Is an intelligence quotient an illusion?

This practice is consistent with Spearman , but wholly inconsistent with Gardener

A Single IQ score is consistent because, The concept of IQ as a singular phenomena has been called into question The absent minded professor is nearly archetypal in popular culture. . There may well be some truth behind a concept so prevalent and pervasive in western culture. If intelligence is a composite of many factors then the image of an intelligent person behaving as a fool would not be incongruent.

Spearman’s concept of g was a theory of intelligence wherein “g” or general mental ability is a set of which many factors of intelligence are elements.

There are differences in the way people deal with problems of daily life There is a positive correlation between tests that observe mental processing, retrieval or manipulation of information and tests that measure cognitive ability. In other words, someone who does well on one kid of cognitive test is likely to do well on other different kinds of cognitive tests. Despite the fact that there is no agreed upon definition of intelligence, there is a continuum as such whereupon people differ.

Spearman, due to the consistency of scores across different tests, proposed a single entity concept of intelligence as a factor of general mental ability or “g”. Some theorists equate general mental ability as information processing.

Intelligence is an abstract concept. It is not even a metaphysical thing. Intelligence is, at best, a set of behaviors. General mental ability is systematic individual differences in the performance of tasks that involve the manipulation, retrieval, evaluation, or processing of information. General mental ability is related to basic cognitive and physiological processes, but it is not certain whether these underlying processes can be described. Behaviors can be observed, so intelligence can be described in terms of behaviors..

Scores on any cognitive tests are influenced by general mental ability or “g”. Correlations among test scores are due to each test presenting a partial measure of g. Each test measures some factor of g and is also influenced by measurement error. For example, the score on a test measuring intuitive geometry is affected y measurement error and the test takers level of intuitive geometry and the individual test taker’s level of g. This theory asks us to make intelligence tests highly g loaded, that reducing the influence of measurement error and the influence of any specific factor of intelligence will give better results. The upshot of this is that an intelligence test could be measuring some aspect of intelligence and not general mental ability per ce. There is considerable evidence that intelligence is generalizable. There are broad and general differences between individuals on a broad range of cognitive tasks and a general factor arises out on nearly every analysis, One’s standing or level on this general factor is the best single predictor of performance on any cognitive task. Once g has been factored, there are no specific abilities that add any predictive reliability or validity.

Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences is that the concept of general intelligence is not useful as people can be intelligent in many different ways.

Global comparisons between people or groups emphasizes only a small part of intelligence. The single score might be a composite score made up of many disparate factors.

Other theorists posit other types of intelligence from the existence of other abilities such as a ballet dancer or basketball player said to possess bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence.

While there may be some justification for considering intrapersonal intelligence, the capacity for empathy and compassion are more that just a bridge between the two. Furthermore the linguistic intelligence from the mathematico-logical intelligence and musical intelligence could well be spurious, as it is often said that mathematics is also another language. Concepts are concatenated in language. Subtraction is merely the addition of negatives. Sentences are diagrammed into formulae noun plus adjective plus verb plus adverb = statement in logic concepts are manipulated like integers in math. AND the later career of Ludwig Von Beethoven demonstrates the congruence of music and mathematics. Are these multiple intelligences of Gardner merely different facets of the same jewel? As is said in the Rig Veda, “the truth is the same, the sages know it by many names.”

Sternberg's triarchic theory of intelligence

Sternberg however divides intelligence horizontally instead of vertically into context, experience and process. I would argue that context is no more than the predeterminants of intelligence and process is after all a process. Once again we are not looking at different jewels here, but looking separately at the cut, clarity and quality of a single gem.

The why, what, and how can be lost if one concentrates too much on g, but multiple intelligences lack empirical support. Mental activities have components and different components are used to acquire different sorts of information. Adaptation to the environment is the critical measure of intelligence. Intelligence is coping and coping is self efficacy. Intelligence is more than information processing.

Sub theory one: componential theory is concerned with how intelligent behavior ias generated.

Sub theory two: contextual theory deals with what behaviors are intelligent in what context

Sub theory three: experiential theory when is a given behavior intelligent.

Theories of the nature of intelligence will influence the designing of intelligence tests.

However, we should be thankful for these attempts to divide the indivisible, for without them our concept of intelligence and attempts to manipulate that concept would be too simplistic for practical usage. On the other hand the opposite extreme has practically issues also. Shall we develop eight different measures for eight different intelligences? How can any other test besides a performance measure evaluate bodily kinesthetic intelligence? On the other axis, how shall we measure the experience strata of an individual’s intelligence? Shall we do a longitudinal study of each individual to measure their intelligence?

If our focus is to be education then let us confine ourselves to mastery and adaptability and relegate all questions of intelligence to a naval contemplating sidetrack wherein the waiting itself will bring about the new universe of peace and love.