Until the 1960s, intelligence research was dominated by the factorial approach. However, with the development of cognitive psychology, with its emphasis on information processing models (see Chapter 9), a new approach has emerged. Different researchers define it somewhat differently, but the main idea is to explain intelligence in terms of the cognitive processes that occur when we perform intellectual activities (Hunt, 1990; Carpenter, Just & Shell, 1990). The information approach raises the following questions:

1. What mental processes are involved in various intelligence tests?

2. How fast and accurate are these processes?

3. What kind of mental representations of information are used in these processes?

Instead of explaining intelligence in terms of factors, the informational approach seeks to determine what mental processes are behind intelligent behavior. He assumes that individual differences in the solution of a particular problem depend on the specific processes involved in its solution by different individuals, and on the speed and accuracy of these processes. The goal is to use the information model of a particular task to find measures that characterize the processes involved in this task. These measures can be very simple, such as reaction time to multiple choices, or reaction rate of the subject, or eye movements and cortical evoked potentials associated with that reaction. Any information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of each component process is used.

Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences

Howard Gardner (Gardner, 1983) developed his theory of multiple intelligences as a radical alternative to what he calls the "classical" view of intelligence as the capacity for logical reasoning.

Gardner was struck by the variety of adult roles in different cultures - roles based on a wide variety of abilities and skills, equally necessary for survival in their respective cultures. Based on his observations, he came to the conclusion that instead of a single basic intellectual ability, or "g factor", there are many different intellectual abilities that occur in various combinations. Gardner defines intelligence as "the ability to solve problems or create products, due to specific cultural characteristics or social environment" (1993, p. 15). It is the multiple nature of intelligence that allows people to take on such diverse roles as doctor, farmer, shaman, and dancer (Gardner, 1993a).

Gardner notes that intelligence is not a “thing”, not a device located in the head, but “a potential, the presence of which allows an individual to use forms of thinking that are adequate to specific types of context” (Kornhaber & Gardner, 1991, p. 155). He believes that there are at least 6 different types of intelligence that do not depend on each other and act in the brain as independent systems (or modules), each according to its own rules. These include: a) linguistic; b) logical and mathematical; c) spatial; d) musical; e) bodily-kinesthetic and f) personality modules. The first three modules are familiar components of intelligence, and they are measured by standard intelligence tests. The last three, according to Gardner, deserve a similar status, but Western society has emphasized the first three types and virtually excluded the rest. These types of intelligence are described in more detail in Table. 12.6.

Table 12.6. Seven intellectual abilities according to Gardner

1. Verbal intelligence - the ability to generate speech, including the mechanisms responsible for the phonetic (speech sounds), syntactic (grammar), semantic (meaning) and pragmatic components of speech (the use of speech in various situations).

2. Musical intelligence - the ability to generate, transmit and understand the meanings associated with sounds, including the mechanisms responsible for the perception of pitch, rhythm and timbre (qualitative characteristics) of sound.

3. Logical-mathematical intelligence - the ability to use and evaluate the relationship between actions or objects when they are not actually present, that is, to abstract thinking.

4. Spatial intelligence - the ability to perceive visual and spatial information, modify it and recreate visual images without recourse to the original stimuli. Includes the ability to construct images in three dimensions, as well as mentally move and rotate these images.

5. Body-kinesthetic intelligence - the ability to use all parts of the body when solving problems or creating products; includes control over gross and fine motor movements and the ability to manipulate external objects.

6. Intrapersonal intelligence - the ability to recognize one's own feelings, intentions and motives.

7. Interpersonal intelligence - the ability to recognize and discriminate between the feelings, attitudes and intentions of other people.

(Adapted from: Gardner, Kornhaber & Wake, 1996)

In particular, Gardner argues that musical intelligence, including the ability to perceive pitch and rhythm, has been more important than logico-mathematical for most of human history. Body-kinesthetic intelligence includes control of one's body and the ability to skillfully manipulate objects: dancers, gymnasts, artisans, and neurosurgeons are examples. Personal intelligence consists of two parts. Intrapersonal intelligence is the ability to monitor one's feelings and emotions, distinguish between them, and use this information to guide one's actions. Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to notice and understand the needs and intentions of others and monitor their mood in order to predict their future behavior.

Gardner analyzes each type of intelligence from several positions: the cognitive operations involved in it; the appearance of child prodigies and other exceptional personalities; data on cases of brain damage; its manifestations in various cultures and the possible course of evolutionary development. For example, with certain brain damage, one type of intelligence may be impaired, while others remain unaffected. Gardner notes that the abilities of adult representatives of different cultures are different combinations of certain types of intelligence. Although all normal individuals are capable of exhibiting all varieties of intelligence to some degree, each individual has a unique combination of more and less developed intellectual abilities (Walters & Gardner, 1985), which explains the individual differences between people.

As we have noted, conventional IQ tests are good at predicting college grades, but they are less valid at predicting future job success or career advancement. Measures of other abilities, such as personal intelligence, may help explain why some excellent college performers become miserable failures later in life, while less successful students become worship leaders (Kornhaber, Krechevsky & Gardner, 1990). Therefore, Gardner and his colleagues call for an "intellectual-objective" assessment of students' abilities. This will allow children to demonstrate their abilities in ways other than paper tests, such as putting together different elements to demonstrate spatial imagination skills.

Anderson's Theory of Intelligence and Cognitive Development

One of the criticisms of Gardner's theory indicates that a high level of ability related to any of the manifestations of intelligence he identifies, as a rule, correlates with a high level of ability related to other manifestations of intelligence; that is, that none of the specific abilities are completely independent of the others (Messick, 1992; Scarr, 1985). In addition, psychologist Mike Anderson points out that Gardner does not clearly define the nature of multiple intellectual abilities - he calls them "behaviors, cognitive processes, brain structures" (1992, p. 67). Because of this uncertainty, Anderson tried to develop a theory based on the idea of general intelligence put forward by Thurstone and others.

Anderson's theory states that individual differences in intelligence and developmental changes in the level of intellectual competence are explained by a number of different mechanisms. Differences in intelligence are the result of differences in the "basic information processing mechanisms" that involve thinking and, in turn, lead to the acquisition of knowledge. The speed at which recycling processes proceed varies from individual to individual. Thus, an individual with a slow functioning basic processing mechanism is likely to have greater difficulty in acquiring new knowledge than an individual with a fast functioning processing mechanism. This is equivalent to saying that a slow processing mechanism is the cause of low general intelligence.

However, Anderson notes that there are cognitive mechanisms that are not characterized by individual differences. For example, individuals with Down syndrome may not be able to put two and two together, but they are aware that other people have beliefs and act on those beliefs (Anderson, 1992). The mechanisms that provide such universal abilities are called "modules". Each module functions independently, performing complex calculations. Modules are not affected by the underlying processing mechanisms; in principle, they are automatic. According to Anderson, it is the maturation of new modules that explains the growth of cognitive abilities in the process of individual development. For example, the maturation of the module responsible for speech explains the development of the ability to speak in full (expanded) sentences.

According to Anderson's theory, in addition to modules, intelligence includes two "specific abilities". One of them is related to propositional thinking (a linguistic mathematical expression), and the other is related to visual and spatial functioning. Anderson believes that tasks that require these abilities are performed by "specific processors". Unlike modules, specific processors are affected by underlying processing mechanisms. High-speed processing mechanisms allow an individual to use specific processors more efficiently and thereby score higher on tests and achieve more in real life.

Thus, Anderson's theory of intelligence suggests that there are two different "routes" to the acquisition of knowledge. The first involves the use of basic processing mechanisms, leading through specific processors to the acquisition of knowledge. From Anderson's point of view, it is this process that we understand by "thinking" and it is he who is responsible for individual differences regarding intelligence (from his point of view, equivalent to differences in knowledge). The second route involves using modules to acquire knowledge. Knowledge based on modules, such as the perception of three-dimensional space, comes automatically if the corresponding module is sufficiently matured, and this explains the development of the intellect.

Anderson's theory can be illustrated by the example of a 21-year-old young man, known by the initials M.A., who suffered from childhood convulsions and was diagnosed with autism. Upon reaching adulthood, he could not speak and received the lowest scores on psychometric tests. However, he was found to have an IQ of 128 and an extraordinary ability to operate on prime numbers, which he performed more accurately than a specialist with a degree in mathematics (Anderson, 1992). Anderson concluded that M.A.'s basic processing mechanism was not damaged, which allowed him to think in abstract symbols, but his linguistic modules were affected, which prevented him from mastering everyday knowledge and communication processes.

Sternberg's triarchic theory

Unlike Anderson's theory, Sternberg's triarchic theory considers individual experience and context, as well as the basic mechanisms of information processing. Sternberg's theory includes three parts, or sub-theories: a component sub-theory that considers thought processes; experimental (experiential) sub-theory, which considers the influence of individual experience on intelligence; a contextual sub-theory that considers environmental and cultural influences (Sternberg, 1988). The most developed of them is the component subtheory.

Component theory considers the components of thinking. Sternberg identifies three types of components:

1. Metacomponents used for planning, control, monitoring and evaluation of information processing in the process of solving problems.

2. Executive components responsible for the use of problem solving strategies.

3. Components of knowledge acquisition (knowledge), responsible for coding, combining and comparing information in the process of solving problems.

These components are interconnected; they all participate in the process of solving the problem, and none of them can function independently of the others.

Sternberg considers the functioning of the components of intelligence on the example of the following analogy task:

“A lawyer treats a client as a doctor treats: a) medicine; b) patient"

A series of experiments with such problems led Sternberg to conclude that the encoding process and the comparison process are critical components. The subject encodes each of the words of the proposed task by forming a mental representation of this word, in this case, a list of features of this word, reproduced from long-term memory. For example, a mental representation of the word "lawyer" might include the following attributes: college education, knowledge of legal procedures, representing a client in court, and so on. After the subject has formed a mental representation for each word from the presented problem, the comparison process scans these representations for matching features that lead to a solution to the problem.

Other processes are also involved in analogy problems, but Sternberg showed that individual differences in the solutions to this problem fundamentally depend on the efficiency of the coding and comparison processes. According to experimental data, individuals who perform better in solving analogy problems (experienced in solving) spend more time coding and form more accurate mental representations than individuals who perform poorly in such tasks (inexperienced in solving). At the comparison stage, on the contrary, those who are experienced in solving compare features faster than those who are inexperienced, but both are equally accurate. Thus, the better performance of proficient subjects is based on the greater accuracy of their encoding process, but the time it takes them to solve a problem is a complex mixture of slow encoding and fast comparison (Galotti, 1989; Pellegrino, 1985).

However, it is not possible to fully explain the individual differences between people observed in the intellectual sphere with the help of the component subtheory alone. An experiential theory has been developed to explain the role of individual experience in the functioning of the intellect. According to Sternberg, differences in people's experiences affect the ability to solve specific problems. An individual who has not previously encountered a particular concept, such as a mathematical formula or analogy problems, will have more difficulty using this concept than an individual who has already had a chance to use it. Thus, individual experience associated with a particular task or problem can range from complete lack of experience to automatic completion of the task (that is, to complete familiarity with the task as a result of long-term experience with it).

Of course, the fact that an individual is familiar with certain concepts is largely determined by the environment. This is where contextual sub-theory comes into play. This subtheory considers the cognitive activity required to adapt to specific environmental contexts (Sternberg, 1985). It is focused on the analysis of three intellectual processes: adaptation, selection and formation of the environmental conditions that actually surround him. According to Sternberg, the individual first of all looks for ways to adapt or adapt to the environment. If adaptation is not possible, the individual tries to choose a different environment or to shape the conditions of the existing environment in such a way that he can more successfully adapt to them. For example, if a person is unhappy in marriage, it may be impossible for him to adapt to his surroundings. Therefore, he or she may choose a different environment (for example, if he or she separates or divorces his or her spouse) or tries to shape existing conditions in a more acceptable way (for example, by going to family counseling) (Sternberg, 1985).

Bioecological theory of Cesi

Some critics argue that Sternberg's theory is so multi-component that its individual parts do not agree with each other (Richardson, 1986). Others point out that this theory does not explain how problem solving is carried out in everyday contexts. Still others point out that this theory largely ignores the biological aspects of intelligence. Stefan Ceci (1990) tried to answer these questions by developing Sternberg's theory and paying much more attention to the context and its influence on the process of problem solving.

Cesi believes that there are "multiple cognitive potentials", as opposed to a single basic intellectual ability or factor of general intelligence g. These multiple abilities or areas of intelligence are biologically determined and impose restrictions on mental (mental) processes. Moreover, they are closely related to the problems and opportunities inherent in the individual environment or context.

For Cesi, context plays a central role in demonstrating cognitive abilities. By "context" he means areas of knowledge, as well as factors such as personality traits, level of motivation and education. The context can be mental, social and physical (Ceci & Roazzi, 1994). A particular individual or population may lack certain mental abilities, but in the presence of a more interesting and stimulating context, the same individual or population may demonstrate a higher level of intellectual functioning. Let's take just one example; in a well-known longitudinal study of children with high IQ by Lewis Terman (Terman & Oden, 1959), it was suggested that high IQ correlated with high levels of achievement. However, upon closer analysis of the results, it was found that children from wealthy families achieved greater success in adulthood than children from low-income families. In addition, those who grew up during the Great Depression achieved less in life than those who came of age later, at a time when career prospects were greater. As Cesi puts it, "as a result ... the ecological niche that an individual occupies, including factors such as individual and historical development, turns out to be a much more significant determinant of professional and economic success than IQ" (1990, p. 62).

Cesi also argues against the traditional view of the relationship between intelligence and the ability to think abstractly, regardless of the subject area. He believes that the ability for complex mental activity is associated with knowledge acquired in certain contexts or areas. Highly intelligent individuals are not endowed with great abilities for abstract thinking, but have sufficient knowledge in specific areas, allowing them to think in a more complex way about problems in this field of knowledge (Ceci, 1990). In the process of working in a certain field of knowledge - for example, in computer programming - the individual knowledge base grows and becomes better organized. Over time, this allows the individual to improve his intellectual functioning - for example, to develop better computer programs.

Thus, according to Cexi's theory, everyday, or "life", intellectual functioning cannot be explained on the basis of IQ alone or some biological concept of general intelligence. Instead, intelligence is defined by the interaction between multiple cognitive potentials and a vast, well-organized knowledge base.

Theories of Intelligence: Summary

The four theories of intelligence discussed in this section differ in several respects. Gardner attempts to explain the wide variety of adult roles found in different cultures. He believes that such diversity cannot be explained by the existence of a basic universal intellectual ability, and suggests that there are at least seven different manifestations of intelligence, present in various combinations in each individual. According to Gardner, intelligence is the ability to solve problems or create products that have value in a particular culture. According to this view, a Polynesian navigator with developed skills in navigating the stars, a figure skater who successfully performs a triple “Axel”, or a charismatic leader who draws crowds of followers along with him are no less “intellectual” than a scientist, mathematician or engineer.

Anderson's theory attempts to explain various aspects of intelligence - not only individual differences, but also the growth of cognitive abilities in the course of individual development, as well as the existence of specific abilities, or universal abilities that do not differ from one individual to another, such as the ability to see objects in three measurements. To explain these aspects of intelligence, Anderson suggests the existence of a basic processing mechanism equivalent to Spearman's general intelligence, or g factor, along with specific processors responsible for propositional thinking and visual and spatial functioning. The existence of universal abilities is explained using the concept of "modules", the functioning of which is determined by the degree of maturation.

Sternberg's triarchic theory is based on the view that earlier theories of intelligence are not wrong, but only incomplete. This theory consists of three sub-theories: a component sub-theory that considers the mechanisms of information processing; experimental (experiential) sub-theory, which takes into account individual experience in solving problems or being in certain situations; contextual sub-theory that considers the relationship between the external environment and individual intelligence.

Cesi's bioecological theory is a development of Sternberg's theory and explores the role of context at a deeper level. Rejecting the idea of a single general intellectual ability to solve abstract problems, Cesi believes that the basis of intelligence is multiple cognitive potentials. These potentials are biologically determined, but the degree of their manifestation is determined by the knowledge accumulated by the individual in a certain area. Thus, according to Cesi, knowledge is one of the most important factors of intelligence.

Despite these differences, all theories of intelligence have a number of common features. All of them try to take into account the biological basis of intelligence, whether it be a basic processing mechanism or a set of multiple intellectual abilities, modules or cognitive potentials. In addition, three of these theories emphasize the role of the context in which the individual functions, that is, environmental factors that influence intelligence. Thus, the development of a theory of intelligence suggests further study of the complex interactions between biological and environmental factors that are at the center of modern psychological research.

1. Representatives of the behavioral sciences, as a rule, quantify the degree of difference of one group of people from another based on a certain measure of personal quality or ability, calculating the variance of the obtained indicators. The more individuals in a group differ from each other, the higher the variance. Researchers can then determine how much of that variance is attributable to one cause or another. The proportion of the variance of a trait that is explained (or caused) by the genetic difference of individuals is called the heritability of that trait. Since heritability is a proportion, it is expressed as a number from 0 to 1. For example, the heritability of height is about 0.90: differences in people's height are almost entirely due to their genetic differences.

2. Heritability can be assessed by comparing correlations obtained for pairs of identical twins (who share all the genes) and correlations obtained for pairs of related twins (who, on average, share about half of the genes). If, for some trait, pairs of identical twins are more similar than pairs of related ones, then this trait has a genetic component. Heritability can also be assessed by correlation within identical pairs of twins raised apart from each other in different environments. Any correlation within such pairs must be explained by their genetic similarity.

3. Heritability is often misunderstood; therefore, it must be taken into account that: a) it indicates the difference between individuals. It does not show how much of a given trait in an individual is due to genetic factors; b) it is not a fixed attribute of a feature. If something affects the variability of a trait in a group, then heritability also changes; c) heritability shows the variance in a group. It indicates the source of the mean difference between groups; d) heritability shows how changes in the environment can change the average indicator of a trait in a population.

4. Genetic and environmental factors do not act independently in the formation of personality, but are closely intertwined from the moment of birth. Because both a child's personality and home environments are a function of parental genes, there is a built-in correlation between a child's genotype (inherited personality traits) and that environment.

5. The three dynamic processes of interaction between the individual and the environment include: a) reactive interaction: different individuals experience and interpret the action of the same environment in different ways and react to it differently; b) evoked interaction: the personality of the individual causes different reactions in other people; c) proactive interaction: individuals choose and create their own environment. As the child grows, the role of proactive interaction increases.

6. A number of mysteries have been revealed in twin studies: the heritability estimated from identical twins raised apart is significantly higher than that estimated from comparing identical and consanguineous twins. Identical twins who grew up apart are just as similar to each other as twins who grew up together, but the similarity of related twins and single siblings decreases over time, even if they grew up together. This is partly due, apparently, to the fact that when all the genes are shared, they are more than twice as efficient as when only half of the genes are shared. These patterns can also be partially explained by the three processes of interaction between the person and the environment (reactive, evoked and proactive).

7. Except for genetic similarity, children from the same family are no more similar than children randomly selected from the group. This means that the variables that are usually studied by psychologists (the characteristics of upbringing and the socioeconomic situation of the family) hardly contribute to interindividual differences. Researchers should take a closer look at the differences in children within the same family. This result can also be partially explained by the three processes of interaction between the person and the environment.

8. Tests designed to assess intelligence and personality are required to give repeatable and consistent results (reliability) and measure exactly what they are designed to measure (validity).

9. The first tests of intelligence were developed by the French psychologist Alfred Binet, who proposed the concept of mental age. In a gifted child, mental age is greater than chronological, and in a child with delayed development, it is less than chronological. The concept of intelligence quotient (IQ) as the ratio of mental age to chronological age, multiplied by 100, was introduced when the Binet scales were revised and the Stanford-Binet test was created. Many intelligence test scores are still expressed as IQ scores, but they are no longer calculated using the old formula.

10. Both Binet and Wexler, the developer of the Wexler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), believed that intelligence is the general ability to think. Similarly, Spearman suggested that the general intelligence factor (g) determines an individual's performance in relation to various test items. The method of identifying the various abilities underlying achievement on intelligence tests is called factor analysis.

11. In order to identify a comprehensive but reasonable number of personality traits on which to evaluate an individual, the researchers first selected from the complete dictionary all the words (about 18,000) denoting personality traits; then their number was reduced. Individuals' scores on the traits anchored in the remaining terms were processed by factor analysis to determine how many parameters are required to explain the correlations between the scales. Although the number of factors varies from researcher to researcher, scientists recently agreed that a set of five factors would be the best compromise. They were called the "big five" and abbreviated as "OCEAN"; the five main factors are: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, compliance, and neuroticism.

12. Personality questionnaires serve to report individuals on their opinions or reactions to certain situations indicated in the question. Responses to subgroups of test items are summarized to obtain scores on different scales or factors of the questionnaire. Most questionnaire items are compiled or selected on the basis of one theory or another, but they can also be selected by correlation with an external criterion - this method of compiling a test is called criterion binding. The best example available is the Minnesota Multidisciplinary Personality Inventory (MMPI), which was developed to identify individuals with mental disorders. For example, an item to which schizophrenics are significantly more likely than normal people to answer "true" is chosen as the item on the schizophrenia scale.

13. The informational approach to intelligence seeks to explain intellectual behavior in terms of the cognitive processes involved in an individual's solution of tasks from an intelligence test.

14. Recent theories of intelligence include Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, Anderson's theory of intelligence and cognitive development, Sternberg's triarchic theory, and Cesi's ecobiological theory. All of these theories, to varying degrees, consider the interaction between biological and environmental factors that affect the functioning of the intellect.

Key terms

Heredity

Reliability

Validity

Intelligence quotient (IQ)

Personality

Personality Questionnaire

Questions for reflection

1. If you have siblings, how different are you from them? Can you identify how these differences might be influenced by the person-environment interactions described in this chapter? Can you tell how the parenting strategies used by your parents differed for each of the children in your family, depending on their personality characteristics?

2. Standardized tests such as the SAT provide a nationwide measure of achievement, allowing graduates from any school in the country to compete equally for admission to top colleges. Prior to the introduction of standardized tests, students were often unable to demonstrate that they had the required level of achievement, and colleges favored students from well-known schools or those with "family ties." However, critics argue that the widespread popularity of standardized tests in selecting well-prepared students has led admissions committees to place too much weight on test scores and schools have begun to tailor their curricula to fit the tests themselves. In addition, critics claim that standardized tests are biased towards certain ethnic groups. Considering all these factors, do you think that the widespread use of standardized tests contributes to or hinders the achievement of the goal of equal opportunity for our society?

3. How would you rate yourself on the Big Five scales that measure personality traits? Do you think that your personality can be adequately described using this model? What aspects of your personality might be overlooked in this description? If you and a close friend (family member) had to describe your personality, what characteristics would you likely disagree on? Why? When describing what traits of your personality could your chosen person be more accurate than yourself? If there are such traits, why can another person describe you more accurately than yourself?

The term "intelligence", in addition to its scientific meaning (which each theorist has his own), like an old cruiser with shells, has acquired an endless number of everyday and popularizing interpretations. Abstracting the works of the authors, which in one way or another concerned this subject, would take more than one hundred pages. Therefore, we will conduct a brief review and choose the most appropriate interpretation of the concept of "intelligence".

The main criterion for distinguishing the intellect as an independent reality is its function in the regulation of behavior. When they talk about intelligence as a certain ability, they primarily rely on its adaptive significance for humans and higher animals. Intelligence, as V. Stern believed, is a certain general ability to adapt to new living conditions. An adaptive act (according to Stern) is a solution to a life task carried out through action with a mental (“mental”) equivalent of an object, through “action in the mind” (or, according to Ya. A. Ponomarev, “in the internal plan of action”). Thanks to this, the subject solves a certain problem here and now without external behavioral trials, correctly and one-time: trials, testing of hypotheses are carried out in the “internal plan of action”.

According to L. Polanyi, intelligence refers to one of the ways of acquiring knowledge. But, in the opinion of most other authors, the acquisition of knowledge (assimilation, according to J. Piaget) is only a secondary side of the process of applying knowledge in solving a life problem. It is important that the problem is really new, or at least has a novelty component. The problem of "transfer" - the transfer of "knowledge - operations" from one situation to another (new) is closely related to the problem of intellectual behavior.

But in general, a developed intellect, according to J. Piaget, manifests itself in universal adaptability, in achieving “balance” of an individual with the environment.

Any intellectual act implies the activity of the subject and the presence of self-regulation in its implementation. According to M. K. Akimova, the basis of intelligence is precisely mental activity, while self-regulation only provides the level of activity necessary to solve the problem. Adjacent to this point of view is E. A. Golubeva, who believes that activity and self-regulation are the basic factors of intellectual productivity, and adds efficiency to them.

The view of the nature of the intellect as an ability contains a rational grain. It becomes noticeable if we look at this problem from the point of view of the relationship between the conscious and the unconscious in the human psyche. Even V. N. Pushkin considered the thought process as the interaction of consciousness and subconsciousness. At different stages of solving the problem, the leading role from one structure passes to another. If consciousness dominates at the stage of setting the task and analysis, then at the stage of “idea incubation” and the generation of hypotheses, the activity of the unconscious plays a decisive role. At the moment of “insight” (unexpected discovery, insight), the idea breaks into consciousness due to a “short circuit” according to the “key-lock” principle, which is accompanied by vivid emotional experiences. At the stage of selecting and testing hypotheses, as well as evaluating the solution, consciousness again dominates.

It can be concluded that during an intellectual act, consciousness dominates and regulates the decision process, and the subconscious acts as an object of regulation, that is, in a subdominant position.

For convenience, we draw the following diagram:

Intellectual behavior is reduced to the adoption of the rules of the game, which the environment imposes on a system with a psyche. The criterion of intellectual behavior is not the transformation of the environment, but the discovery of the possibilities of the environment for the adaptive actions of the individual in it. At least, the transformation of the environment (a creative act) only accompanies the purposeful activity of a person, and its result (creative product) is a “by-product of activity”, in Ponomarev's terminology, which is realized or not realized by the subject.

It is possible to give a primary definition of intelligence as some ability that determines the overall success of a person's adaptation to new conditions. The mechanism of intellect is manifested in solving the problem in the internal plan of action (“in the mind”) with the dominance of the role of consciousness over the unconscious. However, this definition is as controversial as all others.

J. Thompson also believes that intelligence is only an abstract concept that simplifies and summarizes a number of behavioral characteristics.

Since the intellect as a reality existed before psychologists, as well as chemical compounds before chemists, it is important to know its "ordinary" characteristics. R. Sternberg was the first to attempt to define the concept of "intelligence" at the level of describing ordinary behavior. As a method, he chose factor analysis of expert judgments. Ultimately, three forms of intellectual behavior emerged: 1) verbal intelligence (vocabulary, erudition, ability to understand what is read), 2) the ability to solve problems, 3) practical intelligence (the ability to achieve goals, etc.).

Following R. Sternberg, M.A. Kholodnaya singles out a minimum of basic properties of the intellect: “1) level properties that characterize the achieved level of development of individual cognitive functions (both verbal and non-verbal) and the presentation of reality underlying the processes (sensory difference, working memory and long-term memory, volume and distribution of attention, awareness in a certain content area, etc.); 2) combinatorial properties, characterized by the ability to identify and form various kinds of connections and relationships in the broad sense of the word - the ability to combine in various combinations (spatio-temporal, causal, categorical-meaningful) components of experience; 3) procedural properties that characterize the operational composition, methods and reflection of intellectual activity up to the level of elementary information processes; 4) regulatory properties that characterize the effects of coordination, management and control of mental activity provided by the intellect.

However, one can wander for a long time in the darkness of the substantial definitions of intellect. In difficult cases of this kind, a measuring approach comes to the rescue. Intelligence can be defined through the procedure of its measurement as the ability to solve test problems designed in a certain way.

The position of the author of this book is that all psychological theories are not substantive, but operational (according to M. Bunge). That is, any psychological construct that describes a psychological property, process, state, makes sense only in combination with a description of the procedure for research, diagnosis, and measurement of the behavioral manifestations of this construct. When the procedure for measuring a construct changes, its content also changes.

Therefore, reasoning about what intelligence is should be carried out within the framework of an operational approach. It manifests itself most clearly in factorial models of intelligence.

The general ideology of the factorial approach boils down to the following basic prerequisites: 1) it is assumed that the intellect, like any other mental reality, is latent, that is, it is given to the researcher only through various indirect manifestations in solving life problems; 2) intelligence is a latent property of some mental structure (“functional system”), it can be measured, that is, intelligence is a linear property (one-dimensional or multidimensional); 3) the set of behavioral manifestations of intelligence is always greater than the set of properties, that is, you can come up with many intellectual tasks to identify just one property;

4) intellectual tasks objectively differ in the level of difficulty;

5) the solution of the problem may be correct or incorrect (or may approach the correct one arbitrarily); 6) any problem can be solved correctly in an infinitely long time.

The consequence of these provisions is the principle of a quasi-measuring procedure: the more difficult the task, the higher the level of intelligence development is required for its correct solution.

When forming a measuring approach to intelligence, we implicitly rely on the idea of some ideal intellectual or of an “ideal intelligence” as some kind of abstraction. A person with an ideal intellect can correctly and single-handedly solve a mental problem (or a set of problems) of arbitrarily high complexity in an infinitesimal time and, let us add, regardless of internal and external interference. Usually, people think slowly, often making mistakes, getting tired, periodically indulging in intellectual laziness and giving in to complex tasks.

There is a certain contradiction in the measuring approach. The fact is that in practice the universal reference point - "ideal intelligence" is not used, although its use is theoretically justified. Each test can potentially be completed with 100% success, so the subjects should be located on the same straight line, depending on the size of their backlog from the ideal intellectual. However, in practice, it is not the ratio scale that assumes an objective absolute reference point (“absolute zero”, as in the Kelvin temperature scale) that is currently accepted, but the interval scale, in which there is no absolute reference point. On the scale of intervals, people are located, depending on the level of development of individual intelligence, on the right or left side of the conventional "average" intellectual.

It is assumed that the distribution of people according to the level of intelligence, like most biological and social characteristics, is described by the law of normal distribution. An average intellectual person is the most common individual in a population who solves a problem of average difficulty with a probability of 50% or in an “average” time.

The main essence of the measuring approach lies in the procedure and content of test tasks. It is important to determine which tasks are aimed at diagnosing intelligence, and which ones are aimed at diagnosing other mental properties.

The emphasis is shifted to the interpretation of the content of tasks: are they new for the subject and whether their successful solution requires the manifestation of such signs of intelligence as autonomous actions in the mental space (in the mental plane).

The operational understanding of intelligence has grown from the primary idea of the level of mental development, which determines the success of performing any cognitive, creative, sensorimotor and other tasks and is manifested in some universal characteristics of human behavior.

This point of view is based on the works of A. Binet, devoted to the diagnosis of the mental development of children. As an "ideal intellectual" Binet probably represented a person of Western European civilization, who had mastered some basic knowledge and skills, and considered indicators of the rate of intellectual development of children of the "middle" class as a sign of normal development.

In his first battery tests included such tasks as: “find a rhyme for the word “glass” (12 years old), “count from 20 to 1” (8 years old) and others (see Table 1).

From the point of view of modern ideas about intelligence, not all tasks can be somehow correlated with it. But the idea of the universality of intelligence as an ability that affects the success of solving any problems has been reinforced in models of intelligence.

Recall that the psychology of intelligence is an integral part of differential psychology. Therefore, the central questions that theories of intelligence must answer are:

1. What are the reasons for individual differences?

2. What method can reveal these differences?

The reasons for individual differences in intellectual productivity may be the environment (culture) or neurophysiological features determined by heredity.

The method of identifying these differences can be an external expert assessment of behavior based on common sense. In addition, we can identify individual differences in the level of intelligence development using objective methods: systematic observation or measurement (tests).

If we make a very rough and approximate classification of various approaches to the problem of intelligence, then we will identify two bases for classification:

1. Culture - neurophysiology (environment - heredity).

2. Psychometrics - everyday knowledge.

The scheme shown here (Fig. 3) indicates the options for approaches to the study of intelligence and the names of their most prominent representatives and propagandists are indicated.

As for the cultural-historical approach to the problem of the differential psychology of intelligence, it is most clearly and consistently stated in Michael Cole's book Cultural-Historical Psychology (Moscow: Kogito-Center, 1997). I refer interested readers to it.

Other approaches are presented in one way or another on the pages of this book.

The main one today is the psychometric approach in its factorial version.

Factor Models of Intelligence

Conventionally, all factor models of intelligence can be divided into four main groups according to two bipolar features: 1) what is the source of the model - speculation or empirical data, 2) how the model of intelligence is built - from individual properties to the whole or from the whole to individual properties (Table 2). ). The model can be built on some a priori theoretical assumptions, and then verified (verified) in an empirical study. A typical example of this kind is Guilford's model of intelligence.

More often, the author conducts a voluminous experimental study, and then theoretically interprets its results, as do numerous authors of tests of the structure of intelligence. Of course, this does not exclude the author's ideas that precede empirical work. Ch. Spearman's model can serve as an example.

Typical variants of a multidimensional model, in which many primary intellectual factors are assumed, are the models of the same J. Gilford (a priori), L. Thurstone (a posteriori) and, from domestic authors, V. D. Shadrikov (a priori). These models can be called spatial, single-level, since each factor can be interpreted as one of the independent dimensions of the factor space.

Finally, hierarchical models (C. Spearman, F. Vernon, P. Humphreys) are multilevel. Factors are placed at different levels of generality: at the top level - the factor of general mental energy, at the second level - its derivatives, etc. The factors are interdependent: the level of development of the general factor is associated with the level of development of particular factors.

Of course, the real relationship between models of intelligence is more complex, and not all of them fit into this classification, but the proposed scheme can be used, in my opinion, at least for didactic purposes.

Let's move on to the characteristics of the most famous models of intelligence.

Model J. Gilford

J. Gilford proposed a model of "structure of intelligence (SI)", systematizing the results of his research in the field of general abilities. However, this model is not the result of factorization of the primary experimentally obtained correlation matrices, but refers to a priori models, since it is based only on theoretical assumptions. In its implicit structure, the model is neobehavioristic, based on the scheme: stimulus - latent operation - reaction. The place of the stimulus in Guilford's model is occupied by "content", by "operation" is meant a mental process, by "reaction" - the result of applying the operation to the material. The factors in the model are independent. Thus, the model is three-dimensional, the intelligence scales in the model are naming scales. Guilford interprets the operation as a mental process: cognition, memory, divergent thinking, convergent thinking, evaluation.

Results - the form in which the subject gives the answer: element, classes, relationships, systems, types of transformations and conclusions.

Each factor in Guildford's model results from combinations of categories of the three dimensions of intelligence. Categories are combined mechanically. The names of the factors are conditional. There are 5 x 4 x 6 = 120 factors in Guilford's classification scheme.

He believes that more than 100 factors have now been identified, that is, appropriate tests have been selected for their diagnosis. The concept of J. Gilford is widely used in the USA, especially in the work of teachers with gifted children and adolescents. On its basis, training programs have been created that allow you to rationally plan the educational process and direct it to the development of abilities. The Guilford model is used at the University of Illinois in teaching 4-5 year olds.

Many researchers consider the separation of divergent and convergent thinking to be the main achievement of J. Guilford. Divergent thinking is associated with the generation of many solutions based on unambiguous data and, according to Guilford, is the basis of creativity. Convergent thinking is aimed at finding the only correct result and is diagnosed by traditional intelligence tests. The disadvantage of the Guilford model is the inconsistency with the results of most factor-analytical studies. The “subjective rotation” algorithm invented by Guilford, which “squeezes” data into the “Procrustean bed” of his model, is criticized by almost all researchers of intelligence.

R. B. Cattell Model

The model proposed by R. Cattell can only conditionally be attributed to the group of hierarchical a priori models. He distinguishes three types of intellectual abilities: general, partial and operation factors.

Two factors Cattell called "bound" intelligence and "free" (or "fluid") intelligence. The factor of "connected intelligence" is determined by the totality of knowledge and intellectual skills of the individual acquired in the course of socialization from early childhood to the end of life and is a measure of mastering the culture of the society to which the individual belongs.

The factor of connected intelligence is closely positively correlated with verbal and arithmetic factors, it manifests itself in solving tests that require learning.

The factor of "free" intellect positively correlates with the factor of "connected" intellect, since "free" intellect determines the primary accumulation of knowledge. From Cattell's point of view, "free" intelligence is absolutely independent of the degree of cultural involvement. Its level is determined by the general development of the "tertiary" associative zones of the cerebral cortex, and it manifests itself in solving perceptual tasks, when the subject is required to find the relationship of various elements in the image.

Partial factors are determined by the level of development of individual sensory and motor areas of the cerebral cortex. Cattell himself singled out only one partial factor - visualization - which manifests itself during operations with visual images. The concept of “factors-operations” is the least clear: Cattell defines them as separate acquired skills for solving specific problems, i.e., as an analogue of Spearman’s S-factors, which are part of the structure of “connected” intelligence and include operations needed to perform new test tasks. . The results of studies of the development (more precisely, involution) of cognitive abilities in ontogeny, at first glance, correspond to the Cattell model.

Indeed, by the age of 50-60, people's ability to learn worsens, the speed of processing new information decreases, the amount of short-term memory decreases, etc. Meanwhile, intellectual professional skills are preserved until old age.

But the results of factorial analytical testing of Cattell's model showed that it is not sufficiently substantiated.

Indicative in this sense is the study by E. E. Kuzmina and N. I. Militanskaya. They found a high correlation of the level of "free intelligence" on the Cattell test with the results of a battery of tests of general mental abilities (Differential Aptitude Test - DAT), which diagnoses verbal thinking (Thurstone's V factor), numerical abilities (N), abstract-logical thinking (R), spatial thinking (S) and technical thinking.

It can be assumed that in the course of a structural study it is impossible (this is what Cattell himself says) to completely separate the "free" intelligence from the "connected" one, and when tested, they merge into a single general Spearman factor. However, in a genetic age study, these sub-factors can be diluted.

The level of development of partial factors is largely determined by the experience of the interaction of the individual with the outside world. However, it is also possible to single out both “free” and “bound” components in their composition.

The very difference of partial factors is determined not by the modality (auditory, visual, tactile, etc.), but by the type of material (spatial, physical, numerical, linguistic, etc.) of the task, which ultimately confirms the idea of a greater dependence of partial factors on the level involvement in culture (or, more precisely, from the cognitive experience of the individual).

However, Cattell tried to construct a culture-free test on a very specific spatial-geometric material (Culture-Fair Intelligence Test, CFIT). The test was published in 1958. Cattell developed three variations of this test:

1) for children 4-8 years old and mentally retarded adults;

2) two parallel forms (A and B) for children aged 8-12 and adults without higher education;

3) two parallel forms (A and B) for high school students, students and adults with higher education.

The first version of the test includes 8 subtests: 4 "free from the influence of culture" and 4 diagnosing "connected intelligence". The test takes 22 minutes. The second and third versions of the test consist of 4 different subtests, the tasks in which differ in the level of difficulty. The time to complete all tasks is 12.5 minutes. The test is applied in two versions: with restriction and without restriction of task execution time. According to Cattell, the reliability of the test is 0.7-0.92. The correlation of results with data on the Stanford-Binet scale is 0.56.

All tasks in subtests are ordered by difficulty level: from simple to complex. Only one correct solution is supposed to be chosen from the proposed set of answers. Answers are entered on a special form. The test consists of two equivalent parts (4 subtests each).

The first version of the test is used only for individual testing. The second and third options can be used in a group. The most commonly used is the 2nd scale, which includes subtests: 1) "series" - to find a continuation in the rows of figures (12 tasks); 2) "classification" - a test for finding common features of figures (14 tasks); 3) "matrices" - search for additions to sets of figures (12 tasks) and 4) "inferences to establish identity", - where you need to mark the figure corresponding to the given one with a dot (8 tasks).

As a result, the intelligence quotient (IQ) is calculated with an average of 100, and r = 15, based on the summation of the results of both parts of the test, with the subsequent translation of the average score into a standard assessment.

Cognitive Models of Intelligence

Cognitive models of intelligence are indirectly related to the psychology of abilities, since their authors mean by the term "intelligence" not a property of the psyche, but a certain system of cognitive processes that provide problem solving. Very rarely, researchers of cognitive orientation approach the problems of individual differences and resort to the data of measuring psychology.

Psychologists deduce individual differences in the success of completing tasks from the characteristics of the individual structure that ensures the process of information processing. Factor-analytical data are usually used to verify cognitive models. Thus, they serve as an intermediate link connecting factor-analytical concepts with general psychological ones.

The concept of mental experience by M. A. Kholodnaya

There are not too many original concepts of intelligence as a general ability in Russian psychology. One of these concepts is the theory of M.A. Kholodnaya, developed within the framework of the cognitive approach (Fig. 12).

The essence of the cognitive approach lies in the reduction of intelligence to the properties of individual cognitive processes. Less well known is another direction that reduces intelligence to the characteristics of individual experience (Fig. 13).

It follows from this that psychometric intelligence is a kind of epiphenomenon of mental experience, which reflects the properties of the structure of individual and acquired knowledge and cognitive operations (or “productions” - units of “knowledge - operation”). The following problems remain beyond the scope of explanation: 1) what is the role of the genotype and environment in determining the structure of individual experience; 2) what are the criteria for comparing the intelligence of different people; 3) how to explain individual differences in intellectual achievements and how to predict these achievements.

The definition of M.A. Kholodnaya is as follows: intellect, in its ontological status, is a special form of organizing individual mental (mental) experience in the form of available mental structures, the mental space predicted by them, and the mental representations of what is happening are built within this space.

M.A. Kholodnaya includes substructures of cognitive experience, metacognitive experience and a group of intellectual abilities in the structure of intellect.

In my opinion, metacognitive experience is clearly related to the regulatory system of the psyche, and intentional experience is related to the motivational system.

Paradoxical as it may seem, but almost all supporters of the cognitive approach to intelligence expand the theory of intelligence by involving non-intellectual components (regulation, attention, motivation, "metacognition", etc.). Sternberg and Gardner follow this path. M.A. Kholodnaya argues similarly: one aspect of the psyche cannot be considered in isolation from others, without indicating the nature of the connection. The structure of cognitive experience includes ways of encoding information, conceptual mental structures, "archetypal" and semantic structures.

As for the structure of intellectual abilities, it includes: 1) convergent ability - intelligence in the narrow sense of the term (level properties, combinatorial and procedural properties); 2) creativity (fluency, originality, receptivity, metaphor); 3) learning (implicit, explicit) and additionally 4) cognitive styles (cognitive, intellectual, epistemological).

The most controversial issue is the inclusion of cognitive styles in the structure of intellectual abilities.

The concept of "cognitive style" characterizes individual differences in the way information is received, processed and applied. X. A. Vitkin, the founder of the concept of cognitive styles, specifically tried to form criteria that separate the cognitive style and abilities. In particular: 1) cognitive style is a procedural characteristic, not an effective one; 2) cognitive style is a bipolar property, and abilities are unipolar; 3) cognitive style - a characteristic that is stable over time, manifesting itself at all levels (from sensory to thinking); 4) value judgments are not applicable to style, representatives of each style have an advantage in certain situations.

The list of cognitive styles identified by various researchers is extremely long. Cold leads ten: 1) field dependence - field independence; 2) impulsiveness - reflexivity; 3) rigidity - the flexibility of cognitive control; 4) narrowness - the breadth of the range of equivalence; 5) category width; 6) tolerance for unrealistic experience; 7) cognitive simplicity - cognitive complexity; 8) narrowness - the width of the scan; 9) concrete - abstract conceptualization; 10) smoothing - sharpening differences.

Without going into the characteristics of each cognitive style, I note that field independence, reflexivity, the breadth of the range of equivalence, cognitive complexity, the breadth of scanning and the abstractness of conceptualization significantly and positively correlate with the level of intelligence (according to the tests of D. Raven and R. Cattell), and field independence and tolerance to unrealistic experiences are linked to creativity.

Let us consider here only the most common characteristic "field-dependence-field independence". Field dependence was first discovered in Witkin's experiments in 1954. He studied the influence of visual and proprioceptive stimuli on a person's orientation in space (maintenance of their vertical position by the subjects). The subject sat in a darkened room in an armchair. He was presented with a luminous rod inside a luminous frame on the wall of the room. The rod deviated from the vertical. The frame changed its position independently of the rod, deviating from the vertical, along with the room in which the subject was sitting. The subject had to bring the rod to a vertical position with the help of a handle, using either visual or proprioceptive sensations about the degree of his deviation from the vertical during orientation. The position of the rod was determined more precisely by the subjects who relied on proprioceptive sensations. This cognitive feature was called field independence.

Then Witkin discovered that field independence determines the success of isolating a figure from a holistic image. Field independence correlates with the level of non-verbal intelligence according to D. Wexler.

Later Witkin came to the conclusion that the characteristic "field dependence - field independence" is a manifestation in perception of a more general property, namely "psychological differentiation". Psychological differentiation characterizes the degree of clarity, dissection, distinctness of the reflection of reality by the subject and manifests itself in four main areas: 1) the ability to structure the visible field; 2) differentiation of the image of one's physical "I"; 3) autonomy in interpersonal communication; 4) the presence of specialized mechanisms of personal protection and control of motor and affective activity.

To diagnose "field dependence-field independence", Witkin proposed using the "Inline Figures" test by Gottschald (1926), converting black-and-white pictures into color ones. In total, the test includes 24 samples with two cards in each. On one card a complex figure, on the other - a simple one. 5 minutes are allotted for each presentation. The subject must as quickly as possible detect simple figures in the structure of complex ones. The indicator is the average time of detection of figures and the number of correct answers.

It is easy to see that the "bipolarity" of the "field dependence-field independence" construct is nothing more than a myth: the test is a typical achievement test and is similar to the subtests of perceptual intelligence (Thurstone's P factor).

It is no coincidence that high positive correlations of field independence with other properties of intelligence are: 1) indicators of non-verbal intelligence; 2) flexibility of thinking; 3) higher learning ability; 4) the success of solving tasks for quick wit (the factor "adaptive flexibility" according to J. Gilford); 5) the success of using the object in an unexpected way (Dunker's tasks); 6) ease of changing settings when solving Lachins problems (plasticity); 7) the success of the restructuring and reorganization of the text.

Field-independent learn well with internal motivation for learning. For their successful learning, error information is important.

Field addicts are more sociable.

There are many more prerequisites for considering "field dependence-field independence" as one of the manifestations of general intelligence in the perceptual-figurative sphere.

The cognitive approach, contrary to its name, leads to a broader interpretation of the concept of "intelligence". Various researchers include numerous additional external factors in the system of intellectual (cognitive in nature) abilities.

The paradox is that the strategy of the adepts of the cognitive approach leads to the identification of functional and correlational relationships with other (extra-cognitive) properties of the individual's psyche and ultimately serves to multiply the original subject content of the concept of "intelligence" as a general cognitive ability.

Howard Gardner (Gardner, 1983) developed his theory of multiple intellect as a radical alternative to what he calls the "classical" view of intelligence as the capacity for logical reasoning.

Gardner notes that intelligence is not a "thing", not a device located in the head, but "a potential, the presence of which allows an individual to use forms of thinking that are adequate to specific types of context" (Kornhaber & Gardner, 1991, p. 155). He believes that there are at least 6 different types of intelligence that do not depend on each other and act in the brain as independent systems (or modules), each according to its own rules. These include:

a) linguistic;

b) logical and mathematical;

c) spatial;

d) musical;

e) bodily-kinesthetic and

f) personality modules.

The first three modules are familiar components of intelligence, and they are measured by standard intelligence tests. The last three, according to Gardner, deserve a similar status, but Western society has emphasized the first three types and virtually excluded the rest. These types of intelligence are described in more detail in the table:

Seven intellectual abilities according to Gardner

(adapted from: Gardner, Kornhaber & Wake, 1996)

Verbal intelligence - the ability to generate speech, including the mechanisms responsible for the phonetic (speech sounds), syntactic (grammar), semantic (meaning) and pragmatic components of speech (the use of speech in various situations).

Musical intelligence is the ability to generate, transmit and understand the meanings associated with sounds, including the mechanisms responsible for the perception of pitch, rhythm and timbre (qualitative characteristics) of sound.

Logico-mathematical intelligence - the ability to use and evaluate the relationship between actions or objects when they are not actually present, i.e. to abstract thinking.

Spatial intelligence is the ability to perceive visual and spatial information, modify it and recreate visual images without recourse to the original stimuli. Includes the ability to construct images in three dimensions, as well as mentally move and rotate these images.

bodily- kinesthetic intelligence - the ability to use all parts of the body when solving problems or creating products; includes control over gross and fine motor movements and the ability to manipulate external objects.

Intrapersonal intelligence is the ability to recognize one's own feelings, intentions, and motives.

Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to recognize and discriminate between the feelings, attitudes, and intentions of other people.

Although all normal individuals are capable of exhibiting all varieties of intelligence to some degree, each individual has a unique combination of more and less developed intellectual abilities (Walters & Gardner, 1985), which explains the individual differences between people.

As we have noted, conventional IQ tests are good at predicting college grades, but they are less valid at predicting future job success or career advancement. Measures of other abilities, such as personal intelligence, may help explain why some excellent college performers become miserable failures later in life, while less successful students become worship leaders (Kornhaber, Krechevsky & Gardner, 1990). Therefore, Gardner and his colleagues call for an "intellectual-objective" assessment of students' abilities. This will allow children to demonstrate their abilities in ways other than paper tests, such as matching different elements together to demonstrate spatial imagination skills.

15.1. Theories of intelligence of the twentieth century

15.1.1. Intelligence or intellects?

Before interpreting the classical ideas about the activity of the intellect with the help of the new model of intelligence XX, we will make the necessary and natural refinement of it. So, the main assumption is that all cognitive models available to a person are in an inactive state, and the cognitive process consists only in their activation. Consequently, in the human nervous system, long-term memory (LTM) and potential intelligence (PI) topographically coincide, that is, they are in the same place, and their difference lies in the fact that LTM is a set of activated cognitive models, and PI is still not activated. Thus, in the figures, it is possible to combine long-term memory and potential intelligence (DVP / PI on rice. 15.1, For example). In this case, the activated cognitive models (denoted by solid lines) in this general block of DEP/PI are DEP, and the non-activated models (dashed lines) are PI. And the previously described transfer of the cognitive model from PI to LTP will now be reflected in the figures in this section as activation in the LTP/PI block of a genetically determined, innate inactive cognitive model.

From a neurophysiological point of view, any cognitive model is a specially organized network of neurons, which encodes the idea of some natural phenomenon and the intellectual reaction of the organism to it. At the same time, such a network of neurons can be activated in a special way (we will consider this process in detail below), which is the transformation of a potential (non-activated) into an actual (activated) cognitive model.

In the field of intelligence research, two competing hypotheses are now distinguished - K. Spearman and L. Thurstone. According to K. Spearman, intelligence is “... some ( single, auth.) characteristic (feature, property), which is presented at all levels of its functioning. According to L. Thurstone "there is no common beginning of intellectual activity, but there is only a set of independent intellectual abilities."

But then, taking into account the structure of intelligence XX ( rice. 15.1), the definition of intelligence according to K. Spearman, can be considered as a description of the process of actualization (activation) of potential (inactive) cognitive models, which, in his opinion, should not depend on what intellectual task a person solves.

On the other hand, it is obvious that in the process of vocational training, an “autonomous” complex of activated cognitive models can be formed in a person. Let's say that one of the sections of mathematics, topology, for example, has been mastered, which does not in any way affect the musical education received by a person, that is, another "autonomous" complex. Then L. Thurstone is also right, since from his point of view, a person has at least two independent and differently developed intellects - mathematical and musical. Therefore, the definition of L. Thurstone characterizes the saturation of DVP with activated models.

So, seemingly contradictory points of view on the intellect of L. Thurstone and K. Spearman, in fact, reflect different and irreducible aspects of the function and structure of a single intellect, if considered from the point of view of a new theory of the activity of the intellect XX ( rice. 15.1).

To bring the classical theories of intelligence into line with the proposed new structure and function of intelligence XX, we first detail the activation process of the cognitive model ( rice. 15.1). At the same time, we will distinguish between the activation of a cognitive model in the process of learning and self-learning (creativity).

When teaching, a cognitive model new to the student, on the one hand, is known to the teacher, and, on the other hand, the student is placed by the teacher in an artificially created intellectual environment that forces the student's nervous cognitive network to work in such a way that the cognitive model expected by the teacher is extracted from his PI. With self-learning, the process of activation of cognitive models takes place in a natural intellectual environment, that is, in the process of a person’s ordinary life.

Let's consider the process of activation of the cognitive model using a simple example of learning the line of the multiplication table: "2 x 3 = 6" ( rice. 15.1). This line of the multiplication table is a cognitive model, and if the student does not know it, then it is not activated for him. "Learning" this line is the process of activating the student's potential cognitive model.

Let's assume that the student has previously formed ideas about the numbers 2, 3 and 6, as well as about the "equal" operation. Consequently, before getting acquainted with the multiplication operation “2 x 3 = 6”, only the indicated cognitive models are activated in the DWT (representations of the numbers 2, 3 and 6, as well as the “equals” operation, which are shown in Fig. rice. 15.1 in the form of parallelograms with solid sides). Then the non-activated cognitive model is the chain of relationships between the numbers 2, 3, 6, as well as the “multiplication” and “equal” operators (scattered in disorder in the DWP / PI before parallelogram learning) and the “multiplication” operator itself (a parallelogram with dotted contours ) (Fig. 15.1).

Now let the student be shown the operation of multiplying 2 by 3, which causes the formation of electrical impulses in the visual analyzer, which are transmitted through the neural network to the STC (short-term memory). In this case, the "two", for example, does not correspond to such a structure of connections of neurons excited in the retina, as, for example, to the "three". This is due to the different configuration of the light spot that hits the retina from the numbers "two" and "three". That is, for each element of the intellectual task, a nerve impulse of a specific structure is formed that enters the CEP from any sense organ (not necessarily visual, as in this example), which we will call information activator. Its role is to interact specifically with information receptor cognitive models of DVP/PI. It is natural to call the result of the interaction between the activator and the receptor the “excitation” of the cognitive model.

Since the student has no idea about the operation of multiplication, the activator first transfers the cognitive model "multiplication" from an inactive to an active state (dotted contour in the figure 15.1 becomes solid). Outwardly, this looks like the student's assimilation of ideas about the operation of multiplication.

From a neurophysiological point of view, the structure information activator is determined by the spatial relationship of excited neurons that conduct an electrical impulse from the retina to the CVJ. Information receptor this is a group of neurons that can perceive an information activator as a special structure of a nerve impulse. Or, in other words, a nerve impulse in the form of an information activator easily and without interference passes through a group of neurons that make up an information receptor. Moreover, this group of neurons (receptor) that conducts the nerve impulse-activator is part of a network of neurons that encodes a cognitive model. This is the difference between the information receptor and neurons that only conduct electrical impulses from the eye to the CEP (let's call them router neurons) and do not encode any cognitive model. The interaction of the information activator and the receptor excites the entire nervous network that encodes the cognitive model to which the information receptor belongs. Just as the activation of a specific receptor of a cell of an organism causes processes of a strictly defined type in it. For example, the interaction of the hormone insulin ("information activator") with insulin receptors in muscle cells stimulates the uptake of glucose by these cells.

That is, if a nerve impulse, in the form of an information activator, reaches the neural network in which, for example, an unactivated representation of the multiplication operation (potential cognitive model) is encoded, then its interaction with the information receptor of the non-activated “multiplication operation” model causes the excitation of all neurons that encode genetically determined representation of the operation of multiplication. Repeated excitation by the information activator through the receptor of the potential cognitive model "multiplication operation" and transfers it from an inactive to an active state, that is, it becomes part of the DWP, and therefore it is easier to access from the CWP. In fact, cognitive model activation is a process of facilitating the neural connection between CEP and genetically determined cognitive models, which becomes easier the more often this connection is activated.

After all the models necessary for mastering the string “2 x 3 = 6” are activated, the entire string as a whole is “learned”, that is, the activated cognitive models are connected into an activated cognitive network. In order to be able to form an activated network of cognitive models, information activators must simultaneously excite all network models involved in the implementation of a particular cognitive process. Repeatedly repeated simultaneous excitation of activated cognitive models in the LTP is probably the necessary condition for their integration into a network. Similar to the mechanism of formation of a conditioned reflex, which was discussed in detail earlier. On the rice. 15.1 this process is depicted as a transformation of cognitive models randomly scattered before training in DVP/PI, into a row of interconnected blocks "2", "x", "3", "=" and "6" after training. Subjectively, this is perceived by the student as "learning" and looks like repeated repetition of educational material.

From the standpoint of neurophysiology, the simultaneous excitation of two sections of the nervous network contributes to the exchange of nerve impulses between them, that is, the formation of a neural connection. With repeated excitation of the nerve pathway, the passage of a nerve impulse along it is facilitated - this is the material embodiment of the mechanism for the formation of a new neural connection between brain structures that encode previously independent cognitive models (the conditioned reflex mechanism). Several neural structures encoding cognitive models, connected by connections facilitated for the conduction of a nerve impulse, form a network of activated cognitive models.

On the rice. 15.2. reflects the process of using the multiplication table, after it has already been learned. When the teacher shows the student the image “2 x 3 = ?”, then the student must, in fact, use the network of cognitive models activated during the learning process in order to give the correct answer to the question posed by the teacher. As in training, nerve impulses in the form of information activators for all activated cognitive models of the task, with the exception of block "6", come from the visual analyzer to the CEP. As a result, in the DWT, all cognitive models of the network are simultaneously excited by activators, with the exception of the model representing the number 6. Further, it is natural to propose the following mechanism for solving an intellectual problem using a neural cognitive network activated in a trained student:

1) information activators block the receipt of impulses from the DVP to the KVP from their cognitive models, united in a network;

2) the interaction of the information activator with the receptor excites the corresponding cognitive model and, in this case, the resulting excitation is transmitted to other cognitive models (but not in the CEP!), united by an activated cognitive network;

3) the cognitive models excited by the network and not blocked by the information activator transmit the excitation to the CVP;

4) the excitation received by the CWP from the DWT from the models of the cognitive network is perceived as a signal to use unblocked network models as a solution to an intellectual problem. These models are presented to consciousness, which can either reject the solution (model) obtained in the DWT or use it as a response to the problem (task) that has arisen.

In particular, in our example, the CVP, as a solution to the problem, receives an impulse from the DWP from the only cognitive model not blocked by the activator, which contains the representation of the number 6 ( rice. 15.2). It should be noted that in the activated neural network of cognitive models, much more complex algorithms for solving intellectual problems can be implemented, in comparison with the considered simple arithmetic problem. But now it is important for us to get an idea of the principle of interaction of the sense organs, CEP, DVP and consciousness, in the process of solving an intellectual problem, which, I believe, became obvious after the example analyzed above, and which will be used for a new interpretation of the classical hypotheses of the functioning of the intellect.

Thompson J. (1984) argues that general intelligence is characterized by "tasks to identify connections that require going beyond the limits of learned skills, suggesting the detailing of experience and the possibility of conscious mental manipulation of the elements of a problem situation." This definition of the follower of the idea of K. Spearman clearly indicates that the subject of his scientific interest was the activation (actualization) processes of cognitive models that make up the PN.

The high correlation revealed by K. Spearman between tests similar in content can be easily explained using the above-described principle of the activity of the intellect. Correlation reflects the participation of subjects in an intersecting set of activated cognitive models (networks) in solving similar tests. Since the tasks are similar, the information activators generated by the test are also similar, and, consequently, similar networks of cognitive models are excited in the DWT. Hence the correlation (connection) between similar tests.

Thurstone L. (1938) rejects the idea of general intelligence and identifies 7 "primary mental abilities":

S - "spatial" (operating with spatial relations)

P - "perception" (detailing of visual images)

N - "computing" (operating with numbers)

V - "verbal understanding" (meaning of words)

F - "fluency of speech" (selection of the right words)

M - "memory"

R - "logical reasoning" (identifying patterns in a series of numbers, letters, figures).

Qualities from S to M are characterized by the interaction of CWP and DWP, that is, the work of the intellect with activated cognitive models (networks) and therefore L. Thurstone's view of the intellect cannot in any way coincide with the views of C. Spearman. They explored completely different aspects of intellectual activity. Only the R-capacity, when not associated with stereotyped inferences such as numerical manipulation, could characterize the activation of potential cognitive models.

At the same time, it is difficult to imagine that when performing any of the tests of the S-R type, the subject did not generate new knowledge for him (activated potential cognitive models). Consequently, to one degree or another, the subject must have activated the mechanisms of activation of potential cognitive models. And indeed, later it turned out that a high correlation is found between these abilities and they can be combined into a generalized factor characterizing intelligence, similar to that proposed by K. Spearman.

Later, R. Cattell (1971) divided the Spearman intelligence indicator (g-factor) into 2 components:

a) "crystallized intelligence" - vocabulary, reading, taking into account social standards;

b) "fluid intelligence" - identifying patterns in a series of figures and numbers, the amount of RAM, spatial operations, etc.

From the point of view of R. Cattell, crystallized intelligence is the result of education and various cultural influences, and its main function is to accumulate and organize knowledge and skills. This definition of "crystallized" intelligence corresponds exactly to the description of the properties of DWT. On the other hand, fluid intelligence, according to R. Cattell, characterizes the biological capabilities of the nervous system and its main function is to quickly and accurately process current information. Therefore, fluid intelligence is the effectiveness of the interaction between the CWP and the DWP.

The following are the three additional abilities of the intellect, identified by R. Cattell, which characterize the activities of the KVP:

Manipulation of images ("visualization");

Saving and reproduction of figures ("memory");

Maintaining a high rate of response (“speed”),

It is obvious that the functioning of the CEP depends on the content of the LWP, and, therefore, the correlation between crystallized and fluid intelligences revealed later is not surprising. In particular, the CEP interacts with the DEP the better, the more the DEP is saturated with cognitive models. Or in terms of information receptors, the more information receptors an activated network of cognitive models contains, reflecting some kind of natural phenomenon. Otherwise, that is, if there is no receptor for the information activator on the activated cognitive model, the CVP has to turn to the PI to activate the desired potential model, which significantly slows down intellectual activity.

Let's compare, for example, the process of learning a piece of music and its performance at a concert by a professional. In both cases, the CVP interacts with the fiberboard. But the performer at the concert does not, besides this, turn to the PI, but the one who is learning it constantly. As a result, the tempo of performance of a work at a concert is higher than in the process of learning it.

Consequently, the "bad" characteristics of the CEP observed by the researcher reflect not only the properties of the CEP itself, but also the filling of the DEP with cognitive models. Hence, the correlation between tests aimed at studying the properties of CVP and fiberboard is simply inevitable.

Of particular interest is the test of J. Raven (1960), since it is used to study the mechanisms of activation of cognitive models, that is, their movement from PI to MTP. J. Raven identifies two mental abilities:

Productivity, that is, the ability to identify connections and relationships, to come to conclusions that are not directly presented in a given situation;

Reproductivity, that is, the ability to use past experience and learned information.

Reproductivity characterizes the interaction of CVP and DVP. But productivity is the activation of cognitive patterns. To study productivity, J. Raven created a special test (“progressive matrices”), focused on diagnosing learning ability based on the generalization (conceptualization) of one’s own experience in the absence of external guidance. Let's translate this definition of the J. Ravenna test into the language of intelligence XX ( rice. 15.1). The subject's DWP contains a certain set of cognitive models (networks), for example, ideas about geometric shapes of varying degrees of complexity. However, prior to testing, in the DWT of the subject, for example, there are no cognitive models that reflect possible relationships between geometric shapes that the subject must discover, forced to do so by the conditions of the test. "Coercion" lies in the fact that the conditions of the test cause a combination of previously uncombined information activators to appear in the sense organs, which simultaneously excite certain cognitive models of the MTP. This unusual for the subject simultaneous excitation of certain cognitive models of the MTP activates a new connection between them (we emphasize that it is new for the MTP, but not for PI!). As a result, the subject’s repeated appeal to the conditions of the task forms a new network of cognitive models in the DWP, which is felt by the subject as “learning”, and the researcher evaluates it as “generalization (conceptualization)”.

Thus, J. Ravenn managed to develop a test that explores the process of extracting new knowledge from PNs for the test subject. Since the process of learning and self-learning is implemented in a similar way in life, it is not surprising that the "productive" test predicted a person's intellectual achievements very well compared to the reproductive test.

To assess intelligence, L. Gutman (1955) introduced the concept of test complexity. Hence, the "power" of the intellect can be seen as the ability to solve complex problems. Let us consider how one can interpret the “complexity” of a test (cognitive task) from the point of view of intelligence XX ( rice. 15.1). Let's try to answer the question, is the task - "What is twice two?" difficult? Yes and no! If the subject has no idea about mathematics, this task for him is not only difficult, but also insurmountable. On the other hand, a very small amount of mathematical knowledge is required for its successful solution. And in this regard, it is not difficult. What about Fermat's Theorem? Its formulation is not much more complicated than the 2 x 2 multiplication problem. At the same time, the proof of Fermat's theorem is considered one of the most difficult in mathematics. It turned out that until recently, mathematicians did not have sufficient mathematical knowledge to solve it. Auxiliary theorems necessary for solving Fermat's theorem were not formulated and proved. So, the problem is easily solved if the subject in the DWT has suitable cognitive models (network) for solving it. Hence, the complexity of the cognitive task can be considered from different points of view.

First, let's assume that the tests are designed in such a way that any person can solve them right away, that is, any person in the DWT has cognitive models for successfully solving the proposed tests. Then that test is more complex, for the solution of which a more complex cognitive model is used in the DWT. How to determine the complexity of a cognitive model was discussed in the previous sections.

Secondly, suppose that in order to solve the test, the cognitive model must first be activated (that is, the subject had it before the test in PI). Then the complexity of the test can be determined through the number of information activators that are necessary for its activation. Obviously, in this case, the complexity will turn out to be subjectively dependent - a person who is more prepared for solving a problem will need fewer activators to extract new knowledge from PI than an unprepared person.

So, on the one hand, the complexity of the task is reduced to the complexity of the cognitive models that are in the DFT, which the subject uses to solve the test. Therefore, from the described point of view, the strength of intelligence can be determined through the complexity of the proposed test. But, on the other hand, it will only be a current strength, not a potential one, since, having provided any subject with the same set of cognitive models necessary to solve the test, the researcher will always observe his successful overcoming. That is, in fact, the researcher will not be able to single out the person with the strongest intellect, but will only be able to divide the subjects into those who are more or less aware of the subject to which the test relates.

The potential strength of the intellect can only be determined through the ability to activate the necessary set of cognitive models to solve the test. But a natural question arises: are there normal people who, in principle, are not able to activate the cognitive models of their PI? Moreover, it seems unclear whether the apparent inability of preschool children to solve intellectual "adult" tasks is "technical" or "physiological"? If children are not able to cope with an "adult" intellectual task just because the DWP is simply not equipped with the cognitive models necessary for this, then this is a purely "technical" obstacle. From this point of view, no tests can reflect the strength of children's intelligence. A good example is the brilliant children who, for example, were forced to study music from an early age. Already in childhood, in this narrow field of knowledge, they not only do not concede, but even surpass many adults (Mozart, for example).

But if the neural structures of the brain responsible for intellectual activity continue to develop with age (at least until puberty), then there must be a physiological obstacle to the development of intelligence.

Installed by V.N. Druzhinin, the hierarchical sequence of the formation of intelligence should not necessarily be associated with morphological changes in the neural network. He and his colleagues found that verbal intelligence (language acquisition) is formed first, then spatial intelligence is formed on its basis, and finally, formal (sign-symbolic) intelligence appears last.

The revealed sequence reflects only the features of the activation of cognitive models. Consequently, these data do not answer the question of whether intelligence at the stage of verbal development is less powerful than at the stage of formal intelligence. In both cases, the PI of the subject does not change, which means that the potential capabilities of the intellect cannot be affected by the filling of the DVP with cognitive models. So, if the power of intelligence is determined by non-activated cognitive models, then at all stages of its development diagnosed by psychologists, it remains potentially unchanged.

It is also not clear whether the discovered sequence of DWT formation is natural; genetically determined, or just a cultural phenomenon? Are there alternative and no less, and maybe even more effective ways of filling the DWT with cognitive models, for example, first spatial and then verbal?

Let's pose an even more general question. Can one human intellect (let's say a psychologist-researcher) formulate a task of such complexity to another human intellect (let's say a subject) that the latter, in principle, cannot cope with it? It is assumed that the solution of the problem is available to the psychologist. Suppose the subject is not able to solve the task (test) of a psychologist. Does this indicate a less powerful intellect of the subject compared to the intellect of the psychologist? I believe that it is not, but only indicates that in the psychologist's DVP, such a cognitive model, suitable for solving, is activated that the subject does not have. But one has only to help the subject activate a suitable cognitive model, and he will immediately cope with the task.

Consider, as an example, a well-known puzzle - two metal rings connected in a special way, which the magician easily separates, but the viewer does not. But as soon as the viewer is shown a way to separate such rings, he becomes more difficult to repeat the trick. Was the intellect of the spectator less powerful than the intellect of the conjurer before "training"? Obviously not. The viewer was only less aware - he did not have a suitable cognitive model in the DWP.

So, in fact, any testing or evaluation of the method of solving a problem does not determine the power of the intellect, but only the filling of the DWT with cognitive models. The real power is concentrated only in the PI - the more cognitive models it contains, the more powerful the intellect. As a result, the power of the human intellect can be compared with the power of the intellect of, say, an animal, if we evaluate the knowledge available to humanity and the animal. But it is basically impossible to compare the power of two separate human intellects, if by this we mean the cognitive models contained in the PI, that is, not activated. Hence, all studies of the power of intelligence today are focused on assessing the “awareness” of the subject regarding a particular cognitive problem. And if in the end it turns out that someone is not sufficiently knowledgeable in some area of knowledge, this does not mean at all that the subject cannot or could not at one time saturate his DWT with the necessary cognitive models that he draws from PN.

Above were reinterpreted the classical theories of researchers who recognize the existence of a single intelligence (followers of Spearman). Now let's move on to the analysis of theories that reflect the plurality of intellectual abilities (followers of Thurstone). In fact, researchers in this area tested the structure of the DEP and its interaction with the CEP in the subject. In contrast to the researchers of general intelligence, whose main efforts were directed to studying the interaction of CSP and PI. But it was shown above that when solving test problems, the interaction of KVP and DVP, to one degree or another, is supported by PI and, conversely, the interaction of KVP and PI is supported by DVP. As a result, researchers of general intelligence had to recognize some heterogeneity of it (a characteristic feature of DWT, by definition), and researchers of multiple intelligences have identified some generalized quality of intelligence (a characteristic feature of PI, by definition). The lack of a clear separation of tests aimed at studying the properties of PI and the properties of DWT ultimately led to the convergence of these two areas in the study of intelligence and to the pessimistic conclusion: “... it is pointless to discuss a question that has no answer - the question of what actually represents the intellect” (A. Jensen, 1969).

Let's look at some examples. G. Gardner identifies several independent types of intelligence: linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal. It is obvious that such a division concerns the current structure of the DEP of the subject, which is formed in him as a result of selective extraction of the corresponding complexes of cognitive models (linguistic, musical, etc.) from the PI.

R. Meili identifies 4 intellectual abilities:

Distinguish and connect elements of the test problem (complexity);

Quickly and flexibly rebuild images (plasticity);

From an incomplete set of elements to build a holistic meaningful image (globality);

Generate multiple ideas quickly about an initial situation (fluency).

It is obvious that "global" characterizes the interaction of CWP and PI, when it is necessary to activate the models to solve the problem. Otherwise, the interaction of CWP and DWP.

“Fluency” most likely reflects the effectiveness of the interaction between the CWP and the CWP, when the test task stimulates the call from the CWP to the CWP of the most appropriate cognitive model as a solution. But if this enumeration turns out to be inconclusive, then the KVP, in the end, turns to the PI. That is, in part, “fluency” also affects PI. "Complexity" also characterizes the interaction of CWP and DWP.

Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Karaganda State Technical University

Department of Professional Education

and basic military training

Code KR 27

COURSE WORK

on the topic: "Psychological theories of intelligence"

by discipline psychology

Completed: Art. gr. C-08-2 E.V. Krivchenko

Scientific adviser: V.V. Gotting

Karaganda, 2010

Introduction

1. Basic theories of intelligence

1.1 Psychometric theories of intelligence

1.2 Cognitive theories of intelligence

1.3 Multiple theories of intelligence

2. Theories of intelligence in the study of M.A. Cold

2.1 Gestalt psychological theory of intelligence

2.2 Ethological theory of intelligence

2.3 Operational intelligence theory

2.4 Structural-level theory of intelligence

2.5 The theory of functional organization of cognitive processes

Conclusion

List of sources used

Introduction

The status of the problem of intelligence is paradoxical from a variety of points of view: paradoxical are his role in the history of human civilization, and the attitude towards intellectually gifted people in everyday social life, and the nature of his research in the field of psychological science.

The whole history of the world, based on brilliant conjectures, inventions and discoveries, testifies to the fact that man is certainly intelligent. However, the same story presents numerous proofs of the stupidity and madness of people. This kind of ambivalence of the states of the human mind allows us to conclude that, on the one hand, the ability to rational knowledge is a powerful natural resource of human civilization. On the other hand, the ability to be reasonable is the thinnest psychological shell, instantly thrown off by a person under adverse conditions.

The psychological basis of intelligence is the intellect. In general terms, the intellect is a system of mental mechanisms that determine the possibility of constructing a subjective picture of what is happening “inside” the individual. In its highest forms, such a subjective picture can be rational, that is, it can embody that universal independence of thought that relates to every thing in the way that the essence of the thing itself requires. The psychological roots of rationality (as well as stupidity and madness), therefore, should be sought in the mechanisms of the structure and functioning of the intellect.

From a psychological point of view, the purpose of the intellect is to create order out of chaos on the basis of bringing individual needs into line with the objective requirements of reality. Cutting a hunting path in the forest, using constellations as landmarks in sea travel, prophecy, inventions, scientific discussions, etc., that is, all those areas of human activity where you need to learn something, do something new, make a decision, understand, to explain, to discover - all this is the sphere of action of the intellect.

The term intelligence appeared in ancient times, but began to be studied in detail only in the 20th century. This paper presents various theories, the appearance and essence of which are due to a different approach to the study of intelligence. The most prominent researchers are such scientists as Ch. Spearman, J. Gilford, F. Galton, J. Piaget and others. With their work, they made a great contribution not only to research in the field of intelligence, but also revealed the essence of the human psyche as a whole. They were the founders of the main theories of intelligence.

One can single out their followers, no less significant scientists: L. Thurston, G. Gardner, F. Vernon, G. Eysenck, who not only developed the previously proposed theories, but also supplemented them with materials and research.

Also great is the contribution to the study of intelligence by domestic scientists, such as B. Ananiev, L. Vygotsky, B. Velichkovsky, whose works set out no less significant and interesting theories of intelligence.

The purpose of this work is to analyze the current state of the problem of intelligence research.

The object of this work is the study of intelligence.

The subject of the work is the consideration of psychological theories of intelligence.

The tasks are as follows:

1 To reveal the essence of various theories of intelligence.

2 Identify the similarities and differences between the main theories of intelligence.

3 To study the research of intelligence by M.A. Kholodnaya.

The main research methods are: analysis and comparison.

cold intelligence theory

1. Basic theories of intelligence

1.1 Psychometric theories of intelligence

These theories state that individual differences in human cognition and mental abilities can be adequately calculated by special tests. Psychometric theorists believe that people are born with unequal intellectual potential, just as they are born with different physical characteristics, such as height and eye color. They also argue that no social programs will be able to turn people with different mental abilities into intellectually equal individuals. There are the following psychometric theories presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Psychometric theories of personality

Let's consider each of these theories separately.

Ch. Spearman's two-factor theory of intelligence. The first work in which an attempt was made to analyze the structure of the properties of intelligence appeared in 1904. Its author, Charles Spearman, an English statistician and psychologist, the creator of factor analysis, he drew attention to the fact that there are correlations between different intelligence tests: the one who performs well in some tests and is, on average, quite successful in others. In order to understand the reason for these correlations, Ch. Spearman developed a special statistical procedure that allows you to combine correlated intelligence indicators and determine the minimum number of intellectual characteristics that is necessary in order to explain the relationship between different tests. This procedure was, as we have already mentioned, called factor analysis, various modifications of which are actively used in modern psychology.

Having factorized various tests of intelligence, Ch. Spearman came to the conclusion that correlations between tests are the result of a common factor underlying them. He called this factor "factor g" (from the word general - general). The general factor is crucial for the level of intelligence: according to Ch. Spearman's ideas, people differ mainly in the degree to which they possess the g factor.

In addition to the general factor, there are also specific ones that determine the success of various specific tests. So, the performance of spatial tests depends on the factor g and spatial abilities, mathematical tests - on the factor g and mathematical abilities. The greater the influence of the g factor, the higher the correlations between tests; the greater the influence of specific factors, the less is the relationship between the tests. The influence of specific factors on individual differences between people, as Ch. Spearman believed, is of limited importance, since they do not appear in all situations, and therefore they should not be guided by when creating intellectual tests.

Thus, the structure of intellectual properties proposed by C. Spearman turns out to be extremely simple and is described by two types of factors - general and specific. These two types of factors gave the name to Ch. Spearman's theory - the two-factor theory of intelligence.

In a later edition of this theory, which appeared in the mid-1920s, Ch. Spearman recognized the existence of links between certain intelligence tests. These connections could not be explained either by the g factor or by specific abilities, and therefore Ch. Spearman introduced the so-called group factors to explain these connections - more general than specific, and less general than the g factor. However, at the same time, the main postulate of Ch. Spearman's theory remained unchanged: individual differences between people in terms of intellectual characteristics are determined mainly by common abilities, i.e. factor g.

But it is not enough to single out the factor mathematically: it is also necessary to try to understand its psychological meaning. Ch. Spearman made two assumptions to explain the content of the common factor. First, the factor g determines the level of "mental energy" needed to solve various intellectual problems. This level is not the same in different people, which leads to differences in intelligence. Secondly, the g factor is associated with three features of consciousness - the ability to assimilate information (acquire new experience), the ability to understand the relationship between objects, and the ability to transfer existing experience to new situations.

Ch. Spearman's first assumption regarding the energy level is difficult to consider otherwise than a metaphor. The second assumption turns out to be more specific, determines the direction of the search for psychological characteristics and can be used to decide what characteristics are essential for understanding individual differences in intelligence. These characteristics should, firstly, be correlated with each other (since they should measure general abilities, i.e. the g factor); secondly, they can be addressed to the knowledge that a person has (since a person’s knowledge indicates his ability to assimilate information); thirdly, they must be associated with the solution of logical problems (understanding the various relationships between objects) and, fourthly, they must be associated with the ability to use existing experience in an unfamiliar situation.

Until the 1960s, intelligence research was dominated by the factorial approach. However, with the development of cognitive psychology, with its emphasis on information processing models (see Chapter 9), a new approach has emerged. Different researchers define it somewhat differently, but the main idea is to explain intelligence in terms of the cognitive processes that occur when we perform intellectual activity.(Hunt, 1990; Carpenter, Just & Shell, 1990). The information approach raises the following questions:

1. What mental processes are involved in various intelligence tests?

2. How fast and accurate are these processes?

3. What kind of mental representations of information are used in these processes?

Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences

Howard Gardner (Gardner, 1983) developed his theory of multiple intelligences as a radical alternative to what he calls the "classical" view of intelligence as the capacity for logical reasoning.

Gardner was struck by the variety of adult roles in different cultures - roles based on a wide variety of abilities and skills, equally necessary for survival in their respective cultures. Based on his observations, he came to the conclusion that instead of a single basic intellectual ability, or "factor g", there are many different intellectual abilities found in various combinations. Gardner defines intelligence as "the ability to solve problems or create products, due to specific cultural characteristics or social environment" (1993, p. 15). It is the multiple nature of intelligence that allows people to take on roles as varied as doctor, farmer, shaman, and dancer.(Gardner, 1993a).

Gardner notes that the intellect is not a “thing”, not a certain device located in the head, but “a potential, the presence of which allows the individual to use forms of thinking that are adequate to specific types of context” ( Kornhaber & Gardner, 1991, p. 155). He believes that there are at least 6 different types of intelligence that do not depend on each other and act in the brain as independent systems (or modules), each according to its own rules. These include: a) linguistic; b) logical and mathematical; c) spatial; d) musical; e) bodily-kinesthetic and f) personality modules. The first three modules are familiar components of intelligence, and they are measured by standard intelligence tests. The last three, according to Gardner, deserve a similar status, but Western society has emphasized the first three types and virtually excluded the rest. These types of intelligence are described in more detail in Table. 12.6.

Table 12.6. Seven intellectual abilities according to Gardner

3. Logical-mathematical intelligence - the ability to use and evaluate the relationship between actions or objects when they are not actually present, that is, to abstract thinking.

6. Intrapersonal intelligence - the ability to recognize one's own feelings, intentions and motives.

7. Interpersonal intelligence - the ability to recognize and discriminate between the feelings, attitudes and intentions of other people.

(Adapted from: Gardner, Kornhaber & Wake, 1996)

< Рис. Согласно теории множественных интеллектуальных способностей Гарднера, эти три индивидуума (ученый-математик, скрипач, рыбак в море) демонстрируют различные виды интеллекта: логико-математический, музыкальный и пространственный.>

Gardner analyzes each type of intelligence from several positions: the cognitive operations involved in it; the appearance of child prodigies and other exceptional personalities; data on cases of brain damage; its manifestations in various cultures and the possible course of evolutionary development. For example, with certain brain damage, one type of intelligence may be impaired, while others remain unaffected. Gardner notes that the abilities of adult representatives of different cultures are different combinations of certain types of intelligence. Although all normal individuals are capable of displaying all varieties of intelligence to some degree, each individual is characterized by a unique combination of more and less developed intellectual abilities.(Walters & Gardner, 1985), which explains the individual differences between people.

As we noted, routine tests IQ are good predictors of college grades, but they are less valid in predicting future job success or career advancement. Measures of other abilities, such as personal intelligence, may help explain why some excellent college performers become miserable failures later in life, while less successful students become worship leaders.(Kornhaber, Krechevsky & Gardner,1990). Therefore, Gardner and his colleagues call for an "intellectual-objective" assessment of students' abilities. This will allow children to demonstrate their abilities in ways other than paper tests, such as putting together different elements to demonstrate spatial imagination skills.

Anderson's Theory of Intelligence and Cognitive Development

One of the criticisms of Gardner's theory indicates that a high level of ability related to any of the manifestations of intelligence he identifies, as a rule, correlates with a high level of ability related to other manifestations of intelligence; that is, that none of the specific abilities are completely independent of the others(Messick, 1992; Scarr, 1985). In addition, psychologist Mike Anderson points out that Gardner does not clearly define the nature of multiple intellectual abilities - he calls them "behaviors, cognitive processes, brain structures" (1992, p. 67). Because of this uncertainty, Anderson tried to develop a theory based on the idea of general intelligence put forward by Thurstone and others.

However, Anderson notes that there are cognitive mechanisms that are not characterized by individual differences. For example, individuals with Down syndrome may not be able to put two and two together, but they are aware that other people have beliefs and act on those beliefs.(Anderson, 1992). The mechanisms that provide such universal abilities are called "modules". Each module functions independently, performing complex calculations. Modules are not affected by the underlying processing mechanisms; in principle, they are automatic. According to Anderson, it is the maturation of new modules that explains the growth of cognitive abilities in the process of individual development. For example, the maturation of the module responsible for speech explains the development of the ability to speak in full (expanded) sentences.

Anderson's theory can be illustrated by the example of a 21-year-old young man, known by the initials M.A., who suffered from childhood convulsions and was diagnosed with autism. Upon reaching adulthood, he could not speak and received the lowest scores on psychometric tests. However, he was found IQ, equal to 128 points, and extraordinary ability to operate with prime numbers, which he performed more accurately than a specialist with a degree in mathematics(Anderson, 1992). Anderson concluded that M.A.'s basic processing mechanism was not damaged, which allowed him to think in abstract symbols, but his linguistic modules were affected, which prevented him from mastering everyday knowledge and communication processes.

Sternberg's triarchic theory

Unlike Anderson's theory, Sternberg's triarchic theory considers individual experience and context, as well as the basic mechanisms of information processing. Sternberg's theory includes three parts, or sub-theories: a component sub-theory that considers thought processes; experimental (experiential) sub-theory, which considers the influence of individual experience on intelligence; contextual sub-theory considering environmental and cultural influences(Sternberg, 1988). The most developed of them is the component subtheory.

Component theory considers the components of thinking. Sternberg identifies three types of components:

1. Metacomponents used for planning, control, monitoring and evaluation of information processing in the process of solving problems.

2. Executive components responsible for the use of problem solving strategies.

3. Components of knowledge acquisition (knowledge), responsible for coding, combining and comparing information in the process of solving problems.

These components are interconnected; they all participate in the process of solving the problem, and none of them can function independently of the others.

Sternberg considers the functioning of the components of intelligence on the example of the following analogy task:

“A lawyer treats a client as a doctor treats: a) medicine; b) patient"

Other processes are also involved in analogy problems, but Sternberg showed that individual differences in the solutions to this problem fundamentally depend on the efficiency of the coding and comparison processes. According to experimental data, individuals who perform better in solving analogy problems (experienced in solving) spend more time coding and form more accurate mental representations than individuals who perform poorly in such tasks (inexperienced in solving). At the comparison stage, on the contrary, those who are experienced in solving compare features faster than those who are inexperienced, but both are equally accurate. Thus, the best scores of experienced subjects are based on the greater accuracy of their encoding process, but the time it takes them to solve the problem is a complex mixture of slow encoding and fast comparison.(Galotti, 1989; Pellegrino, 1985).

Of course, the fact that an individual is familiar with certain concepts is largely determined by the environment. This is where contextual sub-theory comes into play. This subtheory considers the cognitive activity required to adapt to specific environmental contexts.(Sternberg, 1985). It is focused on the analysis of three intellectual processes: adaptation, selection and formation of the environmental conditions that actually surround him. According to Sternberg, the individual first of all looks for ways to adapt or adapt to the environment. If adaptation is not possible, the individual tries to choose a different environment or to shape the conditions of the existing environment in such a way that he can more successfully adapt to them. For example, if a person is unhappy in marriage, it may be impossible for him to adapt to his surroundings. Therefore, he or she may choose a different environment (for example, if he or she separates or divorces his or her spouse) or tries to shape existing conditions in a more acceptable way (for example, by going to family counseling)(Sternberg, 1985).

Bioecological theory of Cesi

Some critics argue that Sternberg's theory is so multi-component that its individual parts do not agree with each other.(Richardson, 1986). Others point out that this theory does not explain how problem solving is carried out in everyday contexts. Still others point out that this theory largely ignores the biological aspects of intelligence. Stefan Tsesi(Ceci, 1990) tried to answer these questions by developing Sternberg's theory and paying much more attention to the context and its influence on the process of problem solving.

Cesi believes that there are "multiple cognitive potentials", as opposed to a single basic intellectual ability or general intelligence factor g. These multiple abilities or areas of intelligence are biologically determined and impose restrictions on mental (mental) processes. Moreover, they are closely related to the problems and opportunities inherent in the individual environment or context.

For Cesi, context plays a central role in demonstrating cognitive abilities. By "context" he means areas of knowledge, as well as factors such as personality traits, level of motivation and education. Context can be mental, social and physical(Ceci & Roazzi, 1994). A particular individual or population may lack certain mental abilities, but in the presence of a more interesting and stimulating context, the same individual or population may demonstrate a higher level of intellectual functioning. Let's take just one example; in a well-known longitudinal study of children with high IQ, conducted by Lewis Terman(Terman & Oden, 1959), it was suggested that high IQ correlated with high levels of achievement. However, upon closer analysis of the results, it was found that children from wealthy families achieved greater success in adulthood than children from low-income families. In addition, those who grew up during the Great Depression achieved less in life than those who came of age later, at a time when career prospects were greater. According to Cesi, "As a result... the ecological niche that an individual occupies, including factors such as individual and historical development, turns out to be a much more significant determinant of professional and economic success than IQ” (1990, p. 62).

Cesi also argues against the traditional view of the relationship between intelligence and the ability to think abstractly, regardless of the subject area. He believes that the ability for complex mental activity is associated with knowledge acquired in certain contexts or areas. Highly intelligent individuals are not endowed with great abilities for abstract thinking, but have sufficient knowledge in specific areas, allowing them to think about problems in this field of knowledge in a more complex way.(Ceci, 1990). In the process of working in a certain field of knowledge - for example, in computer programming - the individual knowledge base grows and becomes better organized. Over time, this allows the individual to improve his intellectual functioning - for example, to develop better computer programs.

Thus, according to Cexi's theory, everyday, or "life", intellectual functioning cannot be explained on the basis of one IQ or some biological concept of general intelligence. Instead, intelligence is defined by the interaction between multiple cognitive potentials and a vast, well-organized knowledge base.

Theories of Intelligence: Summary

Anderson's theory attempts to explain various aspects of intelligence - not only individual differences, but also the growth of cognitive abilities in the course of individual development, as well as the existence of specific abilities, or universal abilities that do not differ from one individual to another, such as the ability to see objects in three measurements. To explain these aspects of intelligence, Anderson suggests the existence of a basic processing mechanism equivalent to general intelligence, or the factor g, in Spearman, along with specific processors responsible for propositional thinking as well as visual and spatial functioning. The existence of universal abilities is explained using the concept of "modules", the functioning of which is determined by the degree of maturation.

Intelligence.

Theories of intelligence.

Intelligence is a relatively stable set of mental abilities of an individual. In domestic psychology, the point of view prevails, in which intelligence is identical to thinking (L.S. Tsvetkova "The Brain and Intellect, 1995). In Western psychology, intelligence is associated with successful adaptation in the environment, i.e. the one who adapts best is more intelligent, i.e. thanks to his common sense and initiative, he can adapt to the circumstances of life.According to Veksler, "intelligence is a global ability to act intelligently, think rationally and cope well with life circumstances, i.e. successfully compete with the outside world."

Intelligence assessment.

Various psychologists have proposed various methods for assessing intelligence according to various parameters. So the Thurstones identify seven factors by which intelligence can be judged:

1. The ability to perform counting operations.
2. Verbal flexibility, i.e. the ability to easily find words to adequately express thoughts.
3. Verbal perception, i.e. ability to adequately understand spoken and written language.
4. Spatial orientation, the ability to represent various objects in space.
5. Memory.
6. The ability to reason, i.e. problem solving using past experience.
7. Readiness for perception, i.e. the speed of perception of similarities or differences between objects or images.

The development of intelligence. The most developed theory of intellectual development was proposed by the Swiss scientist Jean Piaget. He singled out four stages in this development.

sensorimotor stage covers the period of infancy. At this time, the child develops a variety of abilities. It looks for objects that are out of sight and can guess to some extent where they are. (In the first months of life, the child behaves as if the objects that he cannot observe at the moment simply do not exist). He is also capable of coordinating information from different senses, so that the tactile, visual, and auditory perceptions of an object are not three independent elements of his experience, but three aspects of the same object.

Another significant achievement at this stage is the development of the ability to purposeful actions. At the first stages, the baby makes only those voluntary movements that are attractive and interesting for him in some way, but gradually he moves on to actions aimed at achieving the goal. Initially, they are based only on previously mastered voluntary movements; in the future, the child begins to independently and intentionally vary his behavior.

Stage of pre-operational thinking. At this stage, verbal and conceptual thinking begins to form. The first stage, or the first stage of the development of thinking, is characterized by the fact that the child masters the world around him at the behavioral level, but cannot foresee or verbally express the consequences of an event. For example, he recognizes an object if he sees it from a different angle, but is not able to foresee how it will look in a new position. In the second stage, the child begins to acquire knowledge, make comparisons, and predict consequences. However, his thinking is not yet systematic.

Stage of specific operations. In the third stage, beginning at about seven years of age, the child is able to consider problems conceptually and acquires the simplest concepts of such categories as space, time, and quantity. If at the previous stage the child thinks that, for example, when pouring water from a narrow glass into a wide one, there is less water, then at the third stage he understands that the amount of water does not depend on the shape of the vessel. By the end of the second stage, the child can tell which of the two sticks is larger, but cannot arrange several sticks lengthwise in the correct sequence. At the third stage, he acquires the concept of the ordering of objects.

Formal Operations Stage starts around age 11. The child's thinking is systematized, he is able to determine the consequences, based on the causes of a phenomenon. For example, if liquids A and B turn red when mixed, the color disappears when liquid C is added, and liquid D does not change anything, the child will systematically go through all possible combinations until he establishes the features of the action of each liquid. Thus, at the 4th stage, the child acquires the ability to formulate and test hypotheses through systematic scientific research.

The intrauterine life of a child leaves a significant imprint on the formation of intellectual potentialities. Mental retardation is possible:
* with some chromosomal abnormalities (Down's disease); The effect of heredity can be assessed by comparing monozygotic (identical) and dizygotic (fraternal) twins. Monozygotic twins develop from the same egg and are thus genetically identical. Dizygotic twins develop from different eggs and therefore are no more similar genetically to each other than any other brothers and sisters. If intelligence or some other trait is determined by heredity, then monozygotic twins should be closer to each other than dizygotic twins, and the more often there is a similarity in this trait in monozygotic twins compared to dizygotic twins, the stronger the influence of heredity.
* in case of violations of the supply of the brain of the developing fetus with oxygen;
* with malnutrition of the fetus;
* with certain diseases of the mother during pregnancy (for example, rubella and diabetes);
* when the mother uses many drugs, especially antibiotics and tranquilizers;
* when the mother uses drugs, alcohol, smoking during pregnancy.

After the birth of a child, it affects the development of his intellectual abilities:

* nutrition, care and security in the first months of life;
* irritant-rich environment, i.e. communication with various people, a large number of toys, devices for the development of physical activity (balls, rings);
* the number of children in the family - the more children in the family, the lower the level of development of their intellect, although there is another interesting relationship: the older children in such a family are more intellectually developed than the younger ones;
* the social status of the family - affects the formation of a practical or abstract level of intelligence, as well as the general orientation of the individual. For children who drop out of school, IQ decreases, and for those who move from a bad school to a good one, it rises. Special programs aimed at socially and culturally enriching the environment of disadvantaged preschoolers often improve the IQ of these children, but if the child is then sent to a regular school, his IQ may decrease again. A number of observations have shown that specially designed enrichment environments during infancy and early childhood usually have a modest but persistent effect on IQ and, more importantly, academic performance.

In addition, it was noted that some substances that act after birth have a negative effect on intelligence. For example, children with high levels of lead in their blood (due to inhaling air contaminated with lead compounds or eating pieces of plaster covered with lead paint) usually have a lower IQ. Prolonged childhood malnutrition has a similar effect. In each of these cases, a relationship was established between environmental factors and intelligence indicators, but the mechanisms of action of these factors have not been studied enough.

Since the development of intelligence depends on many genetic and environmental factors, it is not surprising that the reasons for the differences in IQ between individuals and populations are often unclear. However, there is some progress in understanding a number of specific cases. Thus, the low level of performance of tasks that require verbal skills is associated with a lack of appropriate linguistic practice (for example, among Hispanics) or with a number of diseases (for example, frequent ear infections in Eskimo children). There is also evidence that sex differences in spatial orientation are partly due to the influence of male sex hormones on the developing brain. For a more complete explanation of persistent differences in IQ between groups distinguished by gender, race and other characteristics, it is necessary to continue research on the social and biological characteristics of such groups, as well as take into account the difference in education received.

Types and levels of intelligence.

Guilford was the first to propose to evaluate intelligence in terms of convergence - divergence. Convergent intelligence involves the search for the only correct solution and is the result of learning, good mastering of algorithms for solving problems. Divergent intelligence is characterized by a simultaneous multifaceted search for the right solutions, which results in original creative ideas.

It is also accepted to divide intelligence into a specific level, aimed at solving everyday problems and often called ingenuity, and an abstract level that allows you to successfully operate with concepts.
Cattell suggested that each of us from birth has a potential "liquid" intellect, which is a general ability to think, abstract and reason, on the basis of which, as experience is gained in solving problems of adaptation to the environment, a "crystal" intellect is formed, which is various specific skills and knowledge of the individual.

From the point of view of psychology, the following definitions of intelligence can be listed:

intelligence - the ability to solve problems;
intelligence - the process of processing information;
intelligence - learning, that is, the ability to absorb and independently acquire knowledge;
intelligence - a system of cognitive processes;
intelligence is a factor in the regulation of activity.

The author of the test - the famous English psychologist G. Eysenck - defines the most important characteristic of intelligence as the SPEED OF MENTAL PROCESSES. "The speed of mental processes is the fundamental basis of intellectual differences between people ... But perseverance and perseverance can compensate for the lack of speed of thinking. And with a lack of perseverance, you can lose the advantages that nature has given you, endowing you with a high rate of thinking. Even if a person thinks quickly and persistent enough, he can be uncoordinated, prone to hasty action and unmethodical.He grabs the first idea that comes to his mind, not taking the trouble to check whether the solution received is correct.
Space and intelligence

Space is not only what we see with our eyes or with the help of instruments. First of all, this is our body, the relative position of its parts, the influence of gravity when changing the position of the body.

The brain's perception of its body schema begins in utero, and the fetus occupies the most biologically advantageous position for birth. Birth in the breech presentation or the transverse position of the fetus rather indicates a malfunction in the development of perception of the body schema even before birth.

A born baby sees the world upside down. But a child is not born as a blank sheet. There are hundreds of instincts in his genetic program, and one of the main ones is the spatial recognition of the mother's face. A newborn behaves differently if a white square or an oval with a dark T-shaped spot appears in his field of vision. The oval is the outline of the face. The instinct seems to say: "This is most likely your mother. Look at her and remember. She cannot be lost!" This is a short excerpt from the most interesting book about a man by V. R. Dolnik "Naughty child of the biosphere". A newborn is still far from a real vision of the world. Other instincts come to the rescue, helping the perception of space. The child will ignore the cold smooth object, but will cling tightly to the corner of the downy shawl. This is an innate spatial memory of furry ancestors, whose fur had to be held tight. Even the desire of a grown-up baby to grab onto his mother's skirt is a spatial memory of the caudate progenitors.

Cognition of space is the basis of intelligence. The brain becomes anxious if this need is not met. The child still cannot hold his head, he is left in the crib for a long time, and apart from the white ceiling he sees nothing. On walks, it is covered with a corner of the blanket or the top of the stroller is raised. This will cause not only capriciousness, causeless crying, but will also affect further development. The child must constantly see pictures of the changing world. His brain accumulates information about space. Thanks to this information, we recognize faces by their spatial characteristics, distinguish a man from a woman, a child from an old man, one from another. Spatial features also determine ethnicity. Facial expressions, gestures, postures, movements are all changes in space that the brain remembers and perceives as important signals. Mastering the space, the brain performs its main task to ensure the survival of the biological species.

Every day the child strives to expand his ideas about the world around him, embarks on an active study of his home and surroundings. The child seeks to quench his curiosity and with all his might resists prohibitions and even punishments. The task of an adult is to remove the dangers and let the baby quench his thirst for knowledge. If it is possible to limit the exploratory instinct or place the child in an information-poor environment, then development will slow down. The scarcity of spatial information is one of the reasons for the intellectual insufficiency of children's boarding schools. Even the same situation in the kindergarten group, the same way to the kindergarten and back, the same place for a walk can cause information hunger.

All senses are involved in the perception of space. Our I is not only a sense of our body scheme, but also of all processes, from physiological to higher mental functions. Neither feelings, nor thinking, nor memory can normally be separated from the perception of the body. It is the separation of these processes in space and time that is the essence of severe mental disorders, in particular autism.

The brain learns and develops, creating step by step a holistic picture of the world in which it must learn to live and survive.

Space includes all the luminaries, the sky, clouds, landscape, buildings, people, animals. Light and sound are also related to space. In the first case, this is the propagation of electromagnetic oscillations, in the second, these are wave oscillations of air.

The development of figurative intelligence is inextricably linked with the emotional sphere. Perceiving the environment, the brain first of all evaluates information in terms of danger and safety. That's what instinct calls for. Emotional assessment allows you to be wary in time, and fear to avoid trouble and, in the end, to experience the pleasure of being alive. This biological program allows not only to survive in each case, but also includes an emotional assessment in the memory information system.

All sensory systems should be included in the cognition of space: vision, hearing, touch, perception of one's body. The experience gained must be labeled with a word. But the word must never be isolated from spatial experience and its emotional evaluation. Early learning of letters is to the detriment of the process of formation of the intellect. The brain is saturated with information that has no emotional basis. The early development of speech may be genetically determined, or it may be the result of the predominance of verbal education. In both cases, a bias in the development of intelligence is possible. The child learns a lot of words, begins to speak in common turns of speech, but often grows up emotionally flawed. Verbal, i.e. verbal children have difficulty communicating, prefer to play alone, choose a book instead of a walk. They can be erudite, able to accumulate a large amount of formalized knowledge, but they are not able to act in a specific situation that requires quick orientation in space and a reaction at the subconscious level.

Today's preoccupation with early learning in letters, writing and reading can lead to significant difficulties in mastering school subjects that require imaginative thinking. Early filling of memory matrices with meaningless symbols often leads to the formation of a moral defect.

IQ (English intellectual quotient - IQ) - an indicator of tests of intelligences. Denotes the ratio of "mental age" (IL) to the actual chronological age (XB) of the subject's IQ. Calculate IQ according to the formula HC Ch100% \u003d IQHV.

The concept of the IQ was introduced in 1912 by V. Stern, who drew attention to some of the shortcomings of mental age as an indicator in the scales proposed by Binet. Stern proposed to determine not the absolute pen of intelligence (the difference between SW and XB), but the relative one (the quotient obtained by dividing SW by XB). IQ was first used in the 1916 Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale.

Various authors have proposed a number of tests to assess the level of intelligence. The first intelligence test was created by the psychologist Binet and revealed the "mental" (mental) age of the child, in contrast to his chronological age. Later, Wexler, Cattell, Eysenck proposed their own tests for assessing the intelligence of adults and children. Now the most commonly used tests are the Stanford-Binet and Wexler tests. The pioneer in the development of intelligence tests was the French psychologist A. Binet in the early 1900s. Binet set the task of creating a test that would help predict the success of children in Parisian schools. At the same time, it was required that testing be carried out quickly, and its results be objective, i.e. did not depend on the preferences of the examiner. Binet developed a set of tests to assess thinking, memory, vocabulary, and other cognitive abilities needed for schooling. Binet's tests were found to be adequate in the sense that their scores correlated with school achievement; children who performed well on these tests did well in school. For fifty years, such tests have been developed for both children of all ages and adults and have been used in a wide variety of cases related to education and employment.

Since the time of Binet, intelligence tests have changed significantly, but the basic principles of their construction have remained the same. They are compiled for adults or children by selecting material that corresponds to the intellectual capabilities of a given age. A typical test for school-age children consists, for example, of tasks requiring verbal ability, the ability to operate with mathematical concepts and the ability to reason abstractly, as well as certain factual knowledge.

Intelligence is:

a) the general ability to learn and solve problems, which determines the success of any activity and underlies other abilities;

b) the system of all cognitive abilities of an individual: sensation, perception, memory, representation, thinking, imagination;

c) the ability to solve problems without trial and error in the “mind”

vbordo.ru

Latest theories of intelligence. Theories of intelligence: can intelligence be measured?

15.1. Theories of intelligence of the twentieth century

15.1.1. Intelligence or intellects?

The subject of the work is the consideration of psychological theories of intelligence.

We advise you to read

Yew from the yew family Caring for the yew

Femininity: what is it and where to look for it?

Inspiration definition. Where to look for inspiration? Inspiration is a strict working state

Matinees have become more frequent Throwing handfuls of silver

Alexey Maslov: there is no rigidity in the Bologna educational standard

What profession did Lombroso represent?

Khazars and Slavs. Jews and Kievan Rus. Khazars, Jews and Kievan Rus

Postcards from Eid al-Fitr - flickering gifs in the trend Congratulations on Eid al-Fitr GIF

Postcards "good morning and good mood" Good morning photos with inscriptions

Berries and fruits - what's the difference?

Pictures and postcards of the Police Day: official and funny Drawing for the day of the police

Flare method of combustion

Methods of fuel combustion in heating boilers

Chokeberry wine at home: a simple and classic recipe from fresh and frozen berries, with the addition of cinnamon, cloves, lemon zest, currant leaves, apples, based on apple juice, storage tips

15.1. Theories of intelligence of the twentieth century

15.1.1. Intelligence or intellects?

The subject of the work is the consideration of psychological theories of intelligence.

We advise you to read

Similar posts