Friday, 27 November 2015

The learning theory

Talking about possibilities, let's suppose that my super power is fast learning. Not really really a super power, but a long trained skill, even if i cannot deny a genetic factor, a predisposition to fast learning, that i could observe in both my parents. The funny thing is that, even if i had it my whole life, i managed to clear my mind and give it some structure and consistency only sometime last year, after i was just using it at 20-30% for the first 36 years of my life. Now the difference is observable, even if i am not like a God-like fast learner, i can easily do it at a 300-1000% rate faster than normal, depending upon my familiarity with the subject. Meaning that is much easier to understand the history of Justice,with a teacher like Michael Sandel, than self study AWS Cloud Computing. Anyway, lately, a new problem arise. Time. Even if this is happening  faster than with the majority, it is still very time consuming to learn new things, at least close to expert level (i am not aiming to mastery, just to applicability). So, i realized that, even if i had a lot of fields that i want to improve, i need to be more focused, and limit myself to just a few courses, leaving enough time for work, movies, sport, eating, relationship and most important - sleep. I say this because is usually sleep that use to get cut, and this would create a vicious circle, lowering my abilities and my efficiency. Resulting in more time spent on study and less sleep, twice this year being close to complete exhaustion.
What i learn from this? A mix between "Hell, Yeah" technique and supreme laziness. Translation:when i feel tired i look at my schedule and i am just asking myself, is something happen if today i will not do this? Depending on answer, i will just do what is needed, and then rest. I've seen that usually i will recover that lost time during the following days, because of the superior performance. Remember, we are still human, despite our knowledge. Our physiology can easily get disrupted, and all you need is a minor hormone imbalance to become someone else. Something else. Always give yourself the rest when is needed. 

See you.

End of the cycle

And, with this last post about Jensen, i will end the Crash Course Intelligence 101, which was about the most prominent scientists who did any kind of research in the field of intelligence studies. Probably i will continue to write about IQ testings methods and new discoveries in the field of intelligence testing. Anyway, due of few courses i just begin or i will begin soon, i will not be so active. But i will try to post at least once per week, with all the facts that i will collect during the previous week.

Good luck and see you soon.

Arthur Jensen

Arthur Jensen (August 24, 1923 - present )it is an American Educational Psychologist, major proponent of the hereditarian position.

Student of: Eysenck, Symonds
Influenced by: Burt
Time Period: Current Efforts

University of California, Berkeley, B.A. in psychology (1945)
San Diego State College, M.A. in psychology (1952)
University of Maryland, Psychiatric Institute, Baltimore, MD, clinical internship (1955-1956)
Columbia University, Ph.D. in clinical psychology under Symonds (1956)
University of London, Institute of Psychiatry, postdoctoral research fellow under Eysenck (1956-1958)

University of California, Berkeley, assistant professor and professor (1958-1992); professor emeritus (1992-present)
Kistler Prize for original contributions to the understanding of the connection between the human genome and human society (2003)

Major Contributions
Major proponent of the hereditarian position
Author of more than 300 articles, book chapters and books

Definition of Intelligence
“A working definition of intelligence, then, is that it is the g factor of an indefinitely large and varied battery of mental tests….We are forced to infer that g is of considerable importance in ‘real life’ by the fact that g constitutes the largest component of total variance in all standard tests of intelligence or IQ, and the very same g is by far the largest component of variance in scholastic achievement (Jensen, 1979, pp. 249-50).”

Ideas & Interests
Arthur Jensen’s emergence as an important figure in the history of human intelligence theory occurred in February of 1969, with the publication of a controversial essay in the Harvard Educational Review.  In the article, Jensen presented evidence that racial differences in intelligence test scores may have a genetic origin. This assertion, and Jensen’s concomitant recommendation that white and African-American children might benefit from different types of education, drew strident criticism from many members of the academic community and the public at large (Ciancolo & Sternberg, 2004). Jensen’s interest in this topic began when one of his graduate students noted that the white special education students he was working with appeared to be more genuinely “retarded” than the students from minority groups who had been placed in special education. In fact, it seemed to Jensen’s student that whereas the white children functioned at a low level both inside and outside the classroom, the minority children sometimes appeared “quite indistinguishable in every way from children of normal intelligence, except in their scholastic performance and in their performance on a variety of standard IQ tests (Jensen, 1974, p. 222).”  Jensen’s student wanted to know if there were any “culture-free” intelligence tests that might explain the differences he observed in his students. This question spurred several experiments, and the results persuaded Jensen that standard g-loaded intelligence tests are fairly good measures of intellectual ability, and that racial differences in average IQ scores are not due to any “culture unfairness” intrinsic to the tests.  Jensen articulated evidence to support these views in his 1969 article. Jensen accepts Spearman’s idea of a general factor in human intelligence, and his own theory divides intelligence into two distinct sets of abilities:  Level I abilities account for memory functions and simple associative learning, and Level II abilities comprise abstract reasoning and conceptual thought. Jensen concluded from his research that Level I abilities are equally-distributed among the races, whereas white and Asian students demonstrate advantages in tests of Level II abilities. Since Level II abilities appear to be more important for success in school, white and Asian children are at an advantage (Fancher, 1985). In years since the publication of the 1969 Harvard Educational Review article, Jensen has published a large body of empirical research demonstrating that genetic factors are a substantial source of the variance in individual differences in IQ (Fancher, 1985).  Despite the controversial nature of his claims, in 2003 Jensen won the prestigious Kistler Prize for original contributions to the understanding of the connection between the human genome and human society.

Selected Publications

Jensen, A. R.  (1969). How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 33, 1-123.

Jensen, A. R., (1972). Genetics and education. New York: Harper and Row.

Jensen, A. R. (1973).  Educability and group differences. New York:  Harper and Row.

Jensen, A. R. (1979). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.

Jensen, A. R. (1981). Straight talk about mental tests. New York: Free Press.

Jensen, A. R. (1984). Jensen oversimplified: A reply to Sternberg. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 7, 125-130.

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CN: Praeger.

Jensen, A. R., & Miele, F. (2002).  Intelligence, race and genetics:  Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen.  Boulder, CO:  Westview Press.


Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004).  Intelligence:  A brief history.  Malden, MA:  Blackwell Publishing.

Fancher, R. (1985).  The intelligence men:  Makers of the IQ controversy.  New York:  W. W. Norton & Company.

Jensen, A. R.  (1969). How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 33, 1-123.

Jensen, A. R. (1974).  What is the question? What is the evidence?  In T. S. Krawiec (Ed.), The psychologists (Vol.2) (pp. 206-234). Oxford:  Oxford University Press.

Jensen, A. R. (1979). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.

Reynolds, C. R. (1994).  Jensen, Arthur R.  In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Encyclopedia of human intelligence (pp. 629-631).  New York:  Macmillan.

Thursday, 26 November 2015

Raymond B. Cattell

Raymond B. Cattell (March 20, 1905 - February 2, 1998) it is an British and American Psychologist, he is credited with developing an influential theory of personality, creating new methods for statistical analysis, and developing the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence.

Student of: Spearman
Time Period: Current Efforts

University College, London, B.S. with first-class honors in chemistry (1921-1924)
King’s College, Ph.D. in psychology (1924-1929)
University College, London, masters in education (1932); honorary doctor of science (1939)

Exeter University, Lecturer in Psychology (1927-1932)
Advisory Psychologist, Dartington Hall progressive school (1927-1932)
Director, City of Leicester Child Guidance Clinic (1932-1936)
Columbia University, Research Associate (1937) (A position offered to him by E. L. Thorndike)
Clark University, G. Stanley Hall Professor of Genetic Psychology (1938-1941)
Harvard University, lecturer (1941-1945)
University of Illinois, Research Professor of Psychology (1945-1973)
First president of the Society for Multivariate Experimental Psychology (1960 and 1961)
Director, Institute for Research on Morality and Adjustment, Boulder, Colorado (1974-1978)
University of Hawaii and Hawaii School of Professional Psychology, adjunct professorships (1978- )
Numerous awards, including:  Educational Testing Service Award for Distinguished Service to Measurement (1982); Dobzhansky Memorial Award of the Behavior Genetics Association (1986); Lewis M. Terman and Maude A. Merrill Award, Riverside Publishing Company (1994); Lifetime Contribution Award, Division 5 of the American Psychological Association (1997); Honorary doctorates from the Hawaii School of Professional Psychology (1986) and the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology (1987). Cattell was also offered the American Psychological Foundation Gold Medal Award for Lifetime Achievement in the Science of Psychology (1997) but declined the award after a controversy.

Major Contributions
The Cattell-Horn Theory of Fluid and Crystallized Intelligences
Application of advanced statistical techniques to the study of intelligence
Author or co-author of more than 500 books and articles

Ideas and Interests

Raymond Bernard Cattell’s substantial contributions to psychology fall into three areas: He is credited with developing an influential theory of personality, creating new methods for statistical analysis, and developing the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence, which was later elaborated by his most renowned student, John Horn. The Cattell-Horn theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence (R. B. Cattell, 1941, 1950; 1971; Horn, 1965; Horn & Cattell, 1966a, 1966b) proposes that general intelligence is actually a conglomeration of perhaps 100 abilities working together in various ways in different people to bring out different intelligences.  Gf-Gc theory separates these abilities broadly into, first, two different sets of abilities that have quite different trajectories over the course of development from childhood through adulthood. Fluid abilities ( Gf ) drive the individual's ability to think and act quickly, solve novel problems, and encode short-term memories. They have been described as the source of intelligence that an individual uses when he or she doesn't already know what to do. Fluid intelligence is grounded in physiological efficiency, and is thus relatively independent of education and acculturation (Horn, 1967). The other factor, encompassing crystallized abilities ( Gc ), stems from learning and acculturation, and is reflected in tests of knowledge, general information, use of language (vocabulary) and a wide variety of acquired skills (Horn & Cattell, 1967). Personality factors, motivation and educational and cultural opportunity are central to its development, and it is only indirectly dependent on the physiological influences that mainly affect fluid abilities. Raymond Cattell held a hereditarian view of intelligence, arguing that the weight of the statistical evidence supports the idea that intelligence is largely determined by genetics.  He also noted that individuals with higher IQs tend to have fewer children than individuals with lower IQs. Therefore, he suggested that it would be prudent for more intelligent people to be encouraged to have more children, and that less intelligent individuals should have fewer.  Although hardly a new idea (see our profiles of Robert Yerkes, Charles Darwin and Francis Galton, as well as our related Hot Topic), these views excited a great deal of controversy (Horn, 2000). In 1997, the American Psychological Foundation decided to grant him the Gold Medal Award for Lifetime Achievement in the Science of Psychology, an honor that had been bestowed on only 12 other psychologists since the award was created in 1956. Some psychologists objected to this, alleging that some of Cattell’s views were racist. Cattell responded with an open letter the American Psychological Association (APA), asserting that some of the offending statements had been made when he was a young man in the 1930s, and that he had amended them in later years. He further contended that other controversial statements had been taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted (R. B. Cattell, 1997). Although many psychologists voiced their support for Cattell, the controversy was never fully resolved, as Cattell died only two months after he wrote his open letter (Gillis, 2000). Regardless of one’s perspective on this controversy, the unresolved nature of the events left a black mark on the history of psychology that will never be removed. (Raymond Cattell is not related to James McKeen Cattell or Psyche Cattell).

Selected Publications
-Cattell, R.B. (1950). Personality: A systematic, theoretical, and factual study. New York: McGraw Hill
-Cattell, R.B. (Ed.). (1966). Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed.). Chicago: Rand McNally.
-Cattell, R.B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
-Cattell, R.B. (1982). The inheritance of personality and ability: Research methods and findings. New York: Academic Press.
-Cattell, R.B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth, and action. New York: Elsevier.

-Cattell, R.B. (1941). Some theoretical issues in adult intelligence testng. Psychological Bulletin, 38, 592.
-Cattell, R. B. (1950). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
-Cattell,R.B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth and action. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
-Cattell, R. B. (1997).  An open letter to the American Psychological Association.
-Gillis, J. (2000).  Raymond Bernard Cattell Web Site. [Information retrieved July 24, 2006 from].
-Horn, J.L. (1965). Fluid and crystallized intelligence: A factor analytic study of the structure among primary mental abilities. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Illinois.
-Horn, J. (2000).  Cattell, Raymond B. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 55-57).  Washington DC:  American Psychological Association.
-Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966a). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253-270.
-Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1967). Age differences in fluid and crystallized intelligence. Acta Psychologica, 26, 107-129.

Wednesday, 25 November 2015

10 tools to build a super-genius memory

As you can learn from the video at the end of this post, there are 10 tools you can use to have an elite level memory

1.Good brain diet
2.Killing ANTs (Automatic Negative Thoughts)
4.Brain nutrients
5.Positive peer group
6.Clean environment
8.Brain protection
9.New learnings
10.Stress management

Find how to remember all this easily on this link. More posts will follow up to explain some of this 10 tips much more detailed.

Joseph S. Renzulli

Joseph S. Renzulli (July 7, 1936 - present) it is an American Educational Psychologist, known for his three-ring model of giftedness and  for Schoolwide Enrichment Model,one of the most popular programs for developing children's talents.

Time Period: Current Efforts

Glassboro State College, B.A., 1958
Rutgers University, M.Ed. in Ed. Psych., 1962
Univ. of Virginia, Ed.D. in Ed. Psych., 1966

1958-1963, Teacher, Ocean Township, New Jersey
1966-1996, Professor of Educational Psychology, The University of Connecticut
1996-, Raymond and Lynn Neag Professor of Gifted Education, The University of Connecticut,

Major Contributions
Three-ring model of giftedness promoted a broadened conception of giftedness. Schoolwide Enrichment Model has become one of the most popular programs for developing children's talents.

Ideas and Interests
Influenced by Dewey, Whitehead, Phenix, and others, Prof. Renzulli's broadened conception of giftedness, with its emphasis on above average ability, creativity, and task commitment, has been instrumental in changing educators' views of intellectual talent. Using his educational models (e.g., the Schoolwide Enrichment Model), thousands of teachers have applied Dr. Renzulli's theoretical work to the classroom, where it has become very popular and influential. Renzulli's conception and models are significant because they encouraged people to move away from Spearman's view of a psychometric, unitary intelligence to a more malleable conception that allowed for diverse forms of assessment information.

Renzulli, J.S. (1978). What Makes Giftedness? Reexamining a Definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180-184, 261.
Renzulli, J.S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J.S., & Reis, S.M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Tuesday, 24 November 2015

One impressive memory hack

Really, it is like going from normal to genius, or even better, from genius to super-genius.

Link here

You want to see that, believe me.

Carol S. Dweck

Carol S. Dweck (October 17, 1946-present )  it is an American Psychologist, her main research focuses on how people's implicit theories about intelligence can impact their behavior. If you want your child to reach his/her maximum potential, you need to read her books.

Time Period: Current Efforts

B.A., Barnard College , Columbia University (1967)
Ph.D., in Psychology, Yale University (1972)

Professor, Department of Psychology, Stanford University (2004-present)
Professor, Department of Psychology, Columbia University (1989-2004)
Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois (1985-1989)
Professor, Laboratory of Human Development, Harvard University (1981-1985)
Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois (1972-1977)
National Science Foundation Fellow, Yale University (1967-1971)

Definition of Intelligence
Dr. Dweck does not attempt to define intelligence.   Her research focuses on how people's implicit theories about intelligence can impact their behavior.

Major Contributions
Identified two implicit theories of intelligence: Students who have an "entity" theory view their intelligence as an unchangeable internal characteristic. Students with an "incremental" theory believe that their intelligence is malleable and can be increased through effort
Demonstrated empirically that students who hold an entity theory of intelligence are less likely to attempt challenging tasks and are at risk for academic underachievement
Provided evidence that praising students for their intelligence has the potential to limit their intellectual growth

Ideas & Interests
Carol Dweck's early research on human motivation focused on helpless and mastery-oriented response patterns in schoolchildren (Deiner & Dweck, 1978, 1980; Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973). Some students, she noted, persist in the face of failure while others quit as soon as the going gets rough.   In the 1980s she began investigating the self-theories that lie behind these behaviors, discovering along the way that students' implicit beliefs about the nature of intelligence have a significant impact on the way they approach challenging intellectual tasks:   Students who view their intelligence as an unchangeable internal characteristic tend to shy away from academic challenges, whereas students who believe that their intelligence can be increased through effort and persistence seek them out (Dweck, 1999b; Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
Students who hold an "entity" theory of intelligence agree with statements such as "Your intelligence is something about you that you can't change very much."   Since they believe their intelligence is fixed, these students place high value on success.   They worry that failure-or even having to work very hard at something-will be perceived as evidence of their low intelligence. Therefore, they make academic choices that maximize the possibility that they will perform well. For example, a student may opt to take a lower-level course because it will be easier to earn an A.   In contrast, students who have an "incremental" theory of intelligence are not threatened by failure.   Because they believe that their intelligence can be increased through effort and persistence, these students set mastery goals and seek academic challenges that they believe will help them to grow intellectually (Dweck, 1999b).
Dr. Dweck's research on the impact of praise suggests that many teachers and parents may be unwittingly leading students to accept an entity view of intelligence.   By praising students for their intelligence, rather than effort, many adults are sending the message that success and failure depend on something beyond the students' control.   Comments such as "You got a great score on your math test, Jimmy! You are such a smart boy!" are interpreted by students as "If success means that I am smart, then failure must mean that I am dumb."   When these students perform well they have high self-esteem, but this crashes as soon as they hit an academic stumbling block. Students who are praised for their effort are much more likely to view intelligence as being malleable, and their self-esteem remains stable regardless of how hard they may have to work to succeed at a task. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that these students are more likely to be willing to push through setbacks and reach their full academic potential (Dweck, 1999a; 1999b).

-Dweck, C. S. (2002).   Beliefs that make smart people dumb.   In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.).   Why smart people can be so stupid.   New Haven : Yale University Press.
-Dweck, C.S. (2002). Messages that motivate: How praise molds students' beliefs, motivation, and performance (in surprising ways). In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement. New York : Academic Press.
-Dweck, C. S. (1999a). Caution-praise can be dangerous.   American Educator, 23(1), 4-9.
-Dweck, C. S. (1999b).   Self-theories:   Their role in motivation, personality and development.   Philadelphia :   The Psychology Press
-Dweck, C. S., & Bempechat, J. (1983).   Children's theories of intelligence.   In S. Paris , G. Olsen, & H. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 239-256).   Hillsdale , NJ :   Erlbaum.
-Mueller, C.M., & Dweck, C.S. (1998).   Intelligence praise can undermine motivation and performance.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 , 33-52.

-Deiner, C. I., & Dweck, C.S. (1978).   An analysis of learned helplessness:   Continuous changes in performance, strategy and achievement cognitions following failure.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 451-462.
-Deiner, C. I, & Dweck, C.S. (1980).   An analysis of learned helplessness:   (II) The processing of success.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 940-952.
-Dweck, C. S. (1975).   The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 674-685.
-Dweck, C. S. (1999a). Caution-praise can be dangerous.   American Educator, 23(1), 4-9.
-Dweck, C. S. (1999b).   Self-theories:   Their role in motivation, personality and development.   Philadelphia :   The Psychology Press.
-Dweck, C.S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995).   Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions:   A world from two perspectives.   Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267-285.
-Dweck, C. S., & Reppucci, N. D. (1973).   Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25 , 109-116.

Leon J. Kamin

Leon J. Kamin (1924 - present) it is an American Psychologist, mostly known for his contribution in The Cyril Burt Affair. He is an active critic of the hereditarian theory of intelligence

Time Period: Current Efforts

Harvard University, Bachelor's Degree in Psychology, 1949
Harvard University, admitted to the Ph.D. program in Psychology and Social Relations, 1950

McGill University, professor
Queen's University, professor
1957-1968, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, professor and chairman (1964)
1968- , Princeton University

Major Contribution
One of the first individuals to publicly question the research of Cyril Burt
Active critic of the hereditarian theory of intelligence
Spoke out about the dangers of attributing all intelligence to genetic factors (including race)

Ideas and Interests
     Although Kamin began his career as an animal researcher, he became interested in the study of intelligence after an episode involving his students and a former colleague in 1972. While teaching at Princeton, Kamin invited Richard Herrnstein (one of the authors of The Bell Curve) to speak to his students about one of his areas of focus, the visual world of the pigeon. Recently however, Herrnstein had written an article in support of the genetic argument for intelligence. The very liberal Princeton students were not in favor of this position and started planning ways to make Herrnstein answer questions about IQ. Herrnstein eventually ended up canceling his lecture to avoid being put in the hot seat. After that incident, Kamin's students asked him if he had read Herrnstein's article or if he had an opinion on the matter. Since Kamin had to answer no to both questions, he read Herrnstein's article and quickly became interested in the controversy surrounding the origins of intelligence. Kamin quickly realized that the studies conducted by Cyril Burt provided the backbone for the hereditarian argument involving IQ. Before he could take an informed position on the issue, he felt that he had to examine the work of Burt - he started with the largest of Burt's studies published in 1966. Kamin, being an expert statistician and methodologist, immediately became skeptical about the data and findings being reported by Burt. In order to become fully knowledgeable about both sides of the debate, Kamin then looked at the quintessential studies for the environmental argument and found their data and findings to be much more coherent and theoretically sound. After further investigation of the history of the IQ debate, he was shocked to find that respected psychologists such as Yerkes and Brigham had put forth racial theories about IQ in the 1920s and concluded that the unsupported assumption that IQ was inherited led to unjust social policy in the 1920s. He also saw dangerous parallels to the 1920s in the 1970s with feeble data and unjustified claims being used as a rationale for denying programs and assistance to minorities. Kamin began to publicly express his doubts about the foundations for the genetic argument in lectures and in a 1974 book entitled The Science and Politics of I.Q. During this time, he also publicly voiced his concerns with the data and findings provided by Burt, upon which much of the hereditarian argument rested (see The Cyril Burt Affair for more details). In addition to Burt's work, he examined other prominent studies supporting the genetic position (mainly twin studies and studies of adopted children) and reported similar methodological and statistical errors in their research. As Kamin grew older, he decided to spend the majority of his time not doing research, but instead being a professional reviewer and critic of intelligence studies. His work has emphasized the weakness in the genetic argument and provided continued support for the environmental argument. Not surprisingly, his work has caused a good deal of controversy in the nature vs. nurture debate surrounding intelligence.

The Science and Politics of IQ (1974)
The Intelligence Controversy (1981; published with H.J. Eysenck) (published as Intelligence: The Battle for the Mind in Great Britain)

Howard Gardner

Howard Gardner (July 11, 1943 - present) it is an American Psychologist and Educator, developed the Theory of Multiple Intelligences which proposes that intelligent behavior does not arise from a single unitary quality of the mind, as the g -based theories suggest, but rather that different kinds of intelligence are generated from separate metaphorical pools of mental energy.

Influenced by: Piaget, L. Thurstone
Time Period: Current Efforts

Harvard University (A.B. in social relations, 1965)
London School of Economics (reading in philosophy and sociology, 1965-1966)
Harvard University (Ph.D. in social psychology/developmental psychology, 1971)
Harvard Medical School and Boston University Aphasia Research Center (Postdoctoral fellow, 1971-1972)

Piano teacher (1958-1969)
Elementary School Teacher (Newton, MA, 1969)
Research Associate, Boston Veterans Administration Medical Center (1972-1974)
Research Associate in Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine (1972-1975)
Lecturer in Education, Harvard Graduate School of Education (1974-1986)
Associate Professor of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine (1979-1984)
Professor of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine (1984-1987)
Research Affiliate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1982-1986)
Research Psychologist, Boston Veterans Administration Medical Center (1978-1991)
Consulting Psychologist, Boston Veterans Administration Medical Center (1991-1993)
Professor of Education, Harvard Graduate School of Education (1986-1998)
Chair, Project Zero Steering Committee (1995-present); Co-director, Project Zero (1972-2000); Senior Director, 2000-present)
John H. and Elisabeth A. Hobbs Professor of Cognition and Education, Harvard Graduate School of Education (1998-present)
Numerous awards, including: MacArthur Prize Fellowship (1981); National Psychology Award for Excellence in the Media of the American Psychological Association (APA) (1984); William James Award, APA (1987); Educational Press of America, Distinguished Achievement Award (1989); Guggenheim Fellowship (2000); approximately 15 honorary doctorates

Definition of Intelligence
"An intelligence is the ability to solve problems, or to create products, that are valued within one or more cultural settings ( Gardner, 1983/2003, p. x)"

Major Contributions
Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Ideas & Interests
Howard Gardner has established himself as one of the world's foremost authorities on the topics of intelligence, creativity, leadership, professional responsibility, and the arts. He is the author of hundreds of research articles, and his 23 books have been translated into more than 20 languages. He is also a recognizable figure in the popular media, having served as producer and consultant for several television programs. He has also been profiled countless times both on television and in print. Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983) proposes that intelligent behavior does not arise from a single unitary quality of the mind, as the g -based theories suggest, but rather that different kinds of intelligence are generated from separate metaphorical pools of mental energy. Each of these pools enables the individual "to solve problems, or to create products, that are valued within one or more cultural settings (Gardner, 1983/2003)." Gardner derived this conceptualization of intelligence in part from his experiences working with members extreme populations, in which certain cognitive abilities are preserved (often to a remarkable degree) even in the absence of other, very basic abilities. For example, some autistic savants display extraordinary musical or mathematical abilities despite severely impaired language development and social awareness. Likewise, individuals with localized brain damage often demonstrate severe deficits that are circumscribed to a single cognitive domain (Gardner, 1983/2003). The seven intelligences proposed by Gardner are linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal and intrapersonal. Linguistic intelligence enables individuals to read, write and speak well. Logical-mathematical intelligence encompasses logical thinking (as might be used in chess or deductive reasoning, for example) as well as mathematical and scientific problem-solving. Spatial intelligence makes its appearance when an individual navigates an unfamiliar set of streets, or when an architect visualizes her plans for a building. Musical intelligence generates the set of skills that allow musicians to play a tune by ear, or to execute a phrase with sensitivity and grace. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is necessary for problem-solving that requires the individual to use his or her physical body, as would be necessary for performing a complex surgical procedure, executing a series of dance steps or catching a fly ball. Interpersonal intelligence drives social skills and things like empathy and intuition about what motivates other people-a type of understanding that is necessary for salespersons, teachers and clergy, for example. Intrapersonal intelligence involves a similar set of abilities, but these are turned toward the self; individuals who have high intrapersonal intelligence have an accurate self-understanding, and can use this to their advantage in problem-solving. Gardner asserts that logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligences are overemphasized in traditional models of human intelligence, but that this is a cultural artifact; in different life circumstances, different intelligences would gain higher priority ( Gardner, 1993). Dr. Gardner is the Senior Director of Harvard University 's Project Zero, an educational research group dedicated to understanding and enhancing "learning, thinking, and creativity in the arts, as well as humanistic and scientific disciplines, at the individual and institutional levels". Several of Project Zero's projects involve the design and implementation of alternatives to traditional intelligence testing.

Selected Publications
-Gardner, H. (1991). The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach. New York: BasicBooks.
-Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: BasicBooks.
-Gardner, H. (1983/2003). Frames of mind. The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: BasicBooks.
-Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books
-Gardner, H. (2000). The Disciplined Mind: Beyond Facts And Standardized Tests, The K-12 Education That Every Child Deserves. New York: Penguin Putnam.

-Gardner, H. (1983/2003). Frames of mind. The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: BasicBooks.
-Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: BasicBooks.

Thursday, 19 November 2015

Robert J. Sternberg

Robert J. Sternberg (1949- present ) it is a Cognitive Psychologist, he contends that intelligent behavior arises from a balance between analytical, creative and practical abilities, and that these abilities function collectively to allow individuals to achieve success within particular sociocultural contexts. He create his own test, the Sternberg Test of Mental Abilities (STOMA).

Influenced by: Piaget, Information Processing Psychology
Time Period: Current Efforts

Yale University, B.A. in psychology (1972)
Stanford University, Ph.D. (1975)

The Psychological Corporation, Research Assistant (1968-1969)
Educational Testing Service, Research Assistant (summer, 1970)
Yale University, Office of Institutional Research, Research Assistant (1970-1971)
Yale University, Department of Psychology, Assistant Professor (1975-1980); Associate Professor (1980-1983); Professor (1983-1986); IBM Professor of Psychology and Education (1986-2005)
Director, Yale Center for the Psychology of Abilities, Competencies and Expertise ( PACE Center ) (2000-2005)
President of the American Psychological Association (2003)
Tufts University, Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences (2005-2010)
Director, Center for the Psychology of Abilities, Competencies and Expertise ( Tufts University ) (2006-2010)
Provost, senior vice president, and professor of psychology ( Oklahoma State University ) (2010-present)
Consultant, The Psychological Corporation (1986-1989); Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, School Department (1989-1993); Harcourt Brace Educational Development Group (1993-1994); Harper Collins College Division (1994-1996)
Numerous awards including: Distinguished Scholar Award, National Association for Gifted Children (1985); Outstanding Book Award, American Educational Research Association (1987); Award for Excellence, Mensa Education and Research Foundation (1989); James McKeen Cattell Award, American Psychological Society (1999); Listed as one of the "Top 100 Psychologists of the 20 th Century" American Psychological Association (APA) Monitor (2002); E.L. Thorndike Award for Achievement in Educational Psychology, APA (2003); approximately 5 honorary doctorates
Oklahoma State University, Provost, Senior Vice President, Regents Professor of Psychology and Education, and George Kaiser Family Foundation Chair of Ethical Leadership (2010-2013)
University of Wyoming, President and professor of education and psychology (2013)
Cornell University, Professor of Human Development (2014 - Present)

Definition of Intelligence
"I define [intelligence] as your skill in achieving whatever it is you want to attain in your life within your socio-cultural capitalizing on your strengths and compensating for, or correcting, your weaknesses ( personal communication, July 29, 2004)."

Major Contributions
Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence
Several influential theories related to creativity, wisdom, thinking styles, love and hate
Author of over 1000 books, book chapters and articles

Ideas and Interests
Robert J. Sternberg's spectacular research career in psychology had a rather inauspicious beginning; like many of the psychologists profiled on this Web site, his interest in human intelligence began at an early age. In Dr. Sternberg's case, however, the interest was intensely personal. In elementary school he performed poorly on IQ tests, and his teachers' actions conveyed their low expectations for his future progress. Everything changed when his fourth grade teacher, Mrs. Alexa, saw that he had potential and challenged him to do better. With her encouragement, he became a high-achieving student, eventually graduating 'summa cum laude' and Phi Beta Kappa from Yale University. In a gesture of gratitude, Dr. Sternberg dedicated his book, Successful Intelligence (1996) to Mrs. Alexa
 ( personal communication, July 29, 2004; portions retrieved from ). Dr. Sternberg's personal experiences with intelligence testing in elementary school lead him to create his own intelligence test for a 7th grade science project. He happened to find the Stanford-Binet scales in the local library, and with unintentional impertinence, began administering the test to his classmates; his own test, the Sternberg Test of Mental Abilities (STOMA) appeared shortly thereafter ( personal communication, July 29, 2004). In subsequent years he distinguished himself in many domains of psychology, having published influential theories relating to intelligence, creativity, wisdom, thinking styles, love and hate.
Dr. Sternberg's Triarchic Theory of (Successful) Intelligence contends that intelligent behavior arises from a balance between analytical, creative and practical abilities, and that these abilities function collectively to allow individuals to achieve success within particular sociocultural contexts (Sternberg, 1988, 1997, 1999). Analytical abilities enable the individual to evaluate, analyze, compare and contrast information. Creative abilities generate invention, discovery, and other creative endeavors. Practical abilities tie everything together by allowing individuals to apply what they have learned in the appropriate setting. To be successful in life the individual must make the best use of his or her analytical, creative and practical strengths, while at the same time compensating for weaknesses in any of these areas. This might involve working on improving weak areas to become better adapted to the needs of a particular environment, or choosing to work in an environment that values the individual's particular strengths. For example, a person with highly developed analytical and practical abilities, but with less well-developed creative abilities, might choose to work in a field that values technical expertise but does not require a great deal of imaginative thinking. Conversely, if the chosen career does value creative abilities, the individual can use his or her analytical strengths to come up with strategies for improving this weakness. Thus, a central feature of the triarchic theory of successful intelligence is adaptability-both within the individual and within the individual's sociocultural context (Cianciolo & Sternberg, 2004).

Selected Publications
Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test. Unpublished research instrument available from author.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence. New York: Simon & Schuster. (Paperback edition: New York: Dutton, 1997).
Sternberg, R. J., & Spear-Swerling, L. (1996). Teaching for thinking. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Wisdom as a form of giftedness. Gifted child quarterly, 44(4), 252-259.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L.  (2000). Teaching for successful intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing Inc.

Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence. New York: Simon & Schuster. (Paperback edition: New York: Dutton, 1997).
Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004 ). Intelligence: A brief history. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking.

Wednesday, 18 November 2015

H. J. Eysenck

H. J. Eysenck (March 4, 1916 - September 4, 1997) is a German-born British Psychologist, most famous for his criticism of psychotherapy (see Eysenck, 1957), his rigorous, measurement-based approach to the study of personality, and for his ability to translate psychological ideas for the popular press.

Student of: Burt
Students: Jensen
Time Period: Contemporary Explorations

University College of Exeter, England, literature and history (summer, 1933)
University of Dijon, France, literature and history (a few months prior to entering London University)
London University, B.A. in psychology with first-class honors (1935-1938)
London University, Ph.D. in psychology (under Burt) (1940)

Research psychologist, Mill Hill Emergency Hospital, London (1942-1946)
Senior research psychologist, Maudsley Hospital, London (1946-1950)
Founder, Psychology Department, University of London Institute of Psychiatry(1946); Department Chair (1950-1955); Professor (1955-1983); Professor Emeritus (1983-1997)
Founder, Journal of Personality and Individual Differences (1980)
Numerous awards, including:  American Psychological Association (APA) Award for Distinguished Contributions to Science (1988); APA Presidential Citation for Outstanding Contributions to Psychology (1994); American Psychological Society William James Fellow Award (1994); APA Division of Clinical Psychology Centennial Award for Lifelong Contributions to Clinical Psychology (1996)

Definition of Intelligence
“If we can derive a model of the intellect, therefore, from the existing literature, it may be suggested that a combination of Spearman’s g, Thurstone’s primary abilities (grouped under mental processes and test material), and the break-down of the IQ into speed, persistence and error-checking, may be the best available at the moment (Eysenck, 1979, p. 193).”

Major Contributions
Highly influential proponent of rigorous, measurement-based approaches to personality research
Established science-based approaches to psychotherapy and clinical training
Defender of the hereditarian position; argued that racial differences in intelligence are partially attributable to genetic factors.
Author of dozens of books (for both academic and popular audiences), and more than 1000 journal articles

Ideas & Interests
From his early interests, it would have been difficult to predict that Hans Eysenck would eventually become one of the world’s most prolific and frequently cited psychologists. He was first attracted to the study of literature and history, and his entry into a psychology program in college was merely a concession to those in authority; he wanted to declare a major in physics, but he did not meet the requirements for admission established by the University of London.  Although he was initially disenchanted with his psychology courses, he quickly learned to enjoy the subject (Milite, 2001).
Over the next 60 years, Eysenck published dozens of books and more than 1000 journal articles. His intellectual curiosity about psychological phenomena was wide-ranging. His publications covered an astonishing variety of topics, from personality and intelligence theories to homosexuality, paranormal phenomena, and the causes of smoking-related diseases. This breadth of interest was matched by the unusual depth of his contributions; perhaps no other scientist has contributed so substantially to so many areas of psychology (Mclaughlin, 2000).  Eysenck is most famous for his criticism of psychotherapy (see Eysenck, 1957), his rigorous, measurement-based approach to the study of personality, and for his ability to translate psychological ideas for the popular press.  His work on human intelligence is also notable. In 1969, Eysenck’s student Arthur Jensen published a controversial paper asserting that racial differences in intelligence test scores might have genetic origins (Jensen, 1969).  Eysenck defended Jensen, and received much criticism in the ensuing controversy. Eysenck later published his own evidence that biological processes might be implicated in racial differences in intelligence (see Eysenck, 1971). By the time he wrote his 1990 autobiography, he had moderated his views to give more weight to environmental influences (Mclaughlin, 2000). Eyesenck was a proponent of the theory of human intelligence proposed by Donald Hebb and elaborated by Philip Vernon.  Hebb called the biological substrate of human cognitive ability “Intelligence A.”  When Intelligence A interacts with environmental influences, Intelligence B is generated. Vernon elaborated this view to include Intelligence C, which is what manifests on tests of cognitive ability. This distinction is important for the scientific study of intelligence; Intelligence B is essentially immeasurable due to the large number of confounding variables. Intelligence A is not a concrete “thing” that can be measured, and can only be approached through measures that yield an index of Intelligence C.  Intelligence tests, however, are imperfect and vary to the degree that they reflect Intelligence A or B. Eysenck believed that culturally-bounded tests and tests of educational attainment are likely to capture Intelligence B, whereas physiological measures such as positron emission tomography (PET) and electroencephalography (EEG) held more potential as possible tools for capturing intelligence A (Jensen, 1994).

Selected Publications
Eysenck, H. J. (1957).  The effects of psychotherapy:  An evaluation.  Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16, 319-324.
Eysenck, H. J. (1971). The IQ argument: Race, intelligence, and education. New York: Library Press.
Eysenck, H. J.(1979). The structure and measurement of intelligence. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Eysenck, H. J. (1982). A model for intelligence. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eysenck, H. J. (1990/1997).  Rebel with a cause: The autobiography of Hans Eysenck.  New Brunswick, NJ:  Transaction Publishers.
Eysenck, H. J. (1998). Intelligence: A new look. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Eysenck, H. J. (1979). The structure and measurement of intelligence. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Farley, F. (2000). Hans J. Eysenck (1916-1997). American Psychologist, 55, 674-675.
Jensen, A. R.  (1969). How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 33, 1-123.
Jensen, A. R. (1994).  Eysenck, Hans J. (1916-).  In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.).  Encyclopedia of human intelligence.  New York:  Macmillan.
Mcloughlin, C. S. (2000).  Eysenck, Hans Jurgen.  In A. K. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol.3). (pp. 310-311).  Oxford:  Oxford University Press.
Milite, G. A. (2001).  Hans Juergen Eysenck.  In B. Strickland (Ed.), The Gale encyclopedia of psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 238-239).  New York:  Gale Group.

Philip E. Vernon

Philip E. Vernon (1905-1987) is an Educational Psychologist who stated that intelligence it is the product of the interplay between genetic potentiality and environmental stimulation. He studied heredity and environment influences for any individual's intelligence .

Influenced by: Burt, Spearman
Time Period: Contemporary Explorations

Cambridge University, B.A. with First Class Honours in physics, chemistry, physiology and psychology (1927)
St. John's College, Cambridge University, M.A. (1930); Ph.D (1931)
Postdoctoral fellowships at Yale and Harvard
University of London, DSc (1952)
University of Calgary, Honorary Doctor of Laws (1978)

St. John’s College, Cambridge, research and teaching Fellow
Maudsley Hospital Child Guidance Clinic, London, psychologist
Jordan-Hill Training Centre, Glasgow, Head of psychology department
University of Glasgow, head of psychology department (appointed 1938)
Psychological Research Adviser to the Admiralty and War Office (WWII)
University of London Institute of Education,  professor of educational psychology
University of London, professor of Psychology (appointed 1964)
University of Calgary, Alberta, Professor of Educational Psychology (appointed 1968)

Definition of Intelligence
“Intelligence A is the basic potentiality of the organism, whether animal or human, to learn and to adapt to its environment…Intelligence A is determined by the genes but is mediated mainly by the complexity and plasticity of the central nervous system…Intelligence B is the level of ability that a person actually shows in behavior—cleverness, the efficiency and complexity of perceptions, learning, thinking , and problem solving.  This is not genetic…Rather, it is the product of the interplay between genetic potentiality and environmental stimulation…I have suggested that we should a third usage to Hebb’s Intelligence A and B, namely Intelligence C, which stands for the score or IQ obtained from a particular test (Vernon, 1979, pp. 10, 20).”

Major Contributions
Hierarchical group-factor theory of the structure of cognitive abilities
Author of 14 books and approximately 200 journal articles

Ideas & Interests
Philip Ewart Vernon’s contributions to the psychological literature were many and varied. His dissertation focused on the psychology of musical appreciation and auditory perception, but shortly after finishing his Ph.D. he began work with Harvard’s Gordon Allport on the study of expressive movement and the development of an instrument to measure personality-related values (Allport & Vernon, 1931; 1932). A revised edition of the Allport-Vernon Study of Values (SOV) is still widely used by psychologists more than 70 years after its initial publication (P. A. Vernon, 1994). Vernon’s interest in personality research remained strong throughout his career, but his work in intelligence and giftedness gradually gained precedence.  He was a proponent of Donald Hebb’s theory of intelligence, which divided human intellectual ability into two categories: He called the biological substrate of human cognitive ability “Intelligence A.”  When Intelligence A interacts with environmental influences, Intelligence B is generated.  Vernon elaborated this definition to include Intelligence C, which is what manifests on tests of cognitive ability—the score or IQ obtained on a particular test. These distinctions are important for the scientific study of intelligence, and they were adopted by other researchers including the German-born British psychologist Hans Eysenck. Both theorists noted that Intelligence B is essentially immeasurable due to the large number of confounding variables. Intelligence A is not a concrete “thing” that can be measured, and can only be approached through measures that yield an index of Intelligence C.  Intelligence tests, however, are imperfect and vary to the degree that they reflect Intelligence A or B (Jensen, 1994).  Like many other prominent British intelligence theorists (e.g. Spearman and Burt), Vernon’s preferred research tool was factor analysis. In The Structure of Human Abilities (1950) Vernon presented his hierarchical group factor theory of the structure of human intellectual abilities. At the top of this hierarchy was Spearman’s general factor (g), which accounted for the largest source of the variance in intelligence. Below g were several major, minor and specific group factors.  Because Vernon’s theory accounted for a general factor and group factors, it was seen as a reconciliation between Spearman’s two factor theory (which did not have group factors) and Thurstone’s multiple factor theory (which did not have a general factor.) In subsequent years, Vernon became interested in studying the relative contributions of heredity and environment, and he summarized his conclusions in two books: Intelligence and Cultural Environment (1969) and Intelligence:  Heredity and Environment (1979).  Although he acknowledged the pivotal role of environmental factors, Vernon’s research led him to conclude that approximately 60% of the variance in human intellectual ability is attributable to genetic contributions. He extended this argument to implicate genes in the observed racial differences in intelligence test scores (P.A. Vernon, 1994). This controversial line of research was pursued in future years by Hans Eysenck and his student Arthur Jensen.

Selected Publications
Vernon, P. E. (1940).  The measurement of abilities. London:  University of London Press.
Vernon, P. E. (1950).  The structure of human abilities.  London:  Methuen.
Vernon, P. E. (1960).  Intelligence and attainment tests.  New York:  Philosophical Library, Inc.
Vernon, P. E. (1969). Intelligence and cultural environment. London:  Methuen.
Vernon, P. E. (Ed.). (1970). Creativity:  Selected readings.  Harmondsworth:  Penguin.
Vernon, P. E. (1979).  Intelligence:  Heredity and environment.  San Francisco:  W. H. Freeman & Company.
Vernon, P. E. (Ed.). (1987). Speed of information processing and intelligence. Norwood, NJ:  Ablex.
Vernon, P. E., Adamson, G. & Vernon, D. F. (1977).  The psychology and education of gifted children.  Boulder, CO:  Westview Press.

Allport, G. W., & Vernon, P. E. (1931).  Study of values:  A scale for measuring the dominant interests n personality.  Boston:  Houghton Mifflin.
Allport, G. W., & Vernon, P. E. (1932).  Studies in expressive movement.  Ney York:  Macmillan.
Biographical dictionary of psychology. (1997). New York: Routledge.
Jensen, A. R. (1994).  Eysenck, Hans J. (1916-).  In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.).  Encyclopedia of human intelligence.  New York:  Macmillan.
Vernon, P. E. (1950).  The structure of human abilities.  London:  Methuen.
Vernon, P. E. (1969). Intelligence and cultural environment. London:  Methuen.
Vernon, P. E. (1979).  Intelligence:  Heredity and environment.  San Francisco:  W. H. Freeman & Company.
Vernon, P. A. (1994).  Vernon, Philip Ewart (1905-1987).  In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.).  Encyclopedia of human intelligence (pp. 1115- 1117).  New York:  Macmillan.

J. McVicker Hunt

J. McVicker Hunt (1906 - 1991) was the first to identify neuroplasticity of the children brain.

Student of: Guilford
Time Period: Contemporary Explorations

University of Nebraska in London (BA, 1929; MA, 1930)
Cornell University (Ph.D., 1933) under Madison Bentley
New York Psychiatric Institute and Worcester State Hospital in Massachusetts (Postdoc)

Brown University
University of Illinois (1951)

Major Contributions
Offered an alternative conception of intelligence as an information-processing system.
Advocated of compensatory education.

Ideas & Interests
(Researched with rats on the effects of early rearing environment to examine psychoanalytic insights into the development of personality characteristics.)
(Examined the effects of child-rearing practices from a broad historical perspective , and became impressed with the evidence for plasticity in intellectual development.)
Children are reared in early-impoverished environment, which results in intellectual deficit.
His thought that environments are much more self-selected or self-created, and therefore, posited the importance of intrinsic motivation for intellectual development.
(This led him urge research for optimal educational programs that would foster this idea.)

Intelligence and Experience (1961)
Personality and Behavior Disorder (1944)

Calvin W. Taylor

Calvin W. Taylor (May 23, 1915-April 26, 2000) is an American Psychologist who studied the human creativity. He developed Multiple Creative Talent Teaching Approach and is the one saying that classical IQ tests identify only  around 10% of an individual talents.

Student of: L. Thurstone
Students: Stanley Mulaik
Time Period: Contemporary Explorations

University of Utah (Bachelor's and Master's Degrees)
University of Chicago, Psychology (Ph.D., 1946)

Professor of Psychology, University of Utah

Major Contributions
Led National Science Foundation-funded conferences on scientific creativity (1950s-1960s)
Founded the Institute for Behavioral Research in Creativity, Salt Lake City, Utah (1965)
Received American Psychological Association's Richardson Creativity Award (1970)
Developed and implemented the Multiple Creative Talent Teaching Approach

Ideas and Interests
Calvin Taylor was an important figure in the study of human creativity. During the mid-1950s, in response to the Sputnik launch and other cold war pressures, the United States began to devote increased funding to the development of scientific talent. Taylor led several NSF-sponsored conferences on scientific creativity (i.e., the Utah Conferences) that brought together a diversity of perspectives and expertise to discuss issues related to the development of scientific talent. Taylor edited several important books that emerged from the Utah Conferences, many of which are still widely used today. Taylor, through his own basic research and educational theory, extended and implemented Thurstone's factor analysis studies on The Vectors of Mind into application by developing and implementing the Multiple Creative Talent Teaching Approach. Taylor stated that not all gifted individuals excelled in the same talents. Gifted students who have been evaluated in one talent area as talented may not be very talented in another talent area, and vice versa. Basing his ideas partially on Guilford's Structure of the Intellect model, Taylor found that typical intelligence tests measure only a small fraction of talents that have actually been identified, 10 percent at most. Taylor proposed that multiple talents should be evaluated in the classroom in order to identify more students as gifted in recognized talent areas. Nine talent areas that Taylor has identified for instructional emphasis include academic, productive thinking, planning, communicating, forecasting, decision-making, implementing, human relations, and discerning opportunities. Several positive outcomes to this approach were postulated:
- New star performers emerge from almost all levels of previous talent levels.
- Many students who have been low performers in the traditional talent levels will rise to at least a middle level in some of the the new talent areas.
- Almost all students will have the rewarding experience of being above average in one or another talent area if enough talent areas are cultivated in the classroom.
- Approximately one third of students will be identified as highly gifted in at least one major talent area.
Taylor expected this approach would produce higher motivation in students, and allow for better development of human resource potential. A student would be able learn a great deal about himself and can choose activities that call for his best talents - a course that can lead to optimum self-actualization and productivity. In addition to his major achievements of the Utah Conferences and Multiple Talent Approach, Taylor helped design the selection system for the NSF Graduate Fellowship Program. He founded the Institute for Behavioral Research in Creativity (IBRIC) and directed 19 summer creativity workshops for teachers.

The Identification of creative scientific Talent: Report on The 1955 University of Utah Research Conference (1956)
The Second (1957) University of Utah Research Conference on the Identification of Creative Scientific Talent (1958)
Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development (1963)
Development of a Theory of Education from Psychological and Other Basic Research Findings (1964)
Widening Horizons in Creativity (1964)
Creativity: Progress and Potential (1964)
Biographical Information and the Prediction of Multiple Criteria of Success in Science (1966)
Climate for Creativity; Report on The Seventh National Research Conference on Creativity (1966)
Instructional Media and Creativity (1966)
Climate for Creativity (1968)

Anonymous (2001). Calvin W. Taylor (1915-2000). American Psychologist, 56, 519.
Taylor, C. W. (1968). Cultivating new talents: A way to reach the educationally deprived. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2, 83-90.
Taylor, C. W. (1986). Cultivating simultaneous student growth in both multiple creative talents and knowledge. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and Models for Developing Programs for the Gifted and Talented (pp. 307-350). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Thursday, 12 November 2015

Original IQ test for 160+

I heard about this from a researcher, i hope is not true. Ha ha! He said that is you have IQ higher than 160, you will tie your laces only once, and they will stay like that until you come back from your outing. As for me, i have at least one pair of shoes that need laces tied every 2-3 hours. I blame the laces.

Wednesday, 11 November 2015

IQ tests origin and history

As i will come close to an end with the history of the IQ tests most famous personalities, i will start to analyze the IQ tests, to point out their benefits and their limitations. But at the moment i will go in a one week holiday in Eastern Europe, and probably i will not have so many posts.

See you all soon


The Cyril Burt Affair

The Cyril Burt Affair

Until his death in 1971, the British educational psychologist Sir Cyril Burt was viewed as one of the most significant and influential educational psychologists of his time. Within a year of his death, however, the legitimacy of his research was being questioned. The questions began to turn into accusations, and by 1976 he was officially accused of fabricating data to prove that intelligence was inherited. The publication of Burt's official biography by Leslie Hearnshaw in 1979 seemed to seal Burt's fate by concluding that the charges of fraud were merited. However, the recent work of two independent researchers, Robert Joynson and Ronald Fletcher, has reopened the issue and raised doubts about the accusations of fraud.

Burt's Work

Cyril Lodowic Burt, born on March 3, 1883, was a leading figure in psychology during an exciting time when psychology was breaking away from philosophy and becoming a field of its own. Burt's research on factor analysis and the genetics of intelligence was groundbreaking, and helped to pave a new path for psychology. It is his work in these areas that led to the great controversy surrounding his name. Many researchers, including Galton, Pearson, Spearman and L. Thurstone were investigating the use of factor analysis in determining the components of human intelligence. Burt joined the discussion and adapted the new developments in statistical techniques to the study of genetic analysis of intelligence. Burt's most famous work on the genetics of intelligence involved the study of twins. In a series of papers published between 1943 and 1966 Burt concluded that heredity plays a much more prominent role in the development of intellectual ability than does the environment. Due to Burt's acclaimed reputation, his findings impacted both the international academic community and the local educational system within England.

The Accusations

At the time of his death in October of 1971, Cyril Burt was viewed as a esteemed and influential member of his profession. Within months of his death however, the Princeton psychologist Leon Kamin recognized and reported a number of flaws in Burt's research--particularly his research involving monozygotic twins who were reared apart. Although Kamin suspected the data were fraudulent, he did not immediately make a public condemnation of Burt's research; he simply concluded that the data were not worthy of scientific consideration. In 1974, Kamin published The Science and Politics of IQ, which denounced the hereditarian position and contained much criticism of Burt's work with monozygotic twins. Shortly before Kamin published his book, another American psychologist, Arthur Jensen, published a paper which also found fault with Burt's data. Ironically, Jensen was in favor of the hereditarian position. It is interesting that two researchers with radically different professional agendas independently arrived at many of the same conclusions. The first formal, public accusation of fraud against Cyril Burt came in 1976 from Dr. Oliver Gillie, the medical correspondent to the London Sunday Times. Gillie became suspicious of Burt's work after he read Kamin's The Science and Politics of IQ, and began to investigate. He set out to find two of Burt's research assistants: Miss Margaret Howard and Miss Jane Conway. Despite a thorough search, he was unable to locate either, and was forced to conclude that they were fictitious names. This fact, in conjunction with other findings, led Gillie to conclude that Burt had falsified his data. The article which appeared on the front page of the October 24, 1976 edition of the Times began with these lines
"The most sensational charge of scientific fraud this century is being leveled against Sir Cyril Burt. Leading scientists are convinced that Burt published false data and invented crucial facts to support his controversial theory that intelligence is largely inherited." (Gillie, 1976)

The Controversy

The primary source of concern voiced by both Kamin and Jensen was the suspicious consistency of the correlation coefficients for the intelligence test scores of the monozygotic twins in Burt's studies. In each study Burt reported sum totals for the twins he had studied so far. His original results were published in 1943. In 1955 he added 6 pairs of twins and reported results for a total of 21 sets of twins. Likewise in 1966 he reported the results for a total of 53 pairs. In each study Burt reported correlation coefficients indicating the similarity of intelligence scores for monozygotic twins who were reared apart. A high coefficient would indicate that the twins had similar intelligence scores. Since the twins were reared apart, a high correlation coefficient would also make a strong case for his hereditarian argument. In his studies Burt reported the following coefficients: 1943: r = .770; 1955: r = .771; 1966: r= .771. These correlation coefficients suggested a strong relationship between genetics and intelligence. One would expect to see greater variability among the coefficients when more sets of twins were added. Other critics later pointed out that it was unlikely that Burt had been able to find so many sets of monozygotic twins reared apart. His 1966 study involving 53 sets of twins was the largest twin study of the time. In 1955, Burt himself commented that it was unusual to find even 21 sets of subjects. Yet only eleven years later he had more than doubled his number of subjects, claiming that society held misconceptions about the frequency with which twins were reared in separate environments. Tucker (1997) examined the numbers of research subjects used in all of the twin studies conducted between 1922 and 1990 and found that no other study came close to having 53 sets of twins that would have satisfied Burt's conditions. The combination of all the twins in all the studies (who fit Burt's criteria) would barely sum to be 53! It did not take long after the official accusation was made by Gillie in the London Sunday Times for supporters of Burt to come forward. Among the first was H.J. Eysenck, who attacked Gillie's arguments and contended that the evidence provided thus far warranted a charge no stronger than carelessness. Several other supporters came forward, the most effective of whom was a former student of Burt's by the name of J. Cohen. Cohen addressed Gillie's claim that the two research assistants, Miss Howard and Miss Conway, did not exist. Cohen claimed that he remembered Miss Conway. In the middle of this controversy, Leslie Hearnshaw began writing Burt's official biography. Hearnshaw had great respect for Burt. He had even delivered an address at his memorial service. Hearnshaw was outraged at the accusations, and implored the academic community to delay judgment until he had finished the biography. Hearnshaw did not doubt about Burt's integrity, and intended to clear his name with the book. As Hearnshaw examined Burt's private records, distressing evidence became to accumulate and he was forced to report that the accusations were most likely true. The conclusions reached by Hearnshaw had a great impact on the academic community, but this was not the end of the debate. In the years since Hearnshaw published Burt's biography, other researchers have investigated the issue and have come out in support of Burt. Two such men are Robert Joynson and Ronald Fletcher. These researchers argue that Burt did not invent any of his twin data. They explain the large increase in the number of subjects by asserting that some of Burt's data had been lost during World War II. After Burt found it, it had taken him a long time to sort it out. They also believe that the research assistants were indeed real people, although it is doubtful that they actually used their real names. Joynson and Fletcher claim that Burt used pseudonyms when publishing, and contend that such behavior, while eccentric, does not constitute a moral or ethical violation.


Since the controversy around Cyril Burt's name is of great importance to the integrity of psychology and other research fields, it has drawn significant attention from the academic community as a whole. Many prominent individuals in psychology and related fields have examined the evidence on both sides, and the conclusions are mixed. Recently, senior fellows of the British Psychological Society campaigned to have Burt's case reheard so that a new verdict can be rendered. The Society agreed to reopen the case, causing some strong reactions on both sides of the debate. For now, Burt's reputation remains sullied, and his story reminds the field of psychology and academia in general of the importance of intellectual honesty.

Gillie, O. (1976, October 24).. Crucial data was faked by eminent psychologist. London: Sunday Times.
Hearnshaw, L. (1979). Cyril Burt: Psychologist. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Joynson, R. B. (1989). The Burt affair. New York: Routledge.
Kamin, L.J. (1974). The science and politics of IQ. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1995). Cyril Burt: Fraud or framed? New York: Oxford University Press.
Tucker, W. H. (1997). Re-reconsidering Burt: Beyond a reasonable doubt. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 33(2) 145-162.

Cyril L. Burt

Cyril L. Burt (March 3, 1883 - October 10, 1971) was a British Educational Psychologist, investigated differences in intelligence among social classes, gender and race, and the intelligence on separated twins. It was because his research that we discovered later why the children from poorer family gain knowledge slower than ones from middle class and up, and the Ericsson study of 10.000 hours of mastery was indirectly inspired by. He also helped women to fight the gender disparity using a part of his research.

Student of: McDougall
Influenced by: Galton, Spearman
Students: Eysenck
Influenced: Jensen, Vernon
Time Period: Contemporary Explorations

Oxford Greats Course, Jesus College, Oxford, (1902-1907)
Teachers' Diploma, Jesus College, Oxford (1908)
Studied psychology under Oswald Külpe at the University of Würzburg, Germany (Summer, 1908)

Lecturer in Experimental Psychology, University of Liverpool (1908-1913)
Chief Psychologist, London County Council (1913-1932)
Professor of Educational Psychology, London Day Training Centre (1924-1932)
Charles Spearman Chair of Psychology, University College, London (1932-1950)
First psychologist to be knighted (1946)
Editor and co-editor, British Journal of Statistical Psychology (1947-1963)
Published more than 200 articles after his retirement from teaching (1950-1971)
First British subject to win the (American) Thorndike Prize, (1971)
President of British Psychological Society (1942)

Definition of Intelligence
"…[intelligence] denotes, first of all, a quality that is intellectual and not emotional or moral: in measuring it we try to rule out the effects of the child's zeal, interest, industry, and the like. Secondly, it denotes a general capacity, a capacity that enters into everything the child says or does or thinks; any want of 'intelligence' will therefore be revealed to some degree in almost all that he attempts; a weakness in some limited or specialized ability-for example, in the ability to speak or to read, to learn or to calculate-is of itself by no means a sign of defective intelligence. Thirdly, intelligence is by definition an innate capacity: hence a lack of it is not necessarily proved by a lack of educational knowledge or skill" (Burt, 1957, p. 64-65).

Major Contributions
Founded the field of Educational Psychology in Great Britain by creating and implementing a system for identifying mentally retarded students
Helped to establish the Eleven-Plus testing program in Great Britain
Helped to expand the statistical technique of factor analysis
Advocated for the hereditarian position: He is famous (and notorious) for his conclusions about the intelligence of identical twins reared apart
Investigated differences in intelligence among social classes, gender and race
Published nine books and more than three hundred articles, lectures and book chapters

Ideas & Interests
Sir Cyril Burt remains one of the most complex and intriguing figures in the history of intelligence testing. He was a pioneer of educational psychology in England and was one of the most respected and honored psychologists of his time. However, he had controversial ideas regarding the heritability of intelligence, and there is ample evidence that he used fraudulent data to support his views (Scarr, 1994). Throughout Cyril Burt's lifetime he remained committed to proving that intelligence is primarily and inherited characteristic. His long research career began in 1909 with a study comparing the intelligence of boys enrolled in an elite preparatory academy with the intelligence of boys attending a regular school.* To control for environmental influences, he chose measures (such as mirror drawing) that were unlikely to have been learned during the students' lifetimes. Since the prep school students scored higherr than the other students, he concluded that they had more innate intelligence. Moreover, he noted that the fathers of the prep school boys were more successful than the fathers the other boys. He interpreted this to mean that the prep school boys had benefited from their fathers' superior genetic endowments (Fancher, 1985). Burt did not believe that 100% of intelligence is inherited. In fact, he acknowledged that environmental influences are important. However, he argued that even environmental influences can have genetic causes. In 1922 he wrote:
That children of better social status succeed better with the Binet- Simon scale is not necessarily an objection to that scale; nor is it necessarily a ground for constructing separate norms: for, by birth as well as by home training, children who are superior in social status may be equally superior in genral ability. Conversely, if a child proves defective according to a scale that is otherwise authentic, the mere fact that his family is poor and his dwelling a hovel does not of itself condone his deficiency. His parents' home may be mean precisely because their hereditary intelligence is mean. Whether poverty and its accompaniments affect the child's performances in any direct fashion-whether, for example, in the Binet-Simon tests a child that inherits an abundance of natural ability may be handicapped through a lack of cultural opportunities-is a further and a separate issue (Burt, 1922, p. 192). Later in Burt's life he would be accused of using fraudulent twin data to support the primacy of genetics over envirnoment. Between 1943 and 1966 he published a series of articles on the intelligence of identical twins who had been raised in different homes. Every article confirmed that each set twins' intelligence test scores were extremely similar. After Burt's death critics pointed out several problems with these articles, including: The raw data supporting his results had either disappeared or had never existed, an inability to confirm that his research assistants were indeed real people, extremely unlikely similarities in the correlation coefficients of IQ scores across studies, inconsistencies in the numbers of twins he reported using, and the implausibility of finding 53 sets of identical twins who had been reared apart. Although Burt is famous for his controversial hereditarian views, he took precisely the opposite stance on the issue of juvenile delinquency. Although Burt's family was middleclass, he grew up in a working class area and many of his boyhood friends were from poor families (Fancher, 1985). He was therefore made keenly aware of the environmental conditions which might lead to social and legal problems. While lecturing at Liverpool, he spent some time living in the University Settlement, a housing project on the on the outskirts of a slum. The settlement had been created for the specific purpose of exposing researchers to slum conditions. Burt came away from this experience convinced that juvenile delinquency was not a hereditary blight, but an environmental one. In The Young Delinquent, he lamented that "contagion is all too often mistaken for heredity" (Burt, 1925). In 1926 Burt began advocating for a national testing program that could identify bright children from all socioeconomic levels. He believed that this would establish a meritocracy, giving economically disadvantaged children educational opportunities that they would not otherwise receive. However, since he believed that economically disadvantaged children were also more likely to be genetically disadvantaged, he was convinced that the number of bright lower-class students identified would necessarily be much smaller than the number of bright upper class students. (Fancher, 1985) His proposed testing program was implemented, and a version of it is used in the United Kingdom to this day. Since Burt believed that intelligence is not fixed until children are approximately eleven years old, he suggested that all British students be tested at this age. Results of the "Eleven-Plus" exam would be used to sift students into grammar schools (for the high scorers) or modern schools (for the rest). These school placements were permanent. The Eleven-Plus program proved to be a double-edged sword: Since universities required grammar school training for admission, many lower-class youth received educational opportunities that they might not otherwise have enjoyed. However, most students were placed in the modern schools--ending forever their chances of receiving a university education. (Fancher, 1985). Burt also had environmentalist leanings on the issue of intelligence and race. Like many psychologists of his time, he believed that the European races were intellectually superior to the so-called "savage races". However, he did not attribute this superiority entirely to genetics (Hearnshaw, 1979). In a 1912 Eugenics Review article he stated: "In the case of the individual we found the influence of heredity large and indisputable; in the case of the race, small and controversial." (Burt, 1912) Burt was also interested in gender differences in intelligence. One of his earliest studies investigated the differences in the perceptual and motor skills, reasoning ability, and emotionality of male and female schoolchildren. His research team came to the surprising conclusion that "with few exceptions innate sex differences in mental constitution are astonishingly small--far smaller than common belief and common practice would lead us to expect" (Burt & Moore, 1912). Later in his career he offered evidence from a variety of sources pointing to the superior linguistic capabilities of girls, and suggested that at various periods in their development, girls are intellectually superior to their male counterparts. He noted however, that this superiority is transient, and that the overall cognitive differences between boys and girls are negligible. (Burt, 1922, p. 193). When viewed within the social context extant during this stage of Burt's career, it is reasonable to say that his work helped women to achieve gender parity within the school system. (Hearnshaw, 1979). *His experimental design did not actually allow for a direct comparison of the two groups. His conclusions were based on interpretations of data from within each group.

Selected Publications:
Burt, C. (1909). Experimental tests of general intelligence. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 94-177.
Burt, C. (1921). Mental and scholastic tests. London: P.S. King and Son.
Burt, C. (1935). The subnormal mind. London: Oxford University Press.
Burt C. (1940). The factors of the mind: An introduction to factor analysis in psychology. London: University of London Press.
Burt, C. (1957). The causes and treatments of backwardness (4th ed.). London: University of London Press.
Burt, C. (1975). The gifted child. New York: Wiley.

Burt, C.L. (1912). The inheritance of mental characteristics. Eugenics Review, 4, 168-200.
Burt, C.L. (1925). The young delinquent. London: University of London Press.
Burt, C. (1957). The causes and treatments of backwardness (4th ed.). London: University of London Press.
Burt, C.L., & Moore, R.C. (1912). The mental differences between the sexes. Journal of Experimental Ped., 1, 273-84, 355-88.
Fancher, R.E. (1985). The intelligence men: Makers of the IQ controversy. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Hearnshaw, L.S. (1979). Cyril Burt, Psychologist. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univerisity Press.
Scarr, S. (1994). Burt, Cyril L. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of intelligence (Vol. 1). (pp. 231-234). New York: Macmillan.

J.P. Guilford

J.P. Guilford (1897-1987) was an advocate of researching individual differences, some of you must also heard of his System of Intellect (SI) cube representation.

Student of: Titchener
Influenced by: Spearman
Students: Hunt
Time Period: Contemporary Explorations

University of Nebraska, B.A., M.A. (1917-1918, 1919-1924)
Cornell University, Ph.D. (1924-1927)

Teacher Grades 1 through 8 outside Phillips, Nebraska (1915-1916)
Teacher Grades 5 through 8 Phillips, Nebraska (1916-1917)
U. S. Army Private (1918-1919)
Teacher Grades 7 and 8 Hooper, Nebraska (Spring 1919)
Acting Superintendent of Schools (Summer 1919)
Interim Director for University of Nebraska Psychological Clinic (1919-1921)
Instructor at University of Illinois (1926-1927)
Assistant Professor at University of Kansas (1927-1928)
Associate Professor at University of Nebraska (1928-1932)
Professor at University of Nebraska (1932-1940)
Director of the Bureau of Instructional Research (1938-1940)
Teacher at the University of Southern California (Summer 1938, 1939)
Professor at University of South California (1940-1967)
Director of Psychological Research #3 Santa Ana Army Air Base (1942-1946)
President or member of numerous organizations and societies
Editorial board member for scholarly journals such as the American Journal of Psychology and Psychological Review

Definition of Intelligence: A systematic collection of abilities or functions for the processing of information of different kinds in various ways.

Experimental Psychology including attention and visual perception, learning and memory, and experimental esthetics
Statistical Psychology with regard to test theory and evaluation, factor analysis, psychophysics, and scaling
Mental abilities including knowledge gained from factor analytic studies, and the theoretical model of the structure of intellect
Personality theory and measurement
Author/co-author of over 25 books, 30 tests, and 300 journal articles

Ideas & Interests
During Guilford’s time as interim director of the Psychology Clinic, he became interested in the dissimilarities of children’s abilities in different areas. He came to believe intelligence was not one monolithic, global attribute but a combination of multiple abilities. This is what was to be the dominant focus of his professional career—individual differences. Guilford believed there were many relatively independent mental abilities factors. With WWII, Guilford was able to apply his factor analytic methodology to study these mental abilities. Because of his research on U.S. Army Air Corps during the war, he and his collaborators were able to identify and measure twenty-five important mental ability factors. Further, Guilford believed societies quest for easily objectifiable testing and scoring had directed away from measuring important qualities that individuals posses. Operationally, intelligence was defined as the ability to read, compute mathematically, and perform other similar subjects. According to Guilford, these types of intelligence tests revealed little about a person’s creative nature. After researching available intelligence tests, he determined many do not inter-correlate perfectly because each test emphasized a different primary ability. Guilford concluded individuals differ in a continuous manner for each primary ability. By the 1950’s, Guilford felt there needed to be a system developed to classify the new mental abilities being discovered. Traditional models prior to Guilford proposed a single universal ability at the top of a hierarchal pattern. In 1955, the first version of the Structure of Intellect (SI) model was presented. This model became Guilford’s main focus of research. The SI model includes a Content dimension, Products dimension, and Operations dimension. It is represented as a cube with each of the three dimensions occupying one side. Each ability is defined by a conjunction of the three categories, occupying one cell in the three-dimensional figure. There are five categories of Content including visual, auditory, symbolic, semantic, and behavioral. Six categories exist in the Products dimension including units, classes, relations, systems, transformation, and implications. The five kinds of Operations include cognition, memory, divergent production, convergent production, and evaluation. Guilford’s SI Theory is an open system such that it allows for newly discovered categories to be added in any of three directions. Many of the abilities are believed to be correlated with each other. The 5 x 6 x 5 figure provides at least 150 possible abilities, with over 100 having been empirically verified. The model also suggests where new abilities may be discovered based on existing abilities. Because of Guilford’s contributions during his career, intelligence was shown to be incredibly complex. No longer was intelligence a monolithic global trait considered innate and absolute.

Notable Publications:
Psychometric Methods (1936)
Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education (1942)
Printed Classification Tests (1947)
General Psychology (1939)
Fields of Psychology (1940)
Personality (1959)
Prediction of Categories from Measurements (1949)


Guilford, J. P. (1950) Creativity. The American Psychologist, 5,444-454.

Michael, W. B., Comrey, A. L., & Fruchter, B. (1963). J. P. Guilford: Psychologist and teacher. Psychological Bulletin, 60, 1-34.

Guilford, J.P. (1982). Cognitive psychology's ambiguities: Some suggested remedies. Psychological Review, 89, 48-59.

Guilford, J.P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Comrey, A. L. (1993). Joy Paul Guilford 1897-1987 (pp. 199-210).  In Biographical Memoirs V. 62. National Academy of Sciences: Washington, D.C.

Anne Anastasi

Anne Anastasi (December 19, 1908-May 4, 2001) was an American Differential Psychologist, known as "test guru", did an extensive examination of issues related to test construction, test misuse, misinterpretation and cultural bias.

Student of: H. L. Hollingworth
Influenced by: Spearman
Time Period: Contemporary Explorations

Educated at home by her grandmother and a private tutor until age 9
Dropped out of high school after only two months
Two years at the Rhodes Preparatory School in Manhattan (1922-1923)
Entered Barnard College at the age of 15. Graduated at the age of 19 (A.B. in Psychology, 1928)
Columbia University (Ph.D. in Psychology, 1929)

Barnard College, Instructor in Psychology (1930-1939)
Queens College, Assistant Professor and Chairperson of the Psychology Department, (1939-1947)
Fordham University, Associate Professor of Psychology, (1947-1951); Professor (1951-1979); Professor Emeritus (and awarded Honorary Doctor of Science Degree, 1979)
President of the Eastern Psychological Association (1946-1947)
President of the APA Division 1, General Psychology (1956-1957)
President of the APA Division 5, Evaluation, Measurement and Statistics (1965-1966)
President of the American Psychological Foundation (1965-1967)
Third female president of the American Psychological Association (1972)
Definition of Intelligence

"Intelligence is not a single, unitary ability, but rather a composite of several functions. The term denotes that combination of abilities required for survival and advancement within a particular culture (Anastasi, 1992, p. 613). ”

Major Contributions:

Known as the "test guru"
Extensive examination of issues related to test construction, test misuse, misinterpretation and cultural bias
Argued against the strictly hereditarian position; emphasized the role of experiential, environmental and cultural influences on intelligence test scores
More than 150 publications, including two classic textbooks: Psychological Testing (1st edition 1954; 7th edition, 1996) and Differential Psychology (1st edition 1937; 4th edition, 1981)

Ideas and Interests
Anne Anastasi grew up in New York City, the only child in a small Sicilian family. Her father died when she was an infant, and she was raised by her mother, grandmother and uncle. Anastasi described her grandmother as a domineering woman who maintained stewardship over most issues in family life, including young Anne's education. She believed herself to be a true aristocrat, and categorized all those whom she met as either aristocrats or peasants (Anastasi, 1989) Anastasi's uncle was a man of superior classical education, but he was ill prepared for real-world employment. In contrast, Anastasi's mother was a practical, resourceful woman, and it was she who shouldered the burden of supporting the family (Reznikoff & Procidano, 2001; Sexton & Hogan, 1990). Anastasi believed that the juxtaposition of these three personalities might have been a reason for her later professional interest in the psychology of individual differences (Anastasi, 1989). Anastasi's grandmother disapproved of the boisterous neighborhood children, and insisted that she be educated at home (Anastasi, 1989). When she was nine years old, a private tutor convinced her grandmother to allow her to attend a public elementary school. Anastasi enjoyed her early schooling, but her high school experience was disappointing. The building was overcrowded, rundown and very far from her home. She dropped out after only two months (Anastasi, 1972). At the suggestion of a family friend, she decided to skip high school entirely. She spent two years preparing for the college entrance examinations, and was admitted to Barnard College at the age of fifteen (Anastasi, 1972; Reznikoff & Procidano, 2001; Sexton & Hogan, 1990). Anastasi entered college as a math major. During her sophomore year she enrolled in an elective psychology class taught by H.L. Hollingworth. His enthusiasm and intensity impressed her, as did his sharp criticisms of sloppy research practices (Anastasi, 1989; Sexton & Hogan, 1990). Later the same year, Anastasi read a Charles Spearman article on correlation coefficients, (Spearman, 1904) and realized that she did not need to abandon mathematics to pursue her emerging interest in psychology (Anastasi, 1972, 1989; Reznikoff & Procidano, 2001). She switched majors and completed a bachelor's degree in psychology at the age of nineteen. After graduation from Barnard, she entered Columbia University, requesting that her undergraduate work be accepted in lieu of a master's degree. She completed her doctorate in two years (Anastasi, 1972, 1989). Anne Anastasi's research focused on understanding and measuring the factors underlying the development of individual differences in psychological traits (Anastasi, 1972, 1989). She argued against the strictly hereditarian position, emphasizing the role of experiential and environmental influences on intelligence test scores and psychological development. She stressed that intelligence test scores are not pure measures of innate ability: ...not only does the nature of one's antecedent experiences affect the degree of differentiation of "intelligence" into distinct abilities, but it also affects the particular abilities that emerge, such as verbal, numerical, and spatial abilities. Thus, experiential factors affect not only the level of the individual's intellectual development, but also the very categories in terms of which his abilities may be identified (Anastasi, 1972). Anastasi believed that most claims about "culture-free" and "culture-fair" testing are untrue. She stressed that different cultures have different concepts of what an "intelligent person" is, and that traditional psychometric tests measure only those skills which are valued in academic and work circles within modern, industrialized social contexts. The dominant intelligence test paradigm presupposes that intelligence tests should assess the individual's ability to succeed in this environment. However, the value of these tests is ephemeral; new tests will have to be developed as society advances and new technology demands cultivation of different cognitive skills. Anastasi emphasized that there is an alternative to this testing model. Other assessments could be developed to measure "how well individuals have acquired skills and knowledge valued in [their own] culture." She believed that although both types of tests can be valid as intelligence tests, the way in which intelligence is defined would necessarily be different for each construct (Anastasi, 1981). Anastasi's research increased awareness of what intelligence tests should and should not be used for. She cautioned test users against misinterpreting results, emphasizing that intelligence is changeable over time, and that intelligence (not just intelligence test scores) can improve with experience. Therefore, intelligence test scores should never be used to label a student indelibly (Anastasi, 1992): Tests can serve a predictive function only insofar as they indicate to what extent the individual has acquired the prerequisite skills and knowledge for a designated criterion performance. What persons can accomplish in the future depends not only on their present intellectual status, as assessed by the test, but on their subsequent experience (Anastasi, 1981).According to Anastasi, intelligence tests can do three things:
-They permit a direct assessment of prerequisite intellectual skills demanded by many important tasks in our culture.
-They assess availability of a relevant store of knowledge or content also prerequisite for many educational and occupational tasks.
-They provide an indirect index of the extent to which the individual has developed effective learning strategies, problem-solving techniques and work habits and utilized them in the past. (Anastasi, 1981)
When intelligence test scores are used properly, they are valuable descriptive tools that allow teachers and counselors to determine a student's current level of academic performance. Although an intelligence test score cannot tell us why a student scored as he did, the score can make it easier to meet a student at his level, and to design educational experiences that will improve intelligence. (Anastasi, 1981).

Selected Publications

Anastasi, A. (1981). Differential psychology. (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Anastasi, A. (1983). Psychological testing. In C.E. Walker (Ed.), Handbook of clinical psychology: Theory, research and practice (Vol.1, pp.420-444). Homewood, Ill: Dow-Jones Irwin.

Anastasi, A. (1983). What do intelligence tests measure? In S. B. Anderson & J. S. Helmick (Eds.), On educational testing: Intelligence, performance standards, test anxiety, and latent traits (pp.5-28). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Anastasi, A. (1984). Aptitude and achievement tests: The curious case of the indestructible strawperson. In B. S. Plake (Ed.), Social and technical issues in testing: Implications for test construction and usage (pp. 129-140).Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Anastasi, A. (1985). Psychological testing: Basic concepts and common misconceptions. In A. M. Rogers & C. J. Scheirer (Eds.), The G. Stanley Hall Lecture Series (Vol. 5, pp.87-120). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Anastasi, A. (1986). Intelligence as a quality of behavior. In R. J Sternberg & D. K. Detterman (Eds.), What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition (pp. 19-21). Norwood NJ: Ablex.

Anastasi, A. (1996). Psychological testing (7th ed.). New York: Macmillian.


Anastasi, A. (1972). Reminiscences of a differential psychologist. In T. S. Krawiec (Ed.), The psychologists (pp.3-37). London: Oxford University Press.

Anastasi, A. (1981). Diverse effects of training on tests of academic intelligence. In B. F. Green (Ed.), Issues in testing: Coaching, disclosure, and ethnic bias. (pp.5-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Anastasi, A. (1989). Anne Anastasi. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), History of psychology in autobiography: Vol. 7. (pp.1-37). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Anastasi, A. (1992). What counselors should know about the use and interpretation of psychological tests. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70 (5), 610-615.

Reznikoff, M., & Procidano, M. (2001). Anne Anastasi. American Psychologist, 56 (10), 816-817.

Sexton, V. S., & Hogan, J. D. (1990). Anne Anastasi. In A. N. O'Connell and N. F. Russo (Eds.), Women in psychology: A bio-bibliographic sourcebook. (pp.13-22). New York: Greenwood Press.

Spearman, C. (1904). "General intelligence" objectively determined and measured. American Journal of psychology, 15, 201-293.