Chapter 10: Intelligence, Problem Solving, and Creativity

 

 

BRIEF CHAPTER OUTLINE

 

Intelligence

Defining Intelligence

Theories of Intelligence

                        Intelligence as One General Ability

                        Intelligence as Multiple Abilities

Psychology in the Real World: Bringing Multiple Intelligences to School

Measures of Intelligence

Breaking New Ground: Changing Intelligence Tests       

                        Reliability and Validity of IQ Tests

                        Are IQ Tests Biased?

Extremes of Intelligence

Mental Retardation

Giftedness

Prodigies

Savants

            The Nature and Nurture of Human Intelligence

Group Differences in Intelligence Scores

            Race-Ethnicity and Intelligence

            Gender and Intelligence

Non-Western Views of Intelligence

Problem Solving

Types of Problems

Solution Strategies

Obstacles to Solutions

Creativity

What Is Creativity?

Stages of Creative Problem Solving

Genius, Intelligence, and Creativity

Creativity and the Brain

            Creative Insight and the Right Hemisphere

            Creativity and Balanced Activity Between the Hemispheres

Cognitive Processes in Creative Thinking

The Creative Personality

Making Connections in Intelligence, Problem Solving, and Creativity: Whiz Kids in Science

Chapter Review

 

EXTENDED CHAPTER OUTLINE

 

INTELLIGENCE

·         Much research starts with questions like: Is intelligence due to nature or nurture? Is intelligence a single general skill or many different skills? What does it mean when we say someone is intelligent?

·         Psychologists agree that there are three capacities that shape how smart people are, and they constitute the central topics of this chapter: intelligence, problem solving, and creativity.

·         Many people consider intelligence the primary trait that sets humans apart from other animals.

·         Although some apes can solve simple problems, the human capacity for abstract reasoning is unparalleled in the animal kingdom.

 

Defining Intelligence

  • Intelligence: a set of cognitive skills that include abstract thinking, reasoning, problem solving, and the ability to acquire knowledge. Other less agreed-upon qualities of intelligence include mathematical ability, general knowledge, and creativity.

 

Theories of Intelligence

  • Here we see there are two camps: the domain-specific that believes that intelligence is made up of multiple abilities and skills, and the domain-general, that believes that intelligence is a single general ability.

Intelligence as One General Ability

  • Charles Spearman was the first theorist in the area of intelligence. He proposed that human intelligence is best thought of as a single general capacity or ability. Spearman came to this conclusion after research consistently showed that specific dimensions or factors of intelligence—namely, spatial, verbal, perceptual, and quantitative factors—correlated strongly with one another, suggesting that they were all measuring much the same thing.
  • g-factor theory: describes intelligence as a single general factor made up of specific components.  This theory strongly influenced intelligence test construction for most of the 20th century.

Intelligence as Multiple Abilities

  • This camp didn’t dispute that moderately high correlations among subtests of intelligence exist, but they disagree on how they should be interpreted. They insisted that IQ test scores by themselves ignore important aspects of intelligence that are not measured by traditional IQ tests.
  • Multiple-factor theory of intelligence: the different aspects of intelligence are distinct enough that multiple abilities must be considered, not just one. That is,  How are you intelligent?”
  • Early on you have Cattell with his notion of fluid and crystallized intelligence.
  • Fluid intelligence: How one reasons and problem solves. This involves raw mental ability, pattern recognition, abstract reasoning, and is applied to a problem that a person has never confronted before. Fluid intelligence measures are culture-free because they do not depend on culturally acquired experience to solve.

·         Crystallized intelligence: Knowledge that we have gained from experience and learning, education, and practice. This involves book smarts and cultural knowledge. 

·         Carroll extended this model, arguing that intelligence actually consists of three levels, arranged in a hierarchy. At the top of the hierarchy is general intelligence, at the middle is broad intelligence, and at the bottom is narrow intelligence.

·         General intelligence: very similar to Spearman’s concept of “g.”

·         Broad intelligence: abilities such as crystallized and fluid intelligence, as well as memory, learning, and processing speed.

·         Narrow intelligence consists of nearly 70 distinct abilities, such as speed of reasoning and general sequential reasoning for fluid intelligence and reading, spelling, and language comprehension for crystallized intelligence.

·         Because this model includes Cattell and Horn’s crystallized and fluid intelligences, it has become known as the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of intelligence.

  • Sternberg argues for a broader view of intelligence than is found in traditional g-factor theories.
  • Successful intelligence: this is an individually defined set of abilities viewed within a sociocultural context that allows for success.
  • Triarchic theory of intelligence: Sternberg argues that three interrelated but distinct abilities make up successful intelligence: analytic, creative, and practical skill.

1. analytic intelligence: involves judging, evaluating, or comparing and contrasting information, as on an IQ test.

2. creative intelligence: involves solving novel problems and coming up with novel and useful ideas for solving them.

3. practical intelligence: the ability to solve problems of everyday life efficiently.

  • Conversely, Gardner argues that intelligence comprises at least eight distinct capacities: linguistic, mathematical-logical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, intrapersonal, interpersonal, and naturalist. 

·         Scholars are rather strongly divided, however, over Gardner’s theory. Those who have the most problems with it tend to be psychologists. They see little value in calling skills like music, movement, and social skills “intelligence” and argue that Gardner has not provided tests of these intelligences. Further, there have been few direct empirical tests on Gardner’s theory and therefore some argue his ideas are more theory than science.

·         Educators, however, like Gardner’s theory because it addresses two real problems: 

1. Different students learn in different ways.

2. Some students who have demonstrated ability in some areas fail academic subjects and do poorly on traditional intelligence tests.

 

 

 

 Psychology in the Real World: Bringing Multiple Intelligences to School

·         An educational principle based on MI theory is that children should have some freedom to choose activities on their own. If they ignore certain kinds of activities, their teachers provide encouragement and “bridges” to try the neglected activities.

·         Entire schools have been designed to put into practice the development of all of Gardner’s forms of intelligences. There are more than 40 such schools in the United States.

·         Students in these schools still must take the local school district’s standardized tests; the students do at least as well as students from other schools. Also, most of the schools reported direct effects of the MI approach on decreasing disciplinary problems and increasing parent participation, and the performance of students with learning disabilities improved markedly when they attended MI schools.

Measures of Intelligence

  • The development and history of IQ testing has been marked by three distinct periods. For the first period of 70 years or so, from about 1910 to about 1980, people constructed tests around practical and clinical concerns rather than theory.
  • That began to change during the second period in the 1980s, when the first theory-driven IQ tests were developed.
  • Then, during the third period in 1990s, a major shift and integration of theory and measurement occurred when IQ tests shifted from assessing two or three aspects of intelligence to measuring four to seven aspects.
  • The first test was developed in 1905 by the French scholar Alfred Binet and was based on a child’s mental age: the equivalent chronological age a child has reached based on his or her performance on an IQ test. Mental age is a norm or average because it is based on what most children at a particular age level can do.
  • A German psychologist, William Stern, introduced the now famous intelligence ratio,  in which mental age (MA) is divided by chronological age (CA) (times 100) to determine an IQ score. Today IQ scores are calculated based on how well a child does on tests relative to norms established by testing children of the same age.

·         Terman, an American psychologist, translated the test for American students and coined the term IQ for “intelligence quotient.” Because Terman taught at Stanford University, he named the test the Stanford-Binet test. The most significant changes Terman made were to establish national norms and to apply the ratio score of MA ÷ CA to IQ.

·         In the 1930s, David Wechsler created new intelligence tests in response to the need for a test that measured adult intelligence. Wechsler’s test became known as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales (WAIS). Later he developed a test for children, the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children (WISC). At present, these two tests are the ones that are most frequently administered in the United States.

 

Breaking New Ground: Changing Intelligence Tests

·         See “Breaking New Ground” section for detailed explanation.

 

 

Reliability and Validity of IQ Tests 

  • Reliability: how consistent test results are.
  • IQ tests tend to be extremely reliable. Questions on a given subtest also tend to correlate very highly with other items on the subtest, meaning that the test’s internal consistency is very high.
  • Validity:  does the test measure what it says it’s measuring and is there predictability associated with the test? It involves:

1. that the tests really measure intelligence and not something else, and

2. that IQ scores can predict real-world outcomes.

  • Two distinct forms of validity:
  • Example: Students often have difficulty here. Try using the example of a scale: if you have a scale that is off by 10 pounds consistently, it would be reliable (that is, test retest would be high) but not valid – it isn’t accurately measuring your weight. This is also a good time to point out that reliability is thought to be more important. So if my scale is off (low validity), does it still have utility (usefulness)? Yes, it can still measure change and I know that it is reliable so that provides utility.

1. Construct validity: Does a test measures the term or construct it claims to measure.

  • In terms of IQ, most agree that yes, there is high construct validity. However, Sternberg and Gardner have argued that they measure only verbal, spatial, and mathematical forms of intelligence.

2. Predictive validity: Does the construct predict real-world outcomes?

  • IQ tests do, in fact, predict certain real-world outcomes, first and foremost being academic performance. IQ scores predict students’ grades, school performance, and class rank in high school quite well. Scores on the WAIS predict both one’s academic class rank in high school and one’s college grade point average.

 

Are IQ Tests Biased?

What is a Bias?

·         Cultural test bias hypothesis: the notion that group differences in IQ scores are caused by different cultural and educational backgrounds, not by real differences in intelligence.

·         Scientists, however, distinguish between test bias and test fairness.

·         Test bias: whether a test predicts outcomes equally well for different groups. A test is biased iif it is a more valid measure for one group than for another. Researchers have found, however, very little evidence for the existence of this kind of bias in IQ tests.

·         Intelligence tests are developed using norms that reflect the makeup of the general population. Just because different groups score differently on a given test does not automatically mean that it is biased. If the test is equally valid for different groups and they still score differently on it, the test is not biased. It may be unfair, but it’s not biased.

  • Test fairness: reflects values, philosophical differences, and the ways in which test results are applied. IQ test results are designed for application – remember, their job is to predict school success. However, they are now used by people in business and to get jobs. Problems arise when people use IQ test results unfairly to deny certain groups access to universities or jobs.

 

 

Extremes of Intelligence

·         IQ follows a normal distribution – that is, a bell-shaped distribution with a mean and a standard deviation. Intelligence varies in a very predictable way, which is most easily seen in the frequency of different IQ scores in the population. When one plots the scores on a graph, one sees a very clear bell curve, with most people falling in the middle and a few people at the high and low ends of the curve.  This shape is referred to as a bell curve because it is shaped like a bell.

·         68% of test-takers will score between 85 and 115 – that is, within one standard deviation of the mean.

·         99.7% will score between 55 and 145.

·         It is at the two ends of the curve, or distribution, that we find “extremes of intelligence” – specifically, mental retardation and giftedness.

Mental Retardation

·         Mental retardation: individual must show significant limitations in intellectual functioning as well as in everyday adaptive behavior, and these deficits must start before age 18.

·         Adaptive behavior: how well a person adjusts to and copes with everyday life.

·         Down syndrome: a form of mental retardation; a disorder that results from a condition known as Trisomy-21, in which a person has three rather than two number 21 chromosomes. Down syndrome occurs in one in 730 births, but the odds become one in 300 for a 35-year-old mother and one in 30 for a 45-year-old mother.

Giftedness

·         In most schools, children are admitted to gifted programs if they score 130-140  or above on a standardized IQ test like the WISC or Stanford-Binet. Extreme giftedness takes various forms, two of which are prodigies and savants.

·         Prodigy: a young person who is extremely gifted and precocious in one area, such as math, music, art, or chess, and is at least average in intelligence.

  • Savant syndrome: a very rare condition characterized by serious mental handicaps and isolated areas of ability or remarkable giftedness. Savants have low overall intelligence, typically with an IQ below 70, and an incredible ability in one area, such as calculating numbers, recalling events, playing music, or drawing. By some estimates, there are only about 100 savants in the world today, about 50% of whom suffer from autism, and the other 50% from some other kind of psychological disorder, such as brain injury, epilepsy, or mental retardation. Some savants have no corpus callosum and little cerebellum.

·         CONNECTION: Daniel Tammet used mnemonic devices, a memory tool, to help him remember pi (the circumference of any circle divided by its diameter). How do mnemonic devices aid memory? (See Chapter 7.)

 

The Nature and Nurture of Human Intelligence

  • The region most often involved in various IQ tasks is the prefrontal cortex. When a person is working on verbal tasks, only the left prefrontal region of the brain is activated. When an individual is working on spatial tasks, however, the prefrontal cortexes of both the left and right hemispheres, as well as the occipital cortex, are activated.
  • Moreover, the frontal lobe is more involved when an individual is performing fluid intelligence tasks, such as pattern recognition, than when the person is performing tasks that involve crystallized and learned experiences.
  • Identical twins reared apart are more similar in their levels of intelligence than fraternal twins reared together.
  • Similarly, dozens of studies have shown that adopted children’s overall intelligence is more similar to that of their biological parents than to that of their adoptive parents. Yet adoption can also enhance a child’s IQ. Compared to peers who were not adopted, adopted children tend to have higher IQs.
  • reaction range: the genetically determined range within which a given trait, such as intelligence, may fall; that trait’s exact value, however, depends on the quality of the individual’s environment. For most people in most environments, the reaction range for IQ is about 25 points – meaning that a given person may end up scoring anywhere in a 25-point range on an IQ test, depending on the kind of environment in which he or she is raised.

Nature-Nurture Pointer: The concept of reaction range describes how biology and environment work together to produce a person’s overall level of intelligence.

  • Environment, however, is a complex thing. Environment is divided into shared (being in the same household and sharing experiences), and nonshared (the individual’s unique environmental experiences).
  • One example of nonshared is the prenatal environment. For example, teratogenic effects like alcohol, drugs, and viral infections can lower a child’s overall intelligence.

Nature-Nurture Pointer: What happens in the womb can permanently affect a person’s measured intelligence.

  • birth order: Recent research has reported that first-born children have a slight advantage over second-born children, who have an even slighter advantage over third-born children.

 

Group Differences in Intelligence Scores

Race-Ethnicity and Intelligence.

  • In the 1960s and 1970s Arthur Jensen received death threats for publishing research that reported not only differences in IQ between racial groups, but also argued that because IQ is under genetic influence, racial differences in IQ must be at least partly genetic in origin.
  • In the mid-1990s, a book called The Bell Curve was published. Authors argued that a study of ethnic group differences, social class, and intelligence with 12,000 subjects indicated that racial groups differ on IQ scores; and differences in IQ are a large contributor to differences in education and income.
  • Some experts argue that racial differences in IQ result from biases in IQ tests that favor people from certain cultural backgrounds over others. Others argue that it is genetic, and others yet argue they may have misinterpreted the data.
  • Finally, the conclusion that genetics influence intelligence is often misinterpreted as implying that IQ levels are determined at birth or conception. If this were so, then trying to change IQ levels with intervention programs is not likely to succeed.
  • But remember, epigenisis and reaction range makes clear how genes and environment are connected. Second, interventions have, in fact, been successful at changing IQ levels. 

Nature-Nurture Pointer: The human brain can be changed both physically (in size) and in its ability to solve problems by neglect and abuse. Early intervention to counteract neglect increases intelligence.

Gender and Intelligence

  • Most research on overall intelligence and gender has reported no difference between men and women on average.
  • The one consistent difference is not in the average, but in the variability: Men are more variable in intelligence than are women.
  • Males are more likely to score in either end of the range; for example, they more frequently score at the high or low end of the scale on tests of science, math, spatial reasoning, and social studies. Women, however, tend to consistently do better than men in writing, reading comprehension, perceptual speed, and associative memory.

 

Non-Western Views of Intelligence

·         Sternberg and his colleagues have examined practical intelligence in cultures where academic intelligence is not valued as highly as it is in Western cultures. Children in Kenya and Tanzania, for example, may not do well at solving “bookish” analytic problems but do very well at solving everyday, practical problems.

 

PROBLEM SOLVING

 

Types of Problems

·         Convergent thinking problems: These have known solutions, which can be reached by narrowing down a set of possible answers.

·         Divergent thinking problems: There are many possible solutions, some of which work better than others.

 

Solution Strategies

·         Algorithms: formulas that guarantee correct solutions to particular problems.

·         Eureka insights or insight solutions: sudden solutions

·         Thinking outside the box: requires that you break free of self-imposed conceptual constraints and think about a problem differently in order to solve it.

 

Obstacles to Solutions

·         Fixation: the inability to break out of a particular mindset in order to think about a problem from a fresh perspective.

·         Mental sets are a kind of fixation. A mental set provides solutions to problems but can also stand in the way of new ideas and novel solutions.

  • CONNECTION: Heuristics are mental short cuts or methods we use in making decisions and judgments. Looking for yogurt in the dairy aisle in an unfamiliar supermarket rather than walking up and down every aisle to find it is an example of a heuristic. (See Chapter 9.)

·         Functional fixedness: the tendency to be blind to unusual uses of common everyday things or procedures.

 

CREATIVITY

·         Creative thinking is related to, yet distinct from, both intelligence and problem solving.

 

What Is Creativity?

  • Creativity is thought or behavior that is both novel-original and useful-adaptive.
  • The usefulness criterion requires that someone at some time see real value and usefulness in the creative accomplishment.

 

Stages of Creative Problem Solving

  • Creative problem solving is a process that has distinct stages. Long ago, Graham Wallas identified four such stages of creative problem solving: preparation, incubation, insight, and elaboration-verification.

1. preparation: discovering and defining the problem and then attempting to solve it.

2. incubation: putting the problem aside for a while and working on something else.

3. insight: the Eureka insight experience in which the solution comes immediately to mind.

4. verification-elaboration: the solution, even if it has the feel of certainty, still needs to be confirmed.

 

Genius, Intelligence, and Creativity

  • Genius: high intelligence combined with creative accomplishments that have a tremendous impact on a given field.

·         Genius, by this definition, and creativity are closely related. As it turns out, however, the relationship between intelligence and creativity is not as simple as it seems. Considerable research has focused on the relationship between intelligence and creativity and found that IQ and creativity are not very strongly related.

 

Creativity and the Brain

·         Research has revealed two consistent findings: insights occur in the right hemisphere rather than the left, and creative people solving creative problems show more balanced activity between their right and left frontal lobes.

Creative Insight and the Right Hemisphere

·         Remote associates word problem: display three words at one time to the participant, who must then come up with a single word that could be used with all three of the words. Research shows that people often solve these kinds of problems with Eureka insights. 

·         Brain imaging studies have found that sudden insights consistently activated the right hemisphere more than the left and that patients with damage to the frontal region of their right hemisphere are less able to solve problems requiring insight than people without damage to their right hemisphere.

·         CONNECTION: People who have had their corpus callosum severed cannot say what they see if the information is presented to their left visual field but can verbally label it if it is presented to their right visual field. Why? (See Chapter 3.)

Creativity and Balanced Activity Between the Hemispheres

·         When solving problems, creative people have more balanced brain activity between the hemispheres than less creative people. Research indicates that more left than right frontal lobe activity is seen in less creative participants. Highly creative individuals show a balance in right and left frontal lobe activity.

 

Cognitive Processes in Creative Thinking

·         Psychologists who study the cognitive aspects of creative thought have focused on visual thinking, fluency, flexibility, and originality.

  • visual imagery: occurs when we see a solution in our “mind’s eye.”

·         ideational fluency: the ability to produce many ideas. Highly creative people usually come up with more ideas for a given problem than less creative people do.

·         flexibility of thought: the ability to generate many different categories of ideas and think of other responses besides the obvious one. 

·         originality:  thinking of unusual and novel ideas.

·         Creative thinking occurs when a person combines all of the cognitive processes at once.

 

The Creative Personality

·         One important trait is openness to experience. That is the tendency to enjoy and seek out new experiences, new foods, new places, and new ideas. Highly creative people have this quality, which is not surprising given that creativity involves novel thoughts and behavior.

·         CONNECTION: Is there a connection between mental illness and creativity? The incidence of mental illness is higher in artists, writers, painters, and poets than in the normal population. The same is not true for creative scientists.  (See Chapter 15.) 

 

Making Connections in Intelligence, Problem Solving, and Creativity:

Whiz Kids in Science

  • See “Making the Connections” section for detailed explanation.

KEY TERMS

 

adaptive behavior: adjustment to and coping with everyday life.

algorithms: formulas that guarantee correct solutions to particular problems.

broad intelligence: one of Carroll’s three levels of intelligence; includes abilities such as crystallized and fluid intelligence, as well as memory, learning, and processing speed.

construct validity: the degree to which a test measures the concept it claims to measure, such as intelligence.

convergent thinking problems: problems that have known solutions and require analytic thinking and the use of learned strategies and knowledge to come up with the correct answer.

creativity: characteristic of a person whose thought and/or behavior is both novel-original and useful-adaptive.

crystallized intelligence: the kind of knowledge that one gains from experience and learning, education, and practice.

cultural test bias hypothesis: the notion that group differences in IQ scores are caused by different cultural and educational backgrounds, not by real differences in intelligence.

divergent thinking problems: problems that have no known solutions and that require thinking of new approaches (thinking outside of the box) to solve them.

Down syndrome: a disorder that results from a condition known as trisomy-21, in which a person has three rather than two number 21 chromosomes. Like retardation in general, it may be characterized by a degree of disability, ranging from mild to profound.

Eureka insight or insight solutions: sudden solutions that come to mind in a flash.

fixation: the inability to break out of a particular mind-set in order to think about a problem from a fresh perspective.

flexibility of thought: characteristic of creativity: ability to come up with many different categories of ideas and think of other responses besides the obvious one.

fluid intelligence: raw mental ability, pattern recognition, and abstract reasoning that can be applied to a problem one has never confronted before.

functional fixedness: mind-set in which one is blind to unusual uses of common everyday things or procedures.

general intelligence: one of Carroll’s three levels of intelligence; very similar to Spearman’s concept of “g.”

genius: high intelligence combined with creative accomplishments that have a tremendous impact on a given field.

g-factor theory: Charles Spearman’s theory that intelligence is a single general (g) factor made up of specific components.

ideational fluency: characteristic of creative thought that involves the ability to produce many ideas.

intelligence: a set of cognitive skills that include abstract thinking, reasoning, problem solving, and the ability to acquire knowledge.

mental age: the equivalent chronological age a child has reached based on his or her performance on an IQ test.

mental retardation: significant limitations in intellectual functioning as well as in everyday adaptive behavior, which start before age 18.

mental set: a tendency to continue to use problem-solving strategies that have worked in the past, even if better solutions are available.

multiple-factor theory of intelligence: idea that intelligence consists of distinct dimensions and is not just a single factor.

narrow intelligence: one of Carroll’s three levels of intelligence; includes nearly 70 distinct abilities.

originality: characteristic of creative thought: ability to come up with unusual and novel ideas.

predictive validity: the degree to which intelligence test scores are positively related to real-world outcomes, such as school achievement or job success, and thus have predictive value.

prodigy: a young person who is extremely gifted and precocious in one area and at least average in intelligence.

reaction range: the genetically determined range within which a given trait may fall; its exact value depends on the quality of the individual’s environment.

reliability: consistency of a measurement, such as an intelligence test.

savant syndrome: a very rare condition in which people with serious mental handicaps show isolated areas of ability or brilliance.

successful intelligence: according to Robert Sternberg, the “use of an integrated set of abilities needed to attain success in life, however an individual defines it, within his or her sociocultural context.”

test bias: characteristic of a test that determines whether it predicts outcomes equally well for different groups.

test fairness: characteristic of a test that reflects values, philosophical differences, and the ways in which test results are applied to different groups

thinking outside the box: approach to problem solving that requires one to break free of self-imposed conceptual constraints and think about a problem differently in order to solve it.

triarchic theory of intelligence: Robert Sternberg’s theory that three interrelated but distinct abilities make up successful intelligence: analytic, creative, and practical skill.

validity: the degree to which a test accurately measures what it purports to measure, such as intelligence, and not something else; and the degree to which it predicts real-world outcomes.

 

MAKING THE CONNECTIONS

 

Modern Intelligence Tests Based on Psychological Theory

CONNECTION: How does working memory operate? (See Chapter 7.)

o       Discussion: You may want to point out that Sternberg’s theory is an information-processing approach. It incorporates speed of processing and automaticity; automatic thinking is faster than slow, purposeful thought.

 

 

Giftedness

CONNECTION: Daniel Tammet used mnemonic devices, a memory tool, to help him remember pi (the circumference of any circle divided by its diameter). How do mnemonic devices aid memory? (See Chapter 7.)

o       Discussion: Students are fascinated with mnemonic devices. Show the clip on mnemonic strategies at: http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073382760/student_view0/videos.html. Ask students to share what devices they have used in the past and for what class.

 

Obstacles to Solutions

CONNECTION: Heuristics are mental short cuts or methods we use in making decisions and judgments. Looking for yogurt in the dairy aisle in an unfamiliar supermarket rather than walking up and down every aisle to find it is an example of a heuristic. (See Chapter 9.)

  • Discussion:  You may want to remind students that heuristics are a cognitive short cut that allows us to make quick judgments, though not necessarily always accurate ones. 
  • Discussion: You may also want to talk about the problem-solving research on children learning to plan. That is, talk about the development of problem solving.

 

Creative Insight and the Right Hemisphere

CONNECTION: People who have had their corpus callosum severed cannot say what they see if the information is presented to their left visual field but can verbally label it if it is presented to their right visual field. Why? (See Chapter 3.)

Discussion: This is a great time to discuss Gazzaniga’s work on split brain and the problems folks have solving problems. You may want to show a clip of Gazzaniga with his patient talking about split brain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMLzP1VCANo. Here is a clip of Gazzaniga discussing his early research: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lmfxQ-HK7Y.

Another video on split brain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZnyQewsB_Y.

 

The Creative Personality

CONNECTION: Is there a connection between mental illness and creativity? The incidence of mental illness is higher in artists, writers, painters, and poets than in the normal population. The same is not true for creative scientists.  (See Chapter 15.) 

 

Making Connections in Intelligence, Problem Solving, and Creativity: Whiz Kids in Science

·         Science fairs provide a means for students to express their interest and passion in science and also serve as an outlet for creativity. Especially creative teens who participate in science fairs may become finalists in the prestigious Intel Science Talent Search.

·         It is safe to say that finalists in this competition are among the top high school science students in the nation. Indeed, six finalists have gone on to win Nobel Prizes, and many others have had illustrious careers in science, math, and medicine. Many finalists, for example, score in the top 1 or 2% in the quantitative portion of the SAT, and approximately 25% of the finalists score perfect scores on the SAT overall! We also know from research on gifted students who become top scientists that they tend to achieve high scores on tests of quantitative reasoning and spatial ability.

·         Becoming an STS finalist requires both fluid and crystallized intelligence. Solving scientific problems that have not been solved in the past requires training in basic principles of science and math and the ability to communicate ideas and results clearly. In addition, talented young scientists must be able to break out of traditional ways of thinking and solve problems in original ways.

·         Becoming a finalist in the STS competition takes more than a high level of intelligence. It requires an aptitude for solving difficult problems creatively. This involves figuring out what to do when confronted with a novel task and devising a solution that is both original and useful. Intelligent and creative problem solving is a key characteristic of STS finalists.

  • Discussion: As the competition takes only about 2% of those who apply, it is of note that you may be looking at the top 1% of the population here. Further, you may want to bring up Gardner again, who would argue that this is tapping only one form of intelligence.

 

NATURE-NURTURE POINTERS

 

The Nature and Nurture of Human Intelligence

Nature-Nurture Pointer: The concept of reaction range describes how biology and environment work together to produce a person’s overall level of intelligence.

  • Discussion: Does the concept of reaction range really apply to a broad range of ability or behavior? Ask students to think about a wide range of capabilities and ask if it would apply there.

Nature-Nurture Pointer: What happens in the womb can permanently affect a person’s measured intelligence.

  • Discussion: Ask students what things they think can help or harm a fetus. Remind students that most social programs are based on conception services. Good prenatal care decreases the risk of problems after birth. Avoiding alcohol, for example, reduces the risk of fetal alcohol syndrome, which often leads to low IQ. It is also important not to smoke. Smoking correlates with low birth weight, which correlates with lower levels of cognitive functioning.  

 

Group Differences in Intelligence Scores

Race and Intelligence.

Nature-Nurture Pointer: The human brain can be changed both physically (in size) and in its ability to solve problems by neglect and abuse. Early intervention to counteract neglect increases intelligence.

  • Discussion: Point out to students that WIC programs, Head Start programs, etc., are all based on the idea that IQ can be affected by environmental changes. This is the root of most social intervention programs. One example is prenatal care. Even poor women are now encouraged to take prenatal supplements, as some ingredients have been shown to reduce neural tube defects in babies.

 

Breaking New Ground: Changing Tests of Intelligence

·         Because IQ tests were first created in the early part of the 20th century for practical reasons, these tests were not based on a clear understanding of the nature of human intelligence. In the 1980s, however, there was a shift in the way intelligence tests were developed.

Intelligence as a Single Quality

·         For the first 50 years in which IQ tests were used, they were based on the assumption that intelligence is a single quality. IQ test makers ignored most new theories of how the brain worked or developed. They also ignored much of Piaget’s work on cognitive development and how kids don’t think like adults – even smart ones.

Modern Intelligence Tests Based on Psychological Theory

·         The first shift was the “Kaufman shift,” anchored in theories in psychology and neuroscience about how the brain worked and developed. Their test, known as the Kaufman-Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), has become one of the more widely used IQ tests.

·         John Carroll applied the Cattell-Horn theory to the IQ test and developed a measure that looked at both fluid and crystallized intelligences.

The Aftermath of the Shift in Intelligence Tests

  • Both the Kaufman and CHC shifts led to fundamental changes, first in the minds of creators of intelligence tests and then in the tests themselves, including the Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler scales. In the 1990s, intelligence test builders began incorporating the CHC theory into their tests.

·         The newest versions of the Weschlers, the WAIS-III and the WISC-IV, include scores on four factors: Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed.

·         Discussion: You may want to point out these are still fairly g-based tests. Sternberg and Cattell would both argue that information processing and perceptual skills are all intertwined. That is, scores for verbal comprehension on a timed test will be higher in folks who have great processing speed.

  • In addition to assessing fluid and crystallized intelligence, the new version of the Stanford-Binet assesses quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing, and working memory.

·         CONNECTION: How does working memory operate? (See Chapter 7.)

·         Discussion: You may want to talk with students about how they feel about standardized testing in general, as well as how they feel about taking portions of IQ tests. This is also a good time to remind them that regardless of the theories, IQ tests should really only be used to do what they were designed for, which is to predict school performance.

 

INNOVATIVE INSTRUCTION

 

Additional Discussion Topics

  1. G vs. S: This is a great time to ask students what they implicitly think about intelligence. I generally start off this section of the class by asking students what they think makes someone intelligent. Students are usually happy to share their implicit views and it gives you a good start to get the G S discussion going. 

Generally, students like the idea of S theories but many bristle at the possible outcome of MI theories. You may want to use the bodily kinetic in your discussion, as that is one of the most controversial aspects of the theory. Yes, it involves spatial cognition, but is that intelligence? Should schools be gearing curriculum based to the few rather than the many? Also, should colleges start on this path?

  1. Bell Curve: Show part or the entire “Booknotes” interview with Charles Murray. Discuss with students what the authors were suggesting. What other factors could explain the data? Of course the answer here is SES. Remind students that whether or not they agree with the authors, it was a catalyst for Head Start programs, early neonatal interventions, WIC programs, etc. Discuss with students the kinds of specific things that being poor could have on IQ.
  2. Culture Fair: This is also a great time to reiterate to students that IQ tests were designed to do one thing – predict school performance. This, of course, makes the SAT an IQ test. This also will lay the ground for when discussing culturally fair versions of tests and nonverbal tests – if you do poorly on a standardized test of intellect, we would expect you to do poorly in most school-type settings. Why? Because the same thing (say, not speaking English, a short attention span, etc.) that makes you test low will also most likely make it difficult for you in school.
  3. Reliability and Validity: Students often have difficulty here. Try using the example of a scale: if you have a scale that is off by 10 pounds consistently, it would be reliable (that is, test retest would be high) but not valid – it isn’t accurately measuring your weight. This is also a good time to point out that reliability is thought to be more important. So if my scale is off (low validity), does it still have utility (usefulness)? Yes, it can still measure change and I know that it is reliable so that provides utility.
  4. Distribution in IQ scores: You may want to show an overhead of the distribution and discuss how 95% fall within 2 standard deviations of the mean. So you have 2.5% of the population in the two tails. The R tail being “gifted” and the L tail being “mentally retarded.” Remind students that any significant developmental delay will result in testing at a lower IQ because you are being compared to others of the same age. You also may want to stress that because of the distribution, schools are only looking for the top 2.5% and bottom 2.5%, as 95% are within “normal” range. Thus, there is no need to give a long, full IQ test to most folks, as they will be within “normal” range. They only need to give full tests to kids who might fall out of the 2 standard deviations.
  5. MI: Ask students how they feel about the concept of MI. Generally, students like the idea of S theories but many bristle at the possible outcome of MI theories. You may want to use the bodily kinetic in your discussion, as that is one of the most controversial aspects of the theory. Yes, it involves spatial cognition, but is that intelligence?
  6. Piaget’s Role in  IQ tests: You may want to point out to students that Piaget was instrumental in early IQ test development. Many argue that much of Piaget’s theory comes from the early observation that children about the same age were consistently making similar errors. This not only explains Piaget’s work but also ties in with why he is a G theorist. Ask students how they think this work affected Piaget’s theory.
  7. Heritability and IQ: When you talk about IQ heritability and the adoptee data, ask students what they think. Is there any third factor or confounding variables? SES! Remind students that adoption takes money. It also takes motivation. Thus, folks who adopt have money and really want kids. Can we say the same for everyone who has a kid?

 

Activities

  1. Assign students to interview 10 people on what they think makes someone intelligent. Have them write a 3-4 page APA-format paper on their “study.”
  2. Have students watch Rain Man. Have them write a 3-paragraph paper on the movie, savants, and if they think Gardner is right using that as evidence for his theory.
  3. Have students watch this 2-part clip on Gardner’s MI (it goes over the different types of intelligence with clips from School of Rock as examples), and write a 2-paragraph essay on MI and whether or not they feel that the evidence supports Gardner’s perspective. 

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiFxCIERwoU&feature=related

Part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK2f1q0SUDk&feature=related

  1. You may want to show students an example of a nonverbal IQ test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sThCoWH03HU&feature=related. Ask them what they think. It’s measuring spatial cognition, but is that intelligence?
  2. Ask students what they think about MI. Do they think that schools should be gearing curriculum based to the few rather than the many? Also, should colleges start on this path? Have them write a 2-paragraph essay, with the first paragraph being “pro” MI curriculums and the second being “con” on the issue.

 

Suggested Films

1.   Howard Gardner talking about MI: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7803142962405524835&q=Howard+Gardner&total=68&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

2.   A short clip with Gardner talking about MI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEFpaY3GI-I&feature=related

3.   This is a 2-part clip students will love! It’s Gardner’s MI set to clips from School of Rock. It’s about 7 min. and students will find it appealing:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiFxCIERwoU&feature=related

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK2f1q0SUDk&feature=related

4.   A CNBC clip of Gardner talking about the SAT’s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBknM7-AkAM&feature=related

5.   An interview with Stephen Murdoch on why the traditional approach dismisses Gardner’s work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II9Y1mOKDhY

6.   An example of a nonverbal IQ test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sThCoWH03HU&feature=related

7.   Daniel Goleman talking about emotional and social intelligence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZskNGdP_zM&feature=related

8.   A 1-hour interview with Daniel Goleman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hoo_dIOP8k&feature=related

9.   Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve, on “Booknotes”: 6 part series:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQaXCcLgDuc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbCIGBU9H-M&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4UJtlcnfY4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZK1Ac1l-eE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EzGDJ-Bpbg&feature=related

10. “DNA and the Brain” – an interview with James Watson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ZfrXHgiVY

11. Rain Man, released in 1988. This is a movie that shows Dustin Hoffman as a savant.

Suggested Websites

1. Very thorough! A great overview of all the theories: http://www.personalityresearch.org/intelligence.html

2. A good overview of the historical and current controversies on intelligence: http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/

3. An article on the controversy in intelligence tests: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-controversy-of-intelligence-theories-397044.html

4. An overview of intelligence theories: http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/p/intelligence.htm

5. An overview of Sternberg’s triarchic theory: http://tip.psychology.org/stern.html

6. Wall Street Journal article on The Bell Curve: http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html

7. A brief discussion on the integrated theory of intelligence: http://www.supraconsciousnessnetwork.org/

8. A article on savants: http://rarediseases.about.com/cs/neurodisorders/a/052502.htm

 

Suggested Readings

Bouchard, T. J. (1998). Genetic and environmental influences on adult intelligence and special mental abilities. Human Biology, 70, 257-279.

Duncan, J., Rüdiger, J. S., Kolodny, J., Bor, D., Herzog, H., Ahmed, A., Newell, F. N., & Emslie, H. (2000). A neural basis for general intelligence. Science, 289, 457-460.

Galton, F. (1865). Hereditary talent and character. Macmillan’s Magazine, 23, 157-166, 318-327.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Geary, D.C. (1996). Sexual selection and sex differences in mathematical abilities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 229-284.

Jensen, A. R. (1999). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Psycholoqy, 10(023).

McClearn, G. E., Johansson, B., Berg, S., Pedersen, N. L., Ahern, F., Petrill, S. A., & Plomin, R. (1997). Substantial genetic influence on cognitive abilities in twins 80 or more years old. Science, 276, 1560-1563.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D. F., Loehlin, J. C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R. J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77-101.

Plomin, R. & Daniels, D. (1987). Why are children in the same family so different from one another? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 1-60.

Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology 15, 201-293.

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (1999). Handbook of creativityNew YorkCambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. & Wagner, R. K. (1993). The g-ocentric view of intelligence and job performance is wrong. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 1-4.

Sternberg, R.J. (1977). Intelligence, Information Processing, and Analogical Reasoning. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.