Complex systems theories of intelligence

Psychometric theories have shown that human intelligence is dependent on many specific abilities that interact in myriad ways. However, results leading to these conclusions have generally been obtained in a Western laboratory context but are assumed to apply to individuals in any part of the globe (Berry, 1990; Davidson & Downing, 2000). As was discussed in the implicit theory section of this chapter, intelligence means different things in different societies, and it is accepted that intelligence is much more complex and its definition broader than any set of factor analyses can show (Horn & Blankson, 2005;

Neisser, 1976; Sternberg, Lautrey, & Lubart, 2003). What are called complex systems theories of intelligence seek to address this issue.

Generally speaking, complex systems theories expand the concept of intelligence by placing more emphasis on the variety of influences affecting intelligent behaviour, including the

person and his/her characteristics, the person’s developmental status, the contexts in which intelligence is manifest, and the role of external factors (Callahan, 2000; Sternberg, 2004).

Two major theories have become well known in the past several decades – Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, based on knowledge domains, (Gardner, 1983), and Sternberg’s triarchic theory, based on kinds of thinking (Sternberg, 1985a; Sternberg et al., 2003).

2.3.2.1 Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory

Rather than view intelligence as a single entity or a common pool from which all intellectual pursuits draw resources, Gardner has proposed that there are actually multiple domains of intelligences, each of which is relatively distinct from the other, is manifest to different degrees in individuals, and is valued in most cultures (Chen & Gardner, 2005; Gardner, 1983, 1993). Gardner’s theory has not been based on the results of paper and pencil tests.

Instead, he has established his theory after years of research during which he investigated the cognitive processing not only of “normal” individuals, but also exceptional ones (e.g. very gifted, savant, and brain damaged) across many cultures (Gardner, 1983, 1999). Gardner argues that traditional models of intelligence are limited to measuring linguistic, logical, and some spatial abilities, and that other forms of intelligent behaviour have been ignored (Sternberg, 1996). His reconceptualization of intelligence draws upon the realms of biology, developmental psychology, traditional psychology (in terms of psychometrics) and logical analysis. To be considered an intelligence, Gardner suggests that an ability meet a number of criteria. First, the ability must be seen to be affected by damage to some part or parts of the brain that does not affect other abilities. Second, there should be evidence that the ability has served some evolutionary plausible and autonomous function. Third, the ability should be seen to have a developmental trajectory over the lifespan with recognizable expert end-states. Fourth, there should be individual differences such that the ability is observed at exceptional levels in prodigies and savants. Fifth, the ability should demonstrate relative independence from other abilities not only psychometrically, but also as a result of specific skill development in that area. So, for example, skill development in the area of linguistic intelligence would not produce a direct increase in skill in another ability. In addition, Gardner argues that each intelligence should have a core set of operations and that each can be encoded using some sort of symbol system (Chen & Gardner, 2005; Davidson &

Downing, 2000; Gardner, 1983, 1987, 1999, 2003; Kihlstrom & Cantor, 2000). Gardner

argues that each of the intelligences in his theory (eight, or perhaps nine at last count) may or may not be realized in an individual depending on his or her cultural context (Ramos-Ford &

Gardner, 1997).

The theory of multiple intelligences tends to span both the academic and practical domains (Wagner, 2000). In addition to the abilities mentioned above that can be measured by conventional assessment (e.g. linguistic, mathematical/logical, and spatial) Gardner has proposed two other “non-academic” intelligences which are of interest in the current study.

Interpersonal intelligence is described as the ability not only to recognize, but also to understand the behaviours, motives, and feelings of others, to appreciate and accept them, and then to act on that understanding (Chen & Gardner, 2005; Davidson & Downing, 2000;

Sternberg, 2000). Intrapersonal intelligence involves the capacity to understand oneself, that is, to be able to recognize and identify one’s emotions and their magnitude, know why one behaves in certain ways in particular circumstances, and know how to regulate one’s behaviour in order to meet one’s short and long-term needs and goals (Chen & Gardner, 2005; Gardner, 1993; Sternberg, 2000). While Gardner himself does not view these two domains as constituting an “emotional intelligence”, his conceptualizations of them, particularly intrapersonal intelligence, have helped to stimulate subsequent research in the area of emotional intelligence (Mayer, 2006).

2.3.2.2 Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence

Very little literature regarding the topic of intelligence published within the last 20 years has not included some reference to psychologist Robert Sternberg. In addition to (and as a result of) his insights into implicit theories mentioned earlier, Sternberg has developed what has come to be known as the triarchic theory of intelligence (Sternberg, 1985a). Like Gardner, Sternberg’s theory focuses on the practical outcomes of intelligence in solving everyday problems. He argues that, because of the differences in academic versus practical problems, intelligent behaviour may be observed in one of these areas but not necessarily the other (Sternberg, 2000; Wagner, 2000; Wagner & Sternberg, 1986). With this in mind, “…because people’s conceptions of intelligence seem much more linked to real-world success than is the conventional conception of intelligence, it may be useful to think in terms of the concept of

successful intelligence, which deals not just with intelligence in its academic aspect, but intelligence as it pertains to all aspects of life” (Sternberg, 2003; p. 141).

Three broad kinds of abilities (hence triarchic) form the basis for the theory. The first are those abilities which are internal to the individual and are the components of information processing in intelligent behaviour. Of these, the most important are “metacomponents”

(Sternberg, 2003, p. 143), which are higher-order skills used in problem solving and decision-making. These include, among others, the abilities of problem identification, defining the parameters of the problem, selection of appropriate strategies to solve the problem, and outcome evaluation. They involve metacognition – thinking about one’s own thinking – and are therefore purposeful and goal-directed. Sternberg argues that it is the individual differences in the use of these metacomponents that explains the presence of g in psychometric analyses (Davidson & Downing, 2000; Sternberg, 1985a). In addition to the higher-level skills just described are lower-order skills involved with performing the tasks specified by the metacomponents, and knowledge acquisition components that allow individuals to acquire the knowledge necessary for problem solving. Sternberg proposes that successful counselling and consultation involves assisting a client in cycling through the steps in problem solving as each problem solution becomes the basis for a subsequent one (Sternberg, 2003). As will be discussed in Chapter 4, career counselling is one area where such techniques have proved useful.

The second subset of abilities in the triarchic theory are those needed to apply the first set of abilities to the world external to the individual. Success in this area allows the person to adapt to the existing environment, or, if necessary, reconfigure the environment to suit one’s purposes. If neither of these options is possible, the more intelligent individual is able to change environments completely when the existing one is unsatisfactory (Davidson &

Downing, 2000; Sternberg, 2003, 2004). The third kind of abilities in the triarchic theory are those that integrate the internal and external worlds of the individual through experiences.

Generally, new experiences involve novelty, and the more intelligent person is able to automatize cognitive information processing skills leaving more mental resources available for coping with novel situations. Sternberg proposes that a person experiences success in everyday situations when he or she is able to balance analytical, creative, and practical abilities.

The two complex systems theories discussed above have gained popularity, especially in the context of education. However, they have not yet been able to relax the strong hold that psychometric tests have on the assessment of intelligence. “Readers who are devotees of popular contemporary theories of intelligence”…(Gardner or Sternberg)…“will be disappointed to realize that these theories – despite their obvious pertinence to the clinical assessment of intelligence – have barely made a dent in the formulation of current or past IQ tests” (Kaufman, 2000, p. 453).