LECTURE NOTES ON INTELLLIGENCE
Prepared for PSY205 by GORDON VESSELS with the support of James Neill
The following is a combination of my thoughts and expressed knowledge about intelligence, and
those of James Neill who has an excellent website with good material, and who teaches an
introductory psychology course in Australia. His material is used here with his permission. To
get more information from Dr. Neill, visit the following websites.
http://www.wilderdom.com/JamesNeill/Jamesbio.html
http://www.wilderdom.com/index.html
http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/intelligence.html#Why
Introduction by Gordon Vessels
As a psychologist who has tested thousands of children, I define intelligence as the full array of
mental abilities (including memory and reasoning skills) that together synergistically reflect how
“smart” people are, and how capable they are in terms of specific mental abilities or mental
processing skills and challenging real-world situations. By defining intelligence this way, I have
(1) endorsed the concept of general intelligence proposed by Charles Spearman many years
ago, (2) accepted that there is some truth reflected by the results of factor analysis, a statistical
method he used to arrive at the notion of “g,” and (3) acknowledged that people can be brilliant
and far stronger in one form of intelligence than others. They may have mental strengths that
allow for excellence in an art form, a type creative problem solving, or the ability to adapt and
prosper when faced with challenges in the real world while lacking abilities that constitute
another form of intelligence. Am I suggesting that theorists who believe in “g” and those who
do not and believe in multiple intelligences are both right? Yes I am. But to understand to what
extent and in what specific ways they are right, we must look at each more closely and critique
them in terms of the detail of their propositions.
Before looking at these theorists and test makers more closely, it may be useful to place the
study of intelligence and memory into an historical context. Most importantly, this history
parallels the origins and growth of the field of psychology as a whole, meaning that it emerged
with psychology, which had its origins in physiology and philosophy and their intersection in the
19th century. Intelligence has been investigated by (a) those relying on psychometrics and
statistics and (b) cognitive psychologists who have relied more on their understanding of how
we think and recall without relying on statistical tricks to uncover related components of
intelligence.
Early on, the emphasis was more on nature as the main cause of how smart people are rather
than nurture, which implies that environment plays an important role in shaping our intelligence.
Twin studies have pretty much demonstrated that the proportional contribution of each is about
50%, but the interaction of (a) genetics and physiology on the one hand, and (b) learning
opportunity and environmental stimulation on the other unfolds uniquely for each individual.
This makes it difficult to predict the ultimate intelligence of each person.
One unfortunate outcome of the emphasis on nature was a movement to improve the human
species by allowing only those with the right test scores and/or pedigree to reproduce, vote, be
free, etc. This was one of the main reasons why many concluded that slavery in the United
States and elsewhere was acceptable. People actually had themselves convinced, thanks the
Eugenicists, that some races (the concept itself is suspect on scientific grounds) were more
evolved than others and thus smarter on the average. For those interested, the documentary
PBS program Journey of Man largely demonstrates that the concept of race is unfounded as a
1
physical as apposed to cultural concept, and it does so by connecting us all genetically. In spite
of such evidence and the known accomplishments of people from all “races,” people like Arthur
Jensen continue to believe in racial differences and continue to make the “nature over nurture”
argument.
Let me move now to a few other definitions offered by so-called experts, and some by college
students. You may share my conclusion that those offered by students sound better. These
definitions were extracted from James Neill’s Wilderdom website (2005).
Definitions of Intelligence Offered by Social Scientists
"The ability to carry out abstract thinking" (Terman, 1921).
"The capacity to learn or to profit from experience" (Dearborn, 1921).
"A global concept that involves an individual's ability to act purposefully, think rationally, and
deal effectively with the environment" (Wechsler, 1958).
"Intelligence is a general factor that runs through all types of performance" (Jensen).
"A person possesses intelligence insofar as he has learned, or can learn, to adjust himself to his
environment" (Colvin, cited in Sternberg, 1982, p.30).
"Intelligence is the ability to use optimally limited resources - including time - to achieve goals"
(Kurzweil, 1999).
Definitions Offered by University Students
"Intelligence is the ability of an organism to learn, grow and adapt efficiently and effectively to a
changing environment" (Bart Taylor, n.d.).
"Intelligence is the ability to predict, interpret, and overcome random situations that occur in
life" (Andrew Olson, n.d.).
"Intelligence is the capacity of an organism to make free-will choices that make possible further
opportunities and potentialities for the advancement and continuity of life" (Terese Hutchison,
n.d.).
"Intelligence is the capacity for abstract rational thought that enables creativity and decision
making" (Annemarie Nicol, n.d.).
"Intelligence is the ability to learn from your mistakes and not repeat them (when possible) and
to apply what you have learnt to your life and make it better" (Michelle Deponte, n.d.).
"Intelligence is a person's ability to learn and apply what he/she has learned to new and existing
situations and circumstances" (anonymous, n.d.).
The History of Intelligence Testing
Theories of intelligence and the construction of intelligence tests were dominated for more than
one hundred years by psychometric theorists like Charles Spearman, Alfred Binet, David
2
Wechsler, and Alan Kaufman (who is still living). But the tide seems to be turning more in the
direction of cognitive psychologists who are more theory-driven and conceptually clear about the
various types of thinking and memory we exhibit. Two leaders of this new trend are Howard
Gardner and Robert Sternberg, but there are others who have been at it longer including
Feurerstein. They have come at the subject of intelligence from a whole different perspective,
and one that those who do testing (school psychologists and clinical psychologists) have
resisted. It will be interesting to see how it plays out and if testing will be replaced by less
quantitative methods of assessing mental potential. If you follow the cognitive psychologists
shown in lavender rectangles on my PPT slide (the one that has numerous psychologists listed),
you will get a feel for what these individual have contributed and how different their methods
truly are. Just click on the names which are linked to websites.
The following is a brief description of some of the important figures included in this chart. Much
of this information comes from James Neill (2005) with his written permission. His work was
not used to construct the chart with links that I described above, but it was drawn from heavily
in the paragraphs that follow. Many of the paragraphs in the remainder of this lecture are
quotations extracted from Neill’s website.
1. Francis Galton: The 1st Modern Attempt (late 1800s)
“Intelligence tests are grounded in the work of Francis Galton in the late 19th century. Galton
wanted to measure intelligence as directly as possible. He explored reaction time and
sensorimotor measurements, which went along with the . . . emphasis on perception . . .”
(Neill, 2005: http://wasp.canberra.edu.au/uc/lectures/scides/sem992/unit4311/Lecture2.html).
2. Alfred Binet: The origins of IQ Testing (early 1900’s)
“Alfred Binet created the first intelligence test as we know them today. He is commonly known
as the ‘father’ of IQ testing. In 1904, he was commissioned by the French Ministry of Public
Instruction to develop techniques for identifying primary grade children whose lack of success in
regular classrooms suggested the need for special education (Gould, 1981). In 1905 he
produced the Binet-Simon scale [with Theodore Simon] - the first intelligence test. He used a
series of 30 short tasks related to everyday problems” (Neill, 2005:
www.wilderdom.com/personality/L1-5KeyPlayers.html).
-
attending to simple instructions
naming parts of the body
comparing lengths and weights
counting coins,
assessing which of several faces is 'prettier'
naming objects in a picture
recalling the number of digits a person can recall after being shown a long list
defining words
filling in the missing words in sentences
“This was a turning point in psychology: a new type of test had been produced in which the
average level of performance was the criterion. In 1908 and again in 1911, the test was
revised. The current revision in use today is the fifth” (Neill, 2005:
http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L1-5KeyPlayers.html ).
3 & 4. Terman (1916) and Stern (1912)
3
“Lewis Terman in the US decided to use Binet's test but found that the French norms didn't work
for Californian children. He revised the test by . . . gathering new age norms, and extended the
upper age limit. This became the Stanford-Binet revision of 1916. This is where the
Intelligence quotient was first used. The Intelligence Quotient or IQ quantified intelligence and
allowed for comparing individuals to others. The IQ was a ratio IQ which means it expressed the
relationship between an individual’s mental age and chronological age. In 1912 Wilhelm Stern
proposed the following: IQ = mental age x 100 divided by chronological age. This formula
works fairly well for children but not for adults (Thomson, 1968; Weinberg, 1989)” (Neill, 2005:
http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L1-5KeyPlayers.html).
5. Yerkes: Army Tests (WWI)
“Robert Yerkes, a psychologist and army major, assembled a staff of 40 psychologists [including
Terman] to develop a group intelligence test. This resulted in the Army Alpha and Army Beta
tests. Over a million people were tested, but not until late in the war” (Neill, 2005:
http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L1-5KeyPlayers.html).
6. Charles Spearman: “g” (1920’s)
“Until the 1920s, approaches to intelligence testing had been very practical . . . Another
approach to understanding intelligence involved analyzing data that were already collected.
Charles Spearman (1927) analyzed the relations among experimental intelligence tests using a
statistical method called factor analysis. He contended that people who do well on some
intelligence tests also do well on a variety of intellectual tasks. He also observed that if people
did poorly on an intelligence test, then they also tended to do poorly on others. He observed
correlations among performance on a variety of intellectual tasks. He proposed a 'two-factor'
theory of intelligence” (Neill, 2005: http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L15KeyPlayers.html).
-
General Intelligence (g): which was required for performance of mental tests of all
kinds; he called this a kind of 'mental energy' that underlies the specific factors
Special Abilities: which were required for performance on just one kind of mental test.
Scores on a verbal comprehension test are largely determined by one’s level of general
intelligence but they are also affected by one’s specific ability to perform verbal comprehension
tasks (Neill, 2005).
“But the main thrust of Spearman's analysis was general intellectual capacity. This formed a
major theoretical platform for many subsequent approaches to intelligence. Spearman was
excessively enthusiastic about g. He advocated restricting voting rights to people whose g
exceeded a certain level, and he was a Eugenicist (the term “eugenics” comes from the Greek
word ‘Eugenes,’ meaning well-born) who argued that only people with a certain level of g or
higher should be allowed to have offspring” (Neill, 2005:
http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L1-5KeyPlayers.html).
7. Weschler: Intelligence Scales for Adults and Children (1939 - present)
“Wechsler felt that the Binet scales were too verbal for use with adults, so he designed an
instrument with subtests to measure both verbal and nonverbal abilities. The original
Weschsler-Bellevue test in 1939 was widely used . . . In 1949, he produced the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). In 1955, he produced a revision of the adult scales
named the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). Later he produced a scale which could be
used with pre-school and primary children called the WPPSI. These scales have all been
4
revised, but still show a distinct resemblance to the original 1939 scale” (Neill, 2005:
http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L1-5KeyPlayers.html). The most recent revision, the
WISC-IV, is greatly improved over the WISC-III and more in line with intelligence theories.
8. Thurstone: Primary Mental Abilities (1930’s)
“Another factor analyst, Thurstone (1938), accepted Spearman's g factor. But he disputed its
importance. He said that g is in fact a second order factor or phenomenon - one which arises
only because the primary or first-order factors are related. Thurstone identified 7 primary
mental abilities which he judged to be more important (Neill, 2005).
1. Verbal Comprehension: vocabulary, reading, comprehension, verbal analogies, etc.
2. Word fluency: the ability to quickly generate and manipulate a large number of words
with specific characteristics, as in anagrams or rhyming tests
3. Number: the ability to quickly and accurately carry out mathematical operations
4. Space: spatial visualizations as well as ability to mentally transform spatial figures
5. Associative Memory: rote memory
6. Perceptual Speed: quickness in perceiving visual details, anomalies, similarities, etc.
7. Reasoning: skill in a variety of inductive, deductive, and arithmetic reasoning tasks.
(Thurstone, 1938)
“Thurstone's proposed the first multi-factor approach to intelligence. His position that
intelligence is better described and measured by assessing distinct primary mental abilities,
rather than a single factor g, has growing support today (see Flanagan, Genshaft & Harrison,
1997; Murphy & Davidshofer, 1998)” (Neill, 2005).
9. Raymond Cattell: Fluid & Crystallised Intelligence (1960’s)
Raymond Cattell (1963) proposed that there are two related but distinct components of g: fluid
and crystallized intelligence.
Fluid is the ability to see relationships, as in analogies, and it is essentially reasoning ability
Crystallized is acquired knowledge and skills.
Fluid intelligence begins decreasing in middle age; crystallized intelligence increases throughout
life. Mathematicians and scientists whose work requires extensive fluid intelligence typically do
their best work in their 30s while those in fields like history and philosophy do their best work in
their 40s and beyond.
10. Guilford: many, many factors! (1960’s - present)
Guilford (1967; 1988) was one of the first to challeng the factorial theorists by refusing to
acknowledge the existence of a general intelligence. He proposed that intelligence is comprised
of 180 abilities each made up of a combination of three dimensions.
-
operations: what a person does (6-types)
contents: the material on which operations are performed (5-types)
products: the form in which the information is stored and processes (6-types).
He proposed that each combination of an operation, a content type, and a type of product
defines a form of intelligence. In late versions he proposed more types of intelligence.
5
Guilford's theory has not influenced education and psychological testing because of its
impracticality (Neill, 2005).
11 & 12. Vernon & Carroll: Hierarchical Approaches (1960’s - present)
“Probably the most widely accepted factorial description of intelligence is a hierarchical one, e.g.
Vernon (1960, 1965, 1971) and Carroll (1993). Vernon thought that both Spearman (single g
factor) and Thurstone (multiple primary mental abilities) were right. He proposed that
intelligence is comprised of abilities at varying levels of generality” (Neill, 2005).
-
at the highest level of generality (i.e. top of the hierarchy) is g as defined by
Spearman);
at the next level are 'major group' factors, such as:
verbal-educational ability [the kind of ability needed for successful performance in
courses such as English, history, and social studies] and
practical-mechanical ability [the kind of ability needed successful performance in
courses such as draftsmanship and car mechanics];
at the next level are 'minor group' factors, which can obtained by subdividing the
major group factors;
and at the lowest (the bottom of the hierarchy) are specific factors again of the kind
identified by Spearman (1908).
So, Vernon inserted 2 further levels between Spearman's g and specific factors relevant to only
one test. Carroll (1993) proposed the three-stratum model of cognitive ability, which was
similar to Vernon's. Both are shown on Vessels’ PPT slide that maps the progression of
intelligence tests and theories.
13. Howard Gardner: Multiple intelligences (1980s to the present)
Howard Gardner (1983; 1993) agrees with Thurstone’s notion that intelligence comes in
different packages. . . . eight different types of intelligence. . . . He argues that the eight
intelligences are: verbal, mathematical, musical, spatial, kinesthetic, interpersonal (social skills),
intrapersonal (self-understanding), and naturalistic functioning. He claims that these
intelligences are independent of one another (Neill, 2005). Dr. Shearer created the Multiple
Intelligences Developmental Assessment Scales (MIDAS) which is the only method Gardner has
endorsed as a means of evaluating his intelligences.
14. Robert Sternberg (1970s to present)
Robert Sternberg (1977, 1985) and Richard Wagner (1993, 1995) proposed just three types of
intelligence. In a section ahead in these lecture notes, his model is examined in greater detail.
Also, my PPT slide show titled “Vessels on Intelligence” includes charts that should be clarifying.



Academic
Practical
Creative
Sternberg’s new test is called the STAT, which I think stands for Sternberg Triarchic Abilities
Test.
14. Other More Recent Contributors
6
If you look at my PPT slide about the origins and progression of intelligence testing and related
theories (the slide with many psychologists names in small rectangles), you will find in the
bottom row individuals who are still living and who are contributing to this area. Joseph Naglieri
(1998) and J.P. Das’s Cognitive Assessment System, Kaufman’s Kaufman Assessment Battery
for Children-II, and the new Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales reflect a trend toward bringing
these tests in line with theories of intelligence and abandoning the over-reliance on factor
analysis, a statistical method that reveals clusters that then need to be labeled.
Psychologists have been guilty of letting this method do their thinking for them or allowing its
results to cause doubts rather than sticking with a clear notion of what intelligence is and what
its components are. This group, however, has largely ignored the cognitive psychologists’
theories including Gardner’s and Sternberg’s. Instead, they have relied on Cattell’s crystallized
versus fluid distinction, and the neuropsychological theories that identify Planning, Attention,
Simultaneous Processing, and Sequential Processing. These are well supported by research, but
cognitive psychologists are bringing research-supported theories to the table as well, particularly
Robert Sternberg and his triarchic model.
There are a few other camps as well. One group that includes Sybil Kline (1996: PASS+S),
Carol Lidz and Ruthanne Jespen (ACFS: The Application of Cognitive Functions Scale), and
Reuven Feuerstein (1980, 1979, LAPD: Learning Potential Assessment Device) have been using
what is called dynamic assessment or mediated learning to evaluate children. This is essentially
an interactive test-teach-test kind of approach which is more qualitative and clinical than the
approach used by the psychometric school. Gardner and Sternberg fall in between. Lidz and
Kline are specifically focusing on fairly assessing culturally diverse students. Dynamic
assessment results provide information on a student’s response to instruction rather than simply
measuring the initial knowledge a student brings to a testing situation. “The measurement of a
student’s learning ability when interacting with a teacher is coined teachability by this CREDE
project, and is considered essential for the fair evaluation of students from various opportunity
contexts. This sociocultural model assumes that teachability develops with practice and is
requisite for academic success, and thus recommends that the nurturing of teachability be
incorporated into the educational intervention plans for exceptional CLD students” (Kline, 2005;
Lidz & Jespen, 2005: http://www.crede.org/research/llaa/intro6_3.html;
http://www.bgcenter.com/ACFS.htm).
Feuerstein stated, “Intelligence is not a static structure, but an open, dynamic system that can
continue to develop throughout life.” His words, not widely accepted by psychologists and
educators, make a big difference in how we see the role of education. If intelligence is
modifiable, and if intelligence can be taught, then education has a much greater role than
imagined (Kristinsdóttir, 2001: http://starfsfolk.khi.is/solrunb/feuerst.htm).
James McClelland’s work with Parallel Distributed Processing (1973) is in sharp contrast since it
is focused on trying to recreate through formulas and computers various types of human
thought. Finally, the work of C. Elliot and his Differential Abilities Scale and Richard Woodcock’s
Woodcock-Johnson III are marginally theory-based and designed to meet the needs of school
psychologists who must estimate ability and pinpoint mental processing strengths and
weaknesses that have instructional implications. These are used extensively be school
psychologists who need to help learning disabled students and their teachers.
IQ Scores & Ratings
Lewis Terman (1916) developed the notion of IQ and proposed a scale for classifying IQ scores:


Over 140 - Genius or near genius
120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence
7





110 - 119 - Superior intelligence
90 - 109 - Normal or average intelligence
80 - 89 - Dullness
70 - 79 - Borderline deficiency
Under 70 - Definite feeble-mindedness




115-124
125-134
135-144
145-154
-
Above average (e.g., university students)
Gifted (e.g., post-graduate students)
Highly gifted (e.g., intellectuals)
Genius (e.g., professors)
Sternberg on Why Intelligent People Fail
Sternberg (1986) believes that conventional IQ tests tell us very little about the performance of
individuals in everyday life, and he suggests a number of reasons why so-called intelligent
people accomplish little.







lack of motivation
lack of impulse control
lack of perseverance
fear of failure
procrastination
inability to delay gratification
too little/too much self-confidence
Remember Sternberg has stated that intelligence should translate into real-world success
(Sternberg, 1986).
Overview of Sternberg's Triarchic Theory of Intelligence
Sternberg's Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence comes closer to accepting Spearman’s g than
Gardner’s model; yet he identifies three separate types of intelligence:



Analytical (componential)
Creative (experiential)
Practical (contextual)
The Analytical Componential Facet or Subtheory
Analytical intelligence is similar to the standard psychometric definition of intelligence and
corresponds to his concept of componential intelligence. This reflects how a person relates to
his or her internal world.
Sternberg proposes that Analytical Intelligence is based on the joint operation of (1)
metacomponents, (2) performance components, and (3) knowledge acquisition components.
Metacomponents: control, monitor and evaluate cognitive processing. These are the executive
higher-order functions that are used to organize performance and knowledge acquisition
components. They are used to analyze problems and pick a strategy for solving them. They
determine what to do, and the performance components actually do it.
“Performance Components: execute strategies assembled by the metacomponents. They are the
basic operations involved in any cognitive act. They are the cognitive processes that enable us
8
to encode stimuli, hold information in short-term memory, make calculations, perform mental
calculations, mentally compare different stimuli, and retrieve information from long-term
memory” (Neill, 2005).
Knowledge acquisition components: are the processes used in gaining and storing new
knowledge. These are the strategies you use to help memorize things.
“Sternberg feels that IDs in intelligence are related to IDs in the use of these cognitive
processes. He feels that people with better reasoning ability generally spend more time
understanding the problem but reach their solution faster than those who are less skilled at the
task” (Neill, 2005).
The Creative Experiential Facet or Subtheory)
Creative Intelligence: this involves insights, synthesis and the ability to react to novel situations
and stimuli. This is the experiential aspect of intelligence and reflects how an individual connects
their internal and external realities. Sternberg thinks this facet allows people to think creatively
and to adjust creatively and effectively to new situations. Sternberg believes that more
intelligent individuals will also move from consciously learning in a novel situation to automating
the new learning so that they can attend to other tasks.
The Practical Contextual Facet or Subtheory
“Practical Intelligence involves the ability to grasp, understand and deal with everyday tasks.
This is the Contextual aspect of intelligence and reflects how the person relates to the external
world. Sternberg states that Intelligence is ‘Purposive adaptation to, shaping of, and selection
of real-world environments relevant to one's life’ (Sternberg, 1984, p.271). Purposive means
intelligence is directed towards goals. Practical Intelligence is intelligence that operates in the
real world. People with this type of intelligence can adapt to and shape their environment. . .”
(Neill, 2005: http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L2-2SternbergTriarchicTheory.html).
(a) adaptation to the environment in order to meet goals,
(b) changing the environment in order to meet goals, or
(c) if (a) and (b) don't work, moving to a new environment
“Sternberg believes that individuals considered intelligent in one culture may be looked on as
unintelligent in another. An important asset of this theory is to avoid defining intelligence in
terms of intelligence tests rather than performance in the everyday world (which is what
intelligence tests try to predict!)” (Neill, 2005).
Speed of Processing Theory
“Faster cognitive processing may allow more information to be acquired” (Vernon, 1983).
This theory of intelligence is in many ways, a modern equivalent of Francis Galton's attempt
(and others since such as Jensen) to measure reaction time as an indication of how fast the
brain is working.
“Galton stated that ‘Synaptic efficiency’ can explain why one individual is more intelligent than
another. We commonly use the term ‘slow’ to describe people who perform poorly at school and
‘quick’ to describe those who are efficient at solving mental problems” (Neill, 2005).
9
Are intelligent people faster at retrieving and processing information?
Evidence for these theories of intelligence come from the correlations between IQ and . . .
inspection time: speed of intake of perceptual (stimulus). For example, the time taken to
discriminate reliably between two lines of similar length. (Deary & Stough, 1996). A lot of
work has been done by Deary in this area, and he claims high correlations between
inspection time and IQ (around 0.4).
Reaction time: individuals who have a quick reaction time are those who can process
information quickly. The idea is that slow processing of information leads to an inability to
handle complex information. Again there is some support for this notion.
Evoked potentials: with more intelligent people, their brain waves register a simple stimulus
more quickly and with greater complexity (Caryl, 1994) and their evoked brain response is
faster when they perform a simple task.
Overview of Gardener's Multiple Intelligences
Gardner follows Thurstone in his argument that there is no g (general intelligence), and he
proposes eight multiple, distinct intelligences.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Linguistic intelligence
Musical intelligence
Logical- mathematical intelligence
Spatial intelligence
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence
Interpersonal intelligence
Interpersonal intelligence
Naturalistic intelligence
Gardener's approach to intelligence
Gardener offers nothing really new and he does not try to support his approach through the
statistical analysis of data like Thurstone did; rather, he has looked at various "signs" to support
his theory of what constitutes intelligence.
Gardener Criteria for Qualification as an Intelligence
Gardener examined various sources to formulate his theory of intelligence: intelligence tests,
cognition experiments, neuropsychological research, child prodigies and idiot savants. He has
offered five criteria that he uses to determine if an intelligence form qualifies as being distinct
and autonomous:
1. The first criterion is neuropsychological evidence, which means isolation or localization in the
brain as revealed through brain damage. Gardner argues that people have multiple
intelligences because they have multiple neural modules. Each module, he believes, has its
own way of operating and its own memory systems. Brain damage may sometimes impair
one intellectual skill while others remain intact.
2. The existence of individuals with exceptional talent in the second criterion. Selective
competence (such as idiot savants, prodigies) like selective deficits suggests autonomy of
10
that particular competence. In other words, the presence of extraordinary intelligence in
one area suggests a distinct form of intelligence. If Mozart could write music before he could
read, then the neural systems involved in musical intelligence must be separate from those
involved in language.
3. An identifiable core or set of operations (e.g. detection of relationships among musical
tones);
4. A distinct developmental progression in experience (novice to master);
5. An evolutionary history in which increases in intelligence can be associated with enhanced
adaptation to the environment;
6. Supportive evidence from psychometric tests indicating discrete intelligence systems (e.g.
visual spatial vs. verbal skills);
7. Supportive evidence from cognitive experiments indicating cross-task performance
enhancement (e.g. mental rotation, recall of visual spatial images);
8. Susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system (e.g. linguistics, math, dance, athletics,
music).
Decriptions of criteria taken from a PPT slide retrieved from Shaffert at
http://maverick.sdstate.edu/users/shaffert/Cognitive%20Psychology/Psychology%20306Human%20&%20Artifical%20Intelligence.ppt#4
Gardener's Eight Intelligences
“Gardener concludes that there are eight distinct intelligences. The first three are similar to
previous components of intelligence identified by other approaches. The others are more novel.
He believes these develop differently in different people due to heredity and training.
1. Linguistic Intelligence: involved in reading, writing, listening and talking
2. Logical-Mathematic Intelligence: involved in solving logical puzzles, deriving proofs,
performing calculations
3. Spatial Intelligence: involved in moving from one location to another or determining
one's orientation in space
4. Musical Intelligence: involved in playing, composing, singing and conducting.
Furthermore, Gardner believes that auto mechanics and cardiologists may have this kind
of intelligence in abundance as they make diagnoses on the careful listening to patterns
of sounds.
5. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence: involved in using one's body (or parts of it) to perform
skilful and purposeful movements (dancers, athletes and surgeons)
6. Intrapersonal Intelligence: involved in understanding oneself and having insight into
one's own thoughts, actions and emotions (self-understanding).
7. Interpersonal functioning: involved in understanding of others and one's relations to
others. Being high in social skills (psychologists, teachers and politicians are supposed to
be high in this type of intelligence).
8. The eighth intelligence was proposed by Gardner in 1999 and he calls it Naturalistic
Intelligence. This intelligence involves the ability to understand and work effectively in
the natural world. This is exemplified by biologists and zoologists” (Neill, 2005).
11
Criticisms of Gardener's Multiple Intelligence Theory



Are these intelligences or just abilities or talents? Musical, bodily-kinesthetic, intra- and
inter-personal are a source of some controversy.
He doesn't explain why some people are more intelligent than others.
These 'intelligences' are not all essential for successful adaptation (one of the common
definitions of intelligence)
Nature vs. Nurture through history
“The zeitgeist (the intellectual and culture ‘flavor’ of a time and place) has swung back and forth
over time with regard to the amount of influence that nature and nature have on human
intelligence” (Neill, 2005).
NAT
URE
NURT
URE

For example, in the late 1800's in the UK, as Darwinism became popular, genetically
determined ability was considered very important.

This was in contrast to the 1960's in the USA when views were more in favor of a "tabula
rasa" (blank state) view of human intelligence, which means all people are capable of
much more if given the best environmental conditions to reach their potential.

Currently the Zeitgeist is that nature and nurture determine intelligence interactively.
This view is well expressed by Ridley (1999, p.77):
“Mother Nature has plainly not entrusted the determination of our intellectual capacities to
the blind fate of a gene or genes; she gave us parents, learning, language, culture and
education to program ourselves with” (Neill, 2005).
Historical trends in the nature-nurture debate (Neill, 2005)
Late 19th century - early 20th century (Nature)
“From the mid to late 1800's through to the early 1900's opinions rested in the nature camp.
This was consistent with the scientific discoveries of the role of inheritance and natural selection
by Mendel and Darwin” (Neill, 2005).
“The major contributor to the psychological argument was Francis Galton in his book ‘Hereditary
Genius: Its Laws and Consequences’ (1869). Galton had observed that the gifted individuals
tended to come from families which had other gifted individuals. He went on to analyze
biographical dictionaries and encyclopedias, and became convinced that talent in science, the
professions, and the arts, ran in families. Galton took this observation one step further arguing
that it would be ‘quite practicable to produce a high gifted race of men by judicious marriages
during several consecutive generations.’ This suggestion became know as Eugenics, ‘the study
of the agencies under social control that may improve or repair the racial qualities of future
12
generations, either physically or mentally.’ Galton wanted to speed up the process of natural
selection, stating that: ‘What Nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do
providently, quickly, and kindly.’ Galton was convinced that ‘intelligence must be bred, not
trained.’ Such arguments have had massive social consequences and have been used to support
apartheid policies, sterilization programs, and other acts of withholding basic human rights from
minority groups (Neill, 2005).
Post WWI: 1920’s-1930’s
“After World War I a careful re-analysis of the mass of intelligence test data took place. This
began to challenge the commonly held view that intelligence was genetically linked to racial
differences. . . Evidence now seemed to support a closer link between social class and
intelligence, rather than race and intelligence. As a result, a number of psychologists in the
1920s and 1930s shifted their position towards the environmental camp. The shift against
nature views was given momentum by the backlash against the social consequences of
government policies (e.g. sterilization laws had been passed in 24 US States, resulting in 20,
000 people being sterilized against their will. 320, 000 people suffered the same fate in
Germany)” (Neill, 2005).
1940’s-1990’s
“The backlash faded, and the pendulum swung back towards the middle. From the early 1940's,
it seemed there was a rejection of simplistic nature or nurture views, with more common
recognition of their complex interplay. Nevertheless, social prejudices and inequalities were still
evident and growing. Thus, in the 1960's, the focus of the problem was shifted away from the
individual as the cause of the problem, and centered on social determinants. The pendulum
swung towards the nurture/environmental end and away from the nature/genetic end. Efforts
were made to arrest poor educational achievement through special schooling, and to alleviate
poor living conditions through welfare. It became politically correct to minimize talk and
discussion of the role of nature in contributing to any individual differences, let alone
intelligence. The evidence of differences in intelligence between socioeconomic groups and racial
groups, however, did not go away” (Neill, 2005).
Recent trends – "The Bell Curve" controversy
“From time to time, there have been inflammatory articles which present and interpret evidence
of IQ differences between groups (in particular Jensen, 1969). The most recent, and most
major of these publications was Herrnstein and Murray's (1994) ‘The Bell Curve.’ This book
provided momentum to swing the pendulum in the direction of nature, at least in the public's
eye. But it generated massive debate and controversy in psychology, sociology, education, and
politics. The 800+ page book hit the best-seller lists in the U.S.” (Neill, 2005). “The work's
main thesis is that an individual's intelligence - no less than 40% and no more than 80% of
which is inherited genetically from his or her parents - has more effect than socioeconomic
background on future life experiences” (Manolakes, 1997, p.235).
“In addition to the premise that measured intelligence (IQ) is largely genetically inherited, a
second important premise was that IQ is correlated positively with a variety of measures of
socioeconomic level in society, such as a prestigious job, high annual income, and high
educational attainment; and is inversely correlated with criminality and other measures of social
failure. It was suggested that SES successes and failures are largely genetically caused” (Neill,
2005).
Controversial quotes from The Bell Curve are as follows:


‘IQ has more effect on future life experiences than SES’
‘intervention efforts are largely a waste of time and money’
13

‘increasing population of ‘lower caste’ intelligences, lessening the
nation's ‘genetic capital’ (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994).
Reactions to The Bell Curve:

The Bell Curve’ re-ignited the nature-nurture debate. . . The politically left saw the
authors as ‘un-American’;- ‘pseudo-scientific racists’;- and the book as ‘alien and
repellent’; The politically right saw the authors as: ‘brave and respectable scholars’
whose book was ‘lucid’ and ‘powerfully written’ (Neill, 2005).
“The part of The Bell Curve that captured public attention was on the differences in IQ between
African and Caucasian Americans. Further Herrnstein and Murray contemplated the implications
of a predominantly genetically-inherited intelligence for public and social policy. Since IQ was
largely seen as genetically determined, the authors expressed resistance to educational and
environmental interventions. They argued that money spent in this way is wasted. The authors
also argued that America is becoming a society of ‘cognitive castes’ with the lower caste
including a large proportion of African-Americans. They claimed that the ‘genetic capital’ of
society is being eroded because the less intelligent lower class is reproducing at a greater rate
than high IQ classes” (Neill, 2005).
Evidence in favor of “nature”
“In the heyday of eugenic IQ testing in the 1920s there was no evidence for the hereditability of
IQ. It was just an assumption of the practitioners. Today that is no longer the case. The
hereditability of IQ (whatever IQ is!) is testable using studies of twins and adoptees. The results
really are quite startling. No study of the causes of intelligence has failed to find a certain and
often substantial hereditability factor. What varies from study to study is the amount that can
be attributed to hereditability” (Neill, 2005).
Concordance rates of IQ scores

Many studies of twins reared apart were undertaken by Thomas Bouchard at the University
of Minnesota starting in 1979. He found pairs of separated twins from all over the world and
reunited them while testing their personalities and IQs. Other studies compared the IQs of
adopted people with those of their adopted parents and their biological parents or their
siblings. All these studies suggest the following:









Same person tested twice 87%
Identical twins reared together 86%
Identical twins reared apart 76%
Fraternal twins reared together 55%
Biological siblings reared together 47% (studies show that reared apart about 24%)
Parents and children living together 40%
Parents and children living apart 31%
Adopted children living together 0%
Unrelated people living apart 0%
Ridley, 1999, p.83 [The number is a percentage]
Meta-analytic estimates of the hereditability of intelligence
“A meta-analysis of 9 family studies was conducted by Daniels, Devlin and Roeder (1997). It
included 212 correlations and produced very similar results to those quoted by Matt Ridley.
These authors conclude that hereditability can account for 48% of the variation in IQ. The
highest estimates have come from reviews of research by Herrnstein & Murray, 1994 (74%) and
14
Eysenck (80%). A safer bet is probably to sit on the fence - 50:50! Hereditability indices,
however, are not pure measures of genetic inheritance - they included prenatal environmental
influences (e.g. whether the mother smokes, what she eats, etc.) and the postnatal material
environment. Thus these hereditability indices are likely to overestimate the role of genetics”
(Neill, 2005).
Correlation of child-parent verbal ability scores
“This graph shows correlations between children and their parents and adopted children and
their biological and adoptive parents on verbal ability scores.
Hereditability & intelligence
“. . . hereditability is not pure genetic influence since the pre- and postnatal environments must
be taken into account. Hereditability estimates based on comparing correlations between IQs of
monozygotic (identical) twins reared together with IQs of dizygotic (fraternal) twins and siblings
are likely to overestimate the genetic component because monozygotic twins share more similar
environments - both in the womb and out” (Neill, 2005).

Twins reared apart are not assigned at random to foster or adoptive parents - since homes
are selected purposely to with regard to characteristics of the child and characteristics of the
family. This would partially account for the IQ correlations attributed to inheritance

Twin studies may not be generalizable to the population at large as twins are more
susceptible to prenatal trauma leading to retardation. The inclusion of retarded cases may
increase the twin correlation in intelligence test scores. Hereditability indexes refer to the
populations from which they were drawn at the time and are not applicable to an analysis of
test performance between two population groups e.g. ethnic groups.

Hereditability does not indicate the degree to which a trait can be modified e.g. even if the
hereditability of a trait, like intelligence were found to be 100% it wouldn’t mean it couldn't
be modified (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997).
We have focused on the hereditability (or otherwise) of general intelligence. What about the
subcomponents? There isevidence of a stronger genetic link for:
1. Spatial ability
2. Reasoning
15
And less evidence for genetic influence on:
1. Divergent thinking
2. Verbal fluency
Evidence in favor of “nurture”
“Give me a dozen healthy infants & my own specific world to bring them up in, & I'll guarantee
to take any one at random & train him to become any type of specialist I might select - doctor,
lawyer, artist, merchant, chef & yes, even beggar & thief, regardless of his talents, penchants,
tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors” (John B. Watson, 1924).
“This was a famous quote in the heyday of behaviorism, when the child was considered to be a
'tabula rasa' (blank slate) on which anything could be sculpted through environmental
experience. This would be a 100% environmental view, but virtually no psychologists would
accept such an extreme position today” (Neill, 2005).
The Flynn effect: Are we getting smarter?
“In the 1980s, a NZ-based political scientist, James Flynn, noticed that IQ was increasing in all
countries all the time, at an average rate of about 3 IQ points per decade i.e. the average IQ
across the world has risen over 1 standard deviation (i.e. 15 points) since WWII - predominantly
due to environmental effects. As a result, new norms continue to be used to rescale IQ tests to
‘100’ ” (Neill, 2005).
“Could this be due to diet? Possibly, but IQ scores are still rising just as rapidly in wellnourished western countries. Could it be schooling? Interruptions to schooling only have
temporary effects on IQ. Importantly, it is those tests that test abstract reasoning ability that
show the steepest improvements. One researcher, Ulric Neisser, suggests that the Flynn effect
is due to the way we are being saturated with sophisticated visual images: ads, posters,
videogame and TV graphics etc - rather than written messages. He suggests that children
experience a much richer visual environment than in the past, and that this assists them with
visual puzzles of the kind that dominate IQ tests” (Neill, 2005).
Intelligence varies with at least 21 factors
16
“Some of the other circumstances and attributes that have been found to vary to a greater or
lesser (but always significant) extent in relation with IQ (Bouchard & Segal, 1985; Liungman,
1975) - note that not all of these relationships support an environmental view” (Neill, 2005).
Intelligence varies with:





















Infant malnutrition
Birth weight
Birth order
Height
Number of siblings
Number of years in school
Social group of parental home
Father's profession
Father's economic status
Degree of parental rigidity
Parental ambition
Mother's education
Average TV viewing
Average book-reading
Self-confidence according to attitude scale measurement
Age (negative relationship, applies only in adulthood)
Degree of authority in parental home
Criminality
Alcoholism
Mental disease
Emotional adaptation” (Neill, 2005).
“No single environmental factor seems to have a large influence on IQ. Variables widely believed
to be important are usually weak....Even though many studies fail to find strong environmental
effects . . . most of the factors studied do influence IQ in the direction predicted by the
investigator . . . environmental effects are multi-factorial and largely unrelated to each other”
(Bouchard & Segal, 1985, p.452).
Intelligence & race
“Let's focus on some of the correlates of intelligence examining in particular the interplay
between race, environment and intelligence; between SES, environment and intelligence;
between education, environment and intelligence; and between occupation, environment and
intelligence” (Neill, 2005).
Herrnstein and Murray (1994) state in The Bell Curve that:
• Asians and Asian-Americans have a five point higher average IQ than white Americans,
and that
• white Americans have a fifteen higher mean IQ than black Americans.
“Further, they claim that this difference is not a function of cultural testing bias. Their argument
to support that was purely opinion since all tests are culturally biased and will always be” (Neill,
2005).
“Herrnstein and Murray (1994) acknowledge that the causes of these differences could be
environmental; however the differences in IQ appear to be too large to be accounted for by
environmental influences alone. They provide much qualification, cautioning, and warnings
about how their evidence should be interpreted and used. In particular, they remind the reader
that . . .” (Neill, 2005)
17
• IQ is not strongly linked to many so-called desirable human qualities; and
• The fallacy of drawing conclusions about individuals on the basis of group findings.
“Note that there have also been investigations into racial differences on subcomponents of
intelligence” (Neill, 2005). Herrstein and Murray (1994) report that:
• East Asian scores are typically the same or slightly lower than White American scores on
verbal IQ, but much higher on visual-spatial IQ
• Black Americans tend to score higher than whites on subtests involving arithmetic and
immediate memory, whereas whites typically score higher than blacks on subtests of spatialperceptual ability.
“Differences in IQ scores between races do not necessarily imply genetic causes. Most
psychologists accept that there are group mean differences in IQ scores for non-culturallyloaded tests. However, these differences are confounded with the effects of SES” (Neill, 2005).
1. Children with black fathers, brought up in white family - no evidence of lower IQs
(Vessels’ adopted son is one of these).
2. Adoption studies - black children brought up by white families only slightly lower IQs than
white adopted children (Howe, 1997).
“Some theorists suggest that socioeconomic disadvantages are the main causes of ethnic
differences in IQ. Gordon Vessels contends that SES, test bias, language modeling in homes,
and valuing of test scores are all at play. . . There is debate about whether hereditability
estimates even matter, since they can't be applied to an individual or be used to help people”
(Neill, 2005).
“It does not matter whether the field of human behavior genetics finally decides that the
hereditability of IQ in the United States is 25%, 40%, 50%, or 70%. Any such estimate will be
utterly useless to anyone seeking better ways to improve the intelligence of the nation through
health care and education” (Wahlsten, 1997, p. 84).
Intelligence & socioeconomic status
“However, adoption studies seem to indicate that SES has a strong, causal effect on intelligence”
(Neill, 2005). “Well-controlled adoption studies done in France have found that transferring an
infant from a family having low socioeconomic status (SES) to a home where parents have high
SES improves childhood IQ scores by 12 to 16 points or about one standard deviation, which is
considered a large effect size in psychological research” (Wahlsten, 1997, p. 76). “Several
recent US studies have demonstrated improvements in children's IQ's by improving the lives of
infants in disadvantaged circumstances. These studies employed random assignment of
children and families to treatment and control conditions” (Neill, 2005).
These studies selected families with:
• low parental IQ
• low parental education
• minimal financial resources
Experimental group received:
• Enriched, educational day care outside the home every weekday from 3 months to start
of schooling
Control group received:
18
• Nutritional supplements and pediatric medical care or crisis intervention but no educational
day care
“Even though the children returned to their home environment every day and spent holidays
and weekends with their families (mostly unemployed, single mothers), in poverty-stricken
neighborhoods, there were large gains in IQ; almost as much as in the French studies previously
mentioned. Furthermore, the mean IQ of the enriched groups appeared to be quite typical of
healthy American children. These children continued to show higher IQ scores than controls at
age 12 (Wahlsten, 1997). Of course, in these American studies, SES and education were being
manipulated. There is of course a strong correlation between SES and education in both
directions” (Neill, 2005).
Intelligence & education
Many studies show that schooling and intelligence influence each other. Higher intelligence lead
to longer schooling and longer schooling leads to higher IQ. Intelligence level at age 5 predicts
very well a child's future educational progress and attainment (Kline, 1991).
Wahlsten (1997):
• delays in schooling cause IQ to 'drop' 5 points per year
• temporary drop in IQ during school vacations
Winship & Korenman (1997):
• 2.7 IQ point advantage for each year of schooling
• thus to predict later IQ, two estimates are useful: early IQ estimates and number of years
of schooling
“In the US the Head Start program aims to enrich the schooling of disadvantaged children. On
the whole, the results have been mixed. Head Start and programs like it have been criticized
for not living up to expectations in changing IQ. The main defense is that the primary aim is not
to improve IQ, but to accelerate academic development - IQ change is a bonus, academic
development is more important. Head Start type programs have also been criticized for not
effecting last changes. This is not surprising if children return to poor, unsupportive, deprived
environments. And, in fact, such a finding supports the idea that IQ is malleable - in both
directions. New and better ways of educating, improving, and maximizing individual potentials
in intelligence are likely to be developed. As this happens, more and more of the
19
environmentally-influenced variation in IQ is likely to come under control and estimates of the
'environment' proportion could increase” (Neill, 2005).
The role of “interaction"
“An under-researched area . . . is the contribution of interactions between genetics and
environment on IQ variance. In the over-focus on nature vs. nurture issues, attempts to
estimate the relative contribution rely on the somewhat naive notion that there is a constant,
true value. In reality, ‘gene expression is environment dependent’ and it impossible to obtain
pure estimates of genetic vs. environmental contribution - one could not exist without the other.
The environment a child experiences is partly a consequence of the child’s genes as well as
external factors. To some extent a person seeks out and creates his or her environment. If she
is of a mechanical bent she practices mechanical skills; if a bookworm, she seeks out books.
Thus genes may create an appetite rather than an aptitude. Remember that the high
hereditability of short-sightedness is accounted for not just by the hereditability of a gene for
short sightedness but by the hereditability of literate habits. Thus, a future area for research
which blends those in the nature camps with those in the nurture camps would be examine
which environmental components allow people to optimally realize their genetic potentials for a
variety of areas of cognitive performance (e.g. see Feldman, 1986)” (Neill, 2005).
What have we learned about intelligence?
What can we say about nature versus nurture as causal determinants of intelligence?
A conservative position is that in the field of intelligence, there are three facts about the
transmission of intelligence that virtually everyone seems to accept:
1. Both heredity and environment contribute to intelligence.
2. Heredity and environment interact.
3. Extremely poor as well as highly enriched environments can interfere with the
realization of a person's intelligence regardless of the person's heredity (Sternberg &
Grigorenko, 1997, p. xi).
4. Although most would accept a causal role of genetics, the exact genetic link and how it
operates far from understood. It is certainly not a single gene but a complex set
of smaller genetic markers.
5. It is hard to pinpoint identifiable elements of the environment that influence IQ scores.
Many environmental factors influence intelligence.
“So what have we learned about intelligence: that it’s difficult to define but that there is
SOMETHING we call intelligence that appears to relate to ability to reason abstractly, to learn
and to adapt. That we can measure some part of it, although poorly; that it’s
partially caused by genetics, partially be environment; that the real causes are the complex, not
well understood interplay between genetics and environment; that it is somewhat though not
greatly modifiable; that sometimes what we learn from tests is used inappropriately but that IQ
tests can be useful in helping children attain their potential” (Neill, 2005).
Final quotes
“Measures of intelligence have reliable statistical relationships with important social phenomena,
but they are a limited tool for deciding what to make of any given individual. Repeat it we must,
for one of the problems of writing about intelligence is how to remind readers often enough how
little an IQ score tells you about whether the human being next to you is someone whom you
will admire or cherish” (Herrnstein and Murray,1994, p. 21). “Mother Nature has plainly not
entrusted the determination of our intellectual capacities to the blind fate of a gene or genes;
20
she gave us parents, learning, language, culture and education to program ourselves with”
(Ridley, 1999, p. 77).
References
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological Testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bouchard, T. J., & Segal, N. L. (1985). Environment and IQ. In B.B. Wolman (Ed.). Handbook of
Intelligence: Theories, Measurements, and Applications (pp. 391-464). New York: John Wiley.
Bouchard, T.J.Jr., & P. Propping (Eds.), What are the mechanisms mediating genetic and
environmental determinants of behavior:" Twins as a tool of behavior genetics . Chichester,
England: Wiley.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1973). The Development of Intelligence in Children (the Binet-Simon scale). New
York: Arno Press.
Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1993). The genetic architecture of human intelligence. In P. A. Vernon (Eds.),
Biological approaches to the study of human intelligence . Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bouchard, T. J., Jr., & McGue, M. (1981). Family studies of intelligence: A review. Science , 212, 10551059.
Carroll, John, B. (1982). The measurement of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human
intelligence (pp. 29-120). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, John, B. (1993). Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-analytic Studies. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Cattell, R.B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 54, 1-22.
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their Structure, Growth, and Action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Daniels, M., Devlin, B., & Roeder, K. (1997). Of genes and IQ. In B. Devlin, S. E. Fienberg., & K. Roeder
(pp. 45-70). Intelligence, Genes, and Success: Scientists respond to The Bell Curve. New York: Springer.
Das, J. P., Naglieri, J. A., & Kirby, J. R. (1994). Assessment of cognitive processes: The PASS theory of
intelligence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Deary, I. J. & Stough, C. (1996). Intelligence and inspection time: achievements, prospects, and problems.
American Psychologist, 51, 599-608.
Devlin, B., Fienberg, S. E., Resnick, D. P., & Roeder, K. (Eds.) (1997). Intelligence, Genes, and Success:
Scientists respond to The Bell Curve. New York: Springer.
Eysenck, H. (1971). Race, Intelligence and Education. London: Maurice Temple Smith.
Feldman, D. H. (1985). Nature's Gambit: Child Prodigies and the Development of Human Potential. New
York: Basic Books.
Flanagan, D.P., Genshaft, J.L., & Harrison, P.L. (Eds.) (1997). Contemporary intellectual assessment:
Theories, tests, and issues. New York: Guilford Press.
Feuerstein, R. (1979). The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers: The learning potential
assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.
21
Feuerstein, R. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment: An Intervention Program for Cognitive Modifiability.
Baltimore: University Park Press.
Galton, Francis (1869). Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into Its Laws and Consequences. London: Macmillan,
p. 1.
Gardner, Howard (1983; Frame of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1995, November). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and messages. Phi Delta
Kappan, 200-209.1993)
Gould, Stephen Jay (1996). The Mismeasure of Man: Revised and expanded. New York: W. W. Norton.
(Original work published 1981)
Gould, S.J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and
bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 13-23.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J.P. (1971). Some misconceptions regarding the measurement of creative talent. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 5, 77-93.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve. New York: The Free Press.
Horne, J. L. (1979). Trends in the measurement of intelligence. Intelligence, 3, 229-2406;
Howe, M. J. A. (1997). IQ in Question: The truth about intelligence. London: Sage.
Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational
Review, 39, 1-12 Sybil Kline (PASS+S), 3.
Kline, S. (1996). Sociocultural influences on the development of cognitive processing as measured by the
PASS+S Dynamic Assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Califonia, Santa Cruz.
Kline, P. (1991). Intelligence: The Psychometric View. London: Routledge.
Kristinsdóttir (2001). http://starfsfolk.khi.is/solrunb/feuerst.htm
Carol Lidz and Ruthanne Jespen (2005). ACFS: The Application of Cognitive Functions Scale),
http://www.crede.org/research/llaa/intro6_3.html; http://www.bgcenter.com/ACFS.htm
Liungman, C.G. (1975). What is IQ? Intelligence, Heredity and Environment. London: Gordon Cremonesi.
Lidz, C.S. (1991). Practitioner's guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford Press
Luria, A.R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Manolakes, L. A. (1997). Cognitive Ability, Environmental Factors, and Crime: Predicting Frequent Criminal
Activity. In B. Devlin, S.E. Fienberg., & K. Roeder (pp. 235-255). Intelligence, Genes, and Success:
Scientists respond to The Bell Curve. New York: Springer.
22
McClelland, David, C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for ìintelligence.î American
Psychologist, 28(1) , 1-24.
Murphy, K.R., & Davidshofer, C.O. (1998). Psychological testing: Principles and applications (4th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Neill (2005). Intelligence and psychological testing. Retrieved from Wilderdom a website at
http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/intelligence.html. Information from website used with his written
permission.
Naglieri, Jack, A. (1998). A closer look at new kinds of intelligence tests. American Psychologist, 53(10),
1158.
Neisser, Ulric. (1979). The concept of intelligence. Intelligence, 3, 217-227.
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, J. R. Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D. F., Loehlin, J.
C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R. J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: knowns & unknowns. American
Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101.
Neisser, U. (1998). The rising curve: Long term gains in IQ and related measures. [A series of essays
funded by an APA Task Force on Human Intelligence.] Toronto. Ingram.
Ridley, M. (1999). Genome: The autobiography of a species in 23 chapters. London: Fourth Estate Ltd.
Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence, objectively determined and measured. American Journal of
Psychology, 15, 201-293.
Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan.
Sternberg, Robert (1977). Intelligence, Information Processing, and Analogical Reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Sternberg, Robert (1985). Beyond IQ, A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking.
Sternberg, R. J., & Detterman D. K. (Eds.). (1986). What is Intelligence?: Contemporary viewpoints on
its nature and definition. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, Richard, K., (Eds.). (1986). Practical Intelligence: Nature and Origins of
Competence in the Everyday World. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R.J. (1988). The Triarchiic Mind: A New Theory of Human Intelligence. New York: Viking.
Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of Mind: Conceptions of the Nature of Intelligence. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test. New Haven, CT: Yale University. [unpublished
at large].
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1994). Encyclopedia of human intelligence (Vols. 1-2). New York: Macmillan.
Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, Richard K. (Eds.). (1994). Mind in Context: Interactionist Perspectives on
Human Intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success
in life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
23
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). The triarchic theory of intelligence. In Dawn P. Flannagan, Judy, L. Genshaft, &
Patti L. Harrison (Eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues (pp. 92-104)
New York: Guilford Press.
Sternberg, Robert, Editor (2000). Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., & Okagaki, L. (1993). Practical intelligence: The nature and role of tacit
knowledge in work and at school. In H. Reese & J. Puckett (Eds.), Advances in Lifespan Development (pp.
205-227). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. (Eds.) (1997). Intelligence, heredity, and environment. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, Robert, Wagner, Richard K., Grigorenko, Elena, Horvath, Joseph, and Snook, Scott (2000).
Practical Intelligence in Everyday Life. Cambridge University Press.
Thomson, R. (1968). The Pelican history of psychology. Middlesex, UK: Pelican.
Thurstone Thurstone, L.L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Psychometric monographs, No. 1
Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Vernon, P. E. (1950). The hierarchy of ability. In S. Wiseman (Ed.), Intelligence and Ability.
Marmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.
Vernon, P.E. (1969). Intelligence and cultural environment. London: Methuen.
Vernon, P.E. (1979). Intelligence: Heredity and environment. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Vernon, P. A. (1989). The heritability of measure s of speed of information-processing. Personality and
Individual Differences. 10, 573-576.
Wagner, Richard K. (2000). Practical intelligence. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Intelligence.
Cambridge University Press.
Wahlsten, D. (1997). The malleability of intelligence is not constrained by hereditability. In B.
Devlin, S.E. Fienberg., & K. Roeder (pp. 71-87). Intelligence, Genes, and Success: Scientists respond
to The Bell Curve. New York: Springer.
Weinberg, R.A. (1989). Intelligence and IQ: Landmark issues and great debates. American
Psychologist, 44, 98-104.
Winship, C., & Korenman, S. (1997). Does staying in school make you smarter? The effect of
education on IQ in The Bell Curve. In B. Devlin, S.E. Fienberg & K. Roeder (pp. 215-234).
Intelligence, Genes, and Success: Scientists Respond to The Bell Curve. New York: Springer.
24