: more interactive,

dynamic and situationalThe selection psychologist would not only beinterested in measuring and reporting theintelligence of the applicant but also in thefollowing aspects. How well does thisapplicant complement the collectiveintelligence of the team? In order to be ableto say something about this an individualmeasurement would not be sufficient. Therewill have to be some kind of interactionbetween applicant and organization to assess

the chemistry. Beside a measurement ofgeneral intellectual abilities an assessmentwould be made of other aspects ofintelligence like relevant domain-specificexperiential intelligence and meta-aspects likeproblem-solving strategies, thinking models,tactics, and so forth. If these views would betaken into account a selection process wouldbe devised more interactively, moredynamically and more situationallly.

View intelligence as a developablepotential

For laymen too, it is important how theyview and treat intelligence. Research by CarolDweck (2002) has demonstrated that whatpeople think about their own intelligence hasfar-reaching consequences. Dweck showsthat people who see intelligence asunchangeable develop a tendency to focuson proving that they have that characteristicinstead of focusing on the process of

learning. This disregard of the learningprocess hinders them in the development oftheir learning and in their performance. Thismeans that the wrong convictions aboutintelligence can make smart people dumb!But there is hope: when people viewintelligence as a potential that can bedeveloped this leads to the tendency to puteffort into learning and performing and intodeveloping strategies that enhance learningand long term accomplishments. An

implication is that it pays off to help children

and students invest in a view of intelligenceas something that can be developed.

That the way we look upon phenomena canhave drastic consequences has been known

for a long time. It has now beendemonstrated that the same goes forintelligence. A too restrictive definition ofintelligence leads to practical limitations andproblems. A realistic view on intelligencemakes it possible to get rid of at least someof these restrictions and problems.

Coert VisserVisit http:/ / solutionfocusedchange.blogspot.com/

Literature

Dweck, C. S. (2002). Beliefs that mak e smart people dumb. In: Sternberg (2002). WhySmart People can be so stupid. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven & London.

Gardner, H. (1991). M ultiple intelligences. NewYork: Free Press.

Perkins, D.N. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: Theemerging science of learnable intelligence. New

York: Free Press.Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ:A triarchic

theory of human intelligence. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Documents

The True Nature of Intelligence