my quest to understand human intelligence · of an individual’s intellectual and creative...
TRANSCRIPT
1
To appear in R.J. Sternberg (2018), The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
14
My Quest to Understand Human Intelligence
ScottBarryKaufman
Abstract:Thischaptertracesthedevelopmentofmythinkingonthenatureofhumanintelligence,frommyearlychildhoodexperiencesinspecialeducationtomyscientificinvestigationsoftheboundaryconditionsofgeneralcognitiveability,totheformulationofmyDual-ProcessTheoryandTheoryofPersonalIntelligence,tomyencounterwithpositivepsychology.Thischapterisacalltoshifttheperspectiveonintelligencefromanindividual-differencesapproachtoonethatrecognizesthewholeperson.ThegoalofthisapproachistoreducethenumberofchildrenwhofallbetweenthecracksinaneducationalsystemthatfocusessomuchontheresultsofstandardizedtestsandIQtestsasthemeasureofanindividual’sintellectualandcreativepotential.Idiscussthereasonswhyabroader,morepersonalperspectiveonintelligenceisrequiredtohelpallchildrenliveameaningfullife,andargueforgreaterintegrationwiththefieldsofdevelopmentalandpositivepsychology.
Keywords:Intelligence,AssociativeLearning,ImplicitLearning,Imagination,Creativity,PositivePsychology
Itistrulyanhonortocontributetothisvolume.Manyofthecontributorshave
hadasignificantinfluenceonmyinteresttogointothisfieldinthefirstplace.In
thinkingthroughhowtostructurethischapter,Idecideditwouldmakethemost
2
sensetogoinchronologicalorderandbeashonestasIcouldbeaboutthe
developmentofmythinkingonthisfascinatingtopicofhumanintelligence–a
topicthathasconsumedmymindfromasearlyasIcanremember.
The Wonder Years (1979–1998)
Myearlyexperiencesmostcertainlyshapedmythinkingaboutintelligence.By
theageofthree,Ihad21earinfections.Asaresult,IwasdiagnosedwithCentral
AuditoryProcessingDisorder(CAPD),ahearingproblemthatmadeitdifficult
formetoprocessauditoryinputinrealtime.Itwouldtakemeafewextra
millisecondstoprocessnewinformationbecauseIhadtoreplayinmyhead
whatwassaidbeforeIcouldunderstandwhatwasbeingspoken.Irepeated
thirdgrade,andwasplacedinspecialeducation.Iremainedinspecialeducation
untilninthgrade,unquestioningly,despitefeelingIwascapableofmore
intellectualchallenges.EverytimeIaskedtotakemorechallengingcourses,I
wasdenied.Also,eventhoughthelearningdisabilitynolongerposedachallenge
tomylearning,Iwaskeptinspecialeducationbecausetheeducatorsfeltas
thoughIwastooanxious.Ofcourse,IwasanxiousbecauseIwasnotbeing
challenged.Sothiswasaviciouscyclethatdidnothingtoenhancemylearning.
3
Respitecameinninthgrade,whenaspecial-educationteacherwhowas
coveringclassonedaytookmeasideandaskedwhyIwasstillthere.IrealizedI
hadnogoodanswertothatquestion,andalsorealizedIhadbeenwaitingforjust
thismomentwhensomeonewouldbelieveinahigherpotentialforme.Whilemy
parentswerecertainlywellmeaningbywantingtoeaseanyburdenonmein
school,theydidnotchallengetheauthorities.SoIknewIwouldhavetotake
myselfoutofspecialeducation,whichIdid.OnceIwasinregularclasses,I
learnedalotaboutmyself–mystrengthsandweaknesses.Iwasgratefulforthe
opportunitytofullyexplorethedepthsofmybeing.
Whytellthisstory?Perhapsitseemsoutofplaceinsuchanacademic
volume.ButIbelievemypersonalexperience,andtheotherexperiencesIsaw
firsthand,areveryrelevanttothediscussionofthenatureofhumanintelligence.
AsIwentthroughtheseearlyyears,Iverymuchwonderedaboutthenatureof
humanintelligenceandpotential.Iknewthatmyfriendsinspecialeducation
weren’tdisabledjustbecausetheyhadspecificdifficultiesinlearning.I
witnessedthenegativeexpectationsfromteachers,andbecamesurethatsuch
expectationswerebeingsignaledloudandcleartoallofus.
So,longbeforeIstartedtoscientificallyinvestigateintelligence,Ihad
intuitions,basedonpersonalexperiences,thatourdominantparadigmof
intelligencewaspracticallylimitingthepotentialofstudents.Icouldplainlysee
4
itallaroundme.Eventhoseonthe“otherside”–thestudentswhodidwellon
standardizedtestsandreceivedaccoladesfromteachers–yearnedtobevalued
forsomethingmorethantheirtestperformance.Itwouldtakemeawhilebefore
Iwasabletoformulatemythoughtsintoaformalscientifictheory,butamajor
impetusalongthispathwasmyencounterasanundergraduatewithcognitive
psychology.
Introduction to Intelligence Research (1998–2003)
WhileIdidn’tinitiallygetacceptedasapsychologymajoratCarnegieMellon
University,ItransferredintothedepartmentsoonafterIenteredasanopera
major.DuringacourseincognitivepsychologytaughtbyAnneFay,Idiscovered
thescienceofintelligence.Irememberveryclearlythecrystallizingexperience
(Walters&Gardner,1998).
Iwassittingonthesofainmydormreadingthechapteronintelligence
thatwasinthecognitivepsychologytextbookwewereassigned.Iremember
becomingsooverwhelminglyexcitedbythismaterialthatIflippedtotheinside
covertoseewhowrotethebook.Itsaid,“RobertJ.Sternberg,YaleUniversity.”I
madeacommitmentinthatmomentthatoneday,nomatterwhat,Iwouldstudy
5
thescienceofhumanintelligencewithSternberg.Infact,ifyoutoldmy20-year-
oldselfthatIwouldnotonlystudywithSternberg,butIwouldendupcoediting
ahandbookonintelligencewithhim(Sternberg&Kaufman,2011),andevenbe
acontributortothisveryvolumethatisinyourhands,Iwouldhaveprobably
fainted!SowiththehelpofProfessorFay,Ireadvoraciouslyonthetopic,
virtuallyreadingeverysinglebookintheCMUlibraryonthetopicofhuman
intelligence.InadditiontoSternberg’swork,Iwasalsoexposedtotheideasof
HowardGardneronmultipleintelligences,andEllenWinner’sworkongifted
children.IalsotookHerbertSimon’sgraduatecourseoncognitionandlearned
abouttheroleofexpertiseinskilldevelopment.
Nevertheless,IknewthatifIeverweretogobeyondthetraditionalview
ofintelligence,Iwouldhavetogointothelion’sdenandlearnasmuchasIcould
aboutIQ.SoIreachedouttoUniversityofCambridgeprofessorNicholasJ.
Mackintosh,authorofIQandHumanIntelligence(Mackintosh,2011).Tomy
greatsurpriseandexcitement,heacceptedmeasaninternforasemesterstudy
abroad.SoItookasemesteroffofCMU,andattemptedtolearnasmuchasI
couldaboutIQfromoneofthemostsensibleandthoughtfulscientistsinthe
field.ItwastobethestartofafascinatingjourneytounderstandthenatureofIQ
anditsboundaryconditions.
6
Dual-Process Theory of Human Intelligence (2003–2009)
AfterinterningforbothRobertJ.SternbergandNicholasJ.Mackintoshasan
undergraduate,Iwasacceptedtocontinuemystudieswithbothofthem–
SternbergatYaleformyPhD,andMackintoshatCambridgeformyM.Philunder
aGatesCambridgeScholarship.Onceembarkingonthisadventure,Imadetwo
commitmentstomyself:(1)Iwouldkeepmypersonalstoryasecret,fearfulthat
Iwouldbeperceivedasnotobjectiveinmyscience,and(2)Iwouldtakemyown
personalfeelingsoutoftheequation,andworkashardaspossibletounderstand
humanintelligence,regardlessofwherethesearchled.
OneofthefirstquestionsIhadwaswhetherthefieldwasmissingany
lower-orderfactors.Afterall,Carroll(1993)didsuchawonderfuljobcataloging
themanysubcomponentsofgeneralintelligence(g).Butwerewemissing
anything?
ThroughworkingwithMackintosh,Iwasexposedtohisseminalworkon
associativelearning(Mackintosh,1974).Whilemorerudimentaryformsof
associativelearningwereincludedinCarroll’smodel,MackintoshandIwere
interestedinlookingattheuniquecontributionofmoresophisticatedformsof
associativelearning,suchastheformsthatMackintoshandhiscolleagueshad
7
investigatedinotheranimals.Evolutionhasendowedanimals(including
humans!)withquitesophisticatedmentalstructuresforassociativelearning.
Soweadoptedthethree-termcontingencylearningtaskfromWilliams
andPearlberg(2006),which,overthecourseoffourlearningblocks,requires
participantstolearnwordassociationsthatarecontingentonaparticularkey
press.Forexample,onetrialtheword“LAB”mightbeshownwiththeletters“A,”
“B,”and“C”shownunderneath.Whenparticipantsselectedoneletter(e.g.,“A”),
theywouldseeoneassociation(e.g.,PUN),whentheyselectedanotherletter
(e.g.,“B”),theywouldseeasecondassociation(e.g.,“TRY”),andsoon.During
thetestblocks,participantswererequiredtotypeintheoutcomeword
correspondingtoaparticularstimulus-responsepair.
Wefoundthatthismorecomplexformofassociativelearningshowed
strongercorrelationswithgthanpaired-associateslearning,aformof
associativelearningnotdependentoncontingencies(Kaufmanetal.,2009).
What’smore,anoverarchingassociativelearningfactorpredictedgaboveand
beyondtheeffectsoftwootherwell-knowncontributorstog:workingmemory
andprocessingspeed.Weconcludedthatthesefindingsaddedtoagrowing
literatureontheexistenceofmultiplecognitivemechanismssupportingg(see
Conway&Kovacs,Chapter4,thisvolume),andthattheabilitytoexplicitlylearn
complexassociationsbetweenstimuliwasoneofthoseimportantmechanisms.
8
Wasthatit?Werethereotherformsofassociativelearningthatmadea
contributiontointelligence?AsIcontinuedtostudywithMackintosh,Ibecame
fascinatedwithaformoflearningcalledimplicitlearning,whichinvolvesthe
learningofinformationwithoutconsciousintentorawarenessofwhathasbeen
learned(Stadler&Frensch,1997).Whatfascinatedmesomuchaboutthisform
oflearningisthatitseemedtobeindependentofgeneralintelligence(Gebauer&
Mackintosh,2007;Reber,Walkenfeld,&Hernstadt,1991).Thiswasquite
remarkabletomesinceinmyreadingoftheintelligenceliteratureitseemedthat
everyformofcognitionunderthesunloadedontog.
SowhenIreturnedtoYaletocompletemyPhD,Iroundedupasmany
implicitlearningtasksasIcouldfromthecognitivescienceliterature,and
adaptedthemfortheindividual-differencesparadigm.Withtheassistanceof
LuisJiménez,aleadingresearcheronattentionandimplicitlearning,wefound
thattheabilitytoimplicitlydetectcomplexandnoisyregularitiesinthe
environment(bylearningcomplexprobabilitiesinasequence)showedaweak
correlationwithg(Kaufmanetal.,2010).Nevertheless,individualdifferencesin
implicitlearningindependentlypredictedverbalanalogicalreasoning,
processingspeed,andacademicperformanceontwoforeign-languageexams.
What’smore,implicit-learningabilitywascorrelatedwithself-reported
9
intuition,opennesstoexperience,andimpulsivity–threevariablesthathave
alsobeenlinkedtoincreasedcreativity(seeKaufman&Gregoire,2015).
Thesefindingsexcitedmegreatly,becauseitsuggestedaboundary
conditionforg:implicitcognition.Forme,thisopenedupawholenewuniverse
ofinvestigationfromanindividual-differencesperspective(Kaufman,2011)!
Thefieldofhumanintelligencehadbeensofocusedontheabilitytoexplicitly
learn,butwhatabouttheabilitytoimplicitlylearn?Thesefindingsdovetailed
nicelywithextantdual-processtheoriesofcognition,whichpositedtwoformsof
informationprocessing:aslowermodethatwasmoredependentonworking
memory,andafastermodethatwasrelativelyindependentfromexecutive
functioning,butneverthelessquitecognitivelycomplex(seeKaufman,2011,for
areview).
However,despitethevariousdual-processtheoriesofcognitionthat
existed,therewasn’texplicitlyadual-processtheoryofhumanintelligence.
What’smore,thedual-processtheoriesthatexistedtendedtodevaluethe
importanceoftheimplicitroute.Rationalityandexplicitreasoningwereheldup
asthemostimportantcontributortoadaptivecognition.Notonlywastheresuch
apreponderantfocusonthefoiblesofimplicitcognition,butindividual
differencesinimplicitcognitionwerethoughttobeminimalandunimportant.
10
SoIwasinspiredtoproposetheDual-ProcessTheoryofHuman
Intelligenceformydoctoraldissertation(Kaufman,2009)thatattemptedto
overcometheselimitations.Arguingthatallhumanintelligentbehaviorsarethe
resultofamixofbothgoal-directedandspontaneouscognitiveprocesses(in
varyingdegreesdependingonthetask),Iarguedthatthereareadaptive
individualdifferencesalongbothdimensions.What’smore,Iarguedthatneither
modeofinformationprocessingismoreuniversally“intelligent”thananyother,
butthatintelligenceisbetterthoughtofastheabilitytoflexiblyswitchmodeof
thoughtdependingonthesituation.Finally,andforetellingtheworkthatwould
yettocome,Iarguedthatthereareavarietyofpathstothesameintelligent
behavior,withdifferentpeopledrawingonadifferentmixofcognitivetraitsto
reachthesameintelligentoutcome.
Inadditiontomydissertationdata,IalsodrewonothercollaborationsI
washavingatthetime(e.g.,Brownetal.2010,Pretzetal.,2010).Forexample,
JaimieBrownandIfoundthattheabilitytoimplicitlylearnavarietyof
informationwasnotimpairedinthosewithautism-spectrumconditions,and
thiswasnotaconsequenceofcompensationbyexplicit-learningabilityorIQ.A
majorimplicationofthisfindingwasthatasolefocusonexplicitcognitionwould
underestimatetheintellectualcapabilitiesofthispopulation,and,Isuspected,
manyotherpopulationsaswell.
11
Coming out Ungifted and the Theory of Personal Intelligence (2009–2013)
AfterIcompletedmyPhD,ImovedtoNewYorkCity.Whiletheacademicjourney
Ihadbeenontounderstandintelligencewasenriching,Iultimatelywasleft
unsatisfied.Icertainlyhadlearnedalotaboutthenatureofhumanintelligence,
buthowwasitactuallyhelpingchildren?Whataboutallofthoseclassmatesof
minewhoclearlyhadsomuchpotential:howwouldknowingthestructureofg
impacttheirlivesinanyconcreteway?Iwasreadytogobeyondthescienceof
thestructureandcorrelatesofcognitiveabilityandcontemplatetheimplications
forcreatinganeducationsystemthatgivesopportunitiesforeveryoneto
intellectuallyandcreativelyflourish.
Somethingthatbecameclearisthatpsychologists–whetherwelikeitor
not–havearealimpactonthelivesofchildren,howeverindirectthateffectmay
seem.Forinstance,schoolpsychologistsintraininglearnaboutthelatestIQ
tests,andaretaughthowtousethatinformationtoinformacustom-tailored
interventionforthechild.Conceptualizationsofintelligencecomingfrom
scientistsdotrickledowntothestudentsviatheeducators.Asmuchasscientists
maywishtooperateinavacuumanddo“purescience,”thestakesaretoohigh
whenitcomestothestudyofhumanintelligence.Thescientists’
12
conceptualizationofwhatintelligencemeans,howitismeasured,andwhatit
foretellsaboutaperson’sfutureprospectsinlifeisoftentakenatfacevalueby
educatorsintraining,whomakehigh-stakesdecisionsonadailybasisabout
whatachildisandisnotcapableofachievinginlife.SoIwantedtoreallythink
throughhowallofthelatestresearchonhumanintelligence,talent,creativity,
andpotentialcouldinformaneducationsystemthatbringsoutthebestinall
children.
Tomydelight,GilesAnderson–aliteraryagentinNewYorkCity–was
interestedinhavingmedevelopmyideasaboutintelligenceintoabook.Thus
begantheperiodofwritingUngifted:IntelligenceDefined.Inthisbook,Idecided
to“comeout”asungifted,andrevealmypersonalstory,inthehopesthatit
wouldinspireotherstoovercometheirownlearningdifficulties.Weavingmy
personalstorywiththelatestscienceofIQtesting,generalintelligence,talent,
andcreativity,IproposedtheTheoryofPersonalIntelligence,whichwas
informedbymyDual-ProcessTheory,butwentbeyonditsoitcouldhavemore
ofadirectimpactonthereallivesofchildren.
Surveying13widelyuseddefinitionsofintelligence,Inoticedaserious
mismatchbetweenconceptualizationsofintelligenceintheliteratureandits
operationalization.Onecommonthemeacrossvariousdefinitionsofintelligence
wasadaptationtotheenvironment:notjustdealingwiththeschool
13
environment,butalsothecapacityforflexibility,resiliency,tenacity,motivation,
andcopingstrategiesfordealingwiththeinevitabledailystressorsand
unknownsoflife.TheseskillsclearlygobeyondwhatismeasuredonanIQtest,
orwhatcouldpossiblyeverbecapturedbyasinglesnapshotofintelligence.
Indeed,DavidWechsler,creatorofoneofthemostwidelyused
intelligencetests,theWechslerAdultIntelligenceScaleandtheWechsler
IntelligenceScaleforChildren,explicitlynoted:
Oneneednotbeafraidorashamedtoacknowledge
impulse,instinct,andtemperamentasbasicfactorsingeneral
intelligence.Mypointhasalwaysbeenthatgeneralintelligence
cannotbeequatedwithintellectualability,butmustberegarded
asamanifestationofthepersonalityasawhole.
Similarly,RichardSnowmadeacalltotakeintoaccountabroaderrange
ofpersonalcharacteristics(orasheputit,“aptitudes”),andtoconceptualize
potentialas“degreeofreadiness”toperforminaparticularsituationordomain.
Critically,hebelievedintheimportanceofmultiplepathstothesameoutcome,
andhelpingstudentsfigureoutforthemselvesthebestpathtodeveloptheir
expertisegiventheiruniquesetofaptitudes.Inhis1980paper“Intelligencefor
theYear2001,”Snowwrites:
14
Itisnotunreasonabletohypothesizethatbothconativeand
affectiveaspectsofpersonsandsituationsinfluencethedetailsof
cognitiveprocessing…Atheoreticalaccountofintelligent
behaviorintherealworldrequiresasynthesisofcognition,
conationandaffect.Wehavenotreallybeguntoenvisionthis
synthesis.
Certainly,mygoalwasnevertolambasteIQtests.AsIrecognizedinthe
book,IQtestscanbeusefulforscientificallyinvestigatingthemindandbrain.
What’smore,byadoptinganintelligenttestingapproach(seeA.S.Kaufman,
1979;A.S.Kaufman,Raiford,&Coalson,2016),thepatternofstrengthsand
weaknessesidentifiedbyacomprehensiveIQtestbatterycanusefullyinform
educationalinterventions.SoIfullyacknowledgedtheexistenceofgeneral
cognitiveability.Butfromareal,practicalperspective,Ifelttheneedtopropose
amuchmorepersonalformofintelligence,whichIreferredtoasPersonal
Intelligenceanddefinedas“thedynamicinterplayofengagementandabilitiesin
pursuitofpersonalgoals.”
IarguedthatthisformofpersonalintelligenceisnotwellcapturedbyIQ
tests,foranumberofreasons.Forone,IQtestsaresoreliantonworking
memory,andthesetestswillunder-predicttheintellectualpotentialofmany
childrenwithdifferentkindsofminds(e.g.,childrenwithdyslexia,autism,etc.)
15
whomayhaveworkingmemorydeficits,butstillhaveimmensecapabilityand
drivetomastertherulesofadomain(formydefinitionoftalent,seeKaufman,
2013b).Second,engagementandskilldevelopmentfeedoffeachother.Engaging
inanIQsessionisnotaninherentlymotivatingtaskformostpeople!However,I
reviewedexamplesthroughoutthebookofwhatpeoplearecapableofachieving
oncetheyarefullyengagedinsomethingthattheyhaveaninclinationforand
arepassionateabout.Abilityandengagementdynamicallyshapeeachotherover
time.I’dliketoemphasizethatlastpoint:intelligencedevelopsovertime,ina
particularcontext(seeCeci,1996;Sternberg&Grigorenko,2001;Vygotsky,
1978).WhileIQtestsmaybeabletoreliablymeasureabstractreasoningability
andworkingmemory,let’snotunderestimatewhatapersoniscapableof
accomplishingintellectuallyorcreativelygivenalongperiodofactive
engagement.Therearemanycasesofchildrenwithlearningdisabilitieswho
havebeenwrittenoff,onlytofarsurpassexpectationsonceengagedina
particularareaofinterest.
Toachievethisperspectiveonintelligence,Ifounditnecessarytoshift
fromtheindividual-differencesleveltothepersonallevel.Iwasparticularly
inspiredbytheworkofdevelopmentalpsychologistswhoaredeveloping
excitingnewtechniquestostudyvariationwithintheperson(e.g.,Blair&
Diamond,2008;Kaufman&Duckworth,2015;Molenaaretal.,2004,2009;
16
Sternberg&Grigorenko,2001).Insteadofselectingafewfixedtimepoints,a
selectrangeofcognitiveskills,andaggregatingtheresultsacrosssubjects,the
new“person-specificparadigm”focusesonasingleperson,selectsarangeof
timepoints,andconsidersthetrajectoryofadynamicsystemofcognitive,
emotional,andpersonalityprocessesastheyunfoldovertime.
It’sbecomingclearthatnotallresultsfromtheindividualdifferences
paradigmnecessarilyapplyattheperson-specificlevel(seeMolenaar,2009).
Whenweselectasinglevariable(e.g.,IQ)andcomparepeopleonthatvariable,
wecanrankrelativedifferencesinperformance.Butwithinaperson,anysingle
variableisinseparablefromtherestofthesystem.Youcan’tjuststripout
reasoningabilityfromasingleindividual,astheirreasoningperformanceis
undoubtedlyaffectedbyawholehostofvariables,includingmotivation,history
ofexpectationsfromteachersandparents,andlevelsofanxiety.
Therefore,consistentwithalonglineofthinkersonthedevelopmentof
intelligence(e.g.,Snow,1980;Sternberg&Grigorenko,2001;Vygotsky,1978),I
preferredtothinkofpotentialasreadinessforengagement.Soinsteadofany
singletestscorerepresentingaperson’slifelongpotential,itismerelyviewedas
aperson’sreadinesstohandlemoreenrichedresourcesatthatparticulartime
(Vygotsky,1978).Inthisview,potentialisamovingtargetdependentona
varietyoffactors,includingengagement.Therefore,whenweapplyarbitrary
17
thresholdswithouttakingintoaccountpersonalgoals,engagement,andother
within-personvariables,welimitpossibility.TheTheoryofPersonalIntelligence
isacalltobeopentotheincredibletransformationspeoplecanundergowhen
theyareallowedtoengageinadomainthatisalignedwiththeirself-identity.
Afterall,creativityresearcherE.PaulTorrancefoundthataloveforthedomain
wasthesinglebestpredictoroflifelongcreativeachievement–bothsocietaland
personal–longaftertheeffectsofIQanddivergentthinkingfadedaway(e.g.,
Torrance,1983).
Ofcourse,theTheoryofPersonalIntelligencewasinfluencedbymany
differentperspectives,andIreallyviewitasasynthesisratherthanacompletely
newtheory.AccordingtoSternberg(1997,2011),successfulintelligenceis
definedastheabilitytoachieveone’sgoalsinlife(intermsofone’sown
personalstandards),withinone’ssocioculturalcontext,bycapitalizingon
strengthsandcorrectingorcompensatingforweaknesses,inordertoadaptto,
shape,andselectenvironments,throughacombinationofanalytical,creative,
andpracticalabilities.ManyelementsofthistheoryhaveinspiredtheTheoryof
PersonalIntelligence,includingthepersonaldefinitionofsuccess,the
importanceofcontextandbuildingonstrengths,andtheinclusionofabilities
thatgobeyondIQ.TheTheoryofPersonalIntelligencegoesbeyondability,
however,includingengagement,characterstrengths,andother“noncognitive”
18
traitsinthemodel(Heckman,2000;Peterson&Seligman,1994).Additionally,
theTheoryofPersonalIntelligenceisalsomoreexplicitlyadevelopmentalmodel
ofintelligence.Likewise,whileGardner’s(1983,1999)theoryofmultiple
intelligencesexpandstherepertoireofabilitiesthatfallwithinthedomainof
intelligence,thetheorydoesn’thighlightthedeeplyintertwinednatureof
engagementandabilityduringthecourseofintellectualandcreative
development.
Withinthesocialdomain,Gardner’s(1983)intrapersonaland
interpersonalintelligence,KihlstromandCantor’s(2011)socialintelligence,
MayerandSalovey’s(1993)emotionalintelligence,andMayer’s(2008)personal
intelligenceallcertainlyelucidatethenatureofthecapacitiesforunderstanding
andadaptivelyemployingemotion,socialcognition,andone’sownpersonality.
Eventhoughmytheorysharesasimilarname(andinonecase,isthesameexact
name,whichwasapurecoincidence!),myTheoryofPersonalIntelligencehasa
broaderfocus,consideringthewholepersonasadynamicsystemasheorshe
workstowardreachingpersonalgoalsandadaptingtoinevitablesetbacksalong
theway.Socialandemotionalprocessescertainlyplayarole,buttheyareonly
partofawholesuiteoftraitsthatareuniquetoeachindividual,andthatcanbe
mixedandmatchedinuniquewaystodevelopone’sownuniquestyleof
adaptiveintellectualandcreativefunctioning.
19
ThisbroaderfocusoftheTheoryofPersonalIntelligencereallyresonated
withteachersandparents,especiallythosewhoworkwithkidsonthemargins
(e.g.,childrenwithlearningdifficulties,childreningiftedandtalentedprograms,
andeventhosestudentswhosimultaneouslyhavelearningdifficultiesand
qualifyforgiftedandtalentededucation).Iwaspleasedtomakesomesortof
practicalimpact.Evenwithintheacademicworld,however,Iwaspleasedtoread
EarlHunt’spositivereviewofUngiftedinthejournalIntelligence(Hunt,2013).
Nevertheless,IstillfeltasthoughIhadpartiallyleftaworldofacademic
scientificinquirythathadoncecaptivatedmesomuch.
Asitwouldsohappen,Iwouldenterawholenewworldofscientific
inquirythatalignedverymuchwithmythinkingaboutintelligence:positive
psychology.
Positive Psychology, Imagination and Character (2014–2017)
WhenMartinSeligman,oneofthefoundersofthefieldofpositivepsychology,
askedmeifIwouldbeinterestedinmovingtoPhiladelphiaandbecoming
scientificdirectoroftheImaginationInstitute,ofcourseIsaidyes!Seligmanand
hisgraduatestudentMarieForgeard(whoisnowapostdocatMcLeanHospital)
20
hadreceivedalargegrantfromtheTempletonFoundationtoadvancethe
measurementanddevelopmentofimaginationacrossallsectorsofsociety.
About$3millionwenttowardagrantscompetition,inwhichweselected16
researchprojectsaimedatthedevelopmentofbetterwaysofassessingand
developingimaginationandcreativity.Therestofthegrantwenttowardaseries
of“ImaginationRetreats,”whichconsistedofafewdaysofdiscussionwithsome
oftheworld’smostimaginativethinkersacrossawiderangeoffields–from
psychologytocomedytophysicstospiritualty–abouthowimaginationoperates
withintheirspecificdomains,andhowwecancultivatethatformofimagination
inyoungpeopleinthefield.
Atthetimeofthiswriting,thefindingsfromalloftheseendeavorsare
stillcomingin,butsomeresearchI’veconductedoncreativitymadecleartome
theimportanceofgoingbeyondabstractcognitiveability,tootheraspectsofthe
person’scognitionandpersonalitythatmayleadtohighaccomplishmentand
fulfillment.Forinstance,inaseriesofpapers,Ishowedthatnotonlycan
intellectualcuriosity,thedriveforimaginativethinking,andappreciationof
beautypredictcreativeachievementaboveandbeyondtheg-factor,butthese
aspectsofpersonalityareevenabetterpredictorofcreativeachievementthan
knowingone’srankingontheg-factor(seeKaufman,2013a;Kaufmanetal.,
2015).
21
Similarly,inaseriesofneurosciencestudiesledbyRogerBeaty,wefound
thatthesepersonalitydrives–whichformthepersonalitydomain“opennessto
experience”–areassociatedwiththestructureofthe“defaultmodenetwork”
(Beatyetal.,2015a).Thisisinterestingconsideringthatthisisnotthenetwork
thathasreceivedthemostattentionintheintelligencefield:theexecutive
attentionnetwork(e.g.,Barbeyetal.,2012,seeConway&Kovacs,Chapter4,this
volume).Tobesure,executiveattentionisimportant,anddoessignificantly
influenceperformanceonIQtests,butthisresearchsuggeststhatIQtestsare
missingoutonsomereallyimportanceslicesofhumancognition,namely,
curiosityandimagination.
Indeed,inanotherstudy,wefoundthatdivergent-thinkingability–the
abilitytogenerateanumberofdifferentsolutionstoaproblem–involvedthe
interactionofboththeexecutiveattentionnetworkandthedefaultmode
network(Beatyetal.,2015b).IQtestsaremoreknowntotapintoconvergent
thinkingthandivergentthinking(seeGuilford,1967).Butlife,andtheabilityto
adapttoanever-changingenvironment(whichhasbeenacommondefinitionof
intelligencebythetestconstructorsthemselves),requiresmuchmorethan
convergentthinking.
However,it’snotjustthatIQtestsmissoutondivergentthinking.Inmy
view,thesefindingssuggestthatIQtestsmissoutontheveryheartofhuman
22
existence(seeMaslow,1968;May,Angel,&Ellenberger,1958).Thecognitive
processesthathavebeenassociatedwiththedefaultmodenetworkinrecent
years–suchasdaydreaming,mentalsimulation,personalfutureplanning,
reflectivecompassion,andtheconstructionofoursenseofself(seeGottliebet
al.,2016)–aretheprocessesthatmakeusuniqueinthisworld.
ThroughmytimeatthePositivePsychologyCenterattheUniversityof
Pennsylvania,Ilearnedalotaboutthefieldofpositivepsychologyandrealized
howmuchitdovetailedwiththestrengths-basedapproachtointelligencethat
resonatedsostronglywithme(alsoseeSternberg,1997).However,stepping
intotheworldofpositivepsychologyfeltlikesteppingintoadifferentuniverse
thanthetraditionalfieldofhumanintelligence.Insteadofscholarsintensely
debatingwhichmodelofcognitiveabilitywasthebestfittothedata,
psychologistswereintenselydebatingwhichmodelofthegoodlifewasthebest
fittothedata.
Keepingmyintelligencehatfrommypriorlifecloselybythebedside
table,Icouldseehowthekindofconstructsstudiedinpositivepsychology–for
example,positiveemotions,lifesatisfaction,engagement,purpose,meaning,
relationships,character,andachievement–fitintotherealmofhuman
intelligence.AsWechslerhimselfargued,generalintelligenceisbroaderthan
sheerintellectualability,butinvolvesthewholeperson.Indeed,thisideawasa
23
majorimpetusfortheproposaloftheTheoryofPersonalIntelligence.Icertainly
couldhaveattemptedtoredefinegeneralintelligence,butIthoughtthatwould
beahardersell.Theterm“generalintelligence”isusedsosynonymouslywith
theg-factor(thecommonvarianceacrossadiversebatteryoftestsofcognitive
ability)thatitwouldbequitetheuphillbattletotellanentirefield–whichhas
beenusingaparticularterminaparticularwayformorethan100years(e.g.,
Spearman,1904)–tojustthinkaboutthetermdifferently.
Instead,Idecidedtoadoptadifferentstrategy.Ihaveimmenserespect
forthehard-workingandrigorousscientistswhohaveadvancedourknowledge
ofthestructureofcognitiveability.Ireallydothinkthatlineofresearchcanexist
peacefullyalongsideadifferentprogramofintelligenceresearch,onethatisno
lessimportant.Thislineofresearch,whichisthedirectionI’vebeenmoving
toward,conceptualizesandoperationalizesintelligenceinthewayinwhichit
hasactuallybeendefinedoverthepastcentury,asadaptationtothe
environment.However,Igofurtheranddefine(personal)intelligenceasthe
abilitytoadapttotheenvironmentinpursuitofpersonalgoals.
WhatIwanttodoisputthewholepersonbackintotheintelligence
picture.Fortoolong,intelligenceresearchershavefocusedonabstracton-the-
spotreasoningdivorcedfromtheuniquepersonaljourneyoftheindividual.
Whileimportant,thisworkhasnotbeenfullyintegratedwiththeemerging
24
literatureonwhatitmeanstoliveafulllifeofpurpose,passion,meaning,and
fulfillment.Itismybeliefthatanewscienceofintelligencethatexplicitlyaimsto
helpindividualsachievetheirownpersonalgoalsmustintegratethelatest
findingsacrossthesevariousfieldstocometoamorecompletepictureofwhatit
meanstobeanintelligenthumanbeing.
chapter-references
References
Barbey,A.K.,Colom,R.,Solomon,J.,Krueger,F.,Forbes,C.,&Grafman,J.(2012).
Anintegrativearchitectureforgeneralintelligenceandexecutivefunction
revealedbylesionmapping.Brain,135,1154–1164.
Beaty,R.E.,Kaufman,S.B.,Bender,M.,Jung,R.E.,Kenett,Y.N.,Jauk,E.,Neubauer,
A.C.,&Silvia,P.J.(2015a).Personalityandcomplexbrainnetworks:The
roleofopennesstoexperienceindefaultnetworkefficiency.HumanBrain
Mapping.
Beaty,R.E.,Benedek,M.,Kaufman,S.B.,&Silvia,P.J.(2015b).Defaultand
executivenetworkcouplingsupportscreativeideaproduction.Nature
ScientificReports.
25
Blair,C.,&Diamond,A.(2008).Biologicalprocessesinpreventionand
intervention:Thepromotionofself-regulationasameansofpreventing
schoolfailure.DevelopmentalPsychopathology,20,899–911.
Brown,J.B.,Aczel,B.,Jimenez,L.,Kaufman,S.B.,Mackintosh,N.,&Plaisted,K.
(2010).Intactimplicitlearninginautismspectrumconditions.Quarterly
JournalofExperimentalPsychology,1,1–24.
Carroll,J.B.(1993).Humancognitiveabilities:Asurveyoffactor-analytic
studies.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Ceci,S.(1996).Onintelligence…moreorless:Abiologicaltreatiseon
intellectualdevelopment.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Gardner,H.(1983).Framesofmind:Thetheoryofmultipleintelligences.New
York:BasicBooks.
Gardner,H.(1999).Intelligencereframed:Multipleintelligencesforthe21st
century.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Gebauer,G.F.,&Mackintosh,N.J.(2007).Psychometricintelligencedissociates
implicitandexplicitlearning.JournalofExperimentalPsychology:
Learning,Memory,andCognition,33,34-54.
26
Gottlieb,R.,Hyde,E.,Immordino-Yang,M.H.,&Kaufman,S.B.(2016).Cultivating
thesocial-emotionalimaginationingiftededucation:Insightsfrom
educationalneuroscience.AnnalsoftheNewYorkAcademyofSciences.
Guilford,J.P.(1967).Thenatureofhumanintelligence.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Heckman,J.J.(2000).Policiestofosterhumancapital.ResearchinEconomics,
54,3–56.
Hunt,E.(2013).Bookreview:Agifteddiscussionofmisclassification.
Intelligence.
Kaufman,A.S.(1979).IntelligenttestingwiththeWISC-R.NewYork:Wiley.
Kaufman,A.S.,Raiford,S.E.,&Coalson,D.L.(2016).Intelligenttestingwiththe
WISC-V.NewYork:Wiley.
Kaufman,S.B.(2009).Beyondgeneralintelligence:Thedual-processtheoryof
humanintelligence(UnpublishedPh.D.dissertation).YaleUniversity,
NewHaven,CT.Kaufman,S.B.(2011).
Kaufman,S.B.(2011).Intelligenceandthecognitiveunconscious.InR.J.
Sternberg&S.B.Kaufman(Eds.),TheCambridgehandbookof
intelligence(pp.442–467).NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
27
Kaufman,S.B.(2013a).Openingupopennesstoexperience:Afour-factormodel
andrelationstocreativeachievementintheartsandsciences.Journalof
CreativeBehavior,47,233–255.
Kaufman,S.B.(2013b).Ungifted:Redefiningintelligence.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Kaufman,S.B.,DeYoung,C.G.,Gray,J.R.,Brown,J.,&Mackintosh,N.(2009).
Associativelearningpredictsintelligenceaboveandbeyondworking
memoryandprocessingspeed.Intelligence,37,374–382.
Kaufman,S.B.,DeYoung,C.G.,Gray,J.R.,Jimenez,L.,Brown,J.B.,&Mackintosh,
N.(2010).Implicitlearningasanability.Cognition,116,321–340.
Kaufman,S.B.,&Duckworth,A.L.(2015).World-classexpertise:A
developmentalmodel.WileyInterdisciplinaryReviews:CognitiveScience.
Kaufman,S.B.,&Gregoire,C.(2015).Wiredtocreate:Unravelingthemysteries
ofthecreativemind.NewYork:Penguin.
Kaufman,S.B.,&Gregoire,C.(2016).Wiredtocreate:Unravelingthemysteries
ofthecreativemind.NewYork:PerigeeBooks.
Kaufman,S.B.,Quilty,L.C.,Grazioplene,R.G.,Hirsh,J.B.,Gray,J.R.,Peterson,J.
B.,&DeYoung,C.G.(2015).Opennesstoexperienceandintellect
28
differentiallypredictcreativeachievementintheartsandsciences.
JournalofPersonality,doi:10.1111/jopy.12156.
Kihllstrom,J.F.,&Cantor,N.(2011).Socialintelligence.InR.J.Sternberg&S.B.
Kaufman(Eds.),TheCambridgehandbookofintelligence(pp.564–581).
NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Mackintosh,N.J.(1974).Thepsychologyofanimallearning.London:Academic
Press.
Mackintosh,N.J.(2011).(2ndedn.)IQandhumanintelligence.Oxford:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Maslow,A.H.(1968).Towardapsychologyofbeing(2ndedn.).NewYork:Van
Nostrand.
May,R.,Angel,E.,&Ellenberger,H.F.(Eds.)(1958).Existence:Anewdimension
inpsychiatryandpsychology.NewYork:Simon&Schuster.
Mayer,J.D.(2008).Personalintelligence.Imagination,Cognition,and
Personality,27,209–232.
Mayer,J.D.,&Salovey,P.(1993).Theintelligenceofemotionalintelligence.
Intelligence,17,433–442.
29
Molenaar,P.C.M.(2004).Amanifestoonpsychologyasidiographicscience:
Bringingthepersonbackintoscientificpsychology,thistimeforever.
Measurement,2,201–218.
Molenaar,P.C.M.,&Campbell,C.G.(2009).Thenewperson-specificparadigmin
psychology.CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience,18,112–117.
Peterson,C.,&Seligman,M.E.P.(1994).Characterstrengthsandvirtues.
Washington,DC/NewYork:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation/Oxford
UniversityPress.
Pretz,J.E.,Totz,K.S.,&Kaufman,S.B.(2010).Theeffectsofmood,cognitive
style,andcognitiveabilityonimplicitlearning.LearningandIndividual
Differences,20,215–219.
Reber,A.S.,Walkenfeld,F.F.,&Hernstadt,R.(1991).Implicitandexplicit
learning:IndividualdifferencesandIQ.JournalofExperimental
Psychology:Learning,Memory,andCognition,17,888–896.
Snow,R.E.(1980).Intelligencefortheyear2001.Intelligence,4,185–199.
Spearman,C.(1904).“Generalintelligence,”objectivelydeterminedand
measured.AmericanJournalofPsychology,15,201–293.
30
Stadler,M.A.,&Frensch,P.A.(1997).Handbookofimplicitlearning.Thousand
Oaks,CA:SAGEPublications.
Sternberg,R.J.(1997).Successfulintelligence:Howpracticalandcreative
intelligencedeterminesuccessinlife.NewYork:Plume.
Sternberg,R.J.(2011).Thetheoryofsuccessfulintelligence.InR.J.Sternberg&
S.B.Kaufman(Eds.),TheCambridgehandbookofintelligence(pp.504–
527).NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Sternberg,R.J.,&Grigorenko,E.L.(2001).Dynamictesting.NewYork:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Sternberg,R.J.,&Kaufman,S.B.(Eds.)(2011).TheCambridgehandbookof
intelligence.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Torrance,E.P.(1983).Theimportanceoffallinginlovewith“something.”
CreativeChild&AdultQuarterly,8,72–78.
Vygotsky,L.S.(1978).Mindinsociety:Thedevelopmentofhigherpsychological
processes.Boston,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Walters,J.,&Gardner,H.(1998).Thecrystallizingexperience:Discoveringan
intellectualgift.InR.S.Albert(Ed.),Geniusandeminence(pp.135–155).
NewYork:PsychologyPress.
31
Williams,B.A.,&Pearlberg,S.L.(2006).Learningofthree-termcontingencies
correlateswithRavenscores,butnotwithmeasuresofcognitive
processing.Intelligence,34,177–191.