Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Intelligence: intelligence is the ability to recognize patterns in presented information or to recognize possibilities for supplementing and transforming known patterns that go beyond repetitions._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Psychological Theories on Intelligence - Dictionary of Arguments
Corr I 163 Intelligence/psychological theories/Ackerman: Modern intellectual ability theories (see e.g., Carroll 1993(1)) represent intelligence in a hierarchical fashion, with a general intellectual ability (the most general construct) at the top of the hierarchy (Strata III), and somewhat narrower ability content as one moves down the hierarchy ((s) here from left to right). E.g. Crystalized intelligence - (e.g. verbal comprehension, lexical knowledge) Fluid intelligence - (e.g. sequential reasoning) Visual perception - (e.g. spatial relations) Learning and memory - (e.g. memory spun, associative memory) Speed - (e.g. perceptual speed, reaction speed) Auditory perception - (e.g. hearing and speech, music perception) (For the complete Table cf. (1)) For the relation between intelligence and personality traits see >Personality traits/Ackerman. Corr I 167 Def TIE/Ackerman: a measure of typical intellectual engagement: TIE is defined as the individual’s preference toward or away from intellectual activities.(Goff and Ackerman 1992)(2). The authors of the TIE hypothesized that scores on the measure would correlate mainly with measures of accumulated knowledge (an ability called ‘crystallized intelligence’) and less so with measures of fluid intellectual abilities (e.g., deductive reasoning and quantitative reasoning). Corr I 168 Overlap of intelligence with personality factors: The associations between personality trait measures that are narrower in scope than the broad five factors of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness typically show modest correlations with measures of intellectual abilities, whether at the general or specific level. Need for Achievement (nAch) probably shows the most robust positive correlations among this group of personality traits, with correlations in the range of r = .07 to .24. Traits like Alienation, Aggression, Harm-Avoidance and Traditionalism all show small negative correlations with intellectual ability measures, ranging from negligible magnitude to about r = −.15. >Personality traits/Ackerman. 1. Carroll, J. B. 1993. Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press 2. Goff, M. and Ackerman, P. L. 1992. Personality-intelligence relations: assessing typical intellectual engagement, Journal of Educational Psychology 84: 537–52 Phillip L. Ackerman, “Personality and intelligence”, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press - - - Slater I 127 Intelligence/psychological theories: Many who have recently addressed the subject have taken the same kind of debating perspective Jensen (1969(1) did, but from the opposite side. >Intelligence/Jensen, >Intelligence test/Jensen, >Intelligence test/psychological theories. That is, they selectively present evidence just as indirect as Jensen’s but opposing his position, and prematurely conclude that he was wrong (see, e.g., Nisbett, 2009(2); Shenk, 2010(3)). Though the question of the source of the racial gap in test scores is certainly scientifically legitimate, it must be pursued responsibly from all perspectives (Hunt & Carlson, 2007)(4). Slater I 128 Jensen: Perhaps the greatest irony surrounding Jensen’s (1969)(1) article is that he was very creatively doing just that when he was sidetracked into arguing that socially dis-advantaged children were inherently less educable. 1. Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 3, 1–123. 2. Nisbett, R. E. (2009). Intelligence and how to get it: Why schools and cultures count. New York: Norton. 3. Shenk, D. (2010). The genius in all of us: Why everything you’ve been told about genetics, talent, and IQ is wrong. New York: Doubleday. 4. Hunt, E., & Carlson, J. (2007). Considerations relating to the study of group differences in intelligence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 194–213. Wendy Johnson: „How Much Can We Boost IQ? Updated Look at Jensen’s (1969) Question and Answer“, in: Alan M. Slater & Paul C. Quinn (eds.) 2012. Developmental Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies. London: Sage Publications_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Psychological Theories Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 Slater I Alan M. Slater Paul C. Quinn Developmental Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2012 |
||
> Counter arguments against Psychological Theories
> Counter arguments in relation to Intelligence
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-20