During the last decade of the 19th century, a French doctor named Alfred Binet was commissioned by the school system to develop a way to differentiate between uneducable or severely mentally handicapped students from the other students. To do this, he developed an intelligence test. The earliest intelligence tests, introduced a decade earlier, emphasized sensory tasks, physical measurements, and simple processes. Unlike these tests, Binet developed an intelligence test consisting of items requiring complex mental processes and examining the individual as a whole. Therefore, the results of the Binet scales were successful in discriminating between the two types of students. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The success of Binet's test led to a much bigger question: what exactly do these tests measure? What the tests purported to measure was intelligence. But if they were measuring intelligence, then the next question that arose was: what exactly is intelligence? This is when the great debate over the definition of intelligence began. There is a general consensus that there are different levels of intelligence and that different individuals have different intelligence abilities. In other words, "individuals differ from each other in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by thinking” (Neisser et al., 1996, p.77). But the number and types of intelligences that exist, as well as how to define intelligence, are still debated. Today, there are two main schools of thought on the nature of intelligence. The former, supported by psychologists like Eysenck, Galton, Jensen and Spearman, believe that all intelligence comes from a general factor, called g. Proponents of the other school of thought include Gardner, Sternberg and Thurstone. These psychologists believe that there is more than one general type of intelligence, or in other words, that there are different types of intelligence. An interesting note about this school of thought is that there is disagreement, even within this camp, about exactly how many different types of intelligence there are. A general intelligence There are strong arguments to support the theory of a general type of intelligence. The most compelling evidence in favor of a single model of general intelligence is the fact that there is evidence of a single general factor that governs an individual's level of intelligence. This is also known as the positive manifold (Spearman, 1904). In addition, there is a very strong correlation between IQ and very simple cognitive tasks, which supports the theory of general intelligence (Eysenck, 1982). Positive variety. The first argument in favor of general intelligence is the fact that there is a strong positive correlation between different tests of cognitive ability. Spearman (1904), as part of his research, administered many different types of tests to many people, covering several different areas of cognitive abilities. When he looked at the results of these different tests, he found that there was a positive correlation between the tests for a given individual. In other words, if a certain person performed well on a test of verbal skills, then that same person also performed well on another test of another cognitive ability, for example a math test . Spearman called this positive correlationbetween positive collector tests. This positive variety was also called general intelligence factor, or g. It is the only factor that determines the intelligence of the individual. Jensen (1997) supported the theory of general intelligence by stating: "the positive correlation between all elements of cognitive tests is an acquired and inexorable fact." The entirely positive inter-item correlation matrix is ​​not an artifact of test construction or item selection, as some test critics erroneously believe” (p. 223). This positive variety led Spearman (1904) to find a first important factor called general intelligence, or g reaction time and g. Another strong argument in favor of general intelligence is the fact that there is a very strong correlation between reaction time and IQ. According to Eysenck (1982), "IQ is very highly correlated (0.8 and above, without correction for attenuation) with tests that are fundamentally so simple, or even directly physiological, that they can hardly be considered cognitive in the accepted sense » (p. 9). For example, an example of the type of tests used to measure reaction time is a test in which a light is turned on. The participant is asked to press a button as soon as they see the light turn on. From tests like these, reaction time can be measured. Since only very simple sensory and motor movements are required to respond, it is difficult to argue that cultural, environmental, gender, socioeconomic, or educational differences will affect participants' ability to answer testers' questions (Eysenck, 1982). Common definitions of intelligence are “success in problem solving, ability to learn, ability to produce nogenetic solutions, understanding of complex instructions, or simply overall cognitive ability” (Eysenck, 1982, p. 8). The definition of intelligence is that they all require the proper functioning of the nervous system, particularly the brain, and sensory organs. Additionally, for these types of tasks to be accomplished, they require that the information processing that takes place within the body's systems be relatively error-free. Jensen (1993), along with others, synthesized these facts and hypothesized that "the most obvious hypothesis is that speed of information processing is the essential basis of g, and a neurological basis possible speed of processing is the speed of transmission through nerve pathways” (p. 54). The speed of information transmission can be reasonably well measured or extrapolated from reaction time scores. Therefore, if an individual has a faster neural processing speed, then he or she has a better reaction time. In turn, because reaction time is highly correlated with IQ, individuals with faster neural processing speeds have higher IQs. Therefore, the speed of neural processing determines the intelligence level of the individual; this intelligence is general intelligence, g.Summary. Sternberg and Gardner (1982) summarized the theory of general intelligence by stating that "general intelligence can be understood componentarily as arising in part from the execution of general components in information processing behavior" (p. 251). And Spearman (1973/1923) concluded that “cognitive events, like those of physics, can be reduced to a small number of principles definitively formulable in the sense of ultimate laws” (p. 341). These psychologists, as well as many others, believe that intelligence can be defined by a single factor. Let this unique factor be called positive variety,neural processing speed or g, the complexities of the human mind and its processes can be reduced to a single factor, defined as multiple intelligence. The various proponents of general intelligence all agree that there is a single factor that determines intelligence, and proponents of multiple intelligences agree that there is more than one type of intelligence. However, different proponents of multiple intelligences disagree on how many different intelligences exist or could exist. I believe that the theories put forward by Gardner and Sternberg are the most interesting. Both have their own theory on multiple intelligences; Gardner (1983) believes that there are seven forms of intelligence; Sternberg (1985) believes that there are three forms of intelligence. Gardner's Theory Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences suggests that there are seven different forms of intelligence. They are linguistic, musical, spatial, bodily, interpersonal, intrapersonal and logical-mathematical. In developing his theory, Gardner (1983) attempted to correct some of the errors of early psychologists who “all ignored biology; all have failed to master higher levels of creativity; and all [were] insensitive to the range of roles evidenced in human society” (p. 24). Thus, Gardner based his own theory of intelligence on biological facts. Li (1996) summarizes Gardner's theory as follows: Premise 1: If it can be found that certain parts of the brain can distinctly correspond to certain cognitive functionings (A), then this cognitive functioning can be isolated as a candidate for multiple intelligences (B). (If A, then B). Premise 2: It has now been discovered that certain parts of the brain distinctly correspond to certain cognitive functions, as evidenced by certain brain lesions leading to the loss of certain cognitive functions. (Proof of A).Conclusion: Therefore, multiple intelligences. (So ​​B.). (p. 34) Gardner's theory has a very solid biological basis. The second premise takes into account the brain as a major physical determinant of intelligence. By studying people with speech impediments, paralysis, or other disabilities, Gardner was able to locate the parts of the brain necessary to perform physical function. He studied the brains of people with disabilities postmortem and found damage in specific areas, compared to those without disabilities. Gardner discovered seven different areas of the brain and his theory therefore consists of seven different intelligences, each linked to a specific part of the human brain (Li, 1996). Gardner sought to develop a theory with multiple intelligences also because he believed that current psychometric tests only examined linguistic, logical, and some aspects of spatial intelligence, while other facets of intelligent behavior such as athleticism, musical talent, and social awareness were not included (Neisser et al., 1996). Sternberg's theory. The triarchic theory of intelligence developed by Sternberg is “a global, more encompassing theory. . . because it takes into account social and contextual factors other than human capabilities” (Li, 1996, p. 37). Sternberg (1985) believed that the theories that preceded him were not incorrect, but rather incomplete. Therefore, his theory, like Gardner's, takes into account creative or musical intelligence. But as for the other six intelligences from Gardner's theory, Sternberg classifies them into two different types of intelligence: analytical (or academic) and practical. These two types.