Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News


Are we intelligent about developing human intelligence?

Ungifted_KaufmanWhen it comes to our under­stand­ing of human intel­li­gence, for too long, there has been a mis­match between the­ory and prac­tice. The­o­ret­i­cally, the two main threads run­ning through def­i­n­i­tions of intel­li­gence have been (a) adap­ta­tion to the envi­ron­ment, and (b) the cog­ni­tive, affec­tive, and voli­tional char­ac­ter­is­tics that enable that adap­ta­tion. Prac­ti­cally, IQ tests mea­sure an impor­tant but lim­ited slice of intel­lec­tual func­tion­ing in a very lim­ited test­ing envi­ron­ment. Why such a disconnect?

Intel­li­gence tests were born out of neces­sity. Alfred Binet was given the task of invent­ing a test that would dis­tin­guish fast learn­ers from slow learn­ers in a school envi­ron­ment. From the very first test of intel­li­gence, we’ve been oper­at­ing in an indi­vid­ual dif­fer­ences par­a­digm, and have been stuck in that par­a­digm ever since. Attempts to go beyond IQ seem to just add on more indi­vid­ual dif­fer­ence vari­ables, and slap the label “intel­li­gence” on them. This cre­ates more tests, and more ways to com­pare one per­son to another on what­ever tests of intel­li­gence the psy­chol­o­gist has cre­ated. But here’s the thing: there’s no objec­tive rea­son why soci­ety still needs to oper­ate in this paradigm.

While stan­dard­ized tests can cer­tainly be use­ful for sci­en­tif­i­cally inves­ti­gat­ing the mind and brain, and can greatly inform edu­ca­tional inter­ven­tions, there’s no rea­son why edu­ca­tors or any­one else for that mat­ter needs to com­pare the intel­li­gence of one per­son to another based on a sin­gle dimen­sion of human vari­a­tion. Truth is, gen­eral intel­li­gence—the largest source of cog­ni­tive vari­a­tion ever dis­cov­ered in humans—is merely a descrip­tion of pat­terns of vari­a­tion found between peo­ple; it doesn’t actu­ally exist within any individual.

Devel­op­men­tal psy­chol­o­gists are devel­op­ing excit­ing new tech­niques to study vari­a­tion within the per­son. Instead of select­ing a few fixed time points and range of cog­ni­tive skills, and aggre­gat­ing the results across sub­jects, the new person-specific par­a­digm focuses on a sin­gle per­son, selects a range of time points, and con­sid­ers the tra­jec­tory of a dynamic sys­tem of cog­ni­tive, emo­tional, and per­son­al­ity processes as they unfold over time. The results from the tra­di­tional indi­vid­ual dif­fer­ences par­a­digm— where we com­pare peo­ple to each other—do not apply at the person-specific level.

I believe this has major impli­ca­tions for our under­stand­ing of human intel­li­gence. For over 100 years, the field of intel­li­gence has mostly con­cerned itself with intel­lec­tual func­tions that show the largest vari­a­tion between humans, while less atten­tion has been given to func­tions that dis­play min­i­mal dif­fer­ence between peo­ple. But I believe shift­ing our level of analy­sis to the per­son presents enor­mous oppor­tu­ni­ties. It allows us to more clearly see, and appre­ci­ate, the rich­ness of human intel­li­gence. As Steven Pinker notes, “Humans every­where on the planet see, talk, and think about objects and peo­ple in the same basic way. The dif­fer­ence between Ein­stein and a high school dropout is triv­ial com­pared to the dif­fer­ence between the high school dropout and the best robot in exis­tence, or between the high school dropout and a chimpanzee.”

Once we look at how indi­vid­u­als actu­ally attain their per­sonal goals in the real world, many more aspects of human intel­li­gence become vis­i­ble than when we focused only on the char­ac­ter­is­tics that most strongly dif­fer­en­ti­ate peo­ple. Vir­tu­ally every human being on this planet has the same basic needs for com­pe­tence, auton­omy, relat­ed­ness, belong­ing, and unique­ness, even if we dif­fer in the bal­ance of those needs. We all have the capac­ity to cul­ti­vate a growth mind­set, learn how to prac­tice delib­er­ately, or flex our self-regulation mus­cles. We’ve all been endowed with pow­er­ful “struc­ture map­ping” atten­tional mech­a­nisms that allow us to soak up fun­da­men­tal knowl­edge about spa­tial rela­tions, num­bers, prob­a­bil­ity, logic, lan­guage, phys­i­cal objects, liv­ing things, arti­facts, music, aes­thet­ics, and the beliefs and desires of other minds, even if we dif­fer in what cap­ti­vates our atten­tion. Vir­tu­ally every­one draws on a robust implicit learn­ing sys­tem to soak up the prob­a­bilis­tic rule struc­ture of the world and can use pow­er­ful long-term work­ing mem­ory mech­a­nisms to acquire a deep, rich exper­tise base in some domain of human knowledge.

Some researchers might empha­size that these capa­bil­i­ties are evo­lu­tion­ar­ily older than fluid rea­son­ing or work­ing mem­ory. But keep in mind that our com­plex minds didn’t appear overnight. For most of our human evo­lu­tion, new struc­tures were grad­u­ally built on top of older struc­tures. The com­plex­ity of the human brain is the result of mil­lions of years of trial– and-error in a vari­ety of dif­fer­ent envi­ron­ments. Minds that were adap­tive for sur­vival and repro­duc­tion in par­tic­u­lar niches were main­tained. Drafts that weren’t adap­tive were grad­u­ally put into the waste bin. You can think of our minds as a layer cake. Each layer is impor­tant, and has con­tributed sig­nif­i­cantly to who we are as a species, and what we are capa­ble of. Just because a mech­a­nism of the mind is evo­lu­tion­ar­ily older does not make it any less impor­tant for adap­tive functioning.

It is my belief that it’s time for a new def­i­n­i­tion of human intel­li­gence that takes all of these aspects of the human mind into account. One that empha­sizes the value of an individual’s per­sonal jour­ney. That extends the time course of intel­li­gence from a two-hour test­ing ses­sion of decon­tex­tu­al­ized prob­lem solv­ing to a life­time of deeply mean­ing­ful engage­ment. That arms stu­dents with the mind­sets and strate­gies they need to real­ize their per­sonal goals, with­out lim­it­ing or pre-judging their chances of Ungifted_Kaufmansuc­cess at any stage in the process. That shifts the focus from doing every­thing right to a life­long learn­ing process where bumps and detours are par for the course. From a fixed mind­set to a growth mind­set. From prod­uct to process.

It’s time for The The­ory of Per­sonal Intelligence.

Scott Barry KaufmanThis is an adapted excerpt from Ungifted: Intel­li­gence Rede­fined - The Truth About Tal­ent, Prac­tice, Cre­ativ­ity, and the Many Paths to Great­ness, by Scott Barry Kauf­man (June 2013; 424 pages). Avail­able from Basic Books, a mem­ber of the Perseus Books Group. Copy­right © 2013.


Be Socia­ble, Share!
    Print This Article Print This Article

    Categories: Cognitive Neuroscience, Education & Lifelong Learning

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    New online course: How to Nav­i­gate Con­ven­tional and Com­ple­men­tary ADHD Treat­ments for Healthy Brain Development (early bird rates end April 1st)

    Haven’t read this book yet?

    Follow us via


    Welcome to

    As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Jour­nal, CNN and more, Sharp­Brains is an inde­pen­dent mar­ket research firm track­ing health and well­ness appli­ca­tions of brain science.
    FIRST-TIME VISITOR? Dis­cover HERE the most pop­u­lar resources at
    Enter Your Email to receive Sharp­Brains free, monthly eNewslet­ter:
    Join more than 50,000 Sub­scribers and stay informed and engaged.