Evolution of the Concept of Intelligence the

¶ … Evolution of the Concept of Intelligence The concept of IQ is relatively recent, despite the widespread cultural tendency to regard intelligence as a discrete and measurable category that has existed since time began. Intelligence tests were initially constructed with a relatively straightforward purpose -- to discern which children could flourish in the rigid French school system. After the French government passed a law requiring all French children attend school, it commissioned Alfred Binet and his colleague Theodore Simon to identify which children exhibited cognitive deficits.

Binet focused upon skills that were not necessarily 'taught' to children, such as "attention, memory and problem-solving skills," to ensure that children from more privileged backgrounds did not have an advantage on the test (Cherry 2010). Binet also created a distinction between children able to answer more advanced questions only older children were capable of solving and average children. "Based on this observation, Binet suggested the concept of a mental age, or a measure of intelligence based on the average abilities of children of a certain age group" (Cherry 2010).

The Stanford University psychologist Lewis Terman adapted and standardized the Binet test. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale was the first test to create a scaled numerical representation of intelligence. 100 was considered to be 'average,' meaning that the child's mental age and chronological age were the same. As intelligence testing became more 'en vogue,' even the U.S. Army administered it to new recruits, to determine which men were most fit for leadership training. The increased diversity of the U.S.

demanded a standardized assessment of a recruit's ability to perform. "The Army Alpha was designed as a written test, while the Army Beta was administered orally in cases where recruits were unable to read" (Cherry 2010). However, in retrospect, these tests have been highly criticized for the fact that the Beta test was actually harder, relatively speaking, than the Alpha test and thus discriminated against individuals of disadvantaged and minority backgrounds, an accusation that continues to dog intelligence testing (Reynolds 2000).

Today, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale and the Stanford-Binet test are the most frequently-administered tests of intelligence. "While they do not lend themselves perfectly to some views of intelligence, they have historically been fairly good predictors of school achievement" (Machek 2003).

Both tests presume to some degree the existence of what has been called a g-factor, or a general intelligence factor that can be generalized across a variety of different types of applications, spanning from numerical to verbal applications, although the tests have been substantially revised to allow for greater variation in responses from individuals of a wider variety of cultural backgrounds than when the tests were first designed.

The notion of the g-factor has been challenged by Howard Gardner's concept of 'multiple intelligences.' "Gardner attacked the idea that there was a single, immutable intelligence, instead suggesting that there were multiple, distinct intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, interpersonal and intrapersonal, existential and naturalist intelligences" (Bensen 2003).

Gardner explained the observed tendency of academically successful individuals doing well on a wide variety of intelligence tests as part of a self-fulfilling prophesy -- our culture stresses linguistic and mathematical skills that are rewarded by the school system, versus other types of intelligence. Gardner's theory thus "also emphasizes the cultural context of multiple intelligences. Each culture tends to emphasize particular intelligences. For example, Gardner (1983) discusses the high spatial abilities of the Puluwat people of the Caroline Islands, who use these skills to navigate their canoes in the ocean.

Gardner also discusses the balance of personal intelligences required in Japanese society" (Kearsley 2010). In support of his theory, Gardner did not resort to intelligence testing, but instead relied upon the increased knowledge of the neurophysiology of the brain. Individuals with brain damage who have suffered strokes may experience cognitive deficits in some areas, such as speech, may still be able to play music (one of Gardner's categories of intelligence is that of musical intelligence). Some autistic children are gifted in highly specific mental areas.

Even in normal individuals, discrete categories of intelligence often operate autonomously. "For example, spoken language develops quickly and to great competence in normal people. In contrast, while all normal individuals can count small quantities, few progress to an understanding of higher mathematics even with formal schooling" (Gardner's multiple intelligences, 2006, Personality and Individual Differences).

Critics of Gardner's theory state that it is too broad an all-encompassing, given that Gardner allows that almost anything can be an 'intelligence.' They contend that music and physical prowess are 'abilities' rather than intelligences, and ask where one can 'draw the line' regarding intelligences (Gardner's multiple intelligences, 2006, Personality and Individual Differences). Finally, while there is a great deal of evidence.