Name: Controversy of Intelligence: Crash Course Psychology #23
Uploaded: 2022-02-18T06:55:21.000Z
Duration: 12 min 39 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

Adverbs of degree

You've heard terms like these before, maybe you've even been on the receiving end of one

But actually, defining intelligence is a lot trickier than just coming up with new names

I mean, intelligence isn't like height or weight; you can't just toss them on a scale

It has different meanings for different cultures and ages and skill sets.

It's a question that doesn't give us a lot of answers, but it does open a bunch of other

equally important and interesting questions.

Is it a single, general ability, or does it cover a range of aptitudes and skills and

How do things like creativity and innovation factor in?

Or genetics or environment, or education?

Most agree that it's best to think of intelligence not of a concrete thing so much as a concept,

the ability to learn from experience, solve problems, and use knowledge to adapt to new

We've often used intelligence tests, to assess and compare mental aptitude, but these tests

I mean there are Nazis involved so, yeah.

So as you'll see, there are reasons that intelligence is one of the most hotly debated subjects

What if I'm the world's greatest Rubik's cube solver but a terrible speller?

Or a truly gifted artist who's barely mastered long division?

Could anyone say I was intelligent or not based on those different aptitudes, or would

it be more accurate to measure my brainpower on several different scales?

Around the turn of the twentieth century, British psychologist Charles Spearman suggested

that yes, we do have one comprehensive general intelligence that underlies all of specific

Spearman conceded that while people may have special talents like basket weaving or saxophone

solos or doing crossword puzzles, those things still fell under "G".

And he helped develop a statistical procedure called factor analysis to try to determine

how certain clusters of skills might correlate with another one.

Like, say someone who tests well in spatial skills might be good with numbers.

We might then refer to that cluster of skills, that factor, as spatial-numeric reasoning.

But to Spearman, the G-factor was something of an uber-factor connected to all intelligent

behavior from architecture to healing to survival skills, and it's why people who do well on

one kind of cognitive test tend to do well on others.

But as you can imagine, reducing intelligence to a single numerical test score was and is

Thurstone, an American pioneer of psychometrics and one of Spearman's first challengers, was

not into ranking people on a single scale.

Thurstone administered 56 different tests to his subjects then used them to identify

By this system, you might turn out to be great at like verbal comprehension but less stellar

But when researchers followed up on his findings, they actually did see that high scores in

one aptitude usually meant good scores in the others, essentially backing up some evidence

Even though their ideas did not often align, Spearman and Thurstone together paved the

way for more contemporary theories on intelligence.

For example, American psychologist Howard Gardner views intelligence as multiple abilities

He references instances of brain damage where one ability may be destroyed while others

Savants usually have some limited metal abilities but one exceptional ability when it comes

to like, computing figures or memorizing the complete works of Shakespeare.

To Gardner, this suggests that we have multiple intelligences beyond the G-factor.

In fact, he believes that we have eight intelligences, ranging from our skills with numbers and words

to our ability to understand physical space and the natural world.

American psychologist Robert Sternberg tends to agree with Gardner, though he boils them

down into three intelligences: analytical, or problem-solving intelligence, creative

intelligence, or the ability to adapt to new situations, and practical intelligence for

Both of these models seem reasonable, too, and Gardner and Sternberg's work has helped

teachers appreciate students' variety of talents.

But research has suggested that even these different ways to be smart are also linked

by some underlying general intelligence factor.

So what about other less tangible forms of intelligence, like creativity, our ability

to produce ideas that are both novel and valuable?

How can a test that demands one correct answer account for more creative solutions, so-called

Well, traditional intelligence tests can't, and so far, while we do have some tests that

look at creative potential, we don't have a standardized system for quantifying creativity.

But Sternberg and his colleagues have identified five main components of creativity, which

are useful for framing our understanding of what creative intelligence is and how it works.

If you go through the list, you know who I think is really great at almost all of them?

First we've got expertise, or a well-developed base of knowledge.

This just means knowing a lot about a lot.

Whether it's arcane poisons, jellyfish behavior, or how to recognize a secret passage behind

a book shelf, expertise provides the mind with all sorts of data to work with and combine

Obviously Sherlock has incredible imaginative thinking skills, too, which provide him with

the ability to see things in new ways, recognize patterns and make connections.

He loves nothing more than rehashing these breadcrumb trails for the dopey constables

Sternberg also thought a venturesome personality contributes to creativity.

By hanging around opium dens and chasing thugs and generally courting danger, Sherlock routinely

seeks new experiences, tolerates risk, and perseveres in overcoming obstacles.

Subtitles ListPlay Video

Controversy of Intelligence: Crash Course Psychology #23

perceive

essentially

incredible

mental