THE NATURE AND STRUCTURE OF INTELLIGENCE

You certainly have heard people say this person is very intelligence or this one is more intelligent than anyone else. This is usually based on what one can do better than others. But do they really mean the actual nature and structure of intelligence or its apparent image.

Intelligence can be defined as a set of abilities that a person needs to adapt to different life situations and survive in a particular culture. Intelligence in this regard constitutes the ability for one to cope with environment they are living in and the ability to change their behaviour in order to respond better to the situations at hand. This involves skill for information processing, problem solving and adapting to new or changing environments. Therefore, it can be said that intelligence is the demonstration of the required behaviour in any given environment that it is determined by one’s culture.

STRUCTURES AND PROCESSES

The structure of intelligence or in other words can be referred to as the different components or elements of intelligence. These structures and processes underlying intelligence, according to the triardic theory, developed by (Sternberg, 1985),  are divided into three different categories: metacomponents, performance components, and knowledge-acquisition components.

The metacomponents are executive processes used in problem solving and decision making that involve the majority of managing our mind. They tell the mind how to act. Metacomponents are also sometimes referred to as a homunculus. A homunculus is a fictitious or metaphorical “person” inside our head that controls our actions, and which is often seen to invite an infinite regress of homunculi controlling each other (Sternberg, 1985).

Metacomponents have to do with the high-level management of problem-solving: deciding on the nature of the problem with which one is confronted, selecting a problem-solving strategy, selecting a mental representation of the problem, allocating mental resources to the solution of the problem, monitoring problem-solving progress, and so on. Studies show that all of these factors are essential to intelligent performance at practical tasks.

Sternberg’s next set of components, performance components, are the processes that actually carry out the actions the metacomponents dictate. These are the basic processes that allow us to do tasks, such as perceiving problems in our long-term memory, perceiving relations between objects, and applying relations to another set of terms (Sternberg, 1997).

Metacomponents direct the search for solutions; but they do not actually provide answers to problems. The mental structures which do this are called performance components. These are of less philosophical interest than metacomponents, because the human mind probably contains thousands of different special-case problem-solving algorithms, and there is no reason to suppose that every intelligent entity must employ the same ones. Most likely, the essential thing is to have a very wide array of performance components with varying degrees of specialization.

For example, consider a standard analogy problem: “lawyer is to client as doctor is to a) patient b) medicine”. Solving this problem is a routine exercise in induction. Given three entities W, X and Y:

1)                           the memory is searched for two entities W and X,

2)                           a relation R(W,X) between the two entities is inferred from the memory,

3)                           the memory is searched for some Z so that R(Y,Z) holds

It is not “low-level” in the physiological sense; it requires the coordination of three difficult tasks: locating entities in memory based on names, inference of relations between entities, and locating entities in memory based on abstract properties. But it is clearly on a lower level than the metacomponents mentioned above.

Neisser (1983), among others, believes that the number of performance components is essentially unlimited, with new performance components being generated for every new context. In this point of view, it is futile to attempt to list the five or ten or one hundred most important problem solving algorithms; the important thing is to understand how the mind generates new algorithms. There is certainly some truth to this view.

The last set of components, knowledge-acquisition components, are used in obtaining new information. These components complete tasks that involve selectively choosing relevant information from a mix of information, some of it relevant and some of it irrelevant. These components can also be used to selectively combine the various pieces of information they have gathered. Gifted individuals are proficient in using these components because they are able to learn new information at a greater rate.

The knowledge acquisition components of intelligence are structures and processes by which performance components and metacomponents are learned. For example, three essential knowledge acquisition components are: sifting out relevant from irrelevant information, detecting significant coincidences, and fusing various bits of information into a coherent model of a situation.

The importance of effective knowledge acquisition for intelligence is obvious. The ability to speed-read will help one perform “intelligently” on an I.Q. test; and the ability to immediately detect anomalous features of the physical environment will help one perform intelligently as a detective. One might argue that factors such as this do not really affect intelligence, but only the ability to put intelligence to practical use. 

However, intelligence which is not used at all cannot be measured; it is hard to see how it could even be studied theoretically. The mathematical theory of intelligence to be given below provides a partial way around this dilemma by admitting that one part of a mind can be intelligent with respect to another part of the mind even if it displays no intelligent behaviour with respect to the external environment.

Whereas Sternberg explains that the basic information processing components underlying the three parts of his triarchic theory are the same, different contexts and different tasks require different kinds of intelligence.

Componential – analytical Intelligence

Sternberg associated the componential subtheory with analytical giftedness. This is one of three types of giftedness that Sternberg recognises. Analytical giftedness is influential in being able to take apart problems and being able to see solutions not often seen. Unfortunately, individuals with only this type are not as adept at creating unique ideas of their own. This form of giftedness is the type that is tested most often (Sternberg, 1997).

Experiential – creative intelligence

Sternberg’s 2nd stage of his theory is his experiential subtheory. This stage deals mainly with how well a task is performed with regard to how familiar it is. Sternberg splits the role of experience into two parts: novelty and automation.

A novel situation is one that you have never experienced before. People that are adept at managing a novel situation can take the task and find new ways of solving it that the majority of people would not notice (Sternberg, 1997).

A process that has been automated has been performed multiple times and can now be done with little or no extra thought. Once a process is automatized, it can be run in parallel with the same or other processes. The problem with novelty and automation is that being skilled in one component does not ensure that you are skilled in the other (Sternberg, 1997).

The experiential subtheory also correlates with another one of Sternberg’s proposed types of giftedness. Synthetic giftedness is seen in creativity, intuition, and a study of the arts. People with synthetic giftedness are not often seen with the highest IQ’s because there are not currently any tests that can sufficiently measure these attributes, but synthetic giftedness is especially useful in creating new ideas to create and solve new problems. Sternberg also associated another one of his students, “Barbara”, to the synthetic giftedness. Barbara did not perform as well as Alice on the tests taken to get into school, but was recommended to Yale University based on her exceptional creative and intuitive skills. Barbara was later very valuable in creating new ideas for research.

Practical – contextual intelligence

Sternberg’s third subtheory of intelligence, called practical or contextual, “deals with the mental activity involved in attaining fit to context” (Sternberg, 1985, p. 45). Through the three processes of adaptation, shaping, and selection, individuals create an ideal fit between themselves and their environment. This type of intelligence is often referred to as “street smarts.”

Adaptation occurs when one makes a change within oneself in order to better adjust to one’s surroundings (Sternberg, 1985). For example, when the weather changes and temperatures drop, people adapt by wearing extra layers of clothing to remain warm.

Shaping occurs when one changes their environment to better suit one’s needs (Sternberg, 1985). A teacher may invoke the new rule of raising hands to speak to ensure that the lesson is taught with least possible disruption.

The process of selection is undertaken when a completely new alternate environment is found to replace the previous, unsatisfying environment to meet the individual’s goals (Sternberg, 1985). For instance, immigrants leave their lives in their homeland countries where they endure economic and social hardships and go to other countries in search of a better and less strained life.

The effectiveness with which an individual fits to his or her environment and contends with daily situations reflects degree of intelligence. Sternberg’s third type of giftedness, called practical giftedness, involves the ability to apply synthetic and analytic skills to everyday situations. Practically gifted people are superb in their ability to succeed in any setting (Sternberg, 1997). 

An example of this type of giftedness is “Celia”. Celia did not have outstanding analytical or synthetic abilities, but she “was highly successful in figuring out what she needed to do in order to succeed in an academic environment. She knew what kind of research was valued, how to get articles into journals, how to impress people at job interviews, and the like” (Sternberg, 1997, p. 44). Celia’s contextual intelligence allowed her to use these skills to her best advantage.

Sternberg also acknowledges that an individual is not restricted to having excellence in only one of these three intelligences. Many people may possess an integration of all three and have high levels of all three intelligences.