The Handbook of Intellectual Disability and Clinical Psychology Practice

This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 26 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

Alan Carr, Christine Linehan, Gary O’Reilly, Patricia Noonan Walsh, John McEvoy

Intelligence

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 Gary O’Reilly, Alan Carr Published online on: 20 Apr 2016

How to cite :- Gary O’Reilly, Alan Carr. 20 Apr 2016, Intelligence from: The Handbook of Intellectual Disability and Clinical Psychology Practice Routledge Accessed on: 26 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315739229.ch3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 Assessment frameworks Section

2 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 This pageintentionallyleftblank Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 human evolution and(2)the psychometricapproach.We willalsoreview relevant research broad theoretical approachestounderstanding humanintelligence.These stemfrom(1) and theassociatedAAIDDdefinition. Inthischapterwewillintroducethereaderto two understanding ofhumanintellectual abilitiesthanthatoffered bythepsychometricapproach ric approach.However, aswehopetodemonstrateinthischapter, thereismuchmoretoour standardised psychometrictests. formal assessmentofintelligencecurrentlyavailable tousisthroughtheappropriateuseof their healthstatus.They alsoconcludethatdespitemany limitations,thebestapproachto ticipation insociety, theirinteractionswithothers,thesocialrolesavailable tothem,and context ofanindividual’s life,theirlevel ofadaptive behaviour, theiropportunitiesforpar the importance of understanding that theexpression of humanintelligence depends onthe plex ideas,learningquicklyandfromexperience. TheAAIDDfurtherhighlight gence: reasoning,planning,solvingproblems,thinking abstractly, comprehending com- This definition offers guidance on what should be considered the core features of intelli- define itasfollows: American AssociationonIntellectualandDevelopmental Disabilities(AAIDD,2010)who intellectual disability, arguably themostimportant definition ofintelligenceisoffered bythe consensus about its nature. From the perspective of those working with people who have an Although thestudyofhumanintelligenceisasoldascientificpsychologywehave nofinal What ishumanintelligence? research inthefieldofhumanintelligencetodaythatarerelevant toclinicalpractice. and gives usanoftenmissing criticalperspective onthemostcommontheoriesandareasof an understandingofourintellectualcapacitiesandtheirevolutionary andculturalorigins how ourspecies evolved itsintelligenceover thelast7 although itmayseemremoved fromclinicalpracticewe begin thischapterbydescribing understand ourintellectualabilityrequiresustoitsevolution. Consequently, degree relative tootherliving animals(Darwin,1871).Darwinunderstood thattocritically Charles Darwinnotedhumanintelligenceisnotofadifferent kindbut simplydiffers in Gary O’Reillyand Gary Alan Carr Intelligence Chapter 3 This definitionfitswellwith theoriesofhumanintelligencethatdraw uponthepsychomet- from experience. lems, thinkingabstractly, comprehendingcomplex ideas,learningquickly, andlearning Intelligence isageneralmentalcapability. Itincludesreasoning,planning,solvingprob-

million years. We feelthisprovides (AAIDD, 2010,p.

15) - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 intelligence Models ofintelligence 1. The evolution ofhuman rise inmeasuredIQscoressinceformaltestingbegan. linked totheseapproachesintheareasofgenetics,neurobiologyintelligence,and linguistic ability. However their stone toolproductionsuggests asimilarlevel ofright-hand and breakingwood, grass, meat,boneandanimal hide.Inrealityweknow nothing oftheir tive templatethatsupportedtheirmanufacture; thesewereusedforscraping,sawing, cutting habilis andHomorudolfensis mostlikely producedsimplestonetoolsthathadaloosecogni- hand graspand,althoughbi-pedal, alower bodythatismoreape-like thanhuman.Homo capacity withoutanincreasein overall bodysize.They alsohad amorehuman-like precision Homo rudolfensis)areidentifiedinthefossilrecord thatshow evidence ofincreasedcranial tual capacitieswedeveloped over thatperiod. representation. Theseanatomicalandbehavioural changesevidence theunderlyingintellec- change, migrationfromtheAfricancontinent,development oflanguage,and symbolic to bi-pedalism,coupledwithbrainenlargement, tooluse,manufacture, socialgroup human development fromapproximately2.5 specialised forchewing morefibrousandcoarserfoods(possiblygrass,grainsleaves). pedally adapted. The latter’s main anatomical change is the emergence of larger flatter teeth roughly 3–4 ment. They arevariations ofagrouprelatedspeciesclassifiedasAustralopithecines.From with chimpanzees are identified inthe fossilrecord whowere betteradapted tothatenviron- series ofpotentialancestorstomodernhumansbranchingfromourlastcommonancestor of ourancestorschangedtooneincreasedwoodland andopenterrain.Inthatcontext a in treesandopengrassland.By3–4 tures suggestive ofachange towards bi-pedalismthatsupportedalifestyleofmixed living chimp incranialcapacity(andbyimplicationintellectualability)but hasanatomicalfea- and 6–7 cisely known, but anumberofpotentialcandidatesareidentifiedin thefossilrecordfrom wise stated. account thatfollows istaken fromKlein(2009)andLewin andFoley (2004)unlessother the evolutionary historyofourspeciesandancestorsover thelast7 panzees somewhere between6–7 are our cousins rather than our ancestors. We last shared a common ancestor with chim- Our closestprimaterelative isthemodernchimpanzee.Inevolutionary termschimpanzees Human evolution an exclusively bi-pedalanatomybyapproximately2 body featuresthatsupportamixed tree–terrestriallifestyle,ultimatelyadaptingin favour of terrestrial lifestyle.Anatomicallythishasseentheemergence ofabi-pedalanatomy with a predominantlytree-dwelling lifestyle to a mixed tree–terrestriallifestyle to anexclusively ciated with brain and intelligence change; rather it has proceeded from ancestors adapted to 1.5–2 which showed nobrainenlargement but werebetteradaptedtoabi-pedallifestyle;andfrom y O’Reilly and Alan Carr 82 Somewhere around 2.5 So our anatomical development from 7 The preciseidentityofourlastcommonancestorwithchimpanzeesiscurrentlynotpre-

Ardipithecus ramidus (Lovejoy et million yearsago(Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Brunetet Gar

million yearsagothemorerobust Australopithecus boisei,similarinbrainsizeandbi-

million years

million ago these include the gracile

years ago, one or possibly two species (Homo habilis and million yearsago.Figure

million yearsagotheAfricancontinentalenvironment

al., 2009)).Eachisroughlyequivalent tothemodern

million

million yearsagocomprisesafulladaptation to roughly 2.5

million yearsago.Thenext phaseof Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy)

al., 2002);Orrorin tugenensis; 3.1 provides abriefreview of

million years ago is not asso-

million years.The - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 processing and ourleft-brainlateralisationfor language. our brainlateralisation anditstendency towards right-brainspecialisation forvisuospatial dominance (90%)asmodern humans.Thisisnotfoundinchimps,andassociated with Figure 3.1 Common Early African Later African bi-pedal Earliest humans first Further brain Recent ancestor/ wooded/more open apes with more brain enlargement & enlargement & specialization to earliest hominins terrain bi-pedal apes “robust” chewing tool production migration environment specialization

An o Modern chimpanzees verview ofrecent humanevolution Australopithecus Homo ergaster Homo sapiens aethiopicus sapiens (modern man)

Australopithecus Homo erectus robustus

Australopithecus boisei

Australopithecus anamensis Common ancestor with modern chimpanzees Australopithecus afarensis “Lucy” Sahelanthropus tchadensis Australopithecus africanus Homo neanderthalensis Orrorin tugenensis Australopithecus bahrelghazali Homo habilis Homo Ardipithecus heidelbergensis ramidus Australopithecus Intelligence garhi Homo rudolfensis Homo floresiensis

6−7 million years 3−4 million years 1.5−2 million years 2.5 million years 2 million years 500,000 years ago Today ago ago ago ago ago 83 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 did exist, was moreconcreteandnotusednarratively (Wynn lack ofextensive symbolisationintools,ornamentsandpaintingsuggestthatlanguage, ifit 2012). Yet theirsocialorganisation, useofhearthsforfireinsmallratherthanlarge groups, cated cognitive capacityareinterpretedassuggestive ofvocal language(Wynn Their enlarged asymmetricalbrain,handedness,huntingpatterns and tool-relatedsophisti- it differed fromthatofmodernhumans.They hadtheFOXP2 geneassociatedwithlanguage. circumstantial. Biologicallytheirvocal trackisdissimilartohumans,thusifthey hadspeech their toolmanufacture. Evidenceregarding Neandertallanguageisfar fromclear and mostly memory (Wynn procedural memory, apprenticeshiplearning,sharedattention(theoryofmind),and working and physical senseasanaturalactive partofyourthinkingprocess),expertise, motorand facture thatrequiredcognitive skillsincludingembodiedcognition(useofyourphysical body with someaddedproto-religiouselements).They hadsophisticatedandextensive toolmanu- the functionandmeaningofthisbehaviour isunclear(simplypractical removal orpossibly cally incapacitatedmembersoftheirgroup.Thereisevidence they buried theirdead,although children. They hadin-depth knowledge oftheirenvironment. They cared forelderlyorphysi- ranges insmallgroups,withnoobvious division ofhuntingtasksbetweenmen,women and than that of modernhumans. They hunted co-ordinatelyover relatively small geographical were robust andhardycomparedtomodernhumans.Neandertalshadcranial capacitieslarger 2012). Many ofitsphysical featuresreflectitsadaptationtothatenvironment. Physically they evolved roughlyahalf-millionyearsago. an African context to our immediate ancestor Europe. InaEuropeancontext itwas ancestraltoHomoneanderthalensis,andseparatelyin can continentandalsosuccessfullymigratedextensively acrosstheMiddleEast,Asiaand is taken as evidence of a lack ofextensive spoken language. erectus. However, theabsenceofanexpanded neuralcanalinthelower thoracicvertebrae a 1-million-year period. We have very little evidence of the linguistic capacity of Homo duced toasophisticatedcognitive templatethatshows littlevariation orinnovation over production ofitscharacteristicteardrop-shapedhand-axe. Thiswas amultipurposetoolpro- was highlyskilledandsystematicinitsplannedstonetoolmanufacture, epitomisedbyits tion tosupportinfant care,andopportunitiesforlongerchildhoodlearning.Homoerectus longed postnatalbraindevelopment, withits implicationsforalterationstosocialorganisa- erectus alsorepresentsthefirst evidence ofthe extended humanchildhoodrequiredforpro- male–male competitionforaccesstofemalesandmoreco-operation.Homo was areducedbodymassdifference betweenmalesandfemales,suggestive ofdecreased ture inuppertorsoandlower limbs,suggestingafullyterrestriallifestyle.There brain sizetobodymassratioofmodernhumans.Ithadanessentiallystruc- brain sizerelative tobodymass,whichapproximatedbut was nevertheless smallerthanthe to modernhumansise Our tooluseand productionischaracterised bycumulative development innovation and since thenrelative toNeandertals.Our brainsareslightlysmalleror similartoNeandertals. the abilitiesweevolved have acontinuity fromthatsharedancestorbut alsoadivergence share acommonancestorwith usintheperiodpreceding500,000 tals and modern humansinEurope and Asia, Neandertals were notour direct ancestor but Although thereisgeneticevidence ofsomerelatively recentinterbreeding betweenNeander ronment withafluctuatingclimatedominatedbyiceandlow temperatures(Wynn y O’Reilly and Alan Carr 84 Homo neanderthalensisevolved roughly300,000–400,000 By 2 Modern humans(Homosapiens ) evolved inanAfricancontext roughly250,000

Gar

million yearsagoanotherspeciesthatisessentiallyrecognisableasbroadlysimilar

& Coolidge,2012).However, thereisminimalevidence ofinnovation in vident inthefossilrecord(Homoerectus). Ithadafurtherincreasein Homo heidelbergensis. Both of these species

Homo erectus lived on the Afri- & Coolidge,2012).

years agoinaEuropeanenvi -

years ago.Consequently,

& Coolidge, & Coolidge, & Coolidge, & Coolidge,

years ago. - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 social intelligenceandlinguisticintelligence.A record heidentifiesfourofthese:technologicalintelligence, naturalhistoryintelligence, to equipourancestorswithcontent-specifictypesofabilities.Basedonthe evolutionary intelligence) asourancestorsevolved. Theserepresentspecialisedintelligencesthatevolved new chapels(ormodularintelligences)wereaddedtothecathedral’s structure(orgeneral gence. Over the last 7 with chimpanzeesasasingle-chamberedtypeofstructurethatcontainedgeneralintelli- the evolution of human intelligence. That is, it starts at the time of our last common ancestor, tion ofprey inlimitedlight inbatsisahelpfulexample ofamodular intelligence. specific taskandareindependentofoneanotherintheirfunctionneurology. Sonardetec- particular domain. These systems operate in an to anevolved biologicallyunderpinnedintelligenceselectedforitsadaptive advantage ina as evolving bothgeneralandmodularintelligence(Fodor, 1983).Modularintelligencerefers ancestors toinformusofhow theseabilitieshave evolved. Indoingso hedescribeshumans mon ancestor, and adds evidence from the anatomy, tools and known lifestyle of our various with modern chimpanzees for insight into the likely intellectual abilities of our last com- model ofhumanintellectualfunctioningwhichispresentedinFigure Steven Mithen(1996) is atheoristwhousestheevidence ofourevolution toproposea Steven Mithenandthecathedral ofhumanintelligence seek toassociateourcognitive abilitiestoourgenesandneurobiology. ligence wewould dowelltoconsiderhow they incorporatetheseabilities,especiallyifthey learning periods.Assuch,ifweweretocriticallyevaluate currentmodelsofhumanintel- ing interpersonalandchild-caredemandsassociatedwithlongerpostnatalchildhood tool productionanduse,work collaboratively tohuntandgather food,andrespondtochang- the useofcognitive skillsthatallow ustoprocedurallymanufacture, teachandlearncomplex ing toselectionpressuresfortechnological,socialandlinguisticintelligence.Theseinclude pedal bodyformandsignificantincrease inbrainsizerelative to overall bodymassrespond- complex, voluntarily reflective, andallows concreteandabstractsymbolicrepresentation. cultural transmission.Oursocialorganisation iscomplex andlarge. Ourverbal languageis allowed meta-representation was added. Either wasway, allowedadded. meta-representation theoutcome was thecombining of the in thepreviously solidwalls ofhumanintelligence. Oralternatively, a“superchapel”that sibilities forthis.Eitheran event occurredwhich effectively placedwindows anddoors novel compared to the abilities of our evolutionary ancestors. Mithen suggests two pos- of humanintelligence,allowing foracognitive fluidity betweenseparateabilitiesthat was tion ofanatomicallymodern humans thatopensaconnectionbetweentheseparatechapels distant murmur. The finalstageinMithen’s modelisthata key event occursinthe evolu- thick andallowed theservicescompletedwithineachnotto beheard,orifheardonlyasa with walls separatingthemfromeach otherandfromgeneralintelligence.Thesewalls were likens ittotheseparatechapelsadded tothestructuralcathedralofhumanintelligencebut social intelligencedidnotinteractwithourcapacityfornatural historyintelligence.Mithen ity fortechnicalintelligencedidnotinteractwithourcapacity forsocialintelligence.Our described byFodor (1983)(orexemplified bysonardetectionofprey inbats).Ourcapac- general intelligence.Thatisthey weremodularlyencapsulatedinaway similartothat distinct fromoneanotherandnotemergent fromanoverall increaseinnon-content-specific ancestors thespecialisedintelligencesemerged atdifferent times,andmostimportantlywere Mithen uses the metaphor of the developing floor-plan of amedieval cathedral todescribe So themostrecentphaseofhumanevolution ischaracterisedbyconsolidationofabi-

million years through human evolutionary history as described earlier,

key featureofMithen’s modelisthatinour encapsulated manner to quickly perform a

3.2. Mithenbegins Intelligence

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3

A separate Social Linguistic social intelligence intelligence intelligence A separate Linguistic social intelligence intelligence Social & linguistic intelligence providing the integrative module of meta- representation

General Emerging A separate A separate Technological Natural history intelligence natural technological General natural intelligence intelligence history intelligence intelligence history General modules intelligence intelligence

The floor-plan of the intelligent mind of our The floor-plan of the intelligent mind of The floor-plan of the intelligent mind of common ancestor with chimpanzees around humans by around 500,000−250,000 years ago. modern humans. 6−7 million years ago.

Figure 3.2 Mithen’s model of the evolution of human intelligence Source: Mithen (1996). Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 novel, relatively self-containedrepresentationaladaptation tion ofmodernhumanintelligence.Eachtransition“involved theconstructionofanentirely cal adaptation with cultural adaptation in Donald’s view provides the full story of the evolu- innovations inhumanculture thatthey allowed. Thecombinationofanatomicalandtechni- tion fromapeculturetothatofmodernhumans.Handinhandwiththese changes arethe one further“external” technological adaptationarerequiredtodescribeourcognitive transi- origin ofourcognitive capacities. Donaldargues that two majorbiologicaladaptationsand larger brains,arerecognised asimportantbut onlypartoftheexplanation oftheevolutionary (p. produce conscious,self-initiated, representationalactsthatareintentionalbut not linguistic” “Mimetic culture”basedonthe mergence ofacapacityfor “mimesis”whichis“theabilityto them asaspecieswhoseevolution hasmoved on.Donaldcallsthisstageofourevolution and cookery, andbrainsizereaching roughly80%ofthevolume ofmodernhumansmark with Donald argues thatourfirsttransitiontomodernhumancultureandcognitionisassociated transition:The first mimeticculture human race”(p. the human world that could support a certain level of culture and a survival strategy for the hypothetical transitions”(p. intelligence tomodernhumanintelligence.Donalddevelops amodelthatdescribes“three Donald (1991)alsoproposesacognitive modeloftheevolutionary transitionfromape-like Merlin Donald’s modelofhumancognitive andcultural evolution specialised andgeneralintelligence. we now have. Mithencallsthistheevolutionary emergence ofcognitive fluiditybetweenour previously discreteabilitiesofhumanintelligenceintotheuniquefluidlyblending function is not re-enactment but representational. Mimesis may serve to represent an act to or learned reproduction of a skill. Mimesis may incorporate mimicry or imitation but its sodic” tocharacteriseapeculture.Thatis, that would allow themtoreflectontheirknowledge. As such,Donaldusestheterm“epi- for behaviours in environmental and social contexts but no semantic representational system combinations withthree-orfour-word combinationspossible.They have cognitive scripts or about200symbolsonaboardthatcouldbepointedto)aretypicallyusedintwo-word ability seemstobetheacquisitionofalimitedvocabulary (limitedtoabout30–40handsigns modern apeshave even beentrainedintheuseofsignlanguage,wherepinnacletheir and acapacityforsocialattribution andco-operation.Undercarefully designedconditions higher primates, use of cognitive “scripts” or rules to guide behaviours in different contexts, delayed reactiontoevents, anadvanced capacityforself-identificationcomparedtoother cognitive abilitiesinclude theircapacitytouseinsightsolve problems,simpletooluse, Donald argues thatmodernapesandtheAustralopithecineshave anepisodicculture.Their

168). Itdiffers frommimicry andimitationwhicharerespectively direct reproduction representation est elementintheirsystemofmemoryrepresentationseems tobeatthelevel of event their lives arelived entirelyinthepresent,asaseriesofconcreteepisodes,andhigh- Homo erectus. Theirstonetools,migrationover large areasoutsideAfrica,useoffire

357).

apes areboundtotheconcretesituationorepisode.

15) whereanatomicalchangesbetweenhumanspecies,suchas

– thatis,away ofrepresenting (Donald, 1991,p. Intelligence

149) 87 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 second transition humansdeveloped the capacitynotsimplytothink episodicallyorinthe to constructa conceptual modeloftheworld including otherhumans.Thatis, duringthis lying cognitive skillthatevolved inmodernhumans, accordingtoDonald,was thecapacity change thattookplacewhich alsoshapedandfurtheredouremergent cognition.Theunder uniquely modernhumancognitive capacitybut isaninvention oftheunderlyingcognitive possess to understand the world. That is, language is not the adaptation that produced the in turnlendsitselftotheexpression andorganisation oftheunderlying cognitive skillswe tion ofsymbolicexpression thatleadstolanguage.Theinvented languageorsymbolsystem are capable of, but rather the type of cognitive skill we evolved is one that allows the inven- world. For Donald,itisnotthatlanguageinvented thetypeofthoughtthatmodernhumans guage isthemajorhumanadaptationinvented andutilisedtocommunicatethoughtsabout the stems fromthecapacitytoinvent andusesymbolstocommunicatethoughts.Spoken lan- the transitionfrommimetictowhatheterms“mythic”culture. Cognitively, mythicculture The secondtransitioninhumanculturalandcognitive development describedbyDonaldis The secondtransition: mythic culture represented act.A nication inthatotherswithamimeticcognitive capacitycanunderstandandreflectonthe not necessarilyevolved forthatpurpose,mimetic acts canserve asaformofsocialcommu- be segregated, combinedandre-combinedtogenerate representationsofevents. Although properties tomimeticacts.They areproducedintentionally.Aspectsofmimeticactscan evolution ofthispre-linguisticformcognitive representation.Donaldattributes certain tion but morelimitedthanthatofmodernhumans. not modernlanguage),andmanualsignals.Thus,mimesisismoreadvanced thanapecogni- sions itasinvolving bodyposture,gesture,facial expression, vocalisations utilisingtone(but form ofrepresentationthanthesymboliclinguisticsystemmodernhumans.Donaldenvi- Mimetic representation is closely tied to concrete, episodic events. It is a less sophisticated munication dimension.Mimesisisaformofcognitive representationthatispre-linguistic. oneself or to others. That is, it may have a purely individual function or have a social com- and theemergence ofprimitive ritual.Mimeticculturelastedforover 1 hunting, rapidadaptationtodifferent climatesandecologies,amorecomplex socialstructure according toDonaldincludedtool-makingandeventual useoffire,co-ordinatedseasonal novel systemofinstructionaltrainingwould bepossible. representational purpose.Donaldfeelsthatsocialpacedinnovation would emerge anda accompanied bydrummingorchantingbecamepossible,andthesehadasharedritualistic furthered complex socialactivities includinghunting.Groupmimeticacts,suchasdance, and activities ofadults.Thisinturnpromotedsocialconformityandco-ordinationwhich mimetic games became possible where children could model the social roles, relationships could now beconveyed tothemthroughamimeticact.WhatDonald refers toasreciprocal group memberswithoutthemhaving todiscover thatinformationforthemselves, inthatit Principally, they allowed asocialsharingofknowledge sothatinformationwas available to can usemimesistoreflectonthe world. voluntarily ent reference (i.e. mimetically representing a fight is not the same as a fight). There is no inher y O’Reilly and Alan Carr 88 Mimetic culture is the collective system of knowledge and behaviour that arose from the Evidence formimesisandmimeticcultureisindirect.Theculturalachievements Donald hypothesises thatthesecognitive advances broughtwiththemsocialconsequences.

limitation totheactsthatcanberepresentedmimetically. Mimeticrepresentationcanbe Gar auto-cued. Thatis,itisnotdependentonexternal promptingbut theindividual

distinction isunderstoodbytheindividual betweentheactanditsmimetic

million years. - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 internal memory systemswiththoseofmodern humanculturewhichare externally stored. memory storeof thosewecomeintocontact with.Donaldcontraststhefeatures ofbiological reliant onthestoreofpersonal memoriesaccumulatedsupplementedwiththebiological opportunity toaccesstheaccumulated knowledge andexperience ofourcultureandisnot ancestors in mythic cultures. With an external memory system, each individual inherits the that external source.Thiscontrastswiththeinternal biologicalmemorystoreusedbyour tems allow forinformationto bestoredexternally and accessedbyindividual humansfrom cally basedmemorysystemutilisedbymodernhumans. Ourvisuo-graphicsymbolsys- those listedearlier. by modernhumanmindsfromauditorysymbols(spoken words) tovisualsymbolssuchas these systemsistheirshiftingofthedominantformsymbolic representationprocessed drawings, engineeringplans,flow chartsandcomputergraphics.A cal notation,mathematicalgraphs,charts,maps, clocks,calendars,architectural other formsofvisuo-graphicsymbolsystemsinvented bymodernhumansincludingmusi- and itsrelatedcognitive demandsonattentionandphoneticprocessing,but recognisesmay a writtensystemoflanguagebasedonphoneticalphabet thatisusedbymodernhumans key ingredientinhumancognitive andculturalevolution. Hetraces the gradual invention of emergence oftheoryconstruction.For Donaldthe invention ofavisuo-graphicsystemis ing useofexternal memory systems,andashiftfrommythicconceptsoftheworld tothe mythic culture: the invention of a visuo-graphic symbol system, the invention and increas- culture ofmodernhumans.Thesearethreenew aspectsofcognitionthatwereabsentfrom occurred. The transition reflects changes in external factors that support the cognition and mythic culture.However, itisfundamentallydifferent inthatnonervous systemchangehas ferent fromwhatproceedsitasthoseobserved inthetransitionstoepisodic,mimeticand associated culturalchangethatrepresentsatransitionassignificantandqualitatively dif- The thirdtransitioninDonald’s modelisashiftinhumancognitive functioningwithan The third transition: theoretic culture world. Itallowed aformofmentalrepresentationandreflectionthat was new. the way theworld works andtheplaceofevery living person,animal,force,andobjectinthe Culturally, thesechanges allowed forthecollective invention andelaborationofmythsabout propositional memoryaswellintegration orco-optingofattentionwithinlinguisticability. ment of a phonological symbolic system supported by changes to working, semantic, and respiratory system, and substantial brain re-organisation. Cognitively it required the develop - It required major changes to the muscles and skeleton of the human face and vocal tractand that thisadaptationwas astoundinginitslevel ofre-organisation ofthehumanbrainandbody. tion, toolmanufacture, warfare, shelterconstructionandfoodacquisition.Donaldpointsout world works would have acapacityforrapidculturalchangesupportingbettersocialcoopera- humans whocouldthinksymbolicallyconstructingmetaphoricalmythsabouttheway the tionary pressurethatprompteditsemergence was humanintra-speciescompetition.Thatis, a formofmetaphoricalthinkingthatextracted theunderlyingthemeofepisodes.Theevolu- model oftheworld utilisesasymbolicrepresentationsystemintheformoflanguage.Itallows in atemporalandcausative framework” (p. “the prototypical,fundamental,integrative mindtool.Ittriestointegrate avariety ofevents conceptual modelsare“myths”abouttheworld andhow itworks. A of theworld thatallowed causative explanations, predictionandcontrol.To Donaldthese mimetic representationofepisodes,but tointegrate episodestoproduceaconceptualmodel Related tothischangeistheinvention andincreasedrelianceonanexternal technologi-

215). Integrating episodestoproduceacognitive

significant featureof

capacity for myth is capacity formythis Intelligence

89 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 that startswith theadditionofencapsulated modularabilitiesintheareas oftechnological degrees to whichhumanintelligencehas evolved. Mithenusesthatevidence tooutlineamodel In summary, theevidence ofhumanevolution provides aframework forunderstanding the onintelligence perspectives ofevolutionary Interim summary our recenthistory. modern humansslowly developed andwereculturallyhardwon over thousandsofyearsin The development oftheseformsthinkingstemsfromthetypeeducationsystems that concepts oftheworld hasallowed the innovations andadvances inmodernhumanculture. theory thatpredictsandexplains how theworld works. Thesuccessofthesetheoretical tification, formalmethodsofmeasurementand evidence. Itsaimistogenerateaformal arguments, systematicclassificationofthe world, induction, deduction, verification, quan- to bequestionedratherthanastoryaccepted.Theoretical thinkingisbasedonformal graphic symbolsystemsandexternal memory–basedcognitive workspace which is atheory identifies anew typeofconceptualthinkingthathumans use inconjunctionwiththeirvisuo- the conceptsarestoriesthatgive senseandexplanation totheworld. Incontrast,Donald concept humansgeneratedwithintheirculturestounderstand theirworld. Inmythiccultures opment oftheoreticalratherthanmythicalthinking.Thisrepresentsashiftfromthekind sufficient plasticitytosupportanemphasisinthetrainingandemergence oftheseprocesses. allow us to use a visuo-graphic system and external memory field because our brains have minds have evolved. Thatis,wehave thekindsofcognitive processes atourdisposalthat capacity but alsotosomedegree theflexibility forcognitive development thatmodernhuman manipulation andexternal memoryfieldthinkinginsome ways reflectourinherentcognitive cognitive processeswhich arecultivated andmostusedbyvisuo-graphicsymbolsystem of thoughtbasedonatechnologicalratherthanbiologicaladvance. Donaldargues thatthe unique andqualitatively different from that ofpreceding human cultures; that is,evolution representation ofknowledge thatmodernhumansusemakes theircognitionandculture thought process.Itisthishybridisation ofourbiologicalcognitive abilities withthesymbolic reviewed, processed,re-arrangedandinvented intonew computationstowards somecomplex memory systemisaccessedandsymbolisedinanexternal workspace where itcanbeviewed, to engage incomplex thinkingandproblemsolving.Thatis,informationintheexternal the EXMFasworking memorysystemthatisalmostalways utilisedbymodernhumans workspace external tobiologicalmemory”(Donald,1991,pp. element whichhetermsanexternal memoryfield(EXMF).Hedescribesthisas“acognitive Donald describesakey aspectofmodernhumanthinkingasinvolving arevolutionary new external hardware that allows anunlimitedmemorysystem.Intermsofcognitive processes argues thatthemodernhumanmindisahybrid ofourbiologicalcognitive abilitieswithan to benetworked tohumanknowledge inaway whichwas never possiblepreviously. Donald include visual access. Crucially, external memory systems allow individuals within a culture refined andretrieved inanumberof ways, andarenotlimitedtoauditoryprocessing but a permanentrecord,have avirtuallyunlimitedcapacity, canhave entriesofany size,canbe the external storagesystemandcanbereformattedasnew systemsareinvented, mayform (EMS) areabletobeformattedinavariety ofmedia,arenotconstrainedbythelimits tory processingwithsomelimitedvisualaccess.Incontrast,theexternal memorysystems not easilyrefined,have constrainedretrieval paths,andarelimitedtoaccessthroughaudi- not permanent,have a large but limited capacity, have limits to the size of single entries, are Internal biologicalmemorysystemsarefixed andconstrainedbyournervous system,are y O’Reilly and Alan Carr 90 The thirdingredientinDonald’s view ofmodernhumanthoughtand cultureisthedevel-

Gar

296–297). Donalddescribes Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 modern humanculture. in whichweengage, arepartlydependentonthosethataccumulatedandthenexploded with bridge totheexternal context. Theknowledge baseavailable tous,andtheformsofthinking nally inourbrains.Inthecurrenttheoreticphaseofcognitive andculturalevolution thereisa tion. Hepointsoutthatourcognitive abilitiesarenolongerconfinedtowhathappensinter a cognitive sharingofthoughtandperspective, andvoluntary symbolicmentalrepresenta- to moderntheoreticphases.Indoingsohehighlightstheemergence ofabilitiesthatrequired how modern cognitive abilities and human culture developed from memetic through mythic for generalmeta-representation.Donaldtakes accountofourevolutionary historytoexplain integration ofthesepreviously segregated abilitieswhichmayhave includedanew ability then proposesinourmostrecentphaseofevolution theemergence ofafluidandflexible intelligence, naturalhistorysocialintelligenceandlinguistic fluency and spatialvisualisation). perceptual speed, inductive reasoning, numerical ability, memory, deductive reasoning, word were supportive notofasingle“g”factor but seven PrimaryMental Abilities(verbal ability, to thatdeveloped bySpearmanbut whichfavours theseparation ofabilities,thoughthisdata by researchers.For example, Thurstone(1938),usinganequallyvalid statistical technique through factor analysisfromusingdifferent statisticaltechniques toanalysethedatagathered tradition hasconcernedthe impact onthestructureofmodelsintelligencegenerated be aneurologicallybasedmentalenergy. intellectual tasks,andhasaphysiological foundationwhichhespeculatively consideredto general intelligencewhichdiffers betweenindividuals, is employed tosomedegree inall apparently different tasksmightbeexplained byarealunderlyingpsychological factor of a sensoryjudgement).Heproposedthatthegeneralfactor evident betweenratingsonthese to performsimilarlyonothertasks(usingyourcommonsense outsideofschoolormaking who tendtoperformatagiven level ononetypeoftask(beingclever atschool)alsotend referred toas“s”)uniquelyrequiredforsometasks.Thatis, Spearmanobserved thatpeople on alltypesofmentaltasks,incombinationwithmorespecific lower-level factors (whichhe general factor (whichhetermed“g”) substantiallyinfluencinganindividual’s performance data, and thosefrom another similar study, Spearman observed that there appears tobe a sory tasksinvolving pitch,hueandweightdiscrimination.Basedonthecorrelationsinthese ratings of“sharpnessandcommonsense”outsideschool,observed execution ofsen- number of English schoolchildren collected from teacher ratings of academic ability, peer models ofintelligence.Spearman’s theorywas initiallybasedondataconcerningasmall Charles Spearman(1904,1923,1927)iscreditedasthefoundingfather ofpsychometric Spearman’s and Thurstone’s models empirical studiesthatformthebasisofresearchwithinthistradition. on thebestway toanalyseandinterpretthedatayieldedbymany intelligencetestsand broad agreement on a model of intelligence. However, there has in fact been much debate activity to solve intellectual problems. It might seem that this is an approach that would yield ing from the data gathered a theoretical model of what happens when we engage in mental istration ofIQ-typeteststovarious populationsandthenthroughstatisticalanalysisdeduc- We turnnow topsychometricmodelsofintelligence.Thisapproachisbasedontheadmin- Models ofintelligence 2. The psychometricapproach Since thepublicationofSpearman’s work, asignificantdebatewithinthepsychometric Intelligence

91 -

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 parts ofthemodel. some ways independent but nevertheless combine to produce the eight or nine second-order mary mental skills (some of which are listed in the third column of Table Blankson, 2005;McGrew separable mentalabilitieswhicharedescribed in detailTable suggested notjusttwo importantsubtypesofintelligencebut nineroughlyequivalent but ogy, behavioural genetics,andresearchonschooloccupationalachievement. Thishas combined toalesserextent withfindingsfromdevelopmental psychology, neuropsychol- model hasbeenextended toincorporatetheimplicationsfromnew psychometricevidence, ally accumulatedbyapersonwithintheiruniqueculturalcontext. Over timetheGf–Gc ability, known asGc.Thisreferstoreasoningthatlargely draws uponknowledge individu- ity, and primarily draws upon underlying neurological resources. The second is of intelligence.Thefirsttheseisfluidability,known asGf.Thisreferstoreasoningabil- chical modelofintelligencewhichinitiallypositedthatginfact reflectstwo distincttypes Continuing intheThurstoniantradition,Cattell(1943)andHorn(1986)developed ahierar The Cattell-Hornmodel 3 2 1 VULNERABLE ABILITIES Ability Table 3.1 y O’Reilly and Alan Carr 92 . . .

speed (Gs) Pr (Gsm) memory Shor (Gf) intelligence Fluid Gar ocessing t-term

Defining aspectsoftheHorn-Cattellmodelintelligence in adulthood. is vulnerabletoage-related decline their disposalfor mentalactivity. Gs capabilities thatanindividualhasat orthelimitedprocessingmemory Intimately related toworking cognitive tasksquickly.rudimentary to concentrateandperform Mental speediness. The ability to age-related declineinadulthood. Some aspectsofGsmare vulnerable memory.chunks) intheirshort-term information (plusorminus two retain seven chunksofunrelated 2 seconds. Mostpeoplecan orforgottenfurther withinabout that allows ittobeprocessed Immediate awareness ofinformation decline inadulthood. Gf isvulnerabletoage-related that isreliant onprevious learning. and notreflective ofproblem solving factors thatinfluenceintelligence reflective ofunderlying biological tasks. Thought tobelargely applied tosolve novel intellectual Various forms ofreasoning typically Definition

& Flanagan, 1998).Inturntheseabilitiesrestuponatleast87pri- • • • • • • • • • include Reflecting abilitiesthat •

Facility withn Rate oftest-taking associational ability memory Immediate Immediate memor Speed ofr reasoning Piagetian reasoning sequential General reasoning Deductive reasoning Inductive ecpul speed Perceptual

3.1 (Horn,1994;Horn

easoning 3.1), umbers which are in crystallised y span

& - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 EXPER 8 SENSORY-PERCEPTUAL ABILITIES 7 6 5 4 Ability . . . . . Cor thinking (Gv) Visual (Glr) memory term from long- retrieval Fluency of thinking Quantitativ (Gc) intelligence Cr speed (CDS) decision ystallised rect TISE ABILITIES

e relations andorientations. manipulate figuralstimuli andspatial the abilitytomentally perceive and The abilitytothinkvisually, including of theadultphaselifecycle. or improvement inGlrduringmost Research suggestseithernochange of information ratherthancontent. storage, retrieval andassociation is concernedwiththefluencyof store oflearnedinformation) asit (which insomeways includesthe abilityconfused withcrystallised term memory. Itshouldnotbe and associateinformation inlong- Ability tofluently store, recall mathematical problem solving. concepts andskillsrequired for Ability tounderstandandapply the 80 adulthood, possibly upto70or Gc continues to increase during with schoolattainment. Onaverage knowledge. Itisnotsynonymous that) andprocedural (knowing how) and includesdeclarative (knowing knowledge may take many forms individual tosolve problems. This cultural contextthatallows an through experiencewithina Knowledge whichhasbeenacquired information). opposed toquicknessofprocessing response tointellectualtasks (as Quickness ofdecision-makingin Definition

years ofage. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • include Reflecting abilitiesthat • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Visual closur iul memory Visual Visualisation od fluency Word soitoa fluency Associational reasoning Algebraic Inf General v Mental comparisonspeed Semantic pr Choice r Simple r of serialvisualstimuli P Spatial scanningability Flexibility ofclosur Spatial r Fr Facility withn F sensitivity Grammatical fluency Oral pr ability Communication knowledge Geographical information science General ability Listening knowledge Lexical development Language Imagery alternations Perceptual resistance illusion Perceptual estimation Length Originality/creativity flexibility Figural fluency Figural fluency Naming fluency Expressional fluency Ideational Estimation oreign languageknowledge erception andintegration ee recall fluency ormation aboutaculture

. oduction and elation thinking eaction time eaction time erbal information ocessing speed e speed umbers (Continued) e Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 problems. Itsinclusion asaseparatesecond-order factor withtheextended Gf–Gcmodel of information inawareness forseveral minutesinorder to facilitate theexpert solution of short-term memory. EWSMisspeculatedtohave thecapacitytoholdrelatively large amounts argue thattheremaybeanexpertise wide-spanmemory(EWSM)whichis distinct from of intellectualfunctioningthat usefullydescribeus.For example, HornandBlankson (2005) description. Thatis,gathering furtherexperimental evidence mayyieldinsightintootherareas that thefullrangeofmental abilitiesthatunderlieourintelligencemayasyetawait full linked toinjuryordamagerelevant aspectsofthesensory nervous system. between thetrajectoriesevident forvulnerableandexpertise abilities,anddecline isusually abilities areintimatelytiedtosensorymodalities.Theirage-related development tends tofall is alsodescribed,comprisingvisualthinking(Gv)andauditory thinking(Ga).Bothofthese 9 Ability the lifespan into older adulthood. A long-term memory(Glm).Skillswithinthisdomaintypically continuetodevelop throughout ing crystallisedintelligence(Gc),quantitative reasoning(Gq),andfluency ofretrieval from hood. Thenext clusterofsecond-orderabilitiesaretermed“expertise abilities,” compris- are termed“vulnerableabilities,” reflectingtheirvulnerabilitytoage-relateddeclineinadult- speed (Gs)formthefirstuniquehierarchicallyhighercluster ofsecond-orderabilities.These organisation asfollows. Fluidintelligence(Gf),short-termmemory(Gsm),andprocessing factor (asinSpearman’s g).Instead,they tentatively suggestthreedistinctclustersofhigher tion isevident amongsecond-orderabilities,itisnotbestrepresentedasasinglehigher-order neurological functioning,HornandBlankson(2005)argue thatalthoughapositive correla- a meaningfulcognitive reality. Basedonpsychometricevidence, andstudiesofaging Note: Adapted from Horn(1994), Horn y O’Reilly and Alan Carr Table 3.1 94 . Cattell andHorn’s extended Gf–Gctheorycanbeviewed as a work inprogressas it accepts A very significantfeature oftheCattell-Hornmodelisitsrejectionpsychometricgas

thinking (Ga) Auditor Gar

(Continued) y communication. awareness thatunderpinsverbal but doincludethephonetic include languagecomprehension and music. These abilitiesdonot between soundssuchaslanguage patterns andsubtledifferences perceive, analyse anddiscriminate stimuli, includingtheabilityto The abilitytothinkusingauditory Definition

& Blankson(2005)andMcGrew third and final cluster of “sensory-perceptual abilities” • • • • • • • • • • • include Reflecting abilitiesthat

eprl tracking Temporal stimulus distortion rhythm localisation sound Identifying discrimination pitch Speech duration/discrimination sound Discriminating judgement Musical discriminationand discrimination sound General patterns Memor Resistance toauditor discrimination sound Speech coding Phonetic Maintaining andjudging

& Flanagan(1998).

y for sound .

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 et apparent heritablebasistoestablishtherealityofitsimportance (Battyet illness andmortalitybymiddle-age,itsrelative stabilitythroughoutthelifespan,andits intelligence testing,itsabilitytopredicteducationalandvocational performance, topredict metric grepresents.Proponentsofciteitsenduringappearancethroughoutacentury At thispointitseemsappropriatetoaskifwecanbeany morespecificaboutwhatpsycho- What isg? the correlationbetweenstratumIIabilities. Finally, stratumIIIreflected ahigher-order generalintelligence factor or“g,” representing cognitive abilities.Stratum I Figure coherent evidence-based modelofintelligence.Theoutcomehisendeavours, presentedin comprehensive approach tofactor-analysis toallofthesedatasets in ordertodeterminea others. Carroll’s objective was to apply what he judged to be the single most appropriate and known psychometricmodels encompassing thoseofThurstone,CattellandHorn,among century (1927–1987).Carroll’s review includeddatasetsassociatedwiththemostwidely metric approachtostudyinghumanintelligencepublishedduringthegreaterpartof20th ing momentum, Carroll (1993) reviewed 467 datasets from studies that adopted a psycho In whatisuniversally regarded asaseminalcontribution tothefieldthatprovided aunify- Carroll’s model language use,psychomotor, olfactory, tactile,kinaestheticandgeneralknowledge abilities. for separatesecond-orderabilitystatuswhichawait fullerconfirmationorrejectioninclude will requireitssubstantiationthroughfurtherresearch.Otherpotentialcandidatesproposed metricians, whether ornotgrepresentssomething realremainsindispute. Mostnotableis aspect ofwhat happenswhenweexercise ourintellectualabilities. Even amongpsycho from thepsychometricapproach tointelligenceittrulyreflectssomeneurologically based g isadistillate,notsummary oranaverage (Jensen,2002). ability (fromthemostgeneral tothemostspecific)asmeasuredonany given test.Incontrast, (Roid, 2003,p. such as“thehierarchicalgfactor that exists amongthescores ofanintelligencebattery” effort togetbeyond thesurface, providing descriptive definitionsthatarelow in explanation, they donothelpustobetterunderstandwhatgis.Insteadthey usuallyrefertoitwithlittle on thebasisthatoverlap betweenfullscaleIQ(FSIQ)andgtendstobehigh.However, interpretation ofthecompositescoreyieldedbytheirIQtests asequivalent tog.They doso Deary (2002)callsgapsychometrictriumphandcognitive enigma. difficult togive acleartheoreticallycoherentdefinitionofwhatitactuallyis.Consequently, despite thesignificancegiven bymany withintheliteraturetopsychometricg,it remains cessing/Decision Speed.Carroll’s definitionofeachthese factors isoutlinedin Table Broad AuditoryPerception,Retrieval Ability, BroadCognitive SpeedinessandPro- ligence, CrystallisedIntelligence,GeneralMemoryandLearning,BroadVisual Perception, specific stratum I test tasks.StratumIIconsistedofeightbroaderabilityfactors inwhichgroupsofthemore functioning. These accounted for small amounts of variance in individual performance on IQ

As yetthereisnodefinitive reasontoassumethatdespite theconvincing emergence ofg Despite the ambiguity about what g represents, many IQ test developers encourage the al., 2009;Jensen,1998;Nyborg, 2003;Sternberg

3.3, outlinedamodelwiththreestrataorlayersthatmake upthestructureofhuman

135). Cautionappearswarranted here.FSIQisasummaryofall aspectsof

abilities clustered. The eight factors identified were as follows: Fluid Intel-

comprised 66quitespecificandnarrow aspectsofcognitive

& Grigorenko, 2002).Nevertheless,

al., 2009;Deary Intelligence

3.2. 95

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3

g Stratum III General Intelligence Factor

General Broad Broad Broad Processing/ Fluid Crystallized Broad Visual Stratum II Memory & Auditory Retrieval Cognitive Decision Intelligence Intelligence Perception Learning Perception Ability Speediness Speed

● General ● Language ● Memory span ● Visualization ● Hearing and ● Originality/ ● Rate of test ● Simple reaction sequential development ● Associative ● Spatial relations speech threshold Creativity taking time reasoning ● Verbal (printed) memory ● Closure speed factors ● Ideational ● Numerical facility ● Choice reaction ● Induction language ● Free recall ● Flexibility of ● Speech sound fluency ● Perceptual time ● Quantitative comprehension memory closure discrimination ● Naming facility speed ● Semantic reasoning ● Lexical ● Meaningful ● Serial perceptual ● General sound ● Associational processing speed ● Speed of knowledge memory integration discrimination fluency ● Mental reasoning ● Reading ● Visual memory ● Spatial ● Sound frequency ● Expressional processing speed comprehension ● Learning ability perceptual discrimination fluency ● Reading integration ● Sound intensity ● Word fluency decoding ● Spatial scanning discrimination ● Sensitivity to ● Cloze ability ● Perceptual ● Musical problems ● Spelling ability speed discrimination & ● Figural fluency Stratum I ● Phonetic coding ● Imagery judgment ● Figural flexibility ● Grammatical ● Length ● Resistance to sensitivity estimation auditory stimulus ● Foreign ● Perception of distortion language aptitude illusions ● Temporal ● Communication ● Perceptual tracking ability alternations ● Maintaining & ● Listening ability judging rhythm ● Foreign ● Memory for language sound patterns proficiency ● Absolute pitch ● Reading speed ● Sound ● Oral production localization & fluency ● Writing fluency

Figure 3.3 Carroll’s three-stratum model of human cognitive abilities Note: Adapted from Carroll (1993, p. 626). Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Ability Table 3.2 from theapplication offactor analytictechniques isreflectedintheCHCmodel. Themain lation ofpeople andanalysetheresults, bestrepresentationoflatent variables evident seems fair toconcludethatwhenweadministerpsychometrictests ofintelligencetoapopu- (also known astheCHCmodel; McGrew, 2005),representedinFigure here, aconsensusview hasemerged intheformofacombined Cattell-Horn-Carrollmodel Despite thefundamentaldifferences apparent inthevarious psychometric modelsreviewed The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC)consensus model Blankson, 2005). factor analysisdoesnotprovide convincing evidence ofareal-world significance (Horn Horn’s continuedrejectionofgasacognitive reality. Hechallengesthatitsemergence in Source: Carroll (1993). 8. 7.

rcsig speed Processing speediness cognitive Broad ability retrieval Broad perception auditory Broad perception visual Broad and learning memory General intelligence Crystallised intelligence Fluid

Car roll’s definitionofhissecond-order cognitive abilities strictly acognitive ability”(1993, p. minimal cognitive contentandshouldnotbetaken tobe “Speed ofpsychomotorresponse performance (1993, p. speed ofdecisioninvarioustypesreaction-time tasks” several subvarietiesofthisabilityincluding[one]governing cognitive processing ofinformation. There appear tobe “Involved inany taskorperformance thatrequires rapid responses” (1993, p. depending onthedegree of ‘originality’ required inthe is possiblethatthere are several varietiesofthisfactor, retrieval ofconceptsoritemsfrom long-termmemory. It “Involved inany taskorperformance thatrequires theready p. distortion,auditory orcomplexmusical structure” (1993, present difficultiesbecauseoffinediscriminations, sound orspeech, whensuchpatterns particularly patternsofperception ordiscriminationofauditory “Involved inany taskorperformance thatrequires the p. at all, intheperception ofprintedlanguageforms)” (1993, (thatis,visual forms assuch itisinvolved only minimally, if “Involved inany taskthatrequires theperception of span”(1993,order memory p. be several varietiesofthisfactor; onevarietyisahigher- ofnew contentorresponses.memory However, there may “Probably involved inany taskthatcallsfor learningand experience, learning, andacculturation”(1993, p. the operationoffluidintelligencebutalsoeffects of “Concerned withmentalprocesses thatreflect notonly acculturation” (1993, p. mental activitiesthatdependonly minimally onlearningand “Concerned withbasicprocesses ofreasoning andother Definition

625). 625).

625).

624).

625).

3.4. Consequently, it Intelligence

624). .

Has

97 & Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3

Psychometric g (feature of Carroll model only)

“Vulnerable abilities” “Expert abilities” “Sensory-perceptual abilities” (label for Cattell-Horn model (label for Cattell-Horn model (label for Cattell-Horn model tentative cluster) tentative cluster) tentative cluster)

Gsm1 Gf Short-term memory Gs Gcds Gc Gq Glm Gv Ga Fluid ability Gy2 Processing speed Correct decision Crystallized ability Quantitative Long-term Visual thinking Auditory thinking General memory/ speed ability3 memory learning

Narrow Narrow Narrow Narrow Narrow Narrow Narrow Narrow Narrow stratum 1 stratum 1 stratum 1 stratum 1 stratum 1 stratum 1 stratum 1 stratum 1 stratum 1 specific specific specific specific specific specific specific specific specific abilities abilities abilities abilities abilities abilities abilities abilities abilities

Figure 3.4 The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) consensus model of intelligence Note: 1 Carroll model version of this stratum II ability. 2 Cattell-Horn model version of this stratum II ability. 3 Not in Carroll (1993) model. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 rists highlight. eses, thesetestsoftendonotcover thetypesofintellectualabilitiesthatevolutionary theo- However, whilethepsychometricapproachhasagoodsetofteststoexplore thesehypoth- of humanintelligencewould belinked toourneurologyandhave ageneticunderpinning. data derived fromIQ-type tests.Bothapproachesmake clearpredictionsthatvarious aspects evidence andassucharguably have plausibleexternal validity, but arenotassociatedwith the data.Incontrast,evolutionary perspectives drive theory, aretiedtothearchaeological driven andarguably weaker whenitcomestoexternal validity ofabilitiesevident within chometric modelsofintelligence.However, thepsychometricapproachistest-anddata- There are undoubtedly areas of similarity and divergence between the evolutionary and psy- models ofintelligence Comments onthepsychometricandevolutionary been resolved inatrulysatisfyingmanner. entity? Disentanglingthesefundamentalandpotentiallyconfoundinginfluenceshasnever researchers, thus organising data in a certain manner? Or do they reflect some otherunknown specific content (stratumI)? Or dothey simplyreflect the statisticalapproach utilised by g factor) as well as having areasof related specific content (stratum II),and very uniquely of similarityinformatandcontent(whichmightexplain somethinglike theemergence ofa commonalities underlyingthenatureofintelligencetestsusedwhichhave large areas we tackleandsolve intellectualproblems,asthepsychometriciansclaim?Orarethey simply actually are. Do they accurately reflect something of the cognitive processes of ourbrain as continue tobeunclearaboutwhatexactly allofthelatentvariables reflectedinthesemodels damental unresolved potentialproblemwiththisapproachremains.Itisarguable thatwe about nineseparatesecond-ordercognitive abilities. cognitive reality. Theconvergence intheCHCmodelisstronglyevident initsdescriptionof point ofdivergence betweenCattell-HornandCarrollconcernswhetherornotgexists asa ers, thentheheritability ofthesametraitwould be lower ifestimateswerebased onstudies person toperson, providing optimalenrichment forsomeandextreme deprivation foroth - However, werethe samepopulationtolive inanenvironment thatvaried dramatically from cumstances. Thusgeneticfactors arethereasonwhy peoplewithinthepopulationdiffer. heritable, aseveryone isequallysupportedintheirdevelopment bytheirenvironmental cir ing forall.Insuchcircumstances individual differences foragiven traitwould be highly ing features of environments andpopulations. Imagine an environment thatis equally enrich- individual acertainheight. a particularpopulationdiffer fromeachotherinheight,as opposedtowhatmakes asingle genetic factors. Thatis,heritability helpsustounderstandwhatmakes individuals within that we can say that 90% of the reason why adults living in Ireland differ in height is due to found thattheheritabilityforheightofalladultsliving inacountryis90%.Thismeans for aparticulartraitwithinspecificpopulation.Considerheightasanexample. Imaginewe psychological traits.Heritabilityreferstothecontribution ofgenestoindividualvariation Plomin et Evidence ofagenetic basistodifferences inintelligence? and Although theproponentsofpsychometrictraditionwould fervently disagree,afun- The notionofheritabilityisintimatelytiedtounderstanding how itisinfluencedbydefin- make a number of key points necessary for understanding the nature of heritability in

al. (2013)provide ausefulintroductiontocontemporarybehavioural genetics

Intelligence

99 - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 levels (Plomin literature toindicatethereisbothageneticandenvironmental contribution tointelligence chometric traditiondominatesthisliterature.We cansummarisethemainfindingsfromthis guistic abilities).However, therealityispragmaticinfluenceofIQmodelsfrompsy- to theabilitieshighlightedfromhumanevolution (cognitive fluidity, technical,socialandlin- the geneticsofintelligence. for variation acrosspopulations.With theseideasinmindwenow turntoresearchstudieson (e.g. 1920s cohort, 1950s cohort, 1990s cohort) offers no automatic insight into the reasons influence ofimproved diet. Thisagain underlines thatwithin population highheritability rises inaverage heightover thecourseof20thcenturyprimarilyduetoenvironmental estimated toberoughly90%heritableinWestern nations,andyetwehave seenconsiderable (and viceversa). Consider theheightexample fromthestartofthissection.Heightactuallyis population, thisdoesnotmeanthatitcannotbepotentlyinfluencedbyenvironmental factors particular politicallens.Finally, althoughatraitmaybehighlyheritablewithinparticular political implications.Theseareaddedbypeoplewhointerpretresearchfindingsthrougha attributable toenvironment. Highheritabilityforatraitdoesnotcarryimplicitsocialor et logical traitsbut alsoprovide research-basedestimatesofenvironmental influence(Plomin observed difference betweengroupsA group A some racialgroupings.DemonstratingthatthereisahighheritabilityforIQwithin For example, USnormative IQdatahasshown average FSIQscoredifferences between then thisoffers noautomaticgeneticbasisforanexplanation ofdifferences betweengroups. groups, genders, racial groups or other groupings (say people with and without depression), for acertaintraitisestablishedtobehighwithinsinglepopulationordifferent social fixed. also illustrate that we should not regard a heritability estimate as something universal and in realitythiswould notbeatruereflectionforthepopulationaswhole.These examples (either deprived or privileged) would indicate high heritability for the same trait even though procedure thatdrew researchparticipantspredominantlyfromonesectionofthepopulation in thewholepopulationnow reflectstheunequalenvironment. However, abiasedsampling that weretrulyrepresentative ofthewhole population. Thisisbecausesomeofthevariation This theoretical modelledtohigh-qualitystudies endeavouring to identify genesandSNPs involved incontributing to thevariation weseeinintellectual abilityacrossthepopulation. lectual ability. Itwas expected thatmany genesandmany genevariations (SNPs)would be associated withmildID,the spectrum ofthenormalrangefunctioningandsuperiorintel - is, notsimplypathologicalconditions associatedwithintellectualdisability, but alsoSNPs array ofSNPsthatweresignificantly associatedwith variation inhumanintelligence; that genome-wide geneticsequencing researcherswould beableto identifyanever-increasing to asSNPs(single-nucleotidepolymorphisms).Itwas hopedthatwiththedevelopment of tual disability. Mutationsof a single letter on a specific pointofan active geneare referred ity tometabolisephenylalanine hasacumulative toxicimpactleadingtogeneralintellec- intelligence throughpathologicalprocesses,suchasphenylketonuria (PKU), whereinabil- et continuously risesacrossthelifespantoashigh80%in laterolderadulthood(Haworth significantly aswegetolder. Ininfancy itisestimatedtoberoughly20%,andthisestimate y O’Reilly and Alan Carr 100

You mightexpect researchintothegeneticsofintelligencewould beintimatelyconnected Importantly, behavioural geneticstudiesnotonlyinformusoftheheritabilitypsycho- Plomin et al., 2010;Leeet al., 2013).Thatis,allowing formeasurementerror, whatisnotattributable togenesis

Gar

and/or withinracialgroupBoffers noevidence ofageneticexplanation forany

al. (2013)alsopointoutthatitiswidelyacknowledged thatiftheheritability

& Deary, 2015).Theinfluenceofgenes,counterintuitively tomost,increases

al., 2010).Singlemutatedgenescanhave avery significant impacton

and B. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 intelligence shouldtake (Plomin als whoareunrelated.Thisthey argue isthefuture direction thatresearchonthegeneticsof that allows forthecomparison ofmany thousandsofSNPsfrommany thousandsofindividu- they proposeanew approach referredtoasGenome-wideComplex Trait Analysis(GCTA) samples, arenotabletoidentifysuchsmalleffects, hencetheirlargely nullresults.Instead small) amountstoourintelligencelevel. GWA studies,despitetheirsophisticationandlarge (possibly thousands)ofSNPsacrossthegenomecontribute tiny (possiblyinfinitesimally Instead they proposethatthemodelunderlyinggeneticsofintelligenceismany GWA studies (Plomin than 0.5%ofvariance, whichsubsequentlyfails tobereplicatedinsimilarlarge-sampled account forvariation inintelligence,orwhenthey dofindanassociationitaccountsforless known asgenome-wideassociation(GWA) studies,have todatefailed toidentifySNPsthat reliably associatedwithintelligenceinsamplesofthousandsindividuals. Thesestudies, followed byasubstantial increasepeakingat age11thenthinningagain. The“average” IQ trajectories for eachgroup.The“superior” IQ groupstartedwitharelatively thinnercortex late childhoodbyearlyadulthood. AnalysingdataseparatelybyIQlevel indicateddifferent to latechildhoodbyearlyadolescence, andapositive but attenuated correlationrelative to a peakpositive correlationbylatechildhood,apositive but attenuatedcorrelationrelative Overall they found anegative correlationbetweenIQ andbrainvolume inearlychildhood, associations between brain volume and IQ for children of different ages and ability levels. for thoseofdifferent ages,itsfindingsareuniqueandoriginal. Shaw et design withsomerepeattestingandtheinevitable additional problemsofIQtestsdiffering study hadsignificantlimitationsandconfoundingcontributions fromusingacross-cohort ship betweenIQandbrainvolume was oneofdynamiccorticalmaturation.Althoughtheir young peopleaged3.8to25.4 relationship betweenbrainvolume andIQ.Basedonastudyof307typicallydeveloping adults (r was higherforfemaleadults(r from 37studies,hefoundthatthebrainvolume–IQ correlationwas r that investigated thebrain–IQcorrelation usingonlyinvivo brainmeasurements.With data ously unanticipatedcomplex brain–IQagerelationships.McDaniel(2005)reviewed studies higher thanforadults(r and neurobiologicalvariables (r ducted inthe20thcentury, Vernon et any observed relationship.Inameta-analysisof54studieswith 56,793 participantscon- genetic orenvironmental factors onintelligence.Eitherorbothininteractioncouldexplain theoretically neutral,assuchassociationsdonotintheirown rightdemonstratetheeffects of that any association found between IQ and neurobiological variables should be regarded as imaging techniques.Intheirreview ofearlyIQ-brainstudies,Vernon et ures oftheoutsidetheirheads,toincorporationstandardisedIQtestsandneuro- army officerstojudgetheintelligenceoftheirmenandcorrelatingestimatesmeas- studies becametechnologicallymoresophisticated,progressingfromexperimenters asking the oldesttopicsofexperimental investigation inpsychology. Acrossthe20thcenturythese The relationship between human intelligence and our underlying neurobiology is one of The brainintelligence relationship identify thegenesandtheirvariation thatcontribute tointelligence (Plomin researchers concedethatGWA studiesarenotafteralltheexperimental pathway thatwill

.38) thanmalechildren(r

= Deary, 2015). Prominent behavioural geneticists and intelligence

.149). However, laterneuro-imagingstudiesshedlightonprevi-

years, Shaw et

= = & Deary, 2015).

.191). For children(r .41) thanfemalechildren(r

al. (2000)foundavery smallcorrelationbetweenIQ

.22). McDanielconcludedthatthereisameaningful

al. (2006)concludedthatnatureoftherelation-

.197) thecorrelationwas slightly

.37), andhigherformale

al. (2000)remindus .33. Thecorrelation

al. founddifferent Intelligence

& Deary, 2015).

101 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 response selection. ter fortransmissionofinformationfromsensoryareastothoseinvolved inprocessing and inhibits non-selectedresponses.Theentireprocessisdependentonunderlyingwhitemat- tal solutionstakes place.Oncearesponseisselectedtheanteriorcingulateconstrainsand frontal context (Broadman’s areas6,9,10,45,46and47),wherehypothesis testingofmen- symbolic thought, abstraction and elaboration. The parietal cortex then interacts with the forward totheparietalcortex (thesupramarginal, superiorparietalandangulargyri)for it isprocessedintheextrastriate cortex, fusiform gyrus andWernicke’s area. It isthenfed through theauditoryandvisualsensorysystemsintemporaloccipitallobes.There described theneurobiologyofintelligenceasfollows. Themaininputforintelligenceis aim ofintegrating thevarious findingsintheliteratureonIQandneuropsychology. They posed aP-FIT(parieto-frontalintegration theory)modelofhumanintelligencewiththe from JungandHaier(2007).Basedontheirreview of37neuro-imagingstudiesthey pro- model. brain volume–IQ relationshipthanpreviously proposedinthesimplepositive correlation tistically different fromtheaverage group.Shaw’s studysuggestsamuchmorecomplicated continued thinning.The“high”IQgroupshowed anintermediatepatternandwerenotsta- group showed initialdeclineinvolume orshortinitialincreasepeakingatage78then (Kanaya et such assessments willleadtoaninflationin IQandaperson’s subsequentmisclassification such classificationrequiresthe useofcontemporarilynormedIQtests.Usingoldertests in classifying themashaving anintellectual disability),thentheFlynneffect demonstratesthat precise IQtestscoresareused asafeatureofdefiningcharacteristicperson(such as of implications,theFlynneffect documentstheobsolescenceofIQtestnormsover time.If cessful performancefinding expression intestnorm data(Dickens superseded morerecentlybyculturalchanges,suchasjobs thatpromoteabstractionforsuc- that improvements ineducation,healthanddietinitiallydrove theeffect; whichthenbecame that IQtests measure intelligence; toaccepting a real effect withinthe data; to proposing are proposedwithnoclearlyacceptedsolution.Flynnhasprogressed frominitialscepticism tion aboutitsmeaningandimplications.Intermsofmeaning, various potentialexplanations same tests,acrosstime,agegroups,samplesandlevels ofabilityhasledtomuch specula- the Flynneffect. Theconsistency ofthisobservation acrossallofthemany editionsofthe indicated an increase of 3 IQ points per decade with no evidence of a recent attenuation of per decade.Restrictingtheanalysisto53morerecentcomparisons (reportedsince1972) peers from20 the normative datafrom mycontemporarypeersbut I current version of the test (their contemporary peers). So, I compared tothenormative datafrom20 20 test in2016andatthesametimealsogive themanearliereditionofthesametestpublished 1999). Thatis,ifwetake agroupofadultsorchildrenandadministernew editionofanIQ a consistent upward change in the performance of test-takers over time (Flynn, 1984, 1987, The Flynn effect refers to the observation that across the entire history of IQ testing there is Rising IQ: theFlynn effect administered, Trahan et participants, wheretwo intelligence testswithdifferent norms(olderandmorerecent)were y O’Reilly and Alan Carr 102 A slightly different approach to understanding the brain-intelligence relationship comes

years previously, wewould expect themtoperformatahigherlevel ofabilitywhen

Gar

al., 2003a,2003b).

years ago.Inameta-analysison285studiesreportedsince1951,with14,031

al. (2014)foundthattheaverage increase inIQwas 2.31points

years agocomparedtohow they willscoreonthe

may score106whencomparedtomy

may score 100 when compared to

& Flynn,2001).Interms Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 consequently inresearchonthegeneticsandneurobiology ofintelligence. ject toselective pressuresarenotwellrepresentedinthemostcommonlyusedIQ testsand human intelligencethatthefossilrecordandevolutionary theorysuggestsweresub- IQ tests.Furthermore,if we adoptan evolutionary perspective then many ofthe features of overlap betweenfactors intheCHCmodelandfactors assessed bycommerciallyavailable by mostclinicalpsychologistsinroutinepractice. Thereisthereforenotaperfect to generatetheCHCpsychometricmodelwerenotcommercially available IQtestsused cognitive processesnottypicallytesteddoappearinthemodel.Many ofthetestsused Features oftheCHCmodelaredeterminedbytests used formodeldevelopment, so lack ofagreementbetweentheoristsonwhethergexists, andifitdoes,whatrepresents. most closelyrelatedtotheCHCmodelofintelligence.Even withinthistradition thereisa applied research.However, asourreview oftheoreticalmodelshasmadeclear, IQtestsare method forthemeasurementofintelligenceinappliedcontexts forpersonalfunctioningand ment instrumentsusedandtheinstruments’strengthslimitations”(AAIDD,2010,p. tions below themean,consideringstandarderrorofmeasurementforspecificassess- of clinicaljudgementwhere“thecriteriafordiagnosisisapproximatelytwo standarddevia- they recommendacut-off pointthatallows forerrorofmeasurementandtheappropriateuse AAIDD donotsetaprecisecut-off scorefortheidentificationofintellectualdisability. Instead 62–78 (±2 SEMs). Consequently, given the importanceofallowing formeasurementerror, the IQ scoreliesbetweentherangeofscoresfrom66–74,and95%confidentthatit indicates thatallowing forerrorofmeasurementwecanbe66%confidentthattheir“true” the SEM for the IQ test used. That is, an IQ score of 70 on a test that has an SEM of ±4 points IQ points.Consequently, anindividual’s observed scoreisbestinterpretedwhenboundedby on thedayofassessment.For moststandardisedIQscalestheSEMisestimatedtobe±3–4 measurement error, reflecting factors otherthantheirabilitywhichaffected theirperformance for the fact that when an IQ test is administered an individual’s obtained score includes some ered withreferencetotheIQtest’s standarderrorofmeasurement(SEM).TheSEMallows bled range,arelessreliableandmoresubjecttomeasurementerror. mean). Extremescoresbeyond thisboundary, eitherwithinthegiftedorintellectuallydisa- ability withintheaverage range(thatis,within2standarddeviations oneithersideofthe the AAIDDremindusthatstandardisedIQtestsfunctionattheirbestwhenthey measure intellectual disability. We willbrieflyreview someofthecautionsthey suggesthere.First, tion IQtests,despitetheirmany shortcomings,cancontribute usefullytothediagnosisof AAIDD adoptapragmaticapproachthatsuggestswhenusedwithappropriatecau- the otheraspectsofassessmentthatarerequiredfordiagnosisintellectualdisability, the about a great deal more than IQ. Accepting the various assumptions of this definition and ably complex definitionofintellectualdisability, given atthestartofthischapter, whichis The AmericanAssociationonIntellectualandDevelopmental Disability(2010)offer asuit- IQ testing: folly orvaluable? structure ofthe bodysupportedtheevolution ofcognitive abilities. Fossil recordsprovide environment. Changesinbrainsizeand structureaswellother physical changes inthe that humancognitive abilitiesevolved over millionsofyearstofacilitate adaptationtothe Evolutionary modelsofintelligence,based ontheseminalwork ofCharles Darwin, propose Summary This isasensibleandpragmaticapproachtoaddresstheneedforsomerelatively objective Second, theAAIDD(2010)recommendthatanobserved IQscoremustalways beconsid- Intelligence

15). 103 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 erence tothetest’s standarderrorofmeasurement. with intellectual disability. When interpreting IQ scores they should be considered with ref- with oldnormswillleadtoIQinflationandsubsequentpossiblemisclassificationofcases consistent upward changeintheperformanceoftest-takers over time.Therefore,usingtests to linkneurobiologicalfunctioningperformanceoncognitive tests. brain structureiscomplex. Parieto-frontal integration theory(P-FIT)representsanattempt ing masksconsiderablevariability acrossageandIQlevel. TherelationshipbetweenIQand While thereisasmallpositive correlationbetweenIQandbrainvolume, thisgeneralfind- environmental factors, andthattherelative influenceofgenetic factors increaseswithage. sensory-perceptual abilities),ninefactors below these,andalarge setofspecificabilities. hierarchical pyramid modelhasgatitsapex, threefactors below this(vulnerable,expert, and abilities. TheCattell-Horn-Carroll(CHC)consensusmodelisnow widelyaccepted.This general intelligencefactor (g)andlower-order specificabilities, or asetofdiscreteprimary human intelligence is best represented as being underpinned by a hierarchically superior tradition, foundedbyCharlesSpearman,hasbeendominatedacontroversy over whether sis ofthesedatatheoreticalmodelsthestructurehumanabilitiesweregenerated.This tests weredeveloped and administeredtovarious populationsandthroughstatisticalanaly- with IQtestswhichweredeveloped withinthepsychometrictradition.Within thistradition hending complex ideas, learning quickly and learning from experience. It may be assessed capability thatincludesreasoning,planning,solvingproblems,thinkingabstractly, compre- bol systemsandexternal memorysystems. brain structureandthelatterbeinglargely facilitated bytheinvention ofvisuo-graphicsym- modern theoreticphases,withthefirsttwo ofthesephasesbeingsubserved bychangesin modern cognitive abilitiesandhumanculturedeveloped frommemeticthroughmythicto logical, naturalhistory, socialintelligenceandlinguisticintelligence.Donaldproposedthat general and segregated modular cognitive abilities. The modular abilities included techno- Mithen proposedthatmodernintegrated flexible cognitive abilities evolved fromearlier evidence forthesetheories.Importantevolutionary theoristsincludeMithenandDonald. Hunt, E.(2011).HumanIntelligence. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Deary, I. BPS psychologicaltestingcentre:http://www.psychtesting.org.uk/ American Psychological Association’s section on assessment in their code of ethics: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ readingFurther and resources for clinicians Ian Deary(2001).Intelligence: A readingFurther for families you inadministeringteststoclients,andsharetheseviews withyourclass. of having a test administeredtoyou.Identifywhatyouhave learnedthatmaybehelpfulto In pairs,practicegiving anintelligencetestandthendiscuss thepositive andnegative aspects Exercise y O’Reilly and Alan Carr 104 accessible introductiontothefieldofmainstreamintelligencetheoryand research. index.aspx The Flynneffect referstotheobservation thatacross the historyofIQtestingthereisa There isevidence thatintelligenceasassessedbyIQtestsisaffected bybothgeneticand Within the field ofintellectual disability, AAIDD defines intelligence as a general mental

Gar

J. (2012).Intelligence. Annual Review ofPsychology, 63,453–482.

Very ShortIntroduction. Oxford:OxfordPaperbacks. Thisisanoutstandingand

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 Lovejoy, C. Lewin, R., Lee, T., Henry, J. McGrew, K. McDaniel, M. Klein, R. Kanaya, T., Scullin,M. Kanaya, T., Ceci, S., Jensen, A. Horn, J.(1986).Intellectualabilityconcepts.InR. Jung, R. Jensen, A. Horn, J., Horn, J.(1994).Theoryoffluidandcrystallisedintelligence.InR. Haworth, C.M.A.,Wright,J.,Luciano,M.,Martin,N.G.,deGeus,E.J.C.,van Beijsterveldt, C.E.M.,Bar Fodor, J.(1983).TheModularityofMind.Cambridge,MA:MITPress. Flynn, J.R.(1999).Searchingforjustice:Thediscovery ofIQgains over time.AmericanPsychologist,(1), 5–20. 54 Flynn, J.R.(1987).Massive IQ gains in 14 nations:What IQ tests really measure.Psychological Bulletin,101(2), Flynn, J.R.(1984).ThemeanIQofAmericans:Massive gains 1932to1978.Psychological Bulletin,95(1),29–51. Donald, M.(1991).OriginsoftheModernMind:Three Stages intheEvolutionofCulture andCognition. Cam - Dickens, W. T., Deary, I. Deary, I.(2002).gandcognitive elementsofinformationprocessing:Anagnosticview. InR. Darwin, C.(1871).TheDescentofManandSelectioninRelationtoSex. London:JohnMurray. Cattell, R.B.(1943).Themeasurementofadultintelligence.Psychological Bulletin,40,153–193. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human Cognitive Abilities: A Brunet, M.,Guy, F., Pilbeam,D.,Mackaye,H. Batty, G. American AssociationonIntellectualandDevelopmental Disabilities(AAIDD)(2010).IntellectualDisability: References versity ofChicagoPress. pp. gan volume andintelligence. Intelligence, 33,337–346. A American societyviamentalretardationdiagnoses.Psychologist, 58(10),778–790. implications. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 41,453–465. Brain Sciences,30,135–187. Intelligence (Vol. to youngadulthood.MolecularPsychiatry, 15,1112–1120. The General Factor ofIntelligence: HowGeneral IsIt?(pp. New York: GuilfordPress. Harrison (Eds.), ligence (Vol. Lubinski, D., Olson, R. tels, M.,Posthuma,D.,Boomsma,D. 171–191. bridge, MA:Harvard University Press. resolved. Psychological Review, 108(2),346–369. Surveys of1932and1947.Washington, DC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation. Erlbaum Associates. Grigorenko (Eds.),TheGeneral Factor ofIntelligence: HowGeneral IsIt? (pp. University Press. from theUpperMioceneofChad,CentralAfrica.Nature, 418,145–151. Epidemiology, 20,100–109. IQ inlateadolescence/earlyadulthoodandmortalitybymiddleage:CohortstudyofonemillionSwedishmen. Definition, ClassificationandSystemsofSupports,Eleventh Edition(AAIDD-11).Washington, DC:AAIDD.

selective review oftwin studies.Brain Research Reviews, 1–13. 64,

136–182). New York: GuilfordPress. & P.

E., J., Whalle & Blankson,N.(2005).Foundations forbetterunderstandingofcognitive abilities.InD.

D., W G. (2009).

R. (1998). R. (2002).Psychometricg:Definitionandsubstantiation.In & Foley, R.

L. Harrison(Eds.), O. et &

K., Rhea,S. S. (2005).TheCattell-Horn-Carroll

A. (2005).Big-brainedpeoplearesmarter: A Haier, R. ennerstad, K.

3, pp. & Plomin,R.(2010).Theheritabilityofgeneralcognitive abilityincreaseslinearlyfromchildhood & Flynn,J.R.(2001).Heritabilityestimatesversus large environmental effects: TheIQparadox

D., T al. (2009).Reexamining humanoriginsinlightof Ardipithecus ramidus Science, 326,74. y, L. Contemporary IntellectualAssessment.Theories,Tests andIssues(SecondEdition,pp.

1, pp. The HumanCareer: HumanBiological andCultural Origins(ThirdEdition).Chicago:Uni-

The gFactor. TheScienceofMentalAbility. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

& 35–77). Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum. rollor, J.

A. (2004).

J., H.,

A., W Scullin, M.

& Starr, J. M. (2009). A Lifetime of Intelligence: Follow-Up Studies of the Scottish Mental (2007). The Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory (P-FIT) of intelligence.

443–451). New York: Macmillan. & Ceci,S.(2003b).TheFlynneffect andUSpolicies.TheimpactofrisingIQscoreson

M., Da adsworth, S.

N., Contemporary IntellectualAssessment:Theories, Tests andIssues (SecondEdition, Principles ofHumanEvolution(SecondEdition).Oxford:Blackwell.

& Sachdev, P. vey Smith,G.,Gunnell,D.,Deary, I.

H. (2003a). The rise and fall of IQ in special ed: Historical trends and their

I., Da

J., Iacono,M.,McGue,W

T ., Likius,A.,Ahounta,D., vis, O.S.P., Kovas, Y., Corley, R. theory ofcognitive abilities; past, presentand future. InD.

S. (2010).Geneticinfluencesoncogniti

J. Sternber

Surve

meta-analysis oftherelationshipbetween invivo brain y of Factor-Analytic Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge g (Ed.),AdvancesinthePsychology ofHumanIntel-

39–54). London:Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates. .

J. Sternber G., Thompson,L.

J., T .

J. Sternber .

Zollikofer, C.(2002).A ynelius, P., g (Ed.),EncyclopaediaofHuman

P ., DeFries, J.

151–182). London:Lawrence g

A., Hart,S. & E. ve functionsintheelderly:

& Rasmussen,F. (2009).

Intelligence L. Grigorenk

J. Sternber

. Flanagan C., He Behavioural and

A., Petrill,S.

new hominid witt, J. g

o (Eds.), P

41–68). & E.L. . Flana-

& P. 105

A., K.,

L. - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 15:44 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315739229, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315739229.ch3 Wynn, T., Vernon, P. Trahan, L. Thurstone, L. Sternberg, R. Spearman, C.(1927).TheAbilitiesofMan:TheirNature andMeasurement. London:Macmillan. Spearman, C.(1923).TheNature of‘Intelligence’ andthePrinciplesofCognition. London:Macmillan. Spearman, C.(1904).Generalintelligence,objectively determinedandmeasured.AmericanJournal ofPsychology, Shaw, P., Greenstein,D.,Lerch,J.,Clasen,L.,Lenroot,R.,Gogtay, N.,Evans, A.,Rapport,J., Roid, G. Plomin, R.,DeFries,J. Mithen, S.(1996).ThePrehistory oftheMind:A McGrew, K. Plomin, R., Nyborg, H.(Ed.).(2003).TheScientificStudyofGeneral Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen. New York: y O’Reilly and Alan Carr 106 University Press. of humanintelligence.InR. logical Bulletin,140(5),1332–1360. don: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates. 15, 201–293. Intellectual abilityandcorticaldevelopment inchildrenandadolescents.Nature, 440 , 676–679. York: Worth. Thames 20, 98–108. Boston: Allyn Pergamon.

Gar

H. (2003).

& Coolidge,F. A., W

H., Stuebing,K.

& Hudson. & Deary, I.

S.,

J., L. (1938).Primarymentalabilities.

& Flanagan, D. ickett, J. & Grigorenko, E.

& Bacon. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales,Fifth Edition,Examiner’s Manual.Itasca,IL:Riverside.

J. (2015).Geneticsandintelligencedif C., Knopik,V

C., Bazana,P

L. (2012).

K., Fletcher

J. Sternber

P . (1998).TheIntelligence Test DeskReference: Gf-GcCross-Battery Assessment.

L. (Eds.).(2002). How toThinkLike aNeandertal.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press. .

. S.,

G., , J.

g (Ed.),HandbookofIntelligence (pp. & Neiderhiser, J.

M., & Stelmack,R.

& Hiscock,M.(2014).TheFlynneffect: A Psychometric Monographics No.

Search fortheOriginsofArt,ReligionandScience. London: The General Factor ofIntelligence: HowGeneral IsIt?Lon-

M. (2000).Theneuropsychologyandpsychoph

M. (2013). ferences: Five specialfindings.MolecularPsychiatry, Behavioural Genetics(SixthEdition).New

245–264). Cambridge:Cambridge

1, pp.

1–121.

meta-analysis. Psycho-

& Giedd,J.(2006). ysiology