Consider three type of graduate students with whom I have been associated. If you understand the similarities and differences among these students — we’ll call them Alice, Barbara, and Celia — and their strengths and weaknesses, you will have a better basis for understanding the tribrachic theory of human intelligence that I am proposing.
Alice was the admissions officer’s dream. She was easily admitted to our graduate program. She came with [1] (1. average 2. stellar 3. satisfactory) test scores, outstanding college grades, excellent letters of recommendation, and, overall, close to a perfect record. Alice proved to be more or less what her record promised. She had excellent critical and analytical abilities, which earned her outstanding grades during her first two years at our school. When it came to taking tests and writing papers, she [2] (1. had no peer 2. had no help 3. was popular) among her classmates. But after the first two years, Alice no longer looked quite so outstanding. In our graduate program, as in most, emphasis shifts after the first couple of years. It is not enough just to criticize other people’s ideas or to study concepts that other people have proposed. You must [3] (1. not rely on 2. begin reviewing 3. start coming up with) your own ideas and figuring out ways of implementing them. Alice’s synthetic abilities were far inferior to her analytic ones. But there was no way of knowing this from the evidence available in the admissions folder, for [4] (1. although 2. however 3. whenever) conventional measures can give us a good reading on analytic abilities, they give virtually no assessment of synthetic abilities. Thus, Alice was “IQ test” smart, but not equally [5]1. discreet 2. disciplined 3. distinguished) in the synthetic, or practical, areas of intelligence.
In sharp contrast to Alice, Barbara was the admissions officer’s nightmare. When she applied to our graduate school, she had good grades but abysmal aptitude test scores. Still, she had superlative letters of recommendation, which described her as an exceptionally creative young woman who had designed and implemented creative research with only minimal guidance. Moreover, her resume showed her to have been actively involved in important research. Unfortunately, people like Barbara are rejected from many graduate programs. As a result, they either have to enter a program that is much less competitive or change their field altogether.
Celia, on paper, appeared to be somewhere between Alice and Barbara in terms of suitability for admission to the graduate program. She was good on almost every measure of success but not truly outstanding on any. We admitted her, [6] (1. expecting that she comes out 2. expecting her to come out 3. having expected to come out) near the middle of the class. This did not happen. Celia proved to be outstanding, though in a way that is quite different from Alice’s or Barbara’s. Celia’s expertise lies in figuring out and adapting to the demands of the environ mint. Placed in a totally new setting, she loses no time identifying what is required of her and behaving [7] (1. agreeably 2. accordingly 3. selectively). She knows exactly what to do to get ahead. In conventional parlance, Celia is “street smart.” She excels in practical intelligence.
Just how would you characterize the similarities and differences among Alice, Barbara, and Celia? Clearly, all are exceedingly intelligent, though in very different ways. People like Alice excel in traditional academic, or analytic, intelligence. To the extent that intelligence is measured by [8]1. conventional 2. genetic 3. creative) factors or information processing components, by its relationship to the internal world, Alice and individuals like her would be considered very, very smart. Individuals like Barbara, on the other hand, do not appear nearly so intelligent by such ordinary standards. Where they excel is in their synthetic ability, the ability to deal with novelty — to view new things in old ways or old things in new ways. Hence Barbara’s intelligence, and that of others like her, becomes truly apparent [9] (1. unless 2. even though 3. only if) it is viewed in terms of the relationship of intelligence to experience, particularly novel experience. People like Celia have neither Alice’s nor Barbara’s pattern of strength. Instead, they excel in terms of the relationship between intelligence and the external world of the individual. Their excellence resides in their practical intelligence — the ability to apply their mental abilities to [10] (1. novel 2. unusual 3. every day) situations. Their street smarts are not measured by typical tests but quickly show up in their performance in real-world settings.
The actual ideas for my theory of intelligence were inspired by contact with people I have known. In developing a [11] (1. consensus 2. purpose 3. rationale) for a theory of intelligence, however, it is necessary to have both a scientific and an observational basis for making theoretical claims. I therefore decided to look back at the major theories of intelligence that have been proposed during the twentieth century. All of these seemed to be doing one, or in rare cases, two, of three things. The first kind of theory attempted to relate intelligence to the internal world of individuals: What goes on inside people’s heads when they think intelligently? In the second kind of theory, psychologists sought to relate intelligence to the experience of individuals: How does experience affect people’s intelligence, and how does their intelligence affect the kinds of experiences they have? The third kind of theory is concerned with the relationship of intelligence to the external world of individuals: How do their interactions with the world at large affect their intelligence, and how does their intelligence affect the world in which they live? Furthermore, how does the world in which we live shape our very notions of what intelligence is?
After conducting this extensive review of the literature on intelligence, I was impressed that my review led me to exactly the same place that my observations of Alice, Barbara, and Celia had taken me. To understand intelligence completely, it seems that one needs to understand the relationship of intelligence to three things: the internal world of the individual, the external world of the individual, and the experience with the world that [12] (1. Separates 2. Intercepts 3. Mediates between) the internal and the external worlds.
The [13] (1. convergence 2. divergence 3. incompatibility) of my analysis of the research literature and my personal experience convinced me that what was needed was a “triarchic” theory of human intelligence — one that did justice to each of these three aspects of intelligence. It is important to mention that my goal in constructing the tribrachic theory was quite [14] (1. contrary to 2. interchangeable with 3. compatible with) that of most psychologists who have developed theories of intelligence. The field has been [15]1. Exceptionally focused 2. Notoriously contentious 3. Unusually harmonious), with every theorist setting out to prove that his theory is right and everyone else’s is wrong. For example, Arthur Jensen argues for the predominance of a single, general factor in human intelligence, while Howard Gardner maintains that there are at least seven or eight multiple intelligences. For me, the most disturbing element of these and other opposing theorists has been that while they have done reasonably well in [16] (1. amassing 2. refuting 3. responding to) evidence to support their own point of view, they have generally failed to disprove the views of others. How could this be? After reviewing earlier theories, I came to the conclusion that the reason for this was that virtually all of them have been [17](1. inaccurate 2. incomplete 3. inconsistent). Though proposed as full theories of intelligence, each has dealt with only some limited aspects. Often, too, these theories have proved to be complementary rather than contradictory, as might be expected. It is not difficult to show that a theory of general intelligence and the theory of multiple intelligences can be [18] (1. infused 2. installed 3. integrated) in a hierarchical framework, with general intelligence at the top of the hierarchy and multiple intelligences lower down. More specific abilities would then be viewed as sub-abilities. The point to be made, then, is that often the competition among theorists has been [19] (1. fierce 2. spurious 3. accommodating). Their theories are really theories of different aspects of intelligence.
The goal of the tribrachic theory is not to compete with other theories, but to [20] (1. subsume 2. submerge 3. sublet) them in a sense; that is, to view them as subdivisions of a more general theory. The tribrachic theory is so named because it attempts to deal with each of the three aspects of intelligence described earlier. It is not the only possible theory that might successfully account for the interplay of intelligence with the internal world of the individual, with experience, and with the external world of the individual. Indeed, I hope other theories will be proposed. But for the present, it does seem to have somewhat fewer gaps than existing theories.
コメントを残す