Hubbry Logo
Human intelligenceHuman intelligenceMain
Open search
Human intelligence
Community hub
Human intelligence
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Human intelligence
Human intelligence
Human intelligence
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
Psychology
Greek psi symbol associated with psychology
Basic psychology
Applied psychology
Concepts
Lists

Human intelligence is the intellectual capability of humans, which is marked by complex cognitive feats and high levels of motivation and self-awareness. Using their intelligence, humans are able to learn, form concepts, understand, and apply logic and reason. Human intelligence is also thought to encompass their capacities to recognize patterns, plan, innovate, solve problems, make decisions, retain information, and use language to communicate.

There are conflicting ideas about how intelligence should be conceptualized and measured. In psychometrics, human intelligence is commonly assessed by intelligence quotient (IQ) tests, although the validity of these tests is disputed. Several subcategories of intelligence, such as emotional intelligence and social intelligence, have been proposed, and there remains significant debate as to whether these represent distinct forms of intelligence.[1]

There is also ongoing debate regarding how an individual's level of intelligence is formed, ranging from the idea that intelligence is fixed at birth to the idea that it is malleable and can change depending on a person's mindset and efforts.[2]

History

[edit]
Main article: Evolution of human intelligence
See also: Evolution of the brain

Correlates

[edit]

As a construct and as measured by intelligence tests, intelligence is one of the most useful concepts in psychology, because it correlates with many relevant variables, for instance the probability of suffering an accident, or the amount of one's salary.[3] Other examples include:

Education
Further information: Intelligence and education

According to a 2018 metastudy of educational effects on intelligence, education appears to be the "most consistent, robust, and durable method" known for raising intelligence.[4]

Personality
A landmark set of meta-analyses synthesizing thousands of studies including millions of people from over 50 countries found that many personality traits are intricately related to cognitive abilities. Neuroticism-related traits display the most negative relations, whereas traits like activity, industriousness, compassion, and openness are positively related to various abilities.[5]
Myopia
A number of studies have shown a correlation between IQ and myopia.[6] Some suggest that the reason for the correlation is environmental: either people with a higher IQ are more likely to damage their eyesight with prolonged reading, or people who read more are more likely to attain a higher IQ; others contend that a genetic link exists.[7]
Aging
There is evidence that aging causes a decline in cognitive functions. In one cross-sectional study, various cognitive functions measured declines by about 0.8 in z-score from age 20 to age 50; the cognitive functions included speed of processing, working memory, and long-term memory.[8]
Genes
A number of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in human DNA are correlated with higher IQ scores.[9]

Theories

[edit]

Relevance of IQ tests

[edit]
Further information: § Insufficiency of measurement via IQ

In psychology, human intelligence is commonly assessed by IQ scores that are determined by IQ tests. In general, higher IQ scores are associated with better outcomes in life.[10] However, while IQ test scores show a high degree of inter-test reliability, and predict certain forms of achievement effectively, their construct validity as a holistic measure of human intelligence is considered dubious.[11][12] While IQ tests are generally understood to measure some forms of intelligence, they may fail to serve as an accurate measure of broader definitions of human intelligence inclusive of creativity and social intelligence.[12] According to psychologist Wayne Weiten, "IQ tests are valid measures of the kind of intelligence necessary to do well in academic work. But if the purpose is to assess intelligence in a broader sense, the validity of IQ tests is questionable."[12]

Theory of multiple intelligences

[edit]
Main article: Theory of multiple intelligences

Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences is based on studies of normal children and adults, of gifted individuals (including so-called "savants"), of persons who have suffered brain damage, of experts and virtuosos, and of individuals from diverse cultures. Gardner breaks intelligence down into components. In the first edition of his book Frames of Mind (1983), he described seven distinct types of intelligence: logical-mathematical, linguistic, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. In a second edition, he added two more types of intelligence: naturalist and existential intelligences.[13] He argues that psychometric (IQ) tests address only linguistic and logical plus some aspects of spatial intelligence.[14] A criticism of Gardner's theory is that it has never been tested, or subjected to peer review, by Gardner or anyone else, and indeed that it is unfalsifiable.[15] Others (e.g. Locke, 2005[16]) suggest that recognizing many specific forms of intelligence (specific aptitude theory) implies a political—rather than scientific—agenda, intended to appreciate the uniqueness in all individuals, rather than recognizing potentially true and meaningful differences in individual capacities. Schmidt and Hunter[17] suggest that the predictive validity of specific aptitudes over and above that of general mental ability, or "g", has not received empirical support. On the other hand, Jerome Bruner agreed with Gardner that the intelligences were "useful fictions", and went on to state that "his approach is so far beyond the data-crunching of mental testers that it deserves to be cheered."[18]

Triarchic theory of intelligence

[edit]
Main article: Triarchic theory of intelligence

Robert Sternberg proposed the triarchic theory of intelligence to provide a more comprehensive description of intellectual competence than traditional differential or cognitive theories of human ability.[19] The triarchic theory describes three fundamental aspects of intelligence:

  1. Analytic intelligence comprises the mental processes through which intelligence is expressed.
  2. Creative intelligence is necessary when an individual is confronted with a challenge that is nearly, but not entirely, novel or when an individual is engaged in automatizing the performance of a task.
  3. Practical intelligence is bound to a sociocultural milieu and involves adaptation to, selection of, and shaping of the environment to maximize fit in the context.

The triarchic theory does not argue against the validity of a general intelligence factor; instead, the theory posits that general intelligence is part of analytic intelligence, and only by considering all three aspects of intelligence can the full range of intellectual functioning be understood.

Sternberg updated the triarchic theory and renamed it to the Theory of Successful Intelligence.[20] He now defines intelligence as an individual's assessment of success in life by the individual's own (idiographic) standards and within the individual's sociocultural context. Success is achieved by using combinations of analytical, creative, and practical intelligence. The three aspects of intelligence are referred to as processing skills. The processing skills are applied to the pursuit of success through what were the three elements of practical intelligence: adapting to, shaping of, and selecting of one's environments. The mechanisms that employ the processing skills to achieve success include utilizing one's strengths and compensating or correcting for one's weaknesses.

Sternberg's theories and research on intelligence remain contentious within the scientific community.[21]

PASS theory of intelligence

[edit]
Main article: PASS Theory of Intelligence

Based on A. R. Luria's (1966) seminal work on the modularization of brain function,[22] and supported by decades of neuroimaging research, the PASS Theory of Intelligence (Planning/Attention/Simultaneous/Successive) proposes that cognition is organized in three systems and the following four processes:[23]

  1. Planning involves executive functions responsible for controlling and organizing behavior, selecting and constructing strategies, and monitoring performance.
  2. Attention is responsible for maintaining arousal levels and alertness, and ensuring focus on relevant stimuli.
  3. Simultaneous processing is engaged when the relationship between items and their integration into whole units of information is required. Examples of this include recognizing figures, such as a triangle within a circle vs. a circle within a triangle, or the difference between "he had a shower before breakfast" and "he had breakfast before a shower."
  4. Successive processing is required for organizing separate items in a sequence such as remembering a sequence of words or actions exactly in the order in which they had just been presented.

These four processes are functions of four areas of the brain. Planning is broadly located in the front part of our brains, the frontal lobe. Attention and arousal are combined functions of the frontal lobe and the lower parts of the cortex, although the parietal lobes are also involved in attention as well. Simultaneous processing and Successive processing occur in the posterior region or the back of the brain. Simultaneous processing is broadly associated with the occipital and the parietal lobes while Successive processing is broadly associated with the frontal-temporal lobes. The PASS theory is heavily indebted both to Luria[22][24] and to studies in cognitive psychology involved in promoting a better look at intelligence.[25]

Piaget's theory and Neo-Piagetian theories

[edit]
Main articles: Piaget's theory of cognitive development and Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development

In Piaget's theory of cognitive development the focus is not on mental abilities but rather on a child's mental models of the world. As a child develops, the child creates increasingly more accurate models of the world which enable the child to interact with the world more effectively. One example is object permanence with which the child develops a model in which objects continue to exist even when they cannot be seen, heard, or touched.

Piaget's theory described four main stages and many sub-stages in the development. These four main stages are:

  1. sensorimotor stage (birth–2 years)
  2. pre-operational stage (2–7 years)
  3. concrete operational stage (7–11 years)
  4. formal operations stage (11–16 years)[26]

Progress through these stages is correlated with, but not identical to psychometric IQ.[27] Piaget conceptualizes intelligence as an activity more than as a capacity.

One of Piaget's most famous studies focused purely on the discriminative abilities of children between the ages of two and a half years old, and four and a half years old. He began the study by taking children of different ages and placing two lines of sweets, one with the sweets in a line spread further apart, and one with the same number of sweets in a line placed more closely together. He found that, "Children between 2 years, 6 months old and 3 years, 2 months old correctly discriminate the relative number of objects in two rows; between 3 years, 2 months and 4 years, 6 months they indicate a longer row with fewer objects to have 'more'; after 4 years, 6 months they again discriminate correctly".[28] Initially younger children were not studied, because if at the age of four years a child could not conserve quantity, then a younger child presumably could not either. The results show however that children that are younger than three years and two months have quantity conservation, but as they get older they lose this quality, and do not recover it until four and a half years old. This attribute may be lost temporarily because of an overdependence on perceptual strategies, which correlates more candy with a longer line of candy, or because of the inability for a four-year-old to reverse situations.[26]

This experiment demonstrated several results. First, younger children have a discriminative ability that shows the logical capacity for cognitive operations exists earlier than previously acknowledged. Also, young children can be equipped with certain qualities for cognitive operations, depending on how logical the structure of the task is. Research also shows that children develop explicit understanding at age five and as a result, the child will count the sweets to decide which has more. Finally the study found that overall quantity conservation is not a basic characteristic of humans' native inheritance.[26]

Piaget's theory has been criticized on the grounds that the age of appearance of a new model of the world, such as object permanence, is dependent on how the testing is done (see the article on object permanence). More generally, the theory may be very difficult to test empirically because of the difficulty of proving or disproving that a mental model is the explanation for the results of the testing.[29]

Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development expand Piaget's theory in various ways such as also considering psychometric-like factors such as processing speed and working memory, "hypercognitive" factors like self-monitoring, more stages, and more consideration on how progress may vary in different domains such as spatial or social.[30]

Parieto-frontal integration theory of intelligence

[edit]
Main article: Parieto-frontal integration theory

Based on a review of 37 neuroimaging studies, Jung and Haier proposed that the biological basis of intelligence stems from how well the frontal and parietal regions of the brain communicate and exchange information with each other.[31] Subsequent neuroimaging and lesion studies report general consensus with the theory.[32] A review of the neuroscience and intelligence literature concludes that the parieto-frontal integration theory is the best available explanation for human intelligence differences.[33]

Investment theory

[edit]

Based on the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory, the tests of intelligence most often used in the relevant[clarification needed] studies include measures of fluid ability (gf) and crystallized ability (gc); that differ in their trajectory of development in people.[34] The "investment theory" by Cattell[35] states that the individual differences observed in the procurement of skills and knowledge (gc) are partially attributed to the "investment" of gf, thus suggesting the involvement of fluid intelligence in every aspect of the learning process.[36] The investment theory suggests that personality traits affect "actual" ability, and not scores on an IQ test.[37]

Hebb's theory of intelligence suggested a bifurcation as well, Intelligence A (physiological), that could be seen as a semblance of fluid intelligence and Intelligence B (experiential), similar to crystallized intelligence.[38]

Intelligence compensation theory (ICT)

[edit]

The intelligence compensation theory[39] states that individuals who are comparatively less intelligent work harder and more methodically, and become more resolute and thorough (more conscientious) in order to achieve goals, to compensate for their "lack of intelligence" whereas more intelligent individuals do not require traits/behaviours associated with the personality factor conscientiousness to progress as they can rely on the strength of their cognitive abilities as opposed to structure or effort.[40] The theory suggests the existence of a causal relationship between intelligence and conscientiousness, such that the development of the personality trait of conscientiousness is influenced by intelligence. This assumption is deemed plausible as it is unlikely that the reverse causal relationship could occur;[41] implying that the negative correlation would be higher between fluid intelligence (gf) and conscientiousness. This is justified by the timeline of development of gf, gc, and personality, as crystallized intelligence would not have developed completely when personality traits develop. Subsequently, during school-going ages, more conscientious children would be expected to gain more crystallized intelligence (knowledge) through education, as they would be more efficient, thorough, hard-working, and dutiful.[42]

This theory has recently been contradicted by evidence that identifies compensatory sample selection which attributes the findings to the bias that comes from selecting samples containing people above a certain threshold of achievement.[43]

Bandura's theory of self-efficacy and cognition

[edit]

The view of cognitive ability has evolved over the years, and it is no longer viewed as a fixed property held by an individual. Instead, the current perspective describes it as a general capacity[clarification needed], comprising not only cognitive, but motivational, social, and behavioural aspects as well. These facets work together to perform numerous tasks. An essential skill often overlooked is that of managing emotions and aversive experiences that can compromise one's quality of thought and activity. Bandura bridges the link between intelligence and success by crediting individual differences in self-efficacy. Bandura's theory identifies the difference between possessing skills and being able to apply them in challenging situations. The theory suggests that individuals with the same level of knowledge and skill may perform badly, averagely, or excellently based on differences in self-efficacy.

A key role of cognition is to allow for one to predict events and in turn devise methods to deal with these events effectively. These skills are dependent on processing of unclear and ambiguous stimuli. People must be able to rely on their reserve of knowledge to identify, develop, and execute options. They must be able to apply the learning acquired from previous experiences. Thus, a stable sense of self-efficacy is essential to stay focused on tasks in the face of challenging situations.[44]

Bandura's theory of self-efficacy and intelligence suggests that individuals with a relatively low sense of self-efficacy in any field will avoid challenges. This effect is heightened when they perceive the situations as personal threats. When failure occurs, they recover from it more slowly than others, and credit the failure to an insufficient aptitude. On the other hand, persons with high levels of self-efficacy hold a task-diagnostic aim[clarification needed] that leads to effective performance.[45]

Process, personality, intelligence and knowledge theory (PPIK)

[edit]
Predicted growth curves for Intelligence as process, crystallized intelligence, occupational knowledge, and avocational knowledge based on Ackerman's PPIK Theory[citation needed]

Developed by Ackerman, the PPIK (process, personality, intelligence, and knowledge) theory further develops the approach on intelligence as proposed by Cattell, the Investment theory, and Hebb, suggesting a distinction between intelligence as knowledge and intelligence as process (two concepts that are comparable and related to gc and gf respectively, but broader and closer to Hebb's notions of "Intelligence A" and "Intelligence B") and integrating these factors with elements such as personality, motivation, and interests.[46][47]

Ackerman describes the difficulty of distinguishing process from knowledge, as content cannot be eliminated from any ability test.[46][47][48]

Personality traits are not significantly correlated with the intelligence as process aspect except in the context of psychopathology. One exception to this generalization has been the finding of sex differences in cognitive abilities, specifically abilities in mathematical and spatial form.[46][49]

On the other hand, the intelligence as knowledge factor has been associated with personality traits of Openness and Typical Intellectual Engagement,[46][50] which also strongly correlate with verbal abilities (associated with crystallized intelligence).[46]

Latent inhibition

[edit]
Main article: Latent inhibition

It appears that Latent inhibition, the phenomenon of familiar stimuli having a postponed reaction time when compared with unfamiliar stimuli, has a positive correlation with creativity.[citation needed]

Improving

[edit]
Further information: Neuroenhancement and Intelligence amplification

Genetic engineering

[edit]
See also: Human genetic enhancement and Neurogenetics

Because intelligence appears to be at least partly dependent on brain structure and the genes shaping brain development, it has been proposed that genetic engineering could be used to enhance intelligence, a process sometimes called biological uplift in science fiction. Genetic enhancement experiments on mice have demonstrated superior ability in learning and memory in various behavioral tasks.[51]

Education

[edit]

Higher IQ leads to greater success in education,[52] but independently, education raises IQ scores.[53] A 2017 meta-analysis suggests education increases IQ by 1–5 points per year of education, or at least increases IQ test-taking ability.[54]

Nutrition and chemicals

[edit]
See also: Healthy diet, Nutrition and cognition, Dietary supplement, Nutraceutical, and Eugeroic

Substances which actually or purportedly improve intelligence or other mental functions are called nootropics. A meta analysis shows omega-3 fatty acids improve cognitive performance among those with cognitive deficits, but not among healthy subjects.[55] A meta-regression shows omega-3 fatty acids improve the moods of patients with major depression (major depression is associated with cognitive nutrient deficits).[56]

Activities and adult neural development

[edit]
See also: Development of the nervous system in humans § Adult neural development

Digital tools

[edit]
See also: Knowledge work and Personal knowledge management

Digital media

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Digital media use and mental health § Impact on cognition.[edit]

There is research and development about the cognitive impacts of smartphones and digital technology.

Some educators and experts have raised some concerns about how technology may negatively affect students' thinking abilities and academic performance.[61]

Measured results of the study

Brain training

[edit]

Attempts to raise IQ with brain training have led to increases on aspects related with the training tasks – for instance working memory – but it is yet unclear if these increases generalize to increased intelligence per se.[62]

A 2008 research paper claimed that practicing a dual n-back task can increase fluid intelligence (gf), as measured in several different standard tests.[63] This finding received some attention from popular media, including an article in Wired.[64] However, a subsequent criticism of the paper's methodology questioned the experiment's validity and took issue with the lack of uniformity in the tests used to evaluate the control and test groups.[65] For example, the progressive nature of Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) test may have been compromised by modifications of time restrictions (i.e., 10 minutes were allowed to complete a normally 45-minute test).

Philosophy

[edit]

Efforts to influence intelligence raise ethical issues. Neuroethics considers the ethical, legal, and social implications of neuroscience, and deals with issues such as the difference between treating a human neurological disease and enhancing the human brain, and how wealth impacts access to neurotechnology. Neuroethical issues interact with the ethics of human genetic engineering.

Transhumanist theorists study the possibilities and consequences of developing and using techniques to enhance human abilities and aptitudes.

Eugenics is a social philosophy that advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[66] Eugenics has variously been regarded as meritorious or deplorable in different periods of history, falling greatly into disrepute after the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II.[67]

Measuring

[edit]
Main article: Intelligence quotient
Further information: Psychometrics
Chart of IQ Distributions on 1916 Stanford-Binet Test
Score distribution chart for sample of 905 children tested on 1916 Stanford-Binet Test

The approach to understanding intelligence with the most supporters and published research over the longest period of time is based on psychometric testing. It is also by far the most widely used in practical settings.[14] Intelligence quotient (IQ) tests include the Stanford-Binet, Raven's Progressive Matrices, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. There are also psychometric tests that are not intended to measure intelligence itself but some closely related construct such as scholastic aptitude. In the United States examples include the SSAT, the SAT, the ACT, the GRE, the MCAT, the LSAT, and the GMAT.[14] Regardless of the method used, almost any test that requires examinees to reason and has a wide range of question difficulty will produce intelligence scores that are approximately normally distributed in the general population.[68][69]

Intelligence tests are widely used in educational,[70] business, and military settings because of their efficacy in predicting behavior. IQ and g (discussed in the next section) are correlated with many important social outcomes—individuals with low IQs are more likely to be divorced, have a child out of marriage, be incarcerated, and need long-term welfare support, while individuals with high IQs are associated with more years of education, higher status jobs and higher income.[71] Intelligence as measured by Psychometric tests has been found to be highly correlated with successful training and performance outcomes (e.g., adaptive performance),[72][73][74] and IQ/g is the single best predictor of successful job performance; however, some researchers although largely concurring with this finding have advised caution in citing the strength of the claim due to a number of factors, these include: statistical assumptions imposed underlying some of these studies, studies done prior to 1970 which appear inconsistent with more recent studies, and ongoing debates within the Psychology literature as to the validity of current IQ measurement tools.[75][76]

General intelligence factor or g

[edit]
Main article: g factor (psychometrics)

There are many different kinds of IQ tests using a wide variety of test tasks. Some tests consist of a single type of task, others rely on a broad collection of tasks with different contents (visual-spatial,[77] verbal, numerical) and asking for different cognitive processes (e.g., reasoning, memory, rapid decisions, visual comparisons, spatial imagery, reading, and retrieval of general knowledge). The psychologist Charles Spearman early in the 20th century carried out the first formal factor analysis of correlations between various test tasks. He found a trend for all such tests to correlate positively with each other, which is called a positive manifold. Spearman found that a single common factor explained the positive correlations among tests. Spearman named it g for "general intelligence factor". He interpreted it as the core of human intelligence that, to a larger or smaller degree, influences success in all cognitive tasks and thereby creates the positive manifold. This interpretation of g as a common cause of test performance is still dominant in psychometrics. (Although, an alternative interpretation was recently advanced by van der Maas and colleagues.[78] Their mutualism model assumes that intelligence depends on several independent mechanisms, none of which influences performance on all cognitive tests. These mechanisms support each other so that efficient operation of one of them makes efficient operation of the others more likely, thereby creating the positive manifold.)

IQ tests can be ranked by how highly they load on the g factor. Tests with high g-loadings are those that correlate highly with most other tests. One comprehensive study investigating the correlations between a large collection of tests and tasks[79] has found that the Raven's Progressive Matrices have a particularly high correlation with most other tests and tasks. The Raven's is a test of inductive reasoning with abstract visual material. It consists of a series of problems, sorted approximately by increasing difficulty. Each problem presents a 3 x 3 matrix of abstract designs with one empty cell; the matrix is constructed according to a rule, and the person must find out the rule to determine which of 8 alternatives fits into the empty cell. Because of its high correlation with other tests, the Raven's Progressive Matrices are generally acknowledged as a good indicator of general intelligence. This is problematic, however, because there are substantial gender differences on the Raven's,[80] which are not found when g is measured directly by computing the general factor from a broad collection of tests.[81]

Several critics, such as Stephen Jay Gould, have been critical of g, seeing it as a statistical artifact, and that IQ tests instead measure a number of unrelated abilities.[82][83] The 1995 American Psychological Association's report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" stated that IQ tests do correlate and that the view that g is a statistical artifact was a minority one.

General collective intelligence factor or c

[edit]
Main article: Collective intelligence

A recent scientific understanding of collective intelligence, defined as a group's general ability to perform a wide range of tasks,[84] expands the areas of human intelligence research applying similar methods and concepts to groups. Definition, operationalization and methods are similar to the psychometric approach of general individual intelligence where an individual's performance on a given set of cognitive tasks is used to measure intelligence indicated by the general intelligence factor g extracted via factor analysis.[85] In the same vein, collective intelligence research aims to discover a c factor' explaining between-group differences in performance as well as structural and group compositional causes for it.[86]

Historical psychometric theories

[edit]
Main article: Intelligence quotient § History

Several different theories of intelligence have historically been important for psychometrics. Often they emphasized more factors than a single one like in g factor.

Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory

[edit]
Main article: Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory

Many of the broad, recent IQ tests have been greatly influenced by the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory. It is argued to reflect much of what is known about intelligence from research. A hierarchy of factors for human intelligence is used. g is at the top. Under it there are 10 broad abilities that in turn are subdivided into 70 narrow abilities. The broad abilities are:[87]

  • Fluid intelligence (Gf): includes the broad ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using unfamiliar information or novel procedures.
  • Crystallized intelligence (Gc): includes the breadth and depth of a person's acquired knowledge, the ability to communicate one's knowledge, and the ability to reason using previously learned experiences or procedures.
  • Quantitative reasoning (Gq): the ability to comprehend quantitative concepts and relationships and to manipulate numerical symbols.
  • Reading & writing ability (Grw): includes basic reading and writing skills.
  • Short-term memory (Gsm): is the ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate awareness and then use it within a few seconds.
  • Long-term storage and retrieval (Glr): is the ability to store information and fluently retrieve it later in the process of thinking.
  • Visual processing (Gv): is the ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize, and think with visual patterns, including the ability to store and recall visual representations.
  • Auditory processing (Ga): is the ability to analyze, synthesize, and discriminate auditory stimuli, including the ability to process and discriminate speech sounds that may be presented under distorted conditions.
  • Processing speed (Gs): is the ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, particularly when measured under pressure to maintain focused attention.
  • Decision/reaction time/speed (Gt): reflect the immediacy with which an individual can react to stimuli or a task (typically measured in seconds or fractions of seconds; not to be confused with Gs, which typically is measured in intervals of 2–3 minutes). See Mental chronometry.

Modern tests do not necessarily measure of all of these broad abilities. For example, Gq and Grw may be seen as measures of school achievement and not IQ.[87] Gt may be difficult to measure without special equipment.

g was earlier often subdivided into only Gf and Gc which were thought to correspond to the nonverbal or performance subtests and verbal subtests in earlier versions of the popular Wechsler IQ test. More recent research has shown the situation to be more complex.[87]

Insufficiency of measurement via IQ

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Intelligence quotient § Validity as a measure of intelligence.[edit]

Reliability and validity are very different concepts. While reliability reflects reproducibility, validity refers to whether the test measures what it purports to measure.[88] While IQ tests are generally considered to measure some forms of intelligence, they may fail to serve as an accurate measure of broader definitions of human intelligence inclusive of, for example, creativity and social intelligence. For this reason, psychologist Wayne Weiten argues that their construct validity must be carefully qualified, and not be overstated.[88] According to Weiten, "IQ tests are valid measures of the kind of intelligence necessary to do well in academic work. But if the purpose is to assess intelligence in a broader sense, the validity of IQ tests is questionable."[88]

Along these same lines, critics such as Keith Stanovich do not dispute the capacity of IQ test scores to predict some kinds of achievement, but argue that basing a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone neglects other important aspects of mental ability.[89][90] Robert Sternberg, another significant critic of IQ as the main measure of human cognitive abilities, argued that reducing the concept of intelligence to the measure of g does not fully account for the different skills and knowledge types that produce success in human society.[91]

Despite these criticisms, clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes, such as diagnosing intellectual disability, tracking cognitive decline, and informing personnel decisions, because they provide well-normed, easily interpretable indices with known standard errors.[92][93]

A study suggested that intelligence is composed of distinct cognitive systems, each of which having its own capacity and being (to some degree) independent of other components, with the cognitive profile being emergent from anatomically distinct cognitive systems (such as brain regions or neural networks).[94][95] For example, IQ and reading-/language-related traits/skills appear to be influenced "at least partly [by] distinct genetic factors".[96][97]

Various types of potential measures related to some definitions of intelligence but not part of IQ measurement include:

Intelligence across cultures

[edit]

Psychologists have shown that the definition of human intelligence is unique to the culture that one is studying. Robert Sternberg is among the researchers who have discussed how one's culture affects the person's interpretation of intelligence, and he further believes that to define intelligence in only one way without considering different meanings in cultural contexts may cast an investigative and unintentionally egocentric view on the world. To negate this, psychologists offer the following definitions of intelligence:

  1. Successful intelligence is the skills and knowledge needed for success in life, according to one's own definition of success, within one's sociocultural context.
  2. Analytical intelligence is the result of intelligence's components applied to fairly abstract but familiar kinds of problems.
  3. Creative intelligence is the result of intelligence's components applied to relatively novel tasks and situations.
  4. Practical intelligence is the result of intelligence's components applied to experience for purposes of adaption, shaping and selection.[101]

Although typically identified by its western definition, multiple studies support the idea that human intelligence carries different meanings across cultures around the world. In many Eastern cultures, intelligence is mainly related with one's social roles and responsibilities. A Chinese conception of intelligence would define it as the ability to empathize with and understand others — although this is by no means the only way that intelligence is defined in China. In several African communities, intelligence is shown similarly through a social lens. However, rather than through social roles, as in many Eastern cultures, it is exemplified through social responsibilities. For example, in the language of Chi-Chewa, which is spoken by some ten million people across central Africa, the equivalent term for intelligence implies not only cleverness but also the ability to take on responsibility. Furthermore, within American culture there are a variety of interpretations of intelligence present as well. One of the most common views on intelligence within American societies defines it as a combination of problem-solving skills, deductive reasoning skills, and Intelligence quotient (IQ), while other American societies point out that intelligent people should have a social conscience, accept others for who they are, and be able to give advice or wisdom.[102]

Motivational intelligence

[edit]

Motivational intelligence refers to an individual's capacity to comprehend and utilize various motivations, such as the need for achievement, affiliation, or power. It involves understanding tacit knowledge related to these motivations. This concept encompasses the ability to recognize and appreciate the diverse values, behaviors, and cultural differences of others, driven by intrinsic interest rather than solely to enhance interaction effectiveness.[103][104]

Research suggests a relationship between motivational intelligence, international experiences, and leadership. Individuals with higher levels of motivational intelligence tend to exhibit greater enthusiasm for learning about other cultures, thereby contributing to their effectiveness in cross-cultural settings. However, studies have also revealed variations in motivational intelligence across ethnicities, with Asian students demonstrating higher cognitive cultural intelligence but lower motivational intelligence compared to other groups.[105]

Investigations have explored the impact of motivational intelligence on job motivation. A study conducted on employees of Isfahan Gas Company indicated a positive and significant relationship between motivational intelligence and two of its indicators, namely adaptability and social relationship, with job motivation. These findings highlight the potential influence of motivational intelligence on individuals' motivation levels within work contexts.[106]

Motivational intelligence has been identified as a strong predictor, superseding knowledge intelligence, behavioral intelligence, and strategic intelligence. It holds a crucial role in promoting cooperation, which is considered the ideal and essential element of motivational intelligence. Therapeutic approaches grounded in motivational intelligence emphasize a collaborative partnership between the therapist and client. The therapist creates an environment conducive to change without imposing their views or attempting to force awareness or acceptance of reality onto the client.[107]

Motivational intelligence encompasses the understanding of motivations, such as achievement, affiliation, and power, as well as the appreciation of cultural differences and values. It has been found to impact areas such as international experiences, leadership, job motivation, and cooperative therapeutic interventions.[108][109]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Human intelligence

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Human intelligence is the ability to derive information, learn from experience, adapt to the environment, understand, and correctly utilize thought and reason. This capacity manifests in cognitive processes such as reasoning, problem-solving, memory, and abstract thinking, enabling humans to navigate complex environments and innovate. Psychometric research identifies a general intelligence factor, or g factor, as the core component underlying performance across diverse mental tasks, explaining 40 to 50 percent of individual differences in cognitive abilities. Standardized intelligence quotient (IQ) tests, normed to a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15, reveal a normal (bell curve) distribution of scores in populations, with empirical data confirming this pattern from early 20th-century assessments onward. Heritability estimates from twin, adoption, and molecular genetic studies place the genetic contribution to intelligence at 50 to 80 percent in adults, though environmental factors interact with genes to influence outcomes. Evolutionarily, human intelligence arose through selection pressures favoring enhanced cognition, including larger brain size and social intelligence, which supported tool-making, language, and cooperative societies—key to humanity's dominance over other species. Notable achievements attributable to collective human intelligence include scientific discoveries, technological advancements, and cultural developments, while controversies persist over IQ test validity, group differences, and policy implications, often amplified by institutional biases favoring environmental explanations despite empirical evidence for g's predictive power in life outcomes.

Biological Foundations

Genetic Influences

Behavioral genetic studies, including twin, adoption, and family designs, indicate that genetic factors account for 50% to 80% of the variance in intelligence among adults, with monozygotic twins showing IQ correlations of approximately 0.75 to 0.85 whether reared together or apart, compared to 0.50 to 0.60 for dizygotic twins. These estimates derive from the Falconer's formula applied to twin intraclass correlations, subtracting the dizygotic resemblance (reflecting shared environment and half shared genes) from twice the monozygotic resemblance (reflecting shared environment and full shared genes). Adoption studies reinforce this, as children adopted early in life exhibit IQs more similar to their biological relatives than to adoptive ones, with correlations around 0.40 for biological parent-offspring pairs versus near zero for adoptive pairs. Heritability of intelligence rises systematically with age, from roughly 20% in infancy to 40%-50% in middle childhood and adolescence, reaching 60% in young adulthood and up to 80% in later adulthood before a slight decline after age 80. This developmental trend, observed across multiple longitudinal twin cohorts, implies that genetic influences amplify over time through genotype-environment correlation, where individuals increasingly shape their environments to align with genetic predispositions, reducing shared environmental effects to near zero in adulthood. At the molecular genetic level, intelligence differences arise from polygenic inheritance involving thousands of common variants of small effect, rather than rare high-impact mutations. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of large samples (n > 280,000) have identified over 200 loci significantly associated with intelligence, each typically explaining less than 0.5% of variance. Polygenic scores aggregating these variants currently predict 4% to 16% of intelligence variance in independent cohorts, approaching the SNP-based heritability ceiling of approximately 25%, with predictive power increasing as GWAS sample sizes expand. These scores also forecast educational attainment and cognitive performance, underscoring causal genetic contributions despite environmental confounds.

Neural Substrates

The neural substrates of human intelligence encompass a distributed network of brain regions and connections, rather than a single localized area, as evidenced by lesion mapping and neuroimaging studies. Voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping in patients with focal brain damage reveals that impairments in general intelligence (g) correlate with lesions in the left frontal cortex (including Brodmann Area 10), right parietal cortex (occipitoparietal junction and postcentral sulcus), and white matter association tracts such as the superior longitudinal fasciculus, superior frontooccipital fasciculus, and uncinate fasciculus. This supports the parieto-frontal integration theory (P-FIT), which posits that intelligence arises from integrated processing across frontal and parietal regions involved in executive function, working memory, and reasoning. Structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies indicate modest positive correlations between overall brain volume and intelligence, with meta-analyses reporting effect sizes of r ≈ 0.24 across diverse samples, generalizing across age groups and IQ domains, though this accounts for only about 6% of variance. Regional gray matter volume shows stronger associations in prefrontal, parietal, and temporal cortices, with correlations ranging from r = 0.26 to 0.56; for instance, prefrontal gray matter volume positively predicts IQ in healthy adults. Cortical thickness and gyrification in frontal, parietal, temporal, and cingulate regions also correlate positively with intelligence measures, reflecting enhanced neural surface area and folding efficiency. Subcortical structures like the caudate nucleus and thalamus exhibit positive volume-intelligence links, potentially supporting cognitive control and sensory integration. White matter integrity, assessed via diffusion-weighted imaging, contributes significantly, with higher fractional anisotropy (FA) in tracts such as the corpus callosum, corticospinal tract, and frontal-temporal connections correlating with IQ (r ≈ 0.3–0.4), indicating efficient neural transmission. Functional MRI further implicates frontoparietal network connectivity, where higher intelligence associates with greater nodal efficiency in the right anterior insula and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex during cognitive tasks, explaining up to 20–25% of variance in fluid intelligence. Resting-state connectivity in these networks predicts individual differences in g, underscoring the role of dynamic integration over static structure alone. These findings persist after controlling for age and sex, though effect sizes vary by measurement modality and sample characteristics.

Evolutionary Origins

Human intelligence evolved gradually within the hominin lineage over approximately 6-7 million years since divergence from the last common ancestor with chimpanzees, characterized by a marked increase in brain size and encephalization quotient. Early hominins like Australopithecus afarensis exhibited brain volumes around 400-500 cubic centimeters, comparable to modern chimpanzees, but subsequent species in the genus Homo showed accelerated growth: Homo habilis averaged about 600 cm³, Homo erectus around 900-1,200 cm³, and modern Homo sapiens approximately 1,350 cm³, representing a roughly threefold increase relative to body size and a quadrupling since the chimpanzee-human split. This expansion occurred incrementally within populations rather than through punctuated shifts between species, driven by sustained positive selection for cognitive capacities amid changing environments. Key adaptations preceding and coinciding with encephalization included bipedalism, which emerged around 4-6 million years ago and freed the hands for manipulation, facilitating rudimentary tool use by 2.6-3.3 million years ago in species like Australopithecus or early Homo. The control of fire around 1 million years ago in Homo erectus enabled cooking, which enhanced caloric efficiency and nutrient absorption, potentially alleviating metabolic constraints on brain growth by providing energy-dense food sources. Tool-making traditions, such as Oldowan choppers evolving into Acheulean hand axes by 1.7 million years ago, imposed cognitive demands for planning, sequencing, and innovation, exerting selection pressure for enhanced executive functions and working memory. These material culture advancements reflect proto-intelligent behaviors rooted in ecological problem-solving, where intelligence conferred survival advantages in foraging, predation avoidance, and resource extraction. A prominent explanatory framework is the social brain hypothesis, which posits that the primary selection pressure for neocortical expansion in primates, including humans, arose from the cognitive demands of navigating complex social groups rather than purely ecological challenges. Proposed by Robin Dunbar in the 1990s, this theory demonstrates a strong correlation between neocortex size (relative to the rest of the brain) and mean social group size across primate species, with humans maintaining stable networks of about 150 relationships due to enhanced theory-of-mind abilities and alliance formation. In hominins, increasing group sizes—facilitated by cooperative hunting, sharing, and conflict mediation—likely amplified selection for deception detection, reciprocity tracking, and gossip as low-cost information-sharing mechanisms, fostering cultural transmission and cumulative knowledge. Empirical support includes archaeological evidence of ritualistic behaviors and symbolic artifacts by 100,000-300,000 years ago, indicating advanced social cognition. Alternative or complementary pressures include the cognitive niche model, emphasizing coevolution between intelligence, sociality, and language, where causal reasoning and imitation enabled exploitation of environmental opportunities beyond raw physical prowess. Pathogen-driven selection may have favored larger brains for immune-related cognitive traits, given humans' exposure to diverse parasites in social settings. Runaway social selection, akin to sexual selection in ornaments, could have amplified intelligence via mate choice for cognitive displays like humor or storytelling. These mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, but the social brain framework aligns most robustly with comparative primate data and fossil records of group-living adaptations, underscoring intelligence as an emergent solution to intragroup dynamics over solitary ecological mastery.

Measurement of Intelligence

The General Intelligence Factor (g)

The general intelligence factor, denoted as g, represents the substantial common variance underlying performance across diverse cognitive tasks, as identified through statistical analysis of mental test correlations. In 1904, psychologist Charles Spearman observed that scores on unrelated intellectual tests—such as sensory discrimination, word knowledge, and mathematical reasoning—exhibited consistent positive intercorrelations, a pattern termed the positive manifold. He proposed that this empirical regularity arises from a single overarching ability, g, which influences success on all such measures, supplemented by task-specific factors (s). This two-factor theory posits g as a core mental energy or capacity, explaining why individuals who excel in one domain often perform well in others, with g loadings (correlations with the factor) typically ranging from 0.5 to 0.9 across tests. The extraction of g relies on factor analytic techniques applied to correlation matrices of cognitive test batteries. Principal axis factoring or principal components analysis isolates the first unrotated factor, which captures the largest shared variance; hierarchical methods, such as bifactor models, further confirm g as the dominant eigenvalue amid orthogonal group factors. In large datasets, g accounts for 40% to 50% of total variance in individual differences on cognitive assessments, with the remainder attributable to specific abilities or error. This structure holds across diverse populations and test types, including verbal, spatial, and perceptual tasks, underscoring g's pervasiveness; simulations and empirical studies affirm that the positive manifold cannot be dismissed as mere sampling artifact but requires a general latent trait for parsimonious explanation. Empirical support for g's validity extends beyond psychometric correlations to real-world criteria. Measures highly saturated with g, such as comprehensive IQ batteries, predict educational attainment (correlations of 0.5–0.7 with years of schooling) and occupational performance (average validity coefficient of 0.51 across meta-analyses of thousands of workers), outperforming non-g-loaded predictors like personality traits. Twin and adoption studies estimate g's heritability at 0.80–0.85 in adulthood, rising from lower values in childhood due to increasing genetic dominance over shared environments, with genetic correlations confirming g as the most heritable component of intelligence variance. These patterns persist despite measurement challenges, such as range restriction in high-ability samples, affirming g's causal role in cognitive efficiency and adaptive outcomes.

IQ Testing: Methods and Psychometrics

IQ tests utilize standardized batteries of subtests to assess cognitive abilities such as verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing speed, with scores derived from deviation methods normed to a population mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Prominent examples include the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), administered individually to adults and yielding a full-scale IQ alongside index scores for verbal and performance domains, and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, which evaluate fluid reasoning, knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing, and working memory across a wide age range. Nonverbal options like Raven's Progressive Matrices employ pattern recognition tasks to reduce linguistic and cultural influences, facilitating group administration and culture-fair assessment. Psychometric evaluation emphasizes reliability, with test-retest coefficients for full-scale IQ typically ranging from 0.88 to 0.95 across major instruments like the WAIS and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), indicating stable measurement over intervals of weeks to months. Internal consistency reliabilities often exceed 0.90, reflecting coherent subtest intercorrelations, while alternate-form reliabilities confirm equivalence between parallel versions. Validity centers on construct alignment with the general intelligence factor (g), where composite IQ scores exhibit high g-loadings (typically 0.70-0.90), outperforming specific factors in explaining variance across diverse cognitive tasks. Predictive validity is robust, with meta-analyses showing IQ correlations of approximately 0.51 with job performance across occupations, rising to 0.58 when correcting for measurement error and range restriction. For academic outcomes, IQ predicts grades and attainment with coefficients around 0.50-0.60, surpassing socioeconomic status in forecasting educational success beyond adolescence. Standardization involves periodic norming on stratified samples representative of age, sex, race, and socioeconomic status to maintain score comparability, though the Flynn effect—generational score gains of 3 points per decade—necessitates re-norming every 10-15 years to preserve the 100 mean. Despite high g-saturation, tests vary in subtest specificity, with verbal-heavy batteries like early Stanford-Binet potentially underestimating fluid abilities in non-native speakers, underscoring the need for multifaceted administration protocols.

Critiques and Alternative Assessments

Critiques of IQ testing often center on claims of cultural and socioeconomic bias, where test items purportedly favor individuals from Western, middle-class backgrounds, leading to score disparities among ethnic minorities and lower socioeconomic groups. However, empirical analyses indicate that such biases diminish with culture-reduced measures like Raven's Progressive Matrices, and group differences in scores persist even after controlling for socioeconomic status, suggesting underlying cognitive variances rather than test artifacts alone. IQ tests demonstrate high reliability, with test-retest correlations typically exceeding 0.9 over short intervals, but critics argue they narrowly assess analytical and crystallized knowledge, overlooking creativity, practical problem-solving, and emotional regulation, which limits their predictive power for real-world success beyond academic and occupational performance. The Flynn effect, documenting generational rises in IQ scores by approximately 3 points per decade since the early 20th century, underscores environmental influences on test performance, challenging notions of IQ as a purely fixed trait and highlighting how nutrition, education, and exposure to complex stimuli can inflate scores without corresponding gains in underlying g-factor variance. Predictive validity studies confirm IQ's moderate to strong correlations (r ≈ 0.5–0.7) with educational attainment and job performance, yet these weaken for entrepreneurial or artistic outcomes, where alternative cognitive facets may dominate. Some scholars, including those questioning construct validity, contend that IQ conflates innate ability with accumulated skills, potentially overemphasizing static snapshots over dynamic learning potential. Alternative assessments seek to address these gaps by incorporating broader dimensions. Dynamic assessment methods, such as mediated learning experiences, evaluate learning potential through guided interventions rather than static performance, revealing intervention gains that traditional IQ tests miss; for instance, studies show these approaches reduce cultural disparities by up to 20–30% in score predictions for disadvantaged groups. Sternberg's triarchic theory proposes measuring analytical, creative, and practical intelligences separately, with tools like the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (STAT) correlating modestly (r ≈ 0.4) with real-life adaptive behaviors in diverse samples, though lacking the predictive robustness of g-loaded IQ measures. Emotional intelligence (EI) assessments, such as the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), quantify perception, use, understanding, and management of emotions, showing incremental validity over IQ in predicting leadership and interpersonal outcomes (ΔR² ≈ 0.05–0.10), yet meta-analyses reveal EI's lower test-retest reliability (≈0.7) and susceptibility to self-report biases in non-ability-based variants. Neurocognitive alternatives, including reaction time tasks and inspection time measures, tap processing speed as a g-correlate, with correlations to IQ around 0.5, offering objective, low-verbal proxies but limited scope for higher-order reasoning. These approaches, while innovative, often underperform IQ in overall criterion validity, prompting calls for hybrid models integrating g with domain-specific assessments for comprehensive evaluation.

Major Theories

Spearman's g Theory and Hierarchical Models

Charles Spearman, a British psychologist, introduced the concept of general intelligence, denoted as g, in 1904 through his application of factor analysis to correlations among diverse cognitive tests administered to schoolchildren, including measures of mathematical ability, classical knowledge, and modern language proficiency. He observed a consistent positive manifold—whereby performance on any one mental test tends to correlate positively with performance on others, regardless of task content—and inferred that this pattern reflected an underlying general factor g accounting for the shared variance, supplemented by test-specific factors (s). In Spearman's two-factor theory, g represents a unitary capacity influencing all cognitive processes, while s factors capture unique, non-overlapping variances unique to individual tests; empirical extractions via principal components or maximum likelihood methods consistently yield g as the first unrotated factor with highest loadings across batteries of heterogeneous tests. Subsequent hierarchical models extend Spearman's framework by positing a multi-level structure of intelligence, with g at the apex explaining intercorrelations among lower-level abilities, followed by broad group factors (e.g., verbal comprehension, perceptual speed, or reasoning), and stratum-specific or narrow abilities at the base. These models, developed by researchers like Raymond Cattell and Philip Vernon in the mid-20th century, maintain g's dominance—typically saturating 40-60% of variance in broad factors—while accommodating empirical evidence that group factors predict domain-specific outcomes better than s alone, though g retains superior generalizability across life criteria such as academic achievement and job performance. Factor analytic studies spanning diverse populations and test batteries, from Wechsler scales to Raven's matrices, confirm the hierarchical invariance, with g loadings increasing toward the apex and positive manifolds persisting even after controlling for test-specific effects. Empirical support for g and hierarchical models derives from their predictive validity: meta-analyses show g extracted from IQ batteries forecasting educational attainment (correlations ~0.5-0.7), occupational success (up to 0.6), and even health outcomes better than any single broad or narrow factor, underscoring a causal realism where g reflects efficient neural processing of novel information rather than mere statistical artifact. Challenges, such as mutualism theories positing emergent correlations without a latent g, have been tested but fail to replicate the hierarchical fit in large datasets, where g remains the most parsimonious explainer of the positive manifold. While academic critiques sometimes downplay g due to ideological preferences for modularity, psychometric consensus affirms its robustness, with g loadings correlating with brain imaging metrics like white matter integrity and reaction times in elementary cognitive tasks.

Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory

The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory posits a hierarchical structure of human cognitive abilities, integrating Raymond Cattell's distinction between fluid (Gf) and crystallized (Gc) intelligence with John Horn's expansions and John Carroll's comprehensive factor-analytic synthesis. Cattell initially proposed Gf as the capacity for novel problem-solving independent of prior knowledge and Gc as acquired knowledge shaped by culture and education in the 1940s, with refinements by Horn in 1966 emphasizing developmental trajectories where Gf peaks early and declines, while Gc accumulates through experience. Carroll's 1993 reanalysis of over 460 psychometric datasets spanning 70 years identified a three-stratum model, subsuming Gf-Gc within a broader taxonomy supported by consistent factor loadings across studies. At the apex (Stratum III), general intelligence (g) accounts for the positive manifold of cognitive correlations, explaining 40-50% of variance in broad abilities via higher-order factors. Stratum II encompasses 8-10 broad abilities, each defined by convergent psychometric evidence:
Broad AbilityDefinition
Gf (Fluid Reasoning)Ability to reason inductively and deductively with novel information, forming concepts and solving problems without reliance on learned skills. Peaks in early adulthood and correlates with neural efficiency.
Gc (Crystallized Knowledge)Depth and breadth of acquired verbal information and acculturation, increasing with education and experience.
Gsm (Short-Term Memory)Capacity to apprehend, hold, and manipulate information in immediate awareness over short durations.
Glr (Long-Term Retrieval)Efficiency in storing and retrieving knowledge from long-term memory, including fluency and associative recall.
Gv (Visual Processing)Ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize, and think with visual patterns and stimuli.
Ga (Auditory Processing)Analysis and synthesis of auditory information, including phonological awareness.
Gs (Processing Speed)Rate of executing cognitive tasks, particularly simple perceptual-motor speeded operations.
Gq (Quantitative Knowledge)Breadth and depth of understanding numerical concepts and quantitative reasoning.
Grw (Reading/Writing)Proficiency in reading decoding, comprehension, and written expression, often treated as achievement-linked extensions.
Stratum I includes over 70 narrow abilities subsumed under these, such as induction under Gf or vocabulary under Gc, derived from task-specific variances. The theory's empirical foundation rests on psychometric methods, particularly exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, which replicate the hierarchy across diverse populations and tests, with g loadings on broad factors ranging from 0.60-0.80. Network analyses further validate interrelations, showing working memory-attentional control bridging Strata II factors. CHC has informed contemporary assessments like the Woodcock-Johnson IV, enhancing predictive validity for academic outcomes by 20-30% over g-only models when broad abilities are included. Despite refinements, such as tentative inclusions like domain-specific knowledge (Gkn), the core structure withstands cross-cultural and longitudinal tests, underscoring causal roles of biological maturation and environmental inputs in ability differentiation.

Gardner's Multiple Intelligences and Critiques

Howard Gardner introduced the theory of multiple intelligences in his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, proposing that human cognitive abilities consist of several relatively autonomous "intelligences" rather than a single general factor. Gardner defined an intelligence as a biopsychological potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products of value, drawing criteria such as the existence of savants or prodigies, potential isolation by brain damage, and distinct developmental trajectories. He initially identified seven intelligences—linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal—later adding naturalistic in 1999 and considering existential intelligence as a potential ninth. These are posited as modular faculties with independent neural bases, challenging traditional psychometric views of intelligence as hierarchical and correlated. The theory gained popularity in educational contexts for promoting diverse teaching methods tailored to students' strengths, influencing curriculum design since the 1990s. However, Gardner's criteria for intelligences have been applied inconsistently; for instance, while he cited evidence like idiot-savants for modularity, such cases often involve trade-offs with other abilities rather than true independence. Empirical tests of the theory, including attempts to measure distinct intelligences via performance assessments, have failed to demonstrate low correlations among them as required for modularity, with abilities like spatial and logical-mathematical showing substantial overlap. Critics, including psychometricians, argue that Gardner's intelligences resemble talents, skills, or personality traits rather than distinct cognitive capacities, as they do not predict adaptive outcomes independently of general intelligence (g). A 2023 review classified the theory as a neuromyth due to the absence of neuroimaging or lesion studies supporting independent brain modules for each intelligence; instead, diverse tasks recruit overlapping cortical networks dominated by executive functions linked to g. Longitudinal studies in education have found no superior predictive validity for multiple intelligences assessments over IQ tests in forecasting academic or occupational success. Further critiques highlight methodological flaws in supportive research, such as small samples and lack of control groups, rendering claims of efficacy unsubstantiated. The theory's broad definition of intelligence—encompassing any culturally valued skill—lacks falsifiability and dilutes the concept beyond its biological and evolutionary roots, as evidenced by the failure to identify genetic or heritability differences specific to each intelligence. While Gardner defends the theory as phenomenological rather than strictly experimental, this stance evades rigorous testing, contrasting with hierarchical models validated by factor analysis across decades of data. Despite its intuitive appeal and persistence in non-academic settings, the absence of convergent evidence from cognitive neuroscience and psychometrics undermines its scientific standing.

Other Contemporary Theories

Robert J. Sternberg developed the triarchic theory of intelligence, also known as the theory of successful intelligence, which posits that human intelligence comprises three interrelated components: analytical intelligence (involving problem-solving and logical reasoning), creative intelligence (generating novel ideas and adapting to new situations), and practical intelligence (applying knowledge to real-world contexts). The theory emphasizes balancing these abilities to achieve success in life, rather than relying solely on academic measures, and was formalized in Sternberg's 1985 book Beyond IQ. Empirical tests, such as a 2004 study across cultures, found the triarchic model provided a better fit to data than unitary intelligence models when allowing for correlations among factors, predicting academic and tacit knowledge outcomes with moderate effect sizes (r ≈ 0.30–0.50). However, critics argue that practical intelligence largely reflects accumulated domain-specific knowledge overlapping with crystallized intelligence (Gc) in psychometric models, and creative components show weak incremental validity beyond general intelligence (g) in predicting job performance or innovation, with meta-analyses indicating g accounts for 25–50% of variance in such outcomes while triarchic additions explain less than 5%. The PASS theory, proposed by J.P. Das, John Kirby, and Richard Jarman in 1975 and expanded in subsequent works, views intelligence as arising from four cognitive processes derived from Alexander Luria's neuropsychological framework: planning (goal-setting and strategy execution), attention-arousal (sustained focus and inhibition of distractions), simultaneous processing (holistic integration of information, e.g., pattern recognition), and successive processing (sequential handling of elements, e.g., serial recall). This model prioritizes process-based assessment over static ability factors, influencing tools like the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS), which measures these components to identify learning disabilities. A 2020 meta-analysis of 48 studies linked PASS processes to academic achievement, with planning and simultaneous processing showing strongest correlations (r = 0.35–0.45) to reading and math skills in children aged 6–12, independent of socioeconomic status. Nonetheless, PASS factors correlate substantially with g (r > 0.70), suggesting they represent lower-level mechanisms subsumed under general intelligence rather than orthogonal alternatives, and the theory's predictive power diminishes in adults where crystallized knowledge dominates. Other proposals, such as extensions incorporating wisdom or adaptive expertise, build on these but lack robust standalone validation; for instance, Sternberg's later augmentation of triarchic elements with wisdom (balancing intrapersonal, interpersonal, and extrapersonal interests) correlates highly with personality traits like openness (r ≈ 0.60) rather than cognitive variance unique to intelligence. These theories collectively challenge g-centric views by highlighting contextual adaptation, yet hierarchical models integrating them under g retain superior explanatory power for broad life outcomes, as evidenced by longitudinal studies like the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth tracking participants from 1971 onward, where g predicted career success (e.g., patents, publications) with β = 0.40–0.60 coefficients.

Heritability, Environment, and Plasticity

Estimates of Heritability

Heritability estimates for human intelligence, typically assessed via IQ tests or the general factor g, derive primarily from twin, family, and adoption studies, which partition variance into genetic and environmental components under assumptions of equal environments for monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins. Broad-sense heritability—the proportion of phenotypic variance attributable to all genetic effects—ranges from 0.40 to 0.50 in childhood, reflecting substantial shared environmental influences early in development. These estimates rise systematically with age, a pattern termed the Wilson effect, as shared environmental variance diminishes and genetic influences amplify through processes like genotype-environment correlation. Meta-analyses of twin data show heritability increasing linearly from 41% at age 9 to 55% at age 12 and 66% by young adulthood (age 17), stabilizing at 0.70 to 0.80 in adulthood and persisting into later life. For instance, adult twin correlations yield MZ-DZ differences implying 0.57 to 0.73 heritability, with adoption studies corroborating lower shared environment effects in maturity. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) offer narrower estimates of additive genetic variance via polygenic scores, which aggregate effects of common variants and currently predict 10-20% of intelligence variance in independent samples, representing a lower bound consistent with twin estimates but highlighting "missing heritability" from rare variants, structural genetics, and non-additive effects. These molecular findings align with behavioral genetic consensus on substantial genetic causation, though SNP-based heritability (e.g., 0.20-0.25 via GCTA) underestimates total effects due to incomplete variant capture. Variations across populations and measures underscore that estimates apply within studied groups, typically Western samples, and do not imply determinism absent environmental range.

Role of Environment and Interventions

Environmental factors account for approximately 20-50% of variance in IQ scores in adulthood, with shared family environment exerting stronger influence in early childhood but fading thereafter, while non-shared experiences dominate later. Adoption studies demonstrate that placement into higher socioeconomic status homes yields modest IQ gains of 4-12 points in childhood, though these often attenuate by adolescence, underscoring genetics' overriding role while confirming environment's capacity to mitigate deficits. The Flynn effect, a generational rise of about 3 IQ points per decade through the 20th century attributed to improvements in nutrition, reduced toxin exposure, and expanded education, provides empirical evidence of environmental uplift, though reversals in nations like Norway since the 1990s suggest limits or countervailing factors such as fertility differentials. Prenatal and postnatal nutrition profoundly impacts IQ in deficient populations; iodine supplementation in mildly deficient children raises scores by 8-13 points, while multivitamins yield smaller but reliable gains of 2-4 points. Conversely, environmental toxins like lead exposure demonstrably impair cognition: each 5 μg/dL increase in childhood blood lead levels correlates with a 1.5-2.6 point IQ decrement, with historical U.S. exposure from leaded gasoline estimated to have collectively subtracted 824 million IQ points across generations born 1940-1987. Socioeconomic gradients amplify these effects, as lower-status environments correlate with higher toxin burdens and poorer nutrition, though disentangling from genetic confounders remains challenging. Educational interventions offer causal boosts, with meta-analyses estimating 1-5 IQ points gained per additional year of schooling, persisting into adulthood and evident across quasi-experimental designs like compulsory schooling reforms. However, compensatory programs targeting disadvantaged youth, such as the U.S. Head Start initiative launched in 1965, produce short-term IQ elevations of 5-10 points that largely dissipate by school entry or later, yielding enduring benefits instead in attainment (e.g., 0.65 extra years of schooling) and self-sufficiency rather than raw cognitive capacity. Cognitive training and exercise interventions show promise in subsets—e.g., relational responding protocols increasing IQ by up to 15 points temporarily, or aerobic programs enhancing fluid intelligence in children—but systematic reviews highlight inconsistent long-term transfer, with effects often confined to trained tasks or vulnerable groups. Broadly, interventions succeed most in rectifying deficits (e.g., via supplementation or toxin abatement) but struggle to durably elevate IQ beyond genetic potentials in non-deprived cohorts, aligning with heritability estimates that constrain malleability post-infancy. Academic sources emphasizing boundless plasticity warrant scrutiny, as twin and adoption data reveal environment's role as facilitative rather than transformative, with non-shared factors like peer influences or stochastic events explaining much variance unamenable to policy.

Gene-Environment Interplay

Gene-environment interplay encompasses the dynamic processes through which genetic and environmental factors covary or interact to influence individual differences in intelligence, extending beyond simple additive models. Gene-environment correlations (rGE) occur when genotypes systematically shape the environments experienced, while gene-environment interactions (GxE) involve multiplicative effects where the impact of genes or environments varies contingent on the level of the other. Empirical evidence from twin, adoption, and molecular genetic studies indicates that rGE mechanisms are particularly salient for intelligence, progressively amplifying genetic influences across development, whereas GxE effects, though hypothesized, show limited and inconsistent support. Three primary forms of rGE have been identified in behavioral genetics research on cognitive ability. Passive rGE arises from assortative mating and parental provisioning, where children inherit both genetic predispositions for higher intelligence and correlated family environments, such as access to books or educational discussions. Evocative rGE manifests as genotype-driven responses from the social milieu, exemplified by genetically brighter children eliciting more cognitive stimulation from educators or peers, thereby reinforcing intellectual development. Active rGE, also termed niche-picking, predominates in later life as individuals with higher genetic potential for intelligence selectively engage with challenging intellectual pursuits, such as advanced coursework or problem-solving hobbies, which further hone cognitive skills. Longitudinal twin studies demonstrate that active rGE underlies the observed increase in IQ heritability, from approximately 20-40% in infancy and early childhood—where shared environments dominate—to 70-80% in adulthood, as genetic effects accumulate through self-selected experiences. GxE effects on intelligence have been explored primarily through moderation by socioeconomic status (SES), with early findings suggesting heritability is attenuated in low-SES contexts due to pervasive environmental deprivation overriding genetic variance. A 2003 study of 7-year-old twins in impoverished U.S. families reported shared environment explaining about 60% of IQ variance, versus near-zero in higher-SES groups, implying greater malleability in adverse conditions. Subsequent replications, however, have yielded mixed results, with larger samples and international data indicating heritability remains substantial (around 50-70%) across SES strata, and any SES moderation often attributable to range restriction or measurement artifacts rather than true interactions. Molecular approaches using polygenic scores for educational attainment—a proxy for cognitive ability—have similarly detected no consistent GxE in predicting cognitive trajectories from ages 2 to 4 years, underscoring additive rather than interactive influences in early development. Despite these findings, gene-environment interplay reconciles high heritability estimates with evidence of environmental malleability, as genetic propensities probabilistically guide exposure to enriching or depleting conditions, sustaining variance primarily through heritable channels while allowing targeted interventions to yield modest gains in specific subgroups. For instance, adoption from deprived to enriched homes boosts IQ by 10-15 points on average, but such effects fade without ongoing genetic-environmental alignment. This framework highlights that while genes set potentials, environments act as probabilistic facilitators, with rGE driving developmental stability more reliably than GxE.

Variations and Differences

Developmental Changes Across Lifespan

Human intelligence undergoes significant developmental changes from infancy through old age, with distinct trajectories for fluid intelligence (involving novel problem-solving and reasoning) and crystallized intelligence (reflecting accumulated knowledge and skills). Longitudinal studies indicate that fluid intelligence peaks in early adulthood, typically around age 20, and subsequently declines, while crystallized intelligence continues to increase into middle age before plateauing or slowly declining. In infancy and early childhood, cognitive abilities develop rapidly due to neural maturation and environmental stimulation. Early developmental milestones, such as age of walking or first words, correlate with later intelligence, with children achieving milestones earlier tending to have higher adult IQ scores, even after controlling for parental education and socioeconomic status. Intelligence stability increases with age; correlations between infant measures (e.g., habituation rates) and adolescent IQ are moderate (around 0.3-0.4), but rise to 0.7-0.8 by school age, reflecting maturation of predictive neural systems. During childhood and adolescence, raw cognitive capacities expand substantially, though IQ scores remain normed at a mean of 100 across ages. Performance on fluid tasks improves until late adolescence, driven by prefrontal cortex development enabling abstract reasoning. Crystallized abilities grow steadily through vocabulary and knowledge acquisition, with longitudinal data from cohorts like the Lothian Birth Cohort showing gains persisting into the early 20s. In adulthood, intelligence exhibits relative stability in rank-order, with meta-analyses of over 200 longitudinal studies reporting correlations of 0.6-0.8 between young adult and midlife scores, though mean levels diverge by ability type. Fluid intelligence begins declining in the 30s, accelerating after 60, as evidenced by cross-sectional and longitudinal data on processing speed and working memory. Crystallized intelligence peaks around age 60-70, supported by lifelong learning, before modest declines linked to sensory and health factors. In old age, cognitive declines become pronounced, particularly in fluid abilities, with performance IQ dropping earlier and more sharply than verbal IQ in general population samples. However, individual differences widen, with education and lifestyle mitigating losses; for instance, the Seattle Longitudinal Study tracks average declines starting in the 60s but stability or gains in verbal comprehension for many. These patterns hold across diverse cohorts, underscoring biological aging's causal role over cohort effects.

Sex Differences

Males and females exhibit minimal differences in general intelligence (g), with meta-analyses indicating either no significant average disparity or a small male advantage of approximately 2-4 IQ points depending on the test battery and age group; the selection and weighting of subtests prioritize their contribution to g rather than equalization of male and female averages, countering occasional misconceptions to the contrary. For instance, a 2022 meta-analysis of 79 studies involving over 46,000 school-aged children found a male advantage of 3.09 IQ points overall, reduced to 2.75 points with newer intelligence tests, though this difference diminishes or disappears in measures of fluid intelligence (gF). Similarly, standardization data from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV (WAIS-IV) revealed males scoring higher on full-scale IQ by about 3-4 points. However, other reviews conclude no sex difference in g after controlling for test-specific factors, attributing apparent gaps to measurement artifacts in older assessments. Greater variability in male intelligence distributions is consistently observed, leading to more males at both high and low extremes of the IQ spectrum despite similar means. This greater male variability hypothesis, supported by analyses of large-scale IQ data such as Scottish Mental Surveys, shows male standard deviations exceeding female ones by 10-20% across cognitive tests, resulting in disproportionate male representation among individuals with IQs above 130 or below 70. For example, in childhood IQ assessments, males display higher variance even above modal levels (around 105 IQ), explaining overrepresentation of males in fields requiring exceptional ability and in intellectual disability diagnoses. This pattern holds across cultures and persists into adulthood, though its magnitude varies by cognitive domain. Sex differences are more pronounced in specific cognitive abilities contributing to g. Females tend to outperform males in verbal comprehension, processing speed, and memory tasks, with effect sizes around d=0.1-0.3, while males excel in visuospatial reasoning and mechanical aptitudes, often with larger effects (d=0.5-1.0). A comprehensive review confirms no g difference but highlights female advantages in writing and episodic memory, contrasted with male strengths in visual processing and spatial rotation. These subdomain disparities align with brain morphology differences, where larger male brain volume partially mediates a small g advantage (d=0.25), though adjustment for body size reduces this correlation. Evolutionary pressures and sex-specific maturation rates may underlie these patterns, but empirical data prioritize observed psychometric gaps over speculative causation. Institutional biases in academia, including reluctance to report male advantages due to ideological pressures, have historically understated variance differences and emphasized environmental explanations over biological ones, as evidenced by selective citing in reviews favoring null findings. Nonetheless, convergent evidence from standardized tests and neuroimaging underscores that while average intelligence is comparable, sex-specific profiles influence occupational and educational outcomes, with males overrepresented in STEM fields due to spatial strengths and variance.

Socioeconomic and Cultural Factors

Children from higher socioeconomic status (SES) families tend to exhibit higher average IQ scores compared to those from lower SES backgrounds, with meta-analyses indicating a small to medium positive association between SES and cognitive ability, typically on the order of 0.2 to 0.5 standard deviations (roughly 3 to 7.5 IQ points). This correlation persists across longitudinal studies, where parental SES predicts offspring educational and occupational attainment partly independently of intelligence, though intelligence itself emerges as a stronger predictor of later SES success. Adoption studies provide evidence of environmental influence, demonstrating that children adopted into higher-SES homes gain IQ points relative to those in lower-SES adoptive environments; for instance, late adoptions in France showed mean IQ increases of up to 19.5 points from low- to high-SES placements, though gains were modest and did not fully equalize outcomes with non-adopted high-SES peers. Similarly, Swedish adoption data indicate a significant IQ advantage (approximately 4-7 points) at age 18 for those moved to improved SES circumstances early in life. The directionality of SES-IQ links involves both causal pathways: higher childhood IQ facilitates upward SES mobility, while enriched environments (e.g., better nutrition, education access) modestly boost cognitive development, as evidenced by the Flynn effect's secular IQ gains of about 3 points per decade in the 20th century, attributed to socioeconomic improvements like reduced malnutrition and expanded schooling. However, twin and adoption research reveals that IQ heritability remains moderate to high (around 0.5-0.8) across SES strata, with some studies finding no significant moderation by SES and others noting slightly elevated heritability in high-SES groups, suggesting that environmental constraints in low SES amplify shared family effects but do not suppress genetic variance substantially. Interventions targeting low-SES environments, such as early education programs, yield temporary IQ gains that often fade by adolescence, underscoring limited long-term plasticity. Cultural factors influence intelligence test performance primarily through familiarity with testing formats and motivational differences rather than inherent cognitive disparities, as culture-reduced measures like Raven's Progressive Matrices still correlate strongly with general intelligence (g) across diverse groups. Non-Western cultures may prioritize social or practical intelligences over abstract reasoning valued in standard IQ tests, yet empirical data show consistent g-factor loadings and score hierarchies persisting on nonverbal assessments, challenging claims of pervasive cultural bias. For example, studies show that immigrant groups from countries with higher average national IQs tend to outperform those from lower ones in host countries, even after generations. This has been interpreted by some as implicating heritable components beyond acculturation alone. The Flynn effect's uneven manifestation—stronger in fluid intelligence domains tied to novel problem-solving—further reflects cultural shifts toward scientific thinking and education, but generational reversals in some developed nations suggest ceilings imposed by genetic potentials amid stagnant environmental gains. Overall, while culture shapes expressed abilities, core cognitive variances align more closely with biological endowments than socialization alone.

Racial and Ethnic Group Differences

Average IQ scores on standardized tests in the United States differ systematically across racial and ethnic groups, with European Americans averaging around 100, African Americans around 85, Hispanic Americans around 89-93, East Asians around 105-106, and Ashkenazi Jews around 110-115. These gaps, typically 10-30 points, have persisted across multiple test batteries (e.g., Wechsler scales, Stanford-Binet) and decades of administration, from the mid-20th century through the 2000s, despite adjustments for test bias and cultural loading. Similar patterns appear internationally, with East Asian populations (e.g., in Japan, South Korea) averaging 105 on IQ proxies like Raven's matrices, and sub-Saharan African averages around 70-80, though measurement challenges in developing regions complicate direct comparisons. Adoption and environmental equalization studies provide evidence against purely cultural or socioeconomic explanations. In the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (1976-1992), black children adopted into upper-middle-class white families from infancy had an average IQ of 89 at age 17, compared to 106 for white adoptees and 99 for mixed-race adoptees in the same homes, indicating that enriched environments narrowed but did not eliminate group gaps. Follow-ups showed no significant IQ convergence over time between transracial adoptees and biological white siblings, with sibling correlations suggesting genetic influences on individual differences. Analogous results emerge from French and British transracial adoptions, where black adoptees score 10-15 points below white counterparts despite comparable rearing. Heritability estimates for intelligence, derived from twin and adoption designs, are moderate to high (0.50-0.80) and do not differ significantly across U.S. racial groups (whites, blacks, Hispanics), contradicting hypotheses that lower-SES groups exhibit reduced heritability due to environmental constraints. Within-group heritability this high, combined with persistent between-group differences after controlling for socioeconomic status, family environment, and interventions (e.g., Head Start programs yielding temporary 3-5 point gains that fade), implies a substantial genetic contribution to group variances—estimated at 50-80% in quantitative models by some analyses. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) further support this: polygenic scores for educational attainment and cognitive ability, capturing 10-15% of variance in Europeans, show analogous predictive power and mean differences across ancestries, aligning with observed IQ hierarchies. Critics, often from ideologically influenced academic circles, attribute gaps primarily to systemic factors like stereotype threat or test unfairness, but empirical tests (e.g., item bias analyses, prediction of real-world outcomes like educational attainment and earnings) find no such artifacts, and gaps predict group differences in brain size, reaction times, and life-history traits independently of culture. While the Flynn effect (IQ gains of 3 points per decade, more pronounced in developing groups) demonstrates environmental malleability, it has not closed U.S. black-white gaps beyond 5-6 points since the 1970s, and recent GWAS challenge selection-based environmental accounts by failing to detect strong natural selection signals inconsistent with genetic models. Mainstream dismissal of genetic hypotheses frequently overlooks this converging evidence, reflecting institutional biases prioritizing egalitarian priors over data.

Historical Context

Early Conceptualizations (19th Century)

In the early 19th century, phrenology emerged as a prominent, though ultimately pseudoscientific, framework for conceptualizing human intelligence as one of several localized mental faculties within the brain. Developed initially by Franz Joseph Gall around 1796 and systematized by Johann Gaspar Spurzheim, phrenology proposed that distinct brain regions, or "organs," governed specific traits, with higher intelligence associated with the development of areas linked to reasoning, perception, and ideation; these were believed to produce measurable protuberances on the skull, allowing inference of intellectual capacity through palpation and measurement. Practitioners claimed that larger frontal lobes correlated with superior intellect, influencing early criminology, education, and eugenics discussions by attributing innate differences in ability to fixed anatomical structures. Despite gaining widespread popularity in Europe and America until the 1840s—evidenced by the establishment of phrenological societies and journals—empirical critiques, including autopsy studies failing to validate localization claims, led to its decline as a credible model by mid-century. Building on phrenological interest in quantification, craniometry advanced the idea of intelligence as quantifiable via physical proxies, particularly cranial capacity. Pioneered by figures like Anders Retzius in Sweden (1840s) and Paul Broca in France (from 1861), researchers measured skull volumes and dimensions across populations, positing direct correlations between brain size and intellectual power; for instance, Broca's studies reported average cranial capacities of 1,400–1,500 cm³ for Europeans versus lower figures for non-Europeans, interpreting these as evidence of hierarchical intellectual differences. This approach, rooted in materialist assumptions that larger brains enabled greater cognitive complexity, influenced racial anthropometry but faced methodological flaws, such as ignoring brain density variations and environmental confounds, rendering causal claims unsubstantiated. Craniometry's emphasis on empirical measurement presaged later psychometric tools, though its hereditarian biases often overstated innate determinants over adaptive ones. The evolutionary paradigm introduced by Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) reframed intelligence as an adaptive trait shaped by natural selection, emphasizing its role in problem-solving and survival across species, including humans. This perspective inspired Francis Galton, Darwin's half-cousin, to investigate human intellectual variation statistically in Hereditary Genius (1869), where he analyzed biographical data from 977 eminent figures across fields like science and politics, finding that 48% had kin in high achievement roles versus an expected 2% in the general population, concluding intelligence was largely heritable and normally distributed. Galton defined intelligence empirically as "an ability to attain ends, through the selection and application of means," prioritizing practical efficacy over abstract qualities, and advocated for positive eugenics to cultivate it via selective breeding. His work shifted conceptualizations from static anatomy to dynamic, probabilistic individual differences, founding the study of psychometrics despite early reliance on reputational proxies rather than direct assays. These ideas, while controversial for their hereditarian focus, aligned with emerging evidence of familial patterns in ability, later corroborated by twin studies.

Development of Psychometrics (Early 20th Century)

The statistical foundations of psychometrics advanced significantly in 1904 when British psychologist Charles Spearman introduced the concept of a general intelligence factor, denoted as g, through factor analysis of correlations among various mental tests. Spearman argued that positive manifold correlations across cognitive tasks indicated a single underlying general ability accounting for shared variance, alongside specific factors unique to each task. This two-factor theory provided an empirical basis for quantifying intelligence as a latent trait, influencing subsequent test construction by emphasizing hierarchical models of cognitive abilities. In 1905, French psychologists Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon developed the Binet-Simon scale, the first practical intelligence test designed to identify children requiring educational assistance rather than to rank normal variation. The scale consisted of age-graded tasks assessing judgment, comprehension, and reasoning, with mental age (MA) determined by the highest level of tasks a child could pass. Revised in 1908 and 1911, it prioritized predictive utility for school performance over innate capacity rankings, though it laid groundwork for standardized mental measurement amid France's compulsory education laws. American psychologist Lewis Terman adapted and standardized the Binet-Simon scale at Stanford University, releasing the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale in 1916 on a sample of over 1,000 California children. Terman introduced the intelligence quotient (IQ) formula, IQ = (MA / chronological age) × 100, enabling ratio scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation approximating 16, facilitating comparisons across ages. This revision extended the test's range to adults, incorporated American norms, and emphasized heritability of intelligence, though standardization relied on WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) samples, limiting generalizability. World War I accelerated psychometric development through group-administered tests. In 1917, under Robert Yerkes, the U.S. Army developed the Army Alpha (verbal, for literates) and Army Beta (nonverbal, pictorial for illiterates and non-English speakers), testing approximately 1.75 million recruits to classify personnel by cognitive ability. Alpha included analogies, arithmetic, and vocabulary; Beta used mazes and picture completions; results revealed an average IQ of about 85 among draftees, with socioeconomic and ethnic disparities sparking debates on test bias and cultural influences. These efforts validated large-scale testing feasibility, boosted statistical refinements like item response theory precursors, and integrated psychometrics into applied settings despite critiques of overinterpretation.

Post-WWII Advances and Controversies

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), introduced in 1955, represented a key post-World War II advance in psychometric assessment by providing standardized measures of verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing speed, yielding a full-scale IQ alongside subscale indices that captured multifaceted aspects of intelligence beyond earlier ratio-based scales. Twin and adoption studies expanded significantly, producing consistent heritability estimates for IQ of 0.5 to 0.8 across populations, with values rising to 0.7–0.8 in adulthood as shared environmental influences diminish. The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart, launched in 1979 under Thomas Bouchard, examined over 100 pairs of identical twins separated in infancy, finding IQ correlations averaging 0.72 after controlling for test-retest effects, underscoring genetic dominance in individual differences despite divergent rearing environments. Research on the general factor of intelligence (g), first posited by Charles Spearman, advanced through factor-analytic methods and validation studies confirming g's preeminence in explaining 40–50% of variance across diverse cognitive tasks and predicting educational and occupational outcomes with correlations of 0.5–0.7. Arthur Jensen's analyses in the 1980s and 1990s demonstrated that g-loading (the correlation of a test with g) predicts the test's heritability and sensitivity to genetic influences, reinforcing g as a biologically grounded construct rather than a mere statistical artifact. Controversies intensified over the genetic underpinnings of intelligence, particularly group differences. Cyril Burt's post-war twin studies, reporting IQ correlations of 0.77 for 53 pairs of identical twins reared apart, faced scrutiny after his 1971 death when Leon Kamin alleged in 1974 that Burt fabricated data and collaborators, temporarily undermining heritability estimates in the nature-nurture debate. Reexaminations revealed anomalies in Burt's variance distributions but confirmed that independent datasets, including Swedish and U.S. twin registries, replicated high correlations (r > 0.7), attributing discrepancies to selective reporting rather than wholesale fraud. In 1969, Jensen's seminal Harvard Educational Review article reviewed over 170 studies to argue that IQ heritability reaches 0.80 by adolescence, compensatory education programs yield IQ gains of less than 3 points that fade within 1–2 years, and genetic factors plausibly explain much of the 15-point U.S. black-white IQ gap, given within-group heritabilities and transracial adoption outcomes. This provoked vehement opposition, including campus protests, calls for Jensen's dismissal, and the pejorative label "Jensenism" for genetic-realist positions, amid broader academic resistance to implications challenging environmental determinism. Proponents noted that subsequent meta-analyses of intervention trials (e.g., Abecedarian Project) confirmed limited enduring effects, while genomic studies increasingly identify polygenic scores predicting 10–20% of IQ variance, validating Jensen's within-group claims despite persistent ideological barriers to group-difference research. The Flynn effect, systematically documented by James Flynn in 1984 through re-norming data, revealed average IQ gains of 3 points per decade across 14 nations from the 1930s to 1970s, totaling 13–18 points by the 1980s, attributed to improvements in nutrition, education, and abstract thinking demands rather than g itself. These generational shifts, peaking post-WWII in industrialized societies, reconciled high within-cohort heritability with environmental malleability at the population level but fueled debates, as gains stalled or reversed in some regions by the 1990s, potentially due to diminishing returns on modernization factors. Critics of genetic hypotheses often prioritized such effects to dismiss hereditarianism, though Flynn himself acknowledged compatibility with 50–80% heritability, highlighting tensions between empirical data and egalitarian priors in academic discourse.

Recent Genetic and Neuroscientific Research (21st Century)

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) conducted in the 21st century have identified thousands of genetic variants associated with intelligence, demonstrating its polygenic nature. A 2018 study analyzing over 1.1 million individuals discovered 1,016 loci linked to educational attainment, a strong proxy for intelligence, explaining up to 20% of variance in cognitive traits through polygenic scores. Subsequent meta-analyses, including a 2024 review, confirmed that polygenic scores derived from the largest GWAS datasets predict intelligence with modest but replicable accuracy, accounting for 10-15% of phenotypic variance within populations. These findings underscore the additive effects of common variants, challenging earlier single-gene hypotheses and highlighting intelligence as influenced by numerous small-effect alleles. Twin and adoption studies throughout the 2000s and 2010s reinforced high heritability estimates for intelligence, typically ranging from 50% to 80% in adulthood. Longitudinal analyses, such as those from the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart, showed that monozygotic twins separated early in life exhibit IQ correlations of 0.70-0.75, far exceeding those of dizygotic twins or unrelated adoptees. Heritability increases linearly with age, from about 40% in childhood to over 60% in adulthood, suggesting gene-environment correlations amplify genetic influences over time. Recent 2025 investigations into identical twins discordant for schooling further indicated that while environmental factors like education can shift IQ by up to 15 points, baseline genetic endowments predominate, with polygenic scores predicting differences even between siblings. Neuroscientific advances, particularly through functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and structural MRI, have linked general intelligence (g-factor) to efficient brain network connectivity and reduced metabolic costs during cognitive tasks. Studies from the 2000s onward, including a 2012 analysis, found that patterns of brain activation and deactivation predict up to 10% of individual IQ variance, supporting the neural efficiency hypothesis wherein higher-IQ individuals exhibit lower cortical activation for complex problem-solving. White matter integrity and gray matter volume in fronto-parietal regions correlate positively with g, with meta-analyses showing effect sizes of 0.24 for total brain volume and intelligence. Emerging integrations of genetics and neuroimaging, such as 2021 research on genetic variation influencing brain structure, reveal that polygenic scores for intelligence associate with cortical thickness and subcortical volumes, bridging molecular genetics to neural phenotypes. Despite these convergences, challenges persist: GWAS polygenic scores explain only a fraction of twin-study heritability, attributed to rare variants, gene-environment interactions, and ascertainment biases in samples favoring European ancestries. Neuroimaging predictors remain modest compared to genetic ones, with debates over whether observed correlations reflect causation or mere associations influenced by confounds like motivation during scans. Recent 2025 genetic analyses of human-accelerated regions (HARs) suggest accelerated evolution in regulatory elements drove cognitive enhancements but at potential costs, such as heightened psychiatric risk, emphasizing trade-offs in intelligence's biological architecture. These developments collectively affirm a robust genetic foundation for intelligence differences, informed by causal mechanisms from DNA to neural function, while underscoring the need for diverse, large-scale datasets to mitigate interpretive biases.

Enhancement Strategies

Educational and Cognitive Training

Education, particularly formal schooling, has been associated with modest gains in measured intelligence. A 2018 meta-analysis of 142 studies involving over 600,000 participants found consistent evidence that an additional year of education increases cognitive abilities by approximately 1 to 5 IQ points, with causal inferences supported by quasi-experimental designs such as changes in compulsory schooling laws. These effects appear across diverse populations and persist into adulthood, though they do not diminish the substantial genetic influences on intelligence variance. For instance, a 2011 study exploiting a schooling reform in Norway demonstrated that one additional year of compulsory education raised IQ scores by about 3.7 points on average, even when implemented during adolescence. Cognitive training programs, including computerized brain games targeting working memory or executive functions, have yielded inconsistent and generally limited benefits for general intelligence. A 2019 review concluded that such training does not enhance general cognitive ability (g) or transfer to untrained skills, with improvements confined to practiced tasks due to task-specific learning rather than broad cognitive enhancement. Meta-analyses of executive function training in children similarly show small effects on near-transfer measures (e.g., trained working memory) but negligible far-transfer to fluid intelligence or IQ. Large-scale investigations, such as a 2019 cross-sectional study of over 1 million users of brain-training apps, found no advantages in reasoning, verbal, or working memory abilities compared to non-users. The limitations of cognitive training stem from the high heritability of intelligence (estimated at 50-80% in adulthood) and the challenge of achieving far transfer, where gains in isolated skills fail to generalize to novel, complex problem-solving. Commercial brain-training programs often overstate benefits, with empirical evidence indicating they improve performance on similar tasks but not overall IQ or real-world cognitive functioning. Early educational interventions, like enriched preschool programs, can produce temporary IQ boosts (e.g., 4-7 points initially), but these frequently fade by adolescence without sustained gains in g. In contrast, extended formal education's effects are more enduring, likely due to cumulative exposure to abstract reasoning and knowledge acquisition, though confounded by selection biases where higher-IQ individuals pursue more schooling. Overall, while education modestly elevates IQ, targeted cognitive training lacks robust support for meaningfully enhancing human intelligence beyond specific, narrow domains.

Nutrition, Health, and Lifestyle

Nutritional deficiencies during prenatal development and early childhood can impair brain growth and cognitive function, with effects persisting into adulthood. Iodine deficiency, the most common preventable cause of intellectual disability worldwide, leads to reductions in IQ of 10 to 15 points in affected populations; iodization of salt in deficient regions has increased cognitive scores by nearly one standard deviation (about 15 points) among the most severely impacted groups. Iron deficiency in early life similarly hampers attention, memory, and intelligence, with supplementation yielding significant improvements in deficient children according to systematic reviews. Breastfeeding, compared to formula feeding, correlates with 2.6 to 3.5 IQ point gains in meta-analyses of observational data, though sibling studies indicate partial genetic confounding by maternal factors; residual benefits may stem from fatty acids like DHA supporting neural development. High consumption of ultra-processed foods in youth is linked to poorer cognitive outcomes, including executive function deficits, in systematic reviews. Health factors, particularly exposure to neurotoxins, exert dose-dependent effects on intelligence. Prenatal or early childhood lead exposure reduces IQ by 2.6 points for every 10 μg/dL increase in blood lead levels, per meta-analyses; in the United States alone, historical leaded gasoline exposure diminished collective IQ by over 800 million points across generations born before 1990. Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders from heavy prenatal alcohol consumption cause average IQ deficits to around 86, with severe cases dropping below 70, alongside structural brain changes; no safe threshold exists, and effects include impaired executive function independent of socioeconomic status. Airborne lead in early life also correlates with lower self-control and cognitive scores in longitudinal cohorts. Lifestyle elements like physical activity and sleep modulate cognitive performance, though their influence on stable trait intelligence is smaller than on state-dependent function. Aerobic and resistance exercise interventions enhance global cognition, memory, and executive skills, with pediatric studies showing average 4-point IQ increases; meta-analyses confirm small but consistent benefits (Hedges' g ≈ 0.13) from acute bouts, particularly for processing speed. Sleep deprivation impairs episodic memory, arithmetic, and working memory, with higher-IQ individuals showing greater vulnerability; chronic short sleep reduces cognitive test performance equivalent to several IQ points, though macro-sleep architecture correlates only modestly (r ≈ 0.1) with intelligence after age adjustment. Among children, healthier food habits and higher physical activity levels predict elevated IQ scores, independent of gender. These modifiable factors primarily mitigate deficits in adverse environments rather than elevating beyond genetic potential in well-nourished populations.

Pharmacological and Nootropic Interventions

Pharmacological interventions aimed at enhancing human intelligence primarily involve stimulants and wakefulness-promoting agents, often used off-label in healthy individuals despite limited evidence for broad improvements in general cognitive ability. Methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamines (e.g., Adderall) have demonstrated modest acute effects on attention, inhibitory control, and memory consolidation in non-sleep-deprived healthy adults, with meta-analyses showing effect sizes around 0.2-0.4 standard deviations for response inhibition and working memory tasks. However, these gains do not consistently translate to increases in fluid intelligence or IQ scores, which measure abstract reasoning and novel problem-solving, and effects are smaller or absent in high-performing individuals. Long-term use risks tolerance, dependence, and cardiovascular side effects, with no verified evidence of sustained intelligence gains post-discontinuation. Modafinil, a eugeroic approved for narcolepsy, exhibits cognitive-enhancing properties primarily under conditions of sleep deprivation, improving alertness, executive function, and planning with effect sizes up to 0.77 in meta-analyses of sleep-deprived subjects. In rested healthy adults, benefits are narrower, confined to attention and decision-making without reliable impacts on working memory or creativity, and a 2019 review concluded limited potential beyond fatigue mitigation. Dopaminergic and histaminergic mechanisms underlie these effects, but neuroimaging studies indicate no structural changes to brain networks associated with intelligence, such as prefrontal-parietal connectivity. Nootropics, including racetams (e.g., piracetam) and herbal extracts like Bacopa monnieri or Ginkgo biloba, claim to boost cognition via glutamatergic modulation or antioxidant activity, yet systematic reviews reveal inconsistent, small-magnitude effects on memory and learning after chronic dosing (e.g., 4-12 weeks), with negligible influence on IQ or executive function in healthy populations. A 2022 analysis of plant-derived nootropics found Bacopa improving verbal learning (effect size ~0.3) but no broad intelligence enhancement, often confounded by placebo responses and methodological flaws in trials. Safety profiles vary, with gastrointestinal issues common for herbals and headaches for synthetics, but regulatory bodies like the FDA classify most as unproven for cognitive claims absent rigorous validation. Empirical data underscore that while these agents may optimize performance in specific, effortful tasks—potentially aiding academic or professional output—no intervention reliably elevates underlying g-factor intelligence, as evidenced by stable IQ trajectories in longitudinal studies of users versus non-users. Ethical concerns include equity disparities, as access favors affluent groups, and potential societal pressure for enhancement amid unproven benefits. Future research requires larger, preregistered trials distinguishing performance from capacity, given publication biases inflating prior estimates.

Emerging Genetic and Technological Approaches

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified thousands of genetic variants associated with intelligence, enabling the construction of polygenic scores that predict approximately 10-15% of the variance in cognitive ability within populations of European ancestry. These scores leverage the high heritability of intelligence, estimated at 50-80% from twin and adoption studies, to forecast trait outcomes, though their predictive power diminishes across ancestries due to linkage disequilibrium differences.31210-3) Preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic traits (PGT-P) allows selection of embryos during in vitro fertilization (IVF) based on these scores, potentially increasing the intelligence of offspring. Simulations indicate that selecting the highest-scoring embryo from a cohort of 10 could yield an average IQ gain of about 2.5 points using current polygenic predictors, with larger GWAS datasets (e.g., N ≈ 10^7) potentially doubling this to 5-7 points.31210-3) Commercial offerings, such as those from Genomic Prediction, claim gains exceeding 6 IQ points for selecting the "smartest" embryo from 10, though independent analyses emphasize limitations from incomplete variance explanation and environmental interactions. Iterative selection across generations could compound these modest per-generation shifts, simulating evolutionary pressures absent in natural reproduction. Direct gene editing via CRISPR-Cas9 for intelligence enhancement remains speculative and technically challenging, as the trait involves thousands of variants with small effect sizes, risking off-target mutations and unintended pleiotropic effects. While CRISPR has edited single genes for monogenic disorders, polygenic editing for complex traits like IQ lacks demonstrated efficacy in humans, with current applications confined to basic research or disease models rather than cognitive boosting. Theoretical proposals suggest multiplex editing could amplify intelligence if safe delivery and editing precision improve, but ethical and regulatory barriers, alongside incomplete genomic understanding, preclude clinical use as of 2025. Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) represent a parallel technological frontier, interfacing neural activity with external computation to augment cognition. Neuralink's implantable device, first trialed in humans in 2024 for motor restoration, envisions broader applications like expanding working memory, accelerating information processing, and integrating AI for real-time problem-solving, potentially elevating effective intelligence beyond biological limits. Early demonstrations include thought-controlled cursors and prosthetics, with AI "copilots" enhancing BCI decoding accuracy by up to 30% in noninvasive paradigms, though direct IQ gains remain unquantified and hinge on scalability. Noninvasive alternatives, such as EEG-based systems with machine learning, show promise for cognitive offloading but face bandwidth constraints compared to invasive threads. These approaches intersect with AI advancements, where BCIs could enable symbiotic human-AI cognition, and genetic tools might incorporate predictive modeling for editing targets, but both face hurdles in safety, equity, and validation against placebo-controlled trials measuring sustained IQ shifts. Empirical progress lags hype, with genetic methods offering probabilistic selection over deterministic edits, and BCIs prioritizing restoration before enhancement.

Societal Implications and Controversies

Predictive Power for Life Outcomes

Higher general intelligence, as measured by IQ tests capturing the g-factor, robustly predicts educational attainment across numerous longitudinal studies, with meta-analytic correlations typically ranging from 0.50 to 0.60 when IQ is assessed in childhood or adolescence. For instance, in samples tracked into adulthood, childhood IQ explains up to 25% of variance in years of schooling completed, outperforming parental socioeconomic status (SES) as a predictor after age 19. These associations hold even when controlling for family background, suggesting cognitive ability causally influences academic persistence and achievement through enhanced learning capacity and problem-solving. In occupational success and income, g exhibits moderate predictive power, with meta-analyses reporting correlations of approximately 0.40-0.50 for job performance in complex roles requiring reasoning and adaptation, and 0.20-0.30 for earnings after adjusting for education and experience. Frank Schmidt and John Hunter's synthesis of over 400 studies underscores general mental ability as the strongest single predictor of work output, accounting for individual differences in productivity that translate to economic value, particularly in knowledge-based economies. Longitudinal data confirm that early IQ assessments forecast career attainment better than socioeconomic origins in later life stages, with predictive strength increasing for higher-status positions. Health outcomes also correlate positively with intelligence, including lower mortality risk and better disease management; meta-analyses link each standard deviation increase in IQ (about 15 points) to a 20-25% reduction in all-cause mortality, independent of SES and health behaviors. This stems from superior comprehension of medical advice, lifestyle choices, and accident avoidance, as evidenced in cohorts like the Scottish Mental Surveys where midlife health metrics aligned with cognitive scores from age 11. Conversely, lower IQ strongly predicts adverse outcomes such as criminality, with correlations around -0.20 to -0.40 between g and recidivism or violent offenses, persisting after SES controls and reflecting impulsivity and foresight deficits. Aggregate state-level data reinforce this, showing IQ inversely tied to crime rates (r ≈ -0.70), underscoring intelligence's role in behavioral restraint and societal costs of cognitive deficits. Overall, these patterns affirm g's broad utility for forecasting life trajectories, though environmental interventions can modulate outcomes within genetic constraints.

Debates on Determinism and Egalitarianism

Twin and adoption studies consistently estimate the broad heritability of intelligence at approximately 50% in childhood, rising to 70-80% in adulthood, indicating a substantial genetic contribution to individual differences in cognitive ability. These figures derive from meta-analyses comparing monozygotic twins reared apart or together with dizygotic twins, where genetic similarity accounts for the majority of variance in IQ scores after accounting for shared environments. High heritability does not imply absolute determinism, as gene-environment interactions allow for some malleability, yet it underscores that environmental interventions alone cannot fully equalize outcomes due to innate constraints on potential. Proponents of genetic influence, such as Arthur Jensen in The g Factor (1998), argue that the general intelligence factor (g) exhibits heritability exceeding 60%, linking it to biological processes like neural efficiency and reaction times, which resist purely environmental explanations. This view posits that while intelligence is not fixed at birth, the genetic component limits the efficacy of egalitarian policies aimed at closing cognitive gaps through education or socioeconomic uplift, as evidenced by persistent variance in adoptive studies where IQ correlates more with biological than rearing parents. Critics, often from environmentalist perspectives, contend that heritability estimates overestimate genetic determinism by underplaying cultural biases in testing or non-shared environmental effects, though longitudinal data show heritability strengthening over development, suggesting maturation amplifies genetic expression. Egalitarian doctrines, which assume equivalent cognitive potentials across individuals and groups modifiable by uniform interventions, clash with empirical findings of stable IQ distributions stratified by social class and ancestry, as detailed in Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's The Bell Curve (1994). The book documents how IQ predicts socioeconomic outcomes independently of parental status, fostering a meritocratic "cognitive elite" and challenging blank-slate assumptions underlying redistributive policies, with regression analyses showing intelligence accounting for up to 40% of variance in earnings and education attainment. Such research has provoked backlash, including accusations of promoting fatalism, yet surveys of intelligence experts reveal majority agreement on genetic factors in group differences, highlighting institutional resistance in academia where egalitarian priors often prioritize nurture over nature despite contradictory data from behavior genetics. This tension persists, as polygenic scores derived from genome-wide association studies increasingly validate heritable components of intelligence, further eroding strict environmental egalitarianism.

Political Suppression and Bias in Research

Research on human intelligence has encountered significant political suppression and institutional bias, particularly when findings highlight genetic contributions to individual differences or group disparities in cognitive abilities. This bias stems from a prevailing egalitarian ideology in academia, which prioritizes environmental explanations and resists hereditarian accounts, often leading to the marginalization of dissenting research. A conceptual model outlines how political motivations, especially among left-leaning scholars, foster suppression through mechanisms such as rejecting manuscripts, denying tenure, or public shaming of researchers whose work contradicts preferred narratives. Such dynamics are exacerbated by the field's ideological homogeneity, as surveys reveal psychologists identifying as liberal outnumber conservatives by ratios exceeding 10:1, with social psychologists showing even greater skews toward left-of-center views. This political monoculture influences peer review and publication, where empirical support for high IQ heritability—estimated at 50-80% in adulthood from twin and adoption studies—is downplayed in favor of malleable environmental factors. Content analyses of social psychology literature demonstrate that abstracts portray conservative concepts and figures more negatively than liberal counterparts, indicating selective filtering that discourages exploration of innate cognitive variances. Funding agencies and journals exhibit analogous preferences, with grants and outlets disproportionately supporting nurture-oriented interventions over genetic inquiries, despite genomic evidence identifying polygenic scores accounting for up to 10-20% of intelligence variance by 2018. Critics argue this aversion ignores causal realities, as stifling debate on group differences—for instance, persistent IQ gaps between racial populations—hinders evidence-based policy, such as targeted educational reforms. Notable instances underscore the suppression's tangible impacts. Arthur Jensen's 1969 Harvard Educational Review article, concluding that genetic factors explain much of the Black-White IQ gap after controlling for environment, triggered campus protests, death threats, and professional isolation lasting decades. The 1994 publication of The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, documenting IQ's heritability and its role in socioeconomic outcomes, provoked media campaigns labeling it pseudoscience, alongside calls for boycotts and institutional disavowals, even as subsequent meta-analyses affirmed its core claims on predictive validity. More recently, efforts to associate intelligence polygenic scores with educational attainment have faced resistance, with researchers encountering deplatforming or ethical scrutiny disproportionate to studies on less controversial traits. These patterns reflect not mere disagreement but active ideological enforcement, where hereditarian evidence, bolstered by behavior genetics, is dismissed to preserve narratives of unlimited plasticity.

References

  1. https://dictionary.apa.org/intelligence
  2. https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1998generalintelligencefactor.pdf
  3. https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat200/lesson/2/2.2/2.2.7
  4. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-021-01027-y
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5754247/
  6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210002/
  7. https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2014105
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691825003853
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5985927/
  10. https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/a-new-polygenic-score-for-intelligence
  11. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0910397107
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2770698/
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976341500250X
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4879055/
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8114859/
  16. https://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/brains
  17. https://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution/Increasing-brain-size
  18. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.742639/full
  19. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2409542121
  20. https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/biological-sciences-articles/2018/february/brain-size-of-human-ancestors-evolved-gradually-over-3-million-years
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2409100/
  22. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-intelligence/evolution-of-intelligence/86B09D85ECF9BFAE468FB1D540F2DD54
  23. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-98392-020
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3385676/
  25. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19575315/
  26. https://oxfordre.com/psychology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-44
  27. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/667994
  28. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17764857/
  29. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2022.894506/full
  30. https://gwern.net/doc/iq/1904-spearman-2.pdf
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7433699/
  32. https://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?intelligence-g-factor.1
  33. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2b90z3jx
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4557354/
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886996002371
  36. https://www.123test.com/interpretation-of-an-iq-score/
  37. https://opentext.wsu.edu/ospsychrevisions/chapter/measures-of-intelligence/
  38. https://psychologicaltesting.net/different-types-of-iq-tests/
  39. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-abnormalpsych/chapter/intelligence-testing/
  40. https://iqtestonline.io/types-of-iq-test
  41. https://www.pearson.com/en-us/efficacy/product-evidence/wisc-v.html
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8967112/
  43. https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2260&context=etd
  44. https://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Psychometric-g-Definition-and-Substantiation-2002-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen.pdf
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289606000778
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289606000171
  47. https://reasonwithoutrestraint.com/the-predictive-validity-of-cognitive-ability/
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4152423/
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10301777/
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0160289679900138
  51. https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/newsletters/winter052/
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6927908/
  53. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20597991231213871
  54. https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/neuroscience/iq-can-intelligence-really-be-measured/
  55. https://www.discovermagazine.com/understanding-the-flaws-behind-the-iq-test-43690
  56. https://blogs.psico-smart.com/blog-innovative-alternatives-to-standard-iq-tests-new-approaches-in-assessing-intelligence-184267
  57. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888899215000070
  58. https://blog.cognifit.com/beyond-iq-sternbergs-triarchic-intelligence-theory/
  59. https://psicosmart.net/blogs/blog-unconventional-methods-for-assessing-intelligence-beyond-standardized-testing-approaches-189715
  60. https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-alternative-ways-to-measure-human-ability-besides-IQ-tests-and-standardized-testing-methods
  61. https://medium.com/%40kathln/broadening-the-scope-comprehensive-alternatives-to-traditional-iq-testing-f04720eb9380
  62. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2336090
  63. https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/t2-my/my-prd/wp-content/uploads/sites/826/2013/02/SpearmanJPSP.pdf
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1041608002000742
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289602000855
  66. https://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1914.pdf
  67. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1966-13188-001
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5156710/
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9959556/
  70. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/9781118660584.ese0431
  71. http://www.iapsych.com/chcdefs.pdf
  72. http://www.iapsych.com/chcv2.pdf
  73. https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1573652198/resanet/yquaqyywamlpo3nereu8/RevisedTableCTableofIDEALDAchievementAresasCHCAbilitiesandMeasurements.pdf
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9865475/
  75. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36662149/
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289620300118
  77. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1217288/full
  78. https://www.verywellmind.com/gardners-theory-of-multiple-intelligences-2795161
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10493274/
  80. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED618540.pdf
  81. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211949317300030
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6480719/
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289621000507
  84. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1585790
  85. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED500515.pdf
  86. https://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1984-sternberg.pdf
  87. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26610484_The_Theory_of_Successful_Intelligence/fulltext/0ffc9e4c0cf255165fc9efe9/The-Theory-of-Successful-Intelligence.pdf
  88. https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2003dissecting.pdf
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11355437/
  90. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028962030009X
  91. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/097133369500700204
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661399013911
  93. https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Kaufman-Kaufman-Plucker-in-press.pdf
  94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2889158/
  95. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1041608007000982
  96. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/wilson-effect-the-increase-in-heritability-of-iq-with-age/FF406CC4CF286D78AF72C9E7EF9B5E3F
  97. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25985137/
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4069230/
  99. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1417106112
  100. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718793115
  101. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273229716300144
  102. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2613157
  103. https://today.duke.edu/2022/03/lead-exposure-last-century-shrunk-iq-scores-half-americans
  104. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119171492.wecad366
  105. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6088505/
  106. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9578996/
  107. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9005064/
  108. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1041608016300231
  109. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/154/6/e2023064771/199838/Exercise-Interventions-and-Intelligence-in
  110. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8513766/
  111. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3703541/
  112. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289621000635
  113. https://humanvarieties.org/2014/03/24/about-that-gene-environment-interaction-study-by-turkheimer-et-al/
  114. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289623000296
  115. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/heritability-estimates-versus-large-environmental-effects-the-iq-paradox-resolved/
  116. https://news.mit.edu/2015/brain-peaks-at-different-ages-0306
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8809681/
  118. https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.12760
  119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289617302830
  120. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16287480/
  121. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-intelligence-and-cognitive-neuroscience/lifespan-perspective-on-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-intelligence/9040B1D34D663532AB7EC6D68F8ACA57
  122. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377773066_The_Stability_of_Cognitive_Abilities_A_Meta-Analytic_Review_of_Longitudinal_Studies
  123. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ads1560
  124. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616302161
  125. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-022-09705-1
  126. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Davide-Piffer-2/publication/309120677_Sex_differences_in_intelligence_on_the_American_WAIS-IV/links/63cd9b1ed7e5841e0beba5a8/Sex-differences-in-intelligence-on-the-American-WAIS-IV.pdf
  127. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289622000320
  128. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26158978/
  129. https://www.aei.org/economics/greater-male-variability-its-a-fact-but-it-can-sometimes-be-deadly/
  130. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289616302975
  131. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-09109-001
  132. https://helmuthnyborg.dk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Sex-differences-in-g_AJ-book-chapter.pdf
  133. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0033294120984127
  134. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289606001127
  135. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.96.15.8790
  136. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9255665/
  137. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289616300629
  138. https://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligence
  139. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5141512/
  140. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960600078X
  141. https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
  142. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886920301513
  143. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290028P
  144. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-34580-001
  145. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289619301904
  146. https://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/2047.pdf
  147. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8872358/
  148. https://openpsychologyjournal.com/VOLUME/3/PAGE/9/FULLTEXT/
  149. https://r.jordan.im/download/racism/bird2021.pdf
  150. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13194-022-00485-7
  151. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6143440/
  152. https://www.simplypsychology.org/intelligence.html
  153. https://galton.org/books/hereditary-genius/text/pdf/galton-1869-genius-v3.pdf
  154. https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_1061
  155. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/psychometric-models
  156. https://www.cogn-iq.org/learn/history/charles-spearman/
  157. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-10213-047
  158. https://www.verywellmind.com/history-of-intelligence-testing-2795581
  159. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-10213-053
  160. https://www.cogn-iq.org/learn/history/lewis-terman/
  161. https://www.officialasvab.com/researchers/history-of-military-testing/
  162. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/intelligence-testing
  163. https://www.verywellmind.com/the-wechsler-adult-intelligence-scale-2795283
  164. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4006996/
  165. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/sources-human-psychological-differences-minnesota-study-twins-reared-apart-1990-thomas-j
  166. https://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Galtons-Legacy-to-Research-on-Intelligence-2002-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen.pdf
  167. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028969980004X
  168. https://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1977-jensen-2-1.pdf
  169. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289602000946
  170. https://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/How-Much-Can-We-Boost-IQ-and-Scholastic-Achievement-OCR.pdf
  171. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2294789
  172. https://www.simplypsychology.org/flynn-effect.html
  173. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289624000655
  174. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/curiosity-code/202510/is-this-the-study-that-rewrites-iq-theory
  175. https://theconversation.com/brain-imaging-the-smart-way-to-predict-intelligence-8726
  176. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41420018_The_neuroscience_of_human_intelligence_differences
  177. https://neurosciencenews.com/genetics-har123-brain-cognition-29570/
  178. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12345208/
  179. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29911926/
  180. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797618774253
  181. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-022-00148-5
  182. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1106077109
  183. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30471868/
  184. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661318302523
  185. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241311060
  186. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6629869/
  187. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662139/full
  188. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-doesn-t-make-you-smarter/
  189. https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13192
  190. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289619302016
  191. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1598949/full
  192. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19233/w19233.pdf
  193. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772408524001376
  194. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26211556/
  195. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522041363
  196. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X%2818%2930371-1/fulltext
  197. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392854307_Food_for_Thought_A_Systematic_Review_and_Meta-Analysis_on_the_Effects_of_Ultra-Processed_Foods_on_Cognition_in_Children_and_Adolescents
  198. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8162884/
  199. https://www.intellectualdisability.info/conditions-associated-with-intellectual-disability/articles/fetal-alcohol-spectrum-disorder
  200. https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/fetal-alcohol-spectrum-disorders-fasd/according-experts/neurobehavioural-profiles-individuals-fetal
  201. https://echochildren.org/early-life-airborne-lead-exposure-associated-with-lower-iq-and-self-control-in-nih-study/
  202. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/154/6/e2024067398/199837/Exercise-and-Intelligence-Changing-the-Brain
  203. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00124-2
  204. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsr.13815
  205. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154620300097
  206. https://jhpn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41043-024-00522-6
  207. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924977X20302145
  208. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32709551/
  209. https://repository.upenn.edu/bitstreams/e018a696-54bc-409a-bee7-bbf07b0ee7a5/download
  210. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-08-20-review-%25E2%2580%2598smart-drug%25E2%2580%2599-shows-modafinil-does-enhance-cognition
  211. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31433334/
  212. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3800148/
  213. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34978226/
  214. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2021.2021137
  215. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9415189/
  216. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165178115004515
  217. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10219189/
  218. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=psy_facpubs
  219. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6957074/
  220. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/oct/18/us-startup-charging-couples-to-screen-embryos-for-iq
  221. https://gwern.net/embryo-selection
  222. https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/guest-blog/can-crispr-cas9-boost-intelligence/
  223. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08300-4
  224. https://neuralink.com/
  225. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-dynamics/articles/10.3389/fhumd.2025.1553905/full
  226. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-025-01090-y
  227. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6406539/
  228. https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-025-01462-9
  229. https://elifesciences.org/articles/64716
  230. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001127
  231. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-43291-003
  232. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8954344/
  233. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289620300891
  234. https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2011-IQ-skin-color-crime-and-income-in-50-US-states.pdf
  235. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4270739/
  236. https://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/The-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf
  237. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-meta-analysis-of-11000-pairs-of-twins-shows-that-the-heritability-of-intelligence_fig1_265690996
  238. http://pombo.free.fr/herrnsteinmurray1994.pdf
  239. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289619301886
  240. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11308703/
  241. https://sites.rutgers.edu/lee-jussim/wp-content/uploads/sites/135/2020/04/Honeycutt-Jussim-2020-A-Model-of-Political-Bias-in-Social-Science-Research.pdf
  242. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/psychologists-looked-in-the-mirror-and-saw-a-bunch-of-liberals/
  243. https://pages.charlotte.edu/richard-mcanulty/wp-content/uploads/sites/268/2013/09/Redding_SociopoliticalDiversity.Psychology.pdf
  244. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103118300416
  245. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803
  246. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-018-0152-x
  247. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8376687/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.