“Hey you’re pretty stupid!” exclaimed an onlooker of Homer Simpson’s crazy shenanigans in the syndicated cartoon series The Simpsons. While Homer has always been called stupid, inept, and several other phrases to define his lack of “intelligence”, this episode is special because Homer isn’t considered “stupid”. Quite the contrary, it was discovered that Homer Simpson could be intelligent and as he began to become intelligent, his life changed drastically to the dismay of both his family and friends. This presents a perplexing question, is Homer’s new transformation considered intelligent? Within the fantasy society of the syndicated cartoon, it is relatively easy to define whether an individual is intelligent, however within society outside controlled aspects of animators and episode planners; intelligence is not as easy to define. Intelligence in a modern context is still a complex topic within society, despite the century of research devoted to intelligence itself. While intelligence itself is still misunderstood, the research available for intelligence has led to a variety of differing standards to determine if an individual is statistically considered intelligent. One of the most important standards of determining intelligence is the use of intelligence testing. Intelligence testing while an empirical indicator of common intelligence in society; cannot be seen as the perfect indicator of intelligence in society because intelligence itself is far too encompassing and truly can’t be measured fairly with modern methods.
Much like many words in a psychological context, the word intelligence is a difficult word to define. However, Howard Gardner, David Perkins, and Robert Sternberg have assisted modern psychology in the definition of intelligence by arguing that intelligence itself is a combination of abilities: it includes the ability to learn, pose problems, and solve problems (Chongde and Tsingan, 2003 p.829). Within the aspect of this definition, it shows that any individual can learn and become intelligent with practice, gathering and application of appropriate tools, and several other factors associated with intelligence. Despite the positive and optimistic connotations that the three give regarding intelligence defined, studies have shown that people have varying degrees of intelligence within a specific society. This theory has been expressed by the French psychologist Alfred Binet, who asserted that intelligence was widespread and not everyone had the capability to truly be intelligent. Commissioned by the French government, Binet and Theodore Simon collaborated and created a test to define intelligence based on various factors (Pomplun and Custer, 2005, p.339). In 1916, Stanford psychologist Lewis Terman modified the test and the scale used by Simon and Binet’s initial work and it became wildly successful as a means of applying it to several situations, such as classification of army recruiting (Pomplun and Custer, 2005, p.337).
In a modern context, the Stanford-Binet intelligence testing system is widely used as a means of measuring intelligence. The Stanford-Binet test studies five factors of learning and intelligence: fluid reasoning, knowledge, quantitative reasoning, spatial processing, and working memory (Pomplun and Custer, 2005, p.341). The test is also divided into two areas – a verbal domain and a nonverbal domain for individuals that are deaf, lack knowledge of the English language, or have communication disorders that impede their progress in taking the exam. The Stanford-Binet test determines scores based on the standardized IQ scores from a specific mean. Students with higher scores on the test are considered bright and gifted while students with lower scores are deemed not gifted (Pomplun and Custer, 2005, p.340).
Another common exam used to measure intelligence is the Raven’s Progressive Matrices exam. This exam was originally developed by Dr. John Raven in 1936 to determine the primary components of general intelligence: the ability to think clearly (eductive ability) and the ability to store and reproduce information (reproductive ability). Within the contexts of the test, individuals are asked to identify the missing part of a pattern required to complete the pattern itself. The items of the pattern are presented in a 3×3 or a 2×2 matrix. The matrices themselves are presented in three forms. The first form is the standard progressive matrices in which the items of the pattern increase in difficulty; thus testing cognitive capacity to analyze information. The second presentation of this exam is the colored progressive matrices. Unlike the standard progressive matrices that display information in monochromatic scale, colored progressive matrices are in color. This test is designed for younger children, elderly, and individuals with learning difficulties. The third and final presentation of this exam is the advanced progressive matrix, in which 48 items are presented on a black and white background. The goal of this exam is to determine which adults/adolescents are above average intelligence (Raven, 2000, p.1).
Both the Raven’s Progressive Matrices and the Stanford-Binet intelligence tests are based on psychometric theory of testing. The psychometric theory is concerned with educational and psychological measurement of knowledge, abilities, attitudes, and personality traits. Psychometric theory asserted that intelligence is the result of a number of independent abilities that contribute to human performance (Thompson and Vacha-Hasse, 2000, p.174). Further, all forms of intelligence tests correlate with one another by measuring general intelligence factors, which was initially derived by Charles Spearman. This factor can be derived as the primary factor using the mathematical method of fact analysis (Thompson and Vacha-Hasse, 2000, p.176). As a result, it can heavily be argued that these abilities are hierarchically arranged with the intelligence factor resting at the top of the hierarchy (Thompson and Vacha-Hasse, 2000, p.179). The hierarchy is further expanded by the CHC theory, which determines cognitive ability based on fluid intelligence, quantitative reason, and other cognitive processes. In a modern context, this is the underlying theory of all testing based on psychometric approach, such as the Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Stanford-Binet model.
Psychometric theory has been used for a variety of testing methods to determine general intelligence, but this test does not go without problems. A large criticism associated with psychometric testing is its lack of consensual definition of intelligence to be measured. As a result, this forms a bias in differentiation between test takers (Chongde and Tsingan, 2003 p.830) and therefore a non adequate portrayal of intelligence cannot be substantiated due to the various aspects that contribute to general intelligence that Gardner, Perkins, and Sternberg have argued contributes to intelligence. As a result, Gardner proposed an alternative theory to the measure of intelligence by asserting that intelligence is derived from various fields, such as neurological evidence, evolutionary evidence and psychometric studies (Chongde and Tsingan, 2003 p.832). The core of his theory is described as the multiple intelligence theory; in which Gardner defined seven core intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, musical, intra/interpersonal. Many tests created off multiple intelligence is based solely on Gardner’s initial theoretical model which asserted several different intelligences.
Multiple intelligence theory, as well as application, has been generally accepted by educators and psychologists alike. Despite this, many further argue that multiple intelligence theory has several issues. The primary issue is that intelligence in itself is too broad under this psychological view and encompasses too many factors to the point of forming a tangent too far from the traditional definition of intelligence (Chongde and Tsingan, 2003 p.840). This relative aspect of intelligence asserts that everyone is equally intelligent based on misunderstanding of intelligence itself. The theory also lacks empirical evidence as it doesn’t clearly define an intelligence factor. Further research of the intelligence factor in relation to multiple evidence asserted that the two theories hold a large correlation based on the intelligence factor; supporting the idea of a single type of intelligence.
All tests of intelligence seem to try and define individuals based on statistical methods and means, but can the tests truly be reliable? Considering that intelligence (much like many terms in society) lacks a unified definition that psychologists and cognitivists can truly agree on. Despite this, intelligence can be seen as an important means of discovering cognitive decline in an individual within the population. This formed the basis of the Stanford-Binet model of intelligence as well as Raven’s Progressive Matrices. These tests, in a modern context, measure various factors as well as use psychometrics as a measure of intelligence based on population average. This method is not perfect, as the tests in itself can only measure some qualities of intelligence and in an attempt to define other aspects of intelligence, multiple intelligence tests have been created and received much praise. With praise came also fervent disagreements based on measure and methods. Throughout these two theoretical approaches lies an interesting aspect – that perhaps intelligence cannot truly be tested or defined. Despite this, intelligence tests can be seen as a larger positive within society.
References
Chongde, L., & Tsingan, L. (2003). Multiple Intelligence and the Structure of Thinking. Theory and Psychology, 13, 829.
Pomplun, M., & Custer, M. (2005). The Construct Validity of the Stanford-Binet 5 Measures of Working Memory. Assessment, 12, 338-346.
Raven, J. (2000). The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Change and Stability over Culture and Time. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 1.
Thompson, B., & Vacha-Hasse, T. (2000). Psychometrics is Datametrics: the Test is not Reliable. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 174.
