See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339413358

Evolution Of Concept Of Intelligence

Article · October 2019

CITATIONS READS

2 5,714

1 author:

Suchitra Srivastava
Jagannath International Management School, New Delhi
25 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Suchitra Srivastava on 27 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Evolution Of Concept Of Intelligence
Suchitra Srivastava
Associate Professor, Department of Management,
Jagannath International Management School, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, India.

Abstract
This review paper focuses on the different theories of intelligence and their relevance. It
analyses the conceptual framework underlying the theories of prominent researchers across the world.
It critically examines the different factors that impact intelligence and define intelligent behavior. It
sheds the light on emotional intelligence as major determinant of success and well- being and traces its
evolution. The paper also highlights the definitions and concepts of intelligence in the twenty first
century. It also gives a new direction to the assessment of intelligence.

Key words: intelligence, intelligent behavior, factors, abilities, emotional intelligence

1.Introduction
The word intelligence is derived from the Latin verb ‘intellegere’ which means understanding.
According to the Webster's dictionary, intelligence is the ability to retain knowledge, use reasoning to
solve problems or have above average brain power. The Oxford dictionary defines it as “the ability to
acquire and apply knowledge and skills.” In other words, it refers to the ability of thinking, reasoning,
and acquiring and applying knowledge. [28] The present study is a modest attempt to trace the
evolution of the concept of intelligence. The researcher strives to highlight the conceptual framework
proposed by the different researchers in the past. The key purpose of this paper is to find out the
relevance of these frameworks in the present times.
The prime focus is to analyze whether a person is born intelligent, whether intelligence can be
acquired, whether it manifests itself in particular situations or whether it is a complex combination of
two or more of the above.

2.Literature Review
The concept of intelligence has been a major topic of research and discourse since time
immemorial. The ancient thinkers and philosophers had diverse views. Towards the twentieth century,
it started gaining prominence as a measurable quantity. The developments in the conceptual
framework are discussed in the present paper.

2.1 Ancient- Greek, Latin, Islamic and Indian Philosophy

Firstly, Plato suggests that “intelligence is that which distinguishes the different social classes,
and is unevenly endowed by God. So fixed and innate to the individual was this endowment.” Also, his
student Aristotle had a similar view on the issue of “intelligence”. However, he was more egalitarian
compared to Plato. Aristotle claimed that people were very similar to each other in terms of their
intellects. What made humans different from animals was this intellect . [15] Ancient Greeks
described wisdom or intelligence is Phronesis. It dealt with practical action, implying both good
judgement and excellence of character and habits, or practical virtue. Phronesis was a much discussed
in the ancient Greek philosophy. Because of its practical connotation and orientation, it was often
translated as "practical wisdom", and sometimes (more traditionally) as "prudence", from
Latin prudentia. According to Thomas McEvilley, the best translation of the concept could be
"mindfulness". [40] It is beneficial to examine the concept of “intellect” also from Islamic tradition.
Avicenna being one of the most famous Islamic philosophers, theorized about “intellect” and brought
the theory of “active intellect” in philosophy.
Ahmed (2011) gives Avicenna’s definition of mind in his book. Avicenna postulates that “The
mind is a capacity of the soul that prepares (it) for acquiring knowledge”. [1] This definition of “mind”

www.theinternationaljournal.org> RJSSM : Volume: 09, Number: 06, October 2019 Page 56

shows similarity to today’s definition of “intelligence” in modern psychology. In other words, mind is
understood as a capacity and not a stable part of humans.
Also, Arslan (2011) suggests that actually Avicenna’ philosophy is very similar to that of
Aristotle. Both of them mention “the active intellect”. Humans have both “passive” and “active”
intellect. Passive intellect alone does not include any action. Therefore, active intellect is the one
converting passive intellect to an action and generating the knowledge. [4]
The concept of active intellect might be explained more. Alper (2010) explains Avicenna’s
“active intellect” as “transcendental intellect” also. [2] More clearly, knowledge might be based on
senses and thoughts. However there is another dimension which exceeds these dimensions. Human
alone is not able to reveal the knowledge. The thing giving the knowledge to the humans and generate
this knowledge on humans is “active intellect” [15]
According to Avicenna, intellect itself has a potential to gain knowledge. However, when there
is no active intellect, it cannot know anything actively. Again regarding this issue, Kabadayı ( 2006)
explains that “for Avicenna, the active intellect gives natural things their forms. Hence, the material
intellect is illuminated by the light of the active intellect and recognizes the general only if it looks
upon the particular representations which are in the imagination.” [24] As it is seen, active intellect is
necessary for actively knowing something. It is understood by the term itself “active”. There is a world
perceived by our senses and active intellect serve the purpose of interpreting and processing the
knowledge coming from there. When it is thought as processing information, it is very similar to the
construct of “intelligence” used today.

2.2 Contemporary World, Indian

2.2.1 Contemporary World
Serpell (2011) conducted a four decade of multi method research in Zambia. The primary focus
was a cultural study of indigenous ideas in a rural Chewa community in eastern Zambia. He concluded
“that, within this culture, children’s intelligence was construed as an amalgam of cognitive alacrity and
social responsibility.” [34]
Sternberg and Grigorenko(2004) have investigated concepts of intelligence in Africa, Alaska
and Russia. They measured the Kenyan children’s ability to identify the natural herbal medicines,
where they come from, what they are used for and how they were dosed; this ability was of prime
importance as it reflected their knowledge and ability necessary for survival. They also measured
practical intelligence with a test of tacit (informally learned) knowledge as acquired in rural Alaskan
Yup’ik communities. [37]
Thus, in terms of the skills that mattered most to the children’s everyday lives, the test of
practical intelligence was distinctly preferable. Study in Russia also concluded that practical
intelligence (related to physical and mental health) was related to successful adaptation to the
environment and hence an individual’s ability to achieve one’s goals in life. [37]
In the studies carried out by Berry (1997) and Sternberg & Kaufman (1998), intelligence may
be conceived in different ways in different cultures . [6 and 38] Yang & Sternberg (1997a) reviewed
Chinese philosophical conceptions of intelligence. [45] The Confucian perspective emphasizes the
characteristic of benevolence and of doing what is right. As in the western notion, the intelligent
person expends a great deal of effort in learning, enjoys learning and persists in life-long learning with
a great deal of enthusiasm. The Taoist tradition, in contrast, emphasized the importance of humility,
freedom from conventional standards of judgment and full knowledge of oneself as well as of external
conditions. The difference between eastern and western conceptions of intelligence persists even in the
present times. In the words of Yang & Sternberg (1997b) [46], contemporary Taiwanese Chinese
conceptions of intelligence identified five factors (i) a general cognitive factor, much like the g-factor
in conventional western tests; (ii) interpersonal intelligence (i.e. social competence); (iii) intrapersonal
intelligence; (iv) intellectual self-assertion: knowing when to show that you are smart; and (v)
intellectual self-effacement: knowing when not to show that you are smart. In a related study, Chen
(1994) found three factors underlying Chinese conceptualizations of intelligence: non-verbal reasoning
ability, verbal reasoning ability and rote memory. [9]

www.theinternationaljournal.org> RJSSM : Volume: 09, Number: 06, October 2019 Page 57

2.2.2 Contemporary Indian
Srivastava and Mishra(2007), have identified the concept and meaning of intelligence
according to Suktis (aphorism, maxim, epigram or apophthegms ), Hindi proverbs, and the views of
the common people in different parts of India. [35] They suggested a multifaceted concept of
intelligence which they termed as cognitive competence, social competence, entrepreneurial
competence and emotional competence.

They elaborated the factors as follows:

1. Cognitive competence
Readiness to learn
Sensitivity to context
Comprehension
Learning (from past experience)
Problem solving
Planning
Reflection
Communication
2. Social competence
Observing norms
Serving elders
3. Entrepreneurial competence
Practical orientation
Commitment
Patience
Hard work
Vigilance
Resourcefulness
Goal directedness
Moderation
Secrecy
4. Emotional competence
Self respect
Confidence
Trustworthiness
Open mindedness
Self to other orientation
The ‘Panchatantras’ and the ‘Jataka’ tales are full of illustrations of intelligent and socially
acceptable behaviours. They focus on how constructive thoughts and actions bring happiness, peace,
prosperity and overall well being of the society.
The Bhagavat Gita demonstrates that intelligence is not an abstract concept. It is the person’s
response in terms of appropriate action as demanded by the situation.
It needs to be emphasized that the Indian concept of intelligence is contextual.

2.3 Twentieth century

The twentieth century witnessed a lot of research in the western world pertaining to the
meaning, conceptualization and measurement of intelligence. It was realized that it was a measurable
ability of human beings. Hence it was treated as a construct which could be clearly defined and
measured.
There have been massive transformations in the study of intelligence which have widened the
conceptual framework. Some of these theories / models proposed by researchers across the world are
discussed in the following paragraphs.

www.theinternationaljournal.org> RJSSM : Volume: 09, Number: 06, October 2019 Page 58

2.3.1 Spearman’s Theory (1904)
In the year 1904, Charles Spearman, the English psychologist proposed his theory, known as
the two factor theory or the Eclectic Theory. According to his theory, intellectual abilities comprise of
two factors:
1. General ability- known as the “g” factors and
2. Specific ability- known as the “s” factors.
He held that an underlying major factor which he called general intelligence existed and
formed a basis of all intellectual abilities. He believed that the levels of general intelligence could
predict levels of specific abilities.
The general and specific abilities differ from person to person. This theory had major
implications for teachers and trainers who assumed that the specific abilities can be developed in the
individuals if they possessed the basic general abilities.

2.3.2 Burt Model (1909)

Sir Cyril Burt, a British psychologist is credited for his work on Factor Analysis in
psychological testing and the effect of heredity on intelligence and behavior. He made use of Charles
Spearman’s model of general intelligence to assess the performance of school children in a battery of
tests. According to him, the mind is in the form of model that resembles an inverted tree. The two
major divisions were, first, the intellectual characteristics or the “g” factors and the other, the practical
or the behavioral characteristics. He has also penned a book called ‘The factors of the mind- an
introduction of factor analysis in Psychology’.

Figure 2.1
Burt’s Conception Of An Idealized Hierarchical Model For Aptitude Factors, With Successive
Dichotomization At Different Levels Of Mental Generality
(Source: Burt, C.L., 1955) [7]

2.3.3 Stern’s Model (1911)

William Stern was a German psychologist and philosopher. He proposed the Unifactor theory,
also known as the general capacity theory. It is paralleled to Spearman’s theory of ‘Abilities of Man’.
These theories were in contradiction to the present theories which show that “the function of
intelligence is divisible into several units more or less uncorrelated and therefore each needing a
separate measurement of its own.”
He has also coined the term ‘intelligence quotient’ [44].

www.theinternationaljournal.org> RJSSM : Volume: 09, Number: 06, October 2019 Page 59

Stern further believed that all persons are endowed with the “g” factor, though in different amounts.
This factor is brought forth in any problem solving situation, and its efficiency depend on the
environmental factors.

2.3.4 Edward Thorndike Model

Edward Thorndike was an influential American psychologist who is often referred to as the
founder of modern educational psychology [11].
He proposed the “multiple theory of intelligence”. He proposed that intelligence could be
described as possessing an altitude (or level), width (or types) and area (or how many) of capabilities.
His theory is also known as the three dimensional theory.
He later expanded the list and proposed that there were four general dimensions of abstract
intelligence [41]:
o Altitude: the complexity or difficulty of tasks one can perform (most important)
o Width: the variety of tasks of a give difficulty
o Area: a function of width and altitude
o Speed: the number of tasks one can complete in a given time
He also elucidated that intelligence involves three mutually independent abilities [41]:
Abstract intelligence - the ability to verbal and symbolic thinking
Mechanical intelligence - the ability to effectively control your body and manipulate objects
Social intelligence - the ability to communicate with people, understand and perform in social
relations
His theory was a major challenge to Charles Spearman’s single, general intelligence factor “g”
theory. His enunciation of “social intelligence” was breakthrough which later led to the development
of the concept of Emotional Intelligence.
Thorndike along with his students used objective measurements of intelligence on human
subjects as early as 1903. He developed methods for measuring a wide variety of abilities and
achievements. In the 1920's he developed a test of intelligence that consisted of completion, arithmetic,
vocabulary, and directions test, known as the CAVD. This test was intended to measure intellectual
level on an absolute scale. The logic underlying the test predicted elements of test design that
eventually became the foundation of modern intelligence tests and thus turning to a more practical
aspect of measuring abstract intelligence [20].
Thorndike believed that a measure of intelligence should consider the cultural background of
the individual.

2.3.5 Thurstone Model (1938)

According to Thurstone (1924/1973), “intelligence, considered as a mental trait, is the capacity
to make impulses focal at their early, unfinished stage of formation. Intelligence is therefore the
capacity for abstraction, which is an inhibitory process.” [42]
In the year 1938, Louis Leon Thurstone and his wife, Thelma G. Thurstone published an
article titled “Primary mental abilities” [21]. Their theory of Primary Mental Abilities, a model of
human intelligence challenged Charles Spearman’s then-dominant paradigm of a unitary conception
of intelligence. They are credited with many significant contributions in the areas of psychology,
including psychometrics, statistics, and the study of human intelligence.
Thurstones’ found that intelligent behavior does not arise from a general factor propounded by
Spearman, but rather emerges from seven independent factors that they called primary abilities.
These abilities were word fluency, verbal comprehension, spatial visualization, number facility,
associative memory, reasoning, and perceptual speed (Thurstone, 1938). He, later analyzed mental test
data from samples comprising of people with similar overall IQ scores and found that they had
different profiles of primary mental abilities. This further supported his model and suggested that his
work had more practical application compared to Spearman’s unitary theory [21].
However, when Thurstone administered his tests to an intellectually heterogeneous group of
children, he failed to find that the seven primary abilities were entirely separate; rather he found

www.theinternationaljournal.org> RJSSM : Volume: 09, Number: 06, October 2019 Page 60

evidence of “g”.. Thurstone proposed an elegant mathematical model that resolved these apparently
contradictory
ontradictory results, and the final version of his theory was a compromise that accounted for the
presence of both a general factor and the seven specific abilities. This compromise helped lay the
groundwork for future researchers who proposed hierarchical theories and theories of multiple
intelligences (Ruzgis, 1994) [31].

2.3.6 Guilford’s Model (1955)

Joy Paul Guilford, an American psychologist is best remembered for his psychometric study of
human intelligence. According to him, intelligence is “A systematic collection of abilities or functions
for the processing of information of different kinds in various ways.” [22]
He proposed the “Structure
Structure of Intellect theory” popularly known as the SI theory. His model
includes three dimensions, namely a Content dimension, Products dimension, and Operations
dimension. These are represented as a cube with each of the three dimensions occupying one side.
Each ability, occupying one cell in the three-dimensional
three figure is defined byy varying degrees of the
three parameters. The Content dimension includes five categories namely, visual, auditory, symbolic,
semantic, and behavioral. The Products dimension includes six categories namely, namely units, classes,
relations, systems, transformationn and implications. Operations include five components including
cognition, memory, divergent production, convergent production, and evaluation.

Figure 2.2
Guilford’s Structure Of Intellect Theory
(Source: https://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/intellect/) [39]

The main advantage of Guilford’s SI Theory is that it is an open system that allows for newly
discovered categories to be added
dded in any of three directions [19].

2.3.7 Vernon’s Model (1965)

Philip Ewart Vernon , was a British-born
British born Canadian psychologist and author of great eminence
and repute. Hiss domain of study focused on the contributions of environmental and genetic factors to
intellectual development. He continued to analyze the effects of genes and the environment on both
individual and group difference in intelligence. His conclusions are summarized in two books:
Intelligence and Cultural Environment (1969) and Intelligence: Heredity and Environment (1979)
(1979 [30].
He proposed the hierarchiccal model with the “g” factor (as proposed by Spearman) at the top.
The “g” factor branched into two main groups: the verbal-numerical-educational
verbal educational on the one hand
(known as v-ed factor)) and the spatial-practical-mechanical-physical
spatial physical on the other (known as a k-m
factor). These two may be further subdivided into several factors. The v-ed
v ed subdivides into verbal and

www.theinternationaljournal.org>
rnal.org> RJSSM : Vol
Volume: 09, Number: 06, October 2019 Page 61
numerical while the k-m splits into space ability, manual ability and mechanical information. These
were further divided into specific factors which were of very narrow scope and of trivial importance as
considered by Vernon.

Figure 2.3
Vernon’s Model Of Intelligence
(Source: Author’s self drawn)

2.3.8 Cattel’s Fluid and Crystallized Theory

Raymond Cattell, a psychologist proposed the concepts of fluid and crystallized intelligence.
He further developed the theory with his student John Horn. The Cattell-Horn theory of fluid and
crystallized intelligence explains that intelligence is composed of different abilities that interact and
work together to produce overall individual intelligence. According to them, fluid intelligence refers
to the ability to reason and think flexibly while crystallized intelligence refers to the accumulation of
knowledge, facts, and skills that are acquired throughout life [31].
It is to be noted that crystallized and fluid intelligence are believed to be separate neural and
mental systems. Most IQ tests attempt to measure both the varieties. For example, the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale (WAIS) measures fluid intelligence on the performance scale and crystallized
intelligence on the verbal scale and the overall IQ score is based on a combination of these two scales
[13].

2.3.9 Gardner’s Theory (1983)

Dr. Howard Gardner, professor of education at Harvard University, proposed the theory of
multiple intelligences. He suggested that the traditional notion of intelligence, based on I.Q. testing,
was far too limited in its scope. Instead, Dr. Gardner proposed that eight different intelligences
accounted for a broader range of human potential in children and adults. These intelligences were:
• Linguistic intelligence (“word smart”)
• Logical-mathematical intelligence (“number/reasoning smart”)
• Spatial intelligence (“picture smart”)
• Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence (“body smart”)
• Musical intelligence (“music smart”)
• Interpersonal intelligence (“people smart”)
• Intrapersonal intelligence (“self smart”)
• Naturalist intelligence (“nature smart”)

www.theinternationaljournal.org> RJSSM : Volume: 09, Number: 06, October 2019 Page 62

 Dr. Gardner argued that our schools and cultures focus most of their attention on linguistic and
logical-mathematical intelligence. His findings have found major implications in the curriculum
designed by schools. It suggested that teachers be trained to present their lessons in a wide variety of
innovative ways using music, cooperative learning, art activities, role play, multimedia, field trips,
inner reflection, and much more in order to enhance students’ learning [14].

2.3.10 Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory (1985)

Robert J. Sternberg is an American psychologist and psychometrician. He proposed the
triarchic theory of intelligence.
The triarchic theory describes three distinct types of intelligence that an individual can
possess. Sternberg calls these three types practical intelligence, creative intelligence, and
analytical intelligence.

Figure 2.4
Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory
(Source: Cognitive Psychology, Fourth Edition, Robert J, Sternberg, Chapter 13) [10]

Triarchic Theory

Analytical Creative Practical

Compare, Insights, Dealing with
Evaluate & Synthesis, everyday tasks
Analyze relating to the
Adapting in
world
unique situations

As depicted in Figure 2.4, he emphasized how the three types of abilities worked together to
create intelligent behaviour.
He emphasized that all these three abilities are present in individuals in different degrees and
contribute to the intelligence.
It may be noted that he placed sufficient emphasis on dealing with day-to-day or routine tasks
as an important contributing factor to intelligence. This was a part of one’s social skills.
In 2004, he put forth that “intelligence cannot be fully or even meaningfully understood outside
its cultural context” and “to understand, assess, and develop intelligence, we need to take into account
the cultural contexts in which it operates.” He suggested that we create “culture-relevant tests” in
order to assess the potential of the respondents [36].

2.3.11 Anderson’s Theory

John Robert Anderson, a Canadian-born American psychologist, widely known for his
cognitive architecture, ACT-R (Adaptive Control of Thought - Rational), a theory dealing primarily
with memory structure. He was also a pioneer in the research on intelligent tutoring systems (ITS),
computer systems that provide immediate and customized instruction or feedback to learners [23].

www.theinternationaljournal.org> RJSSM : Volume: 09, Number: 06, October 2019 Page 63

 His study focused on the cognitive stages of the participants while solving mathematical
problems. These stages included encoding, planning, solving and response. The study determined how
much time participants spent in each problem solving stage while solving a mathematical problem.
ACT (Adaptive Control of Thought) is a cognitive architecture based on the assumption of a
unified theory of mind. The goal of this cognitive theory is to explain the manner in which human
cognition works and what the structures and processes of human memory, thinking, problem solving,
and language are. The core of ACT is a production system with a pattern matcher that works on
memory and perceptual-motor modules via buffers. The current version of adaptive control of thought
(ACT-R) is based on the principle of rationality of the human mind. Simulations with ACT-R allow
for predicting typical measures in psychological experiments like latency (time to perform a task),
accuracy (correct vs. false responses) and neurological data (e.g., FMRI-data) [43].
In another study, he tried to examine the decomposition hypothesis, that is the manner in which
complex tasks are can be broken down into a set of information processing components. His study
used a cognitive model that predicted behavioral and activation patterns for specific regions in the
brain.
He developed the intelligent tutoring systems that focused on the neural processes of students
while they are solving algebraic equations or proofs.

2.3.12 Eysenck’s Theory

Hans Jürgen Eysenck, a German psychologist worked under the guidance of educational
psychologist, Sir Cyril Burt in London.
Eysenck's research on intelligence focused on the role of “g” in the brain. It brought out clearly
that “g” is not a place or thing but a distinctive ‘property of the brain as a whole’. The brain has many
components and processes but works as a unit. Intelligence, he proposed, is a function of how
efficiently that unit processes information. Eysenck and his colleagues continued to test their theories
of what makes some brains more efficient, especially speed of processing. The EEG provided them a
non-invasive method to observe the brain in action. According to them, the parameter- average evoked
potentials (AEPs) showed that brighter brains respond faster to stimuli (have shorter latencies). To test
the speed hypothesis, Eysenck used Spearman’s “g” as a theoretical basis for designing the tasks to
assess more complex choice reaction time (CRT) tasks [18].
His other contributions include his belief regarding genetic factors and race as a basis of
intelligence.

2.3.13 Ceci’s Biological Theory (1990)

Stephen J. Ceci, an American psychologist, argued that traditional conceptions of intelligence
ignored the role of society in shaping intelligence and underestimated the intelligence of non-Western
societies. He proposed a “bio-ecological” framework of individual differences in intellectual
development that was intended to address some of the major deficiencies of existing theories of
intelligence. His prime focus was on alternative interpretations of phenomena that emerge when
implicit assumptions of intelligence researchers were challenged [8].

2.3.14 Emotional Intelligence

The term emotional intelligence (later coined EQ) was first defined by Salovey and Meyer in
the year 1990 [33]. Their initial definition described EI as the “ability to monitor one’s own and
other’s feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s
thinking and behavior."
They later refined their earlier definition of EI as “the ability to perceive emotions, to assess
and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional meanings and to
reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote both better emotion and thought” ) [26]. They
proposed a four branched model of EI as depicted in the following figure

www.theinternationaljournal.org> RJSSM : Volume: 09, Number: 06, October 2019 Page 64

 Figure 2.5
Model of ei proposed by salovey and meyer
(Source: Author’s self drawn)

Perceiving
Emotions

Facilitating
Managing EMOTIONAL Thoughts Using
Emotions INTELLIGENCE Emotions

Understanding
Emotions

In the year 2008, Mayer, Salovey and Caruso defined EI as follows:

"Emotional Intelligence includes the ability to engage in sophisticated information processing
about one’s own and other’s emotions and the ability to use this information as a guide to thinking and
behavior. That is, individuals high in emotional intelligence pay attention to, use, understand, and
manage emotions and these skills serve adaptive functions that potentially benefit themselves and
others" [27].
They also developed the most widely used ability-measurement is the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso
Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT).
Their work has since been considerably expanded by Goleman in 1995 and 1998, who
identified that IQ is actually less important for success in life and work than EQ – a set of skills that
are not directly related to academic ability [16] and [17]. Goleman identified five domains of
emotional intelligence, namely:

• Self awareness
• Self regulation
• Motivation
• Empathy
• Social skills
According to Petrides & Furnham (2001), two conceptually different approaches dominate the
current study of Emotional Intelligence: the trait and the ability approach [29]. The trait approach
conceives EI as dispositional tendency, such as personality traits or self-efficacy beliefs. The trait
model is conceptually distinct from conceptions of EI as personality because as it considers EI as a
mixture of traits, competences, and abilities (e.g., Bar-On, 2006 [5]; Goleman, 1998[17]).
Both the trait approach and the “mixed” models share the same measurement methods of EI,
namely self report questionnaires. On the other hand, the ability approach conceptualizes EI as a
cognitive ability based on the processing of emotion information, and assesses it with performance
tests [29].
Fiori, M., & Vesely, A. (2017) suggested a new direction in the study of EI. They introduced a
distinction between a crystallized component of EI, based on knowledge of emotions, and a fluid
component, based on the processing of emotion-information [12].

2.4 Twenty-first Century

Shane Legg & Marcus Hutter (2007) believed that most views on intelligence share the
following key features:

www.theinternationaljournal.org> RJSSM : Volume: 09, Number: 06, October 2019 Page 65

 • Intelligence is a property of an agent.
• The agent interacts with an external environment.
• Related to success with respect to some goal.
• The environment is not fully known to the agent.

The last feature implies that the agent must be able to learn and adapt to unknown
environments based on experience. Hence they give their informal definition of intelligence as it
“measures an agent’s general ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments.” [25]
Dr. Alexander D. Wissner-Gross, an award-winning computer scientist, inventor, entrepreneur,
investor, and author defined intelligence in a novel manner with the help of a mathematical equation.
He has expressed pure intelligent behavior in every situation as follows [3]:

F=T⋅ ⋅Sτ
The intelligence is the force F that acts in the direction in the space of possible "actions" that
tries to increase (or maximize) the number of options Sτ (a quantity that he refers to s as the entropy)
we will have at a future time τ. Here, T is an unspecified coefficient, much like τ itself.
The equation embodies a philosophical principle. It states that intelligence is behavior that is
motivated by the need to keep as many options open. It attempts to reach states that maximize the
freedom to act. Putting it in technical terms, if you build a system that moves its state in the direction
of the causal entropic force the system will move towards a state that maximizes the causal
entropy (where, causal entropy is a path integral of the probability of a system evolving from its
current state to new states).
On examining the formulation more carefully, we may interpret that the causal entropic force
or intelligence causes the system to evolve towards the state with lots of highly probable future states.

Conclusion
We may conclude that a fundamental component of intelligence is a cognitive ability as
elucidated by Stern (“g” factor). The presence of this component can be detected in early childhood as
commonly referred to in a Hindi proverb (poot ke paav paalne mein dikh jaate hain) which means that
the child’s capabilities can be deciphered when he/she is in the crib.
The next aspect can be analyzed as the specific abilities or the practical abilities. These abilities are
shaped by the influence of the outside world i.e. the parents, teachers, caregivers, siblings and the
environment. The ancient Greek philosophers referred to it as “phronesis”, Avicenna believed it to be
“passive intellect”. This component of intelligence is sharpened and polished as a result of influences
from the environment and consists of the basic skill set essential for survival. There are numerous
references to this in various ways in Greek philosophy, Indian folklore and has been extensively
studied by Sternberg and Grigorenko (2004), Berry (1997), Yang and Sternberg (1997) and Chen
(1994). Srivastava and Mishra (2007) called this as the “entrepreneurial competence” comprising
primarily of practical orientation, commitment, hard-work and resourcefulness.
Spearman (1904) has referred to it as the “s” factor or the specific factor. Burt called it the
mechanical intelligence positioned under the category of “practical” level. Thorndike and Guilford
referred to it as the collection of abilities for the processing of information. Vernon has also
conceptualized that the “g” factor branched into the practical aspects which he called as the v-ed and
k-m factors. Reference to this is also made in Cattel and Horn’s theory .The “crystallized” component
being the knowledge that is acquired as a cognitive endowment or learned through experiences or
through interactions with others. The “fluid” part is the ability or deftness to use this knowledge in
day–to-day life or for practical purposes.
Since skill or ability is acquired from the environment, culture or values of the surroundings
play an important role in honing these skills. It is of importance to note that what may be considered as
intelligent behavior in one part of the world may be considered as illogical or out of place in another.
Hence the assessment of intelligence in two different cultures becomes difficult. In other words, the
framework or context should be carefully predefined before the assessment.

www.theinternationaljournal.org> RJSSM : Volume: 09, Number: 06, October 2019 Page 66

 According to the recent research, Legg and Hutter define it as the “ability to achieve goals in a
wide range of environments”. It must be emphasized here that the presence of intelligence can be
judged only by the ability of achievement of goals or targets. When the achievement of goals is of
prime importance, the speed and accuracy of achievement cannot be underemphasized.
According to Wissner-Gross, intelligent behavior is manifested in keeping as many options
open as possible. In other words, the greater the number of paths or alternatives that may be visualized
to achieve the goals, the higher is the level of intelligence.
According to research in the field of emotional intelligence, the perception of emotions of self
and others and the management of the same is of vital importance, perhaps higher than that of
intelligence quotient. As organizations achievements are built on team work, this element is of great
significance both for the individual and the organization as a whole.
Hence, we may club the three elements, namely (1) speed and accuracy, (2) number of
alternatives and (3) ability to work in teams as a measure of intelligence. It may be emphasized that an
individual’s success and happiness depends on these three pillars. An assessment of intelligence
should take into account these three factors. In addition there should be a mechanism to assess these
factors in specific cultural context.

Figure 3.1
Foundation and pillars of intelligence
(Source: Author’s self drawn)

Genetic

“g” factor

Environment

Practical Culture
Intelligence

REFERENCES

Number of REFERENCES
Ability to Speed and
alternatives work in a accuracy
team

1. Ahmed. A. Q. (2011). Avicenna’s Deliverance: Logic. Karachi: Oxford University Press

2. Alper, Ö.M. (2010). İbnSina . İstanbul: İsam.
3. An Equation of Intelligence. Retrieved on April 30, 2019 from
https://motls.blogspot.com/2014/02/an-equation-of-intelligence.html
4. Arslan, A. ( 2011). İlkçağFelsefeTarihi 3 Aristoteles . İstanbul: İstanbul
BilgiÜniversitesiYayınları,pp. 223-224

www.theinternationaljournal.org> RJSSM : Volume: 09, Number: 06, October 2019 Page 67

 5. Bar-On, Reuven. (2006). The Bar-On Model of Emotional-Social Intelligence. Psicothema.
18 Suppl. 13-25.
6. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology
International Review 46(1), pp. 5–68.
7.Burt, C.L. (1955). The Evidence for the Concept of Intelligence. British Journal of Educational
Psychology. 25(3): 158–177. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1955.tb03305.x.
8. Ceci S. J.(1996). On Intelligence- A Biological Treatise on Intellectual Development,
Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press.
9. Chen, M. J. 1994 Chinese and Australian concepts of intelligencePsychology and Developing
Societies, 6(2), pp. 103-117.
10. Cognitive Psychology, Fourth Edition, Robert J, Sternberg, Chapter 13
https://www.verywellmind.com/edward-thorndike-biography-1874-1949-2795525
11. Edward Thorndike. Retrieved on February 20, 2019, from
https://www.verywellmind.com/edward-thorndike-biography-1874-1949-2795525
12. Fiori, M., &Vesely-Maillefer, A. (in press). Emotional intelligence as an
ability: Theory, challenges and new directions. To appear in: In K. V. Keefer, J. D. A. Parker,
& D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence in education. New York:
Springer.
13. Fluid and crystallized intelligence. Retrieved on February 28, 2019, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligenceSternberg, R. J. &
Kaufman, J. C. 1998 Human abilities. Annual Review of Psychology 49, pp. 479–502
14. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
15. Gençten, N.B.(n.d.). The Concept of Intelligence from Ancient Greek Philosophy to the
Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Retrieved February 10, 2019,
fromhttps://www.academia.edu/36815479/The_Concept_of_Intelligence_from_Ancient_Gre
ek_Philosophy_to_the_Theory_of_Multiple_Intelligences
16. Goleman, D. (1995).Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ. New York:
Bantam Books
17. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence.London: Bloomsbury Publishing
18. Gottfredson L.S.(2016). Hans Eysenck's theory of intelligence, and what it reveals about
him. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.036 0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. )
19. Guilford,J.P. (1967).The Nature of Human Intelligence .McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc., New
York, p.12.
20. Human Intelligence. Retrieved on February 20, 2019, from
https://www.intelltheory.com/ethorndike.shtml
21. Intelligence Theory. Retrieved on February 20, 2019, from
(http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/lthurstone.shtml)
22. Intelligence Theory. Retrieved on February 20, 2019, from
https://www.intelltheory.com/guilford.shtml
23. John R. Anderson. Published April 26, 2013. Retrieved on February 28, 2019, from
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/25at25/john-r- anderson.html
24. Kabadayı, T. T. (2006). Aristotle and Avicenna (IbnSina) in Terms of the Theory of
Intellects. UludağÜniversitesi Fen EdebiyatFakültesiSosyalBilimlerDergisi, 10 (10), p.15.
25. Legg S. and Hutter M. (2008).Universal Intelligence: A Definition of Machine Intelligence.
Minds and Machines. 17. 10.1007/s11023-007-9079-x.
26. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D.
J.Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational
implications (pp. 3-34). New York: Harper Collins.
27. Mayer,J.D.,Salovey,P. and Caruso, D. R.(2008). "Emotional Intelligence: New Ability or
Eclectic Traits?" American Psychologist. September, Vol. 63, No. 6, pp. 503 - 517.
28. Online Thesaurus | Synonyms & Antonyms from Roget's Thesaurus. Retrieved on
February 10, 2019, from https://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/intelligence

www.theinternationaljournal.org> RJSSM : Volume: 09, Number: 06, October 2019 Page 68

 29. Pertrides K.V. and Furnham A. (2001). Trait Emotional Intelligence: Psychometric
Investigation with Reference to Established Trait Taxonomies. Copyright @2001 John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd.
30. Retrieved on February 20, 2019, from https://www.verywellmind.com/fluid- intelligence-vs-
crystallized-intelligence-2795004
31. Retrieved on February 20, 2019, from www.indiana.edu/~intell/vernon.html
32. Ruzgis, P. (1994). Thustone, L.L. (1887-1955). In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Encyclopedia
of human intelligence (pp. 1081-1084). New York: Macmillan.
33. Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality (http://ei.yale.edu/publication/emotional-intelligence-5/)
34. Serpell, R. (2011). Social responsibility as a dimension of intelligence, and as an educational
goal: insights from programmatic research in an African society. Child Development
Perspectives, 5 (2), pp.126–133
35. Srivastava ,A.K. and Mishra, G. (2007).Rethinking Intelligence: ConceptualisingHuman
Competence in Cultural Context. Concept Publishing Company,Delhi,India
36. Sternberg, R. J.(2004) . Culture and Intelligence. American Psychologist Copyright 2004 by
the American Psychological Association 0003-066X/04/$12.00Vol. 59, No. 5, 325–338 DOI:
10.1037/0003-066X.59.5.325.
37. Sternberg,R.J and Grigorenko, E. L. (2004). Intelligence and culture: how culture shapes
what intelligence means, and the implications for a science of well- being.Philosophical
Transactions: Biological Sciences Vol. 359, No. 1449, The Science of Well-being:
Integrating Neurobiology, Psychology and Social Science (September 29, 2004), pp. 1427-
1434.
38. Sternberg, R. J. & Kaufman, J. C. 1998 Human abilities. Annual Review of Psychology 49,
pp. 479–502
39. Structure of Intellect (J.P. Guilford). Retrieved on February 28, 2019, from
https://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/intellect/
40. Thomas McEvilley(2002). The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and
Indian Philosophies, p. 609
41. Thorndike's Intelligence Theory. Retrieved on February 20, 2019,from
https://managementmania.com/en/thorndikes-intelligence-theory
42. Thurstone, L. L. (1924/1973). The Nature of Intelligence. London: Routledge. p. 159
43. Weber G. (2012) ACT - Adaptive Control of Thought. In: Seel N.M. (eds)
Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer, Boston, MA.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6
44. William Stern (psychologist).Retrieved on February 10, 2019, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stern_(psychologist)
45. Yang, S. & Sternberg, R. J. (1997a). Conceptions of intelligence in ancient Chinese
philosophy. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 17 (2), pp. 101-119
46. Yang, S. & Sternberg, R. J. (1997b). Taiwanese Chinese people’s conceptions of intelligence
. Intelligence 25, pp. 21–36.

www.theinternationaljournal.org> RJSSM : Volume: 09, Number: 06, October 2019 Page 69

View publication stats