Intelligence and Learning

Nick Lund

• Editore: Bloomsbury Academic
• Anno: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781350312203
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Psychology
• Categoria: Cognitive Psychology & Cognition

As humans, we often differentiate ourselves from other animals by our intelligence and ability to learn, but are these distinctions always so simple? Covering theories of learning, influences on intelligence, animal intelligence and test performance, Lund discusses the fascinating debates that shape our understanding of this area. Whatever your level of study, this balanced introduction will allow you to look critically at the main theories and cement your understanding of intelligence and learning.

Chapter 1

Introduction

This book is concerned with two concepts that are in common usage: learning and intelligence. We all have ideas about what learning is and what it means to be intelligent or, conversely, unintelligent. Psychologists tend to have specific meanings for the two terms but as we will see they do not all agree on the definitions. In fact, disagreements about the nature of intelligence lie at the heart of the debates discussed in later chapters. Learning, or at least the ability to learn, is often seen as evidence of intelligence. However, it is not the same as intelligence. Most animals are capable of learning and there have been a huge number of studies of it using animals from protozoa to humans (Pearce, 2008). However, many question whether non-human animals show intelligence. The study of human intelligence and the development of tests of intelligence have not only generated a vast amount of work but also caused the greatest controversy. Intelligence tests can be seen as the most successful tool developed by psychology or its greatest folly. This chapter introduces these two concepts before going on to explore them in detail in subsequent chapters.

This chapter will cover:

What is learning?

What is intelligence?

Problems of studying animal learning and intelligence

Problems of studying human intelligence

What is learning?

Learning is important. Most human behaviour results from some form of learning. Eichenbaum (2008, p. 2) claims that ‘our individual personalities and intellect result from a lifetime of learning’. This view suggests we are what we learn. Furthermore, learning is always in progress and is always helping us adapt to our environment (Bouton, 2007).

We all have an idea of what learning is but, as Pearce (2008) points out, it is very hard to define clearly. He suggests (p. 13) that learning occurs ‘when some experience results in a relatively permanent change in the reaction to a situation’. This definition contains a number of important elements. The first is that learning is the result of experience (that is, behaviour changes because of something happening to us). There are many factors that might change behaviour which would not be classed as learning. For example, behaviour might change because of fatigue. Tired people behave differently but this is not learned. Behaviour may also change because of disease. However, if you start sneezing tomorrow you have not suddenly learned sneezing behaviour. There are also some changes to behaviour that are due to maturation: for example when young males talk and sing in a high-pitched voice but during adolescence their voices change to a lower pitch. This is not learned but is the result of getting older. A change in behaviour is only regarded as learning if it is due to experience or to environmental stimuli. The other element of the definition is that learning should be a relatively permanent change in the reaction to a situation. In other words learning is not a momentary reaction to a stimulus but is a stored response that occurs repeatedly over time.

Eysenck (2004) notes that when psychology emerged as a scientific discipline the major focus of research was the study of learning. This early research focused on relatively simple forms of learning such as conditioning. This type of learning is the focus of Chapter 2. Later studies of learning tended to concentrate on more complex forms of learning involving information processing and intelligence. These are considered in subsequent chapters.

What is intelligence?

The question ‘what is intelligence’ is a central issue throughout this book. This question lies at the heart of most of the debates about intelligence and intelligence testing. The problem is there is no one universally agreed definition of intelligence. As Bartholomew (2004, p. 1) notes ‘Almost everyone uses the word intelligence but it is one of those Humpty Dumpty words whose meaning is so elastic that it can cover virtually anything we choose’. Intelligence is a complex concept that encompasses a lot of human and animal behaviour. One source of confusion is deciding which behaviours or abilities should be considered intelligent. Should intelligence be regarded as the ability to use verbal information or should it be the ability to solve problems? Alternatively should someone who is skilful in dealing with others be regarded as intelligent?

Gardner (2002) suggests a second source of confusion about intelligence is that the term has at least three meanings. The first is ‘intelligence as species characteristic’. This meaning is about intelligence as a species-specific ability and looks at differences between species and evolution of intelligence. This is dealt with in Chapters 3, 4 and 5. The second meaning is ‘intelligence as individual difference’. This is more concerned with quantifying intelligence to establish different levels of intelligence among individuals. This meaning is the subject of Chapter 7. The third meaning is ‘intelligence as fit execution of a task or role’. This refers to the ability to carry out tasks well in a given environment.

Gardner suggests the individual difference approach tends to be about ‘computing power’. He points out that people may be equal in terms of computing capacity but very different in their performance of a task (for example, two doctors might have the same IQ but one may give consistently more accurate diagnoses). Gardner claims this meaning is least used by psychologists but is one that deserves more attention. To avoid confusing the first of Gardner’s two meanings, it is worth examining animal and human intelligence separately.

What is animal intelligence?

Animal intelligence cannot be defined in the same way as human intelligence. This is partly because a range of abilities regarded as signs of intelligence in humans, such as linguistic and numerical skills, are not found in animals. Pearce (2008) discusses three characteristics that could be used to define animal intelligence: adaptability, learning and information processing. He suggests that, for a number of researchers, adaptability is the defining characteristic of intelligence. However, the concept of adaptability is difficult to measure. Is an ant less adaptable than a chimpanzee if they are both surviving in the same forest? The notion of adaptability also does not identify the mechanism that allows an animal to adapt. One solution to this is to study the ability of animals to learn about their environment. During the early twentieth century it was assumed that animals that learn faster or learned more were more intelligent (Warren, 1973). However, this appears to be misguided. There is a lot of evidence that neither speed nor quantity of learning is linked to intelligence. Pearce (2008) points out that evidence shows that humans learn complex mazes at about the same speed as a rat and in some circumstances fish learn faster than rats. Furthermore, the amount any species is able to learn depends upon what is being learned and the context. Pearce suggests a better measure of intelligence might be the ability to use learning to solve problems. This involves using processing of information.

The topic of animal intelligence tends to be concerned with different questions to that of human intelligence. Instead of the preoccupation of what intelligence is and how it can be measured, comparative psychologists tend to question whether animals show evidence of intelligence and if so, which species show more or less intelligence.

What is human intelligence?

The simple answer to this question is it depends who you ask! A number of studies have examined non-expert or laypersons’ views on the nature of intelligence. For example, Sternberg, Conway, Ketron and Bernstein(1981) studied the views of people in the USA. They asked over 180 people from three locations to list behaviours that were intelligent and unintelligent. Later, 120 other people rated how these behaviours related to intelligence. The findings suggest people in the USA regard intelligence as having three dimensions: practical problem solving, verbal ability and social competence. Studies of other cultures reveal a different conception of intelligence. Yang and Sternberg (1997) sought the views of Taiwanese Chinese people and found that in this sample five dimensions of intelligence emerged. These included some that were similar to those in the USA, such as problem solving and interpersonal intelligence but also some that were different. These include intrapersonal intelligence (using knowledge about oneself), intellectual self-assertion (confidence in one’s knowledge and ability) and intellectual self-effacement (modesty and humility). Sternberg and Kaufman (1998) believe there are differences in views on intelligence between individualistic cultures (for example the USA and Western Europe) and collectivist cultures (for example Asia and Africa). Notions of intelligence in individualistic cultures tend to be focused on what individuals are capable of whereas in collectivist cultures the focus is more social.

The definitions of human intelligence given by experts also vary. For example, Sternberg and Detterman (1986) asked for the views of 24 experts and found many different definitions including problem solving, abstract thinking and originality. Similarly, Jensen (1998) found that a number of experts all gave a different definition of intelligence. The nature of intelligence and the problem of defining it will be considered in detail in Chapter 6.

Problems of studying animal learning and intelligence

There are a number of problems encountered when studying animal learning and intelligence. As with human studies, learning and intelligence in animals cannot be directly observed. However, in animal studies there is an additional problem of communication. Much of our understanding of intelligence in humans and the tests to assess it are based on the use of language. Animals do not have language; consequently the existence of learning or intelligence has to be inferred from their behaviour. Therefore, one major problem of any evidence is that it is based on interpretation. There are three other problems in this area anthropomorphism, animal senses and animal diversity.

Interpretation of evidence

One of the main problems in studying animal learning and intelligence is that they are not directly observable. We cannot see learning or intelligence but have to infer them from observations of an animal’s behaviour. However, using animal behaviour as evidence of such mental processes can be difficult. Behaviours can often be explained in very different ways. For example, some apes have been taught to use sign language (see Chapter 4). One way of interpreting the signs that they use is that they have learned to use and understand a form of language. However, there is an alternative explanation. This is that they have learned a series of actions to get rewards such as food (see Operant conditioning in Chapter 2) and that this does not require any concept of language.

Thinking scientifically → Clever Hans, the horse who could count

One of the earliest studies of animal intelligence was carried out in the early 1900s on ‘Clever Hans’, a horse (Pfungst, 1965). Hans’s owner claimed that the horse could count and was able to perform mathematical calculations. When given a problem to solve, the horse gave the answer by striking its hoof on the ground. So if asked what is two plus two, Hans would strike the ground four times. Hans seemed to be able...