Human intelligence has defied successive efforts to understand it, with multiple quasi-scientific and scientific methods within the field of psychology failing to produce an acceptable description of the nature of human intelligence. This is not least because the study of intelligence is a commonly affected by political and cultural factors, which hurt the objectivity with which scientific efforts may be pursued (Bakker & Wicherts, 2011). Further, there have been no or inadequate empirical testing from the varied intelligence theories, which renders it multiply impossible to not only attain a consensus among the scientific community, but even more significantly, affects any further theoretical and practical progress in the field. This paper assesses the most popular intelligence theories advanced by Howard Gardner and Charles Spearman, with the intention of indentifying the differences as well as similarities between the two theories.
Spearman’s General Intelligence Model
Understanding the nature of intelligence theories is dependent on an understanding of their respective creation and refinement through years of testing and application. The emergence of the General Intelligence Theory, which was developed by Charles Spearman stemmed from observations that mental ability tests exhibited a positive correlation (Phillip & Heggestad, 1997). Consequently, individuals who performed well in mental tests and IQ tests were more likely to perform better in multiple other tests as well, just as those who performed poorly were likely to fail other tests. These observation inspired Spearman’s speculation that the positive correlation in the mental tests results must have been caused by a common factor or variable.
The theory is founded on the possibility of measuring this common variable, with several statistical methods being proposed, in a process that Spearman termed as factor analysis, which purportedly makes it possible to isolate clusters of varied tests that estimate what the common factor or ability. In addition, the general intelligence theory provides that tow factors had an effect on the mental tests scores, with the initial factor referred to as the general intelligence factor (Sternberg, 2004). This factor is representative of the common factors in different mental tests. Further, the theory stipulates that a second factor, the specific factor, which is associated with specific abilities that were dependent on the tests, thus asserting that the true intelligence tests must assess general intelligence as against specific intelligence.
Multiple Intelligence Theory
Howard Gardner put this theory forward in 1983, geared on the need to make the definition of human intelligence more broad (Sternberg, 2004). This theory proposes that human intelligence as has been variously defined was inadequate, effectively failing to capture all the forms of intelligence. The model draws its conclusions on the basis of a variety of evidences in an effort to determine human intelligence. Later studies conducted on individuals with damaged brains indicated that while some had lost some of their mental functions e.g. spatial thought, they retained a number of intelligences e.g. language and touch and feeling. Consequently, this theory proposes that different human intelligences exist and do operate independently of each other, further asserting that the evidence could be adduced by way of individuals that have some incredible mental abilities in some areas, while at once being poor in other areas. Gardner’s theory has since developed and more recent versions of the model propose eight separate, confirmed forms of independent intelligences, coupled with a further two that could qualify as intelligences. The theory’s purportedly confirmed types of intelligences included
(i) linguistic intelligence, which is critical in the learning of reading, writing and mastery of other forms literacy
(ii) Mathematical and logical intelligence, that is crucial in the derivation of mathematical as well as other logical sequential brain work
(iii) Spatial thought intelligences which allows humans to organize, manage and relate different spaces, e.g. in the arrangement of bottles in a carton (Sternberg, 2004)
(iv) Musical intelligence that is employed in creative musical composition and singing
(v) Kinetic or bodily intelligence that make individuals able to perform multiple bodily functions such as dancing, playing and swallowing among multiple other functions
(vi) Interpersonal intelligence that is employed in the interaction and understanding of other people and
(vii) Intra-personal intelligence that enables individuals to understand themselves
(viii) Naturalist that allows individuals to grasp different aspects of nature
Other forms of possible intelligences included spiritual intelligence that is used in the acquisition of, and understanding of the universe and higher powers. This is coupled with a further form, the existential intelligence that helps individuals to not only understand nature but perhaps most crucially, understand existential life and issues.
Comparison of Spearman’s and Gardner’s Theories of Intelligence
Both General intelligence and the Multiple intelligence theories emphasize on the existence of different forms of intelligence, with the former only identifying two forms of intelligence, which can however be redefined to include all the eight plus two different intelligences identified under Gardner’s theory. Some forms of the intelligences fall under the general intelligence, while others can be accommodated under the specific intelligence proposed by Spearman. In addition, both theories assert that different intelligences exist and are potentially independent from each other. It is natural to assert that Gardner was influenced by and sought to improve on Spearman’s theory.
He effectively sought to refine the definitions of intelligences, to render them more identifiable and measureable than is the case under the general intelligence theory. There is also a similarity in both theories owing to the fact that they not only lack but have widely been criticized for lacking empirical evidence to back up their premises. Both theories appear to be founded on intuition as against solid scientific evidence, effectively making them weak and open to constant variations. Despite these opposition, both these theories were defined in bid to increase the understanding of human intelligence, and in this capacity, they have attained considerable successs, not least because they are widely referenced by researchers and scientists alike, as a basis of intelligence tests and further scientific investigations.
There are also gaping differences between the two theories. To begin with, Spearman’s theory asserts that intelligence can be accurately measured by mental ability and IQ tests. This in contrast to the multiple intelligences theory, which proposes that intelligence is intricate than can be understood by broad definitions, not least because there are multiple types of intelligences (Bakker & Wicherts, 2011). Thus according to Gardner, Spearman’s theory fails from the outset, owing to the overly broad definitions upon which it is based, which make it impossible to gain a good understanding of human intelligence’s nature.
These differences have widely been identified as weakness on either side of the spectrum. To begin with, Spearman’s theory rely on quasi-scientific methods to adduce the evidence and proof its premises (Phillip & Heggestad, 1997). Spearman himself did acknowledge the difficulty of using different people’s intelligence variations a basis of identifying and understanding the nature of human intelligence. To improve on these weaknesses, he further devised a further theory of intelligence, the cognitive theory. Under this new theory, intelligence can be understood by way of three critical processes that include stimuli learning and encoding, create inferences of relationships, coupled with the application of different relationships (Aamodt, 2009). This has come to be known as experience apprehension, application of the learnt experience, followed by the education of others and the different contexts in which humans live. As evidenced by Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory, Spearman’s theory remains influential in the understanding of human intelligence and currently manifests itself in a number of more recent theories on human intelligence.
The multiple intelligences theory builds on many psychological concepts that the Spearman’s theory did not have the advantage of, effectively making the former more acceptable to psychologists. It is equally evident that its propositions for the existence of multiple forms of intelligences hold true, albeit without scientifically proven evidence. In addition, both these theories have been and remain considerably important in the understanding of the nature of human intelligence, despite the fact they individual face multiple limitations. Given the changes in psychological and neurological sciences, it is becoming more and more likely that the Gardner’s misgivings towards the general intelligence theory have a plausible foundation.
References
Aamodt, M. G. (2009). Industrial/Organizational Psychology: An Applied Approach. New York:
Cengage Learning.
Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2011). The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology
Journals. Springer .
Phillip, A., & Heggestad, E. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for
overlapping traits. . Psychological Bulletin, Vol 121(2) .
Sternberg, R. (2004). Successful intelligence: finding a balance. T r e n d s i n C o g n i t i v e S c
i e n c e s – V o l . 3 , N o . 1 1 .
