IQ tests are supposed to show a general composite of a person’s intelligence and have strong predictive power in academia and in life. However, studies have shown that while IQ tests are very good at predicting performance in school, they are not as effective in predicting real-world success. According to Sternberg, IQ tests only predict from 4%-25% of job performance. It is quite disconcerting to have that large of a percentage to be unaccounted for in our supposedly “all-encompassing” notion of IQ and “g”, for this leaves from 75%-96% of job performance to be predicted by something else. Thus enter theories of multiple other intelligences to fill the gap. Among these are the theories of practical intelligence and emotional intelligence. Both of these theories have garnered much research and philosophy regarding their validity. However, Mayer and Salovey state that for something to be considered a form of intelligence it must a) be defined, b) have a means to measure it, c) be partially or completely independent of other intelligences, and d) have predictive power in the real world. Therefore, in order to decipher whether or not practical and emotional intelligence are “true intelligences” we must analyze each in all four of these categories.
Practical intelligence is an idea that has been considered by many psychologists over the years, yet only after rigorous examination and testing of the four criteria for a new intelligence can we declare if it is a new kind of intelligence. People seem to acknowledge a form of practical intelligence in their implicit theories of intelligence; “street smarts” is a common conception separate from “book smarts” to the average American. But to go from an implicit theory of intelligence to an explicit theory, practical intelligence must meet Mayer and Salovey’s requirements of a new intelligence.
First of all, there must be an accurate and precise definition of what is meant by “practical intelligence”. This definition must be specific and clear so that we can distinguish practical intelligence from other forms of intelligence so that there is no confusion over what this new entity entails. While Sternberg does not directly define practical intelligence it is possible to deduce a definition both from his characteristics of tacit knowledge and by it being the opposite of analytical intelligence. Neisser (1976) stated that academic intelligence tasks are “a) formulated by others, b) often of little or no intrinsic interest, c) having all needed information available from the beginning, and d) disembedded from an individual’s ordinary experience.” Sternberg and Wagner (1985) also added the characteristics that follow, “e) usually are well defined, f) have but one correct answer, and g) often have just one method of obtaining the correct solution”. We can assume then that practical intelligence does not follow these requirements but in fact is the opposite. Sternberg goes on to give characteristics of tacit knowledge, a facet of practical intelligence; tacit knowledge must have procedural structure, high usefulness and low environmental support. Therefore we can create a definition of practical intelligence that follows: Practical intelligence is contextual, related to ordinary experience, involves problems that are not well defined and have multiple solutions, is useful, and does not require environmental support.
Now that it is clear what is encompassed by the term practical intelligence, to be classified as a new kind of intelligence it must be found to be empirically measurable. Practical intelligence meets this requirement, as it has been shown to be measurable through tests that involve real-world problem solving. Otherwise known as “tacit knowledge tests”, these tests devised by Sternberg present a real-world oriented scenario and multiple possible solutions to a problem presented in this scenario. The questions are more practically oriented than those in a traditional IQ test, and require context and personal involvement of the test-taker. The solutions are of varying merit and do not require formal schooling to select the appropriate answer.
Since it is possible to measure practical intelligence, it must now be shown that it has a low correlation to other already-established kinds of intelligence. Once again, practical intelligence lives up to the requirement. Many tests have been done in this area, and have consistently shown that there is a very small correlation between practical intelligence and general intelligence. One related study, is that of problem solving in middle-aged to elderly adults. It was found that performance on traditional (academic) problems decreased linearly after age twenty, but performance on practical problem-solving increased until around age fifty and then declined (Cornelius). This shows that practical and analytical intelligence are separate due to the fact that one is increasing while the other is decreasing. It is actually possible that practical intelligence is negatively correlated to “academic intelligence” (IQ). A study of Kenyan children showed that knowledge of herbal medicines was negatively correlated with scores on conventional intelligence tests (Sternberg). Knowledge of herbal medicines for Kenyan children is classified as a practical intelligence due to the abundance of parasitic infections in these children, for this knowledge is self taught and useful for optimal functioning (staying healthy). Sternberg theorizes that this negative correlation is because time spent learning conventional wisdom is time not spent learning about herbal medicines and vice versa. This general idea applies not only to Kenyan children but to children anywhere who must prioritize their learning and choose between different disciplines, such as street smarts and book smarts.
Now that it is clear that practical intelligence is independent from all previously conceived notions of intelligence it must be shown to have predicting power in the real-world. Practical intelligence passes this final and most important criterion admirably. In a study of Russian adults practical intelligence served as a better predictor of adaptive functioning in the everyday world than academic intelligence (Sternberg). This “adaptive functioning” entails low depression, low anxiety, and good physical health among other things. In this same study, practical and academic intelligence only had a 0.1 correlation. This shows how despite being separate from our everyday notions of intelligence, practical intelligence serves as a valuable predictor. Practical intelligence has also been shown to help predict school performance under different teaching styles. In one study, one hundred and ninety-nine participants were selected and tested for three different types of intelligence: analytical, practical, and creative. Participants were then split up into different psychology classes that emphasized one form of thinking over the others. Students that were placed into the class that they tested best for outperformed those that were mismatched (Sternberg). This shows how, while independent of academic intelligence, practical intelligence serves as a powerful predictor in both real-world and school environments.
It would seem, therefore, that practical intelligence fulfills all four requirements and is thus a new kind of intelligence. There are some problems in the notion of practical intelligence however. Many have argued that practical intelligence is merely a function of crystallized intelligence, an already conceived notion of intelligence. Proponents of this idea claim that with an increased mass of knowledge people are able to make better real-world decisions. An example of this might be in the real-world math study in which children knew the prices of different numbers of coconuts but could not do the same math equations when they were written out formally (Carraher, Carraher, and Schliemann). This could be because the children had memorized what price each amount of coconuts was instead of using “practical intelligence” to do mathematical operations to find out. Arguments such as this have been refuted, however, by studies by Cornelius and Caspi where they found that the correlation between everyday problem-solving (practical intelligence) and crystallized ability (.27) was less than the correlation between fluid intelligence and crystallized ability (.29). Therefore, it is safe to say that practical intelligence has garnered enough research to support itself and claim that it is in fact a new kind of intelligence separate from our regular conceptions of academic intelligence and IQ.
Emotional intelligence, like practical intelligence, has incited much discussion and many studies in the psychological community, yet it must be subjected to the same criteria as practical intelligence to be considered a separate intelligence. First of all, there must be a firm definition of emotional intelligence so that it will not be confused with any pre-existing intelligences. Mayer and Salovey define emotional intelligence as involving “…the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotional the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth.”
Since there is now a clear definition of emotional intelligence there must also be a quantifiable way of measuring it. Studies on this topic are rather scarce, but there is one study by Maria DiPaolo that suggests that emotional intelligence is measurable. In this study it was found that people’s skills at reading emotion from faces correlated with their ability to interpret emotions in designs and colors. People who performed well in these skills also self-reported being more empathetic than others. This would suggest that a test involving the interpretation of emotions from colors and designs can be a measure of someone’s emotional intelligence, but an actual test does not appear to exist as of yet.
For emotional intelligence to be considered a new intelligence, it must be found that it has a low correlation with general intelligence to show that it is not a new name for an old intelligence. Evidence supporting this is found in work by Averill and Nunley. A test of theirs showed that success at being able describe a situation which would invoke three different emotions was related to but independent of general intelligence. Therefore it seems as if emotional intelligence stays separate from, but slightly correlated to, other intelligences and passes this requirement.
Finally, emotional intelligence must have predictive power in the real-world to be considered a new intelligence. This is where emotional intelligence fails to live up to the requirements. As Mayer and Salovey state “not much is known about what it (emotional intelligence) predicts”. There has been no empirical testing on this matter, so it is unknown as to what it predicts, other than that there is a large amount of occupational success that is unaccounted for in intelligence predictions, so emotional intelligence could possibly predict some of that unaccounted percentage. Emotional intelligence fails this final and most important requirement, for it is as of yet unknown what it might predict.
Emotional intelligence has all the right qualities to become a new kind of intelligence, but there is not yet enough research on the matter to solidify it as a true intelligence yet. While it passes the first three requirements of Mayer and Salovey, it does not as of yet have any predicting power, and therefore cannot be considered an intelligence. Perhaps in the near future tests will be devised to discover what it is that this concept of emotional intelligence predicts, progress in this direction has even already been made, with people theorizing that it can predict job performance due to increased networking skills (Mayer and Salovey). So while emotional intelligence is not ready to be considered a true intelligence at this moment, it holds promise that in the near future we will know more about its predictive power and will be able to classify it as a new form of intelligence.
Thus it seems that while practical intelligence can officially be called a new form of intelligence, emotional intelligence does not yet have enough support to be meet the requirements. Practical intelligence is clearly defined, measurable, has a low correlation to general intelligence, and has strong predictive power in job performance and real-world functioning. Emotional intelligence is clearly defined, measurable, and has a low correlation with general intelligence as well, but there have been no studies yet to determine what emotional intelligence predicts. These are but two other conceptions of intelligence, however, and do not come close to filling the entire gap that IQ has left in predicting job performance. Hopefully with more theorizing and research more kinds of intelligence will be found and an entire spectrum of separate but powerfully predicting intelligences can be created.
