In the last decade of the nineteenth century, a French physician named Alfred Binet was tasked by the school system with developing a way to differentiate uneducated or severely mentally handicapped students from other students . He developed an intelligence test to do this. The very first intelligence tests, introduced ten years earlier, emphasized sensory tasks, physical measures, and simple processes. Unlike these tests, Binet developed an intelligence test that consisted of items requiring complex mental processes and examined the whole individual. Consequently, the results of the Binet scales were able to discriminate between the two types of students. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The success of the Binet test has led to a much bigger question: What exactly are these tests measuring? What the tests purported to measure was intelligence. But if they measured intelligence, the next question that arose was this: what exactly is intelligence? It is at this point that the great debate on the definition of intelligence began: there is general consensus that there are different levels of intelligence and that different individuals have different intelligence capabilities. 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 reflecting” (Neisser et al., 1996, page 77). But how many and what types of intelligences exist, and how to define intelligence, is still a matter of debate. Today there are two main schools of thought on the nature of intelligence. The former, supported by psychologists such as Eysenck, Galton, Jensen and Spearman, believe that all intelligence derives from a general factor, known as g. Proponents of the other school of thought include Gardner, Sternberg, and Thurstone. These psychologists think that there is more than one general type of intelligence, or, in other words, that there are different types of intelligences. An interesting note about this school of thought is that there is disagreement, even within that field, about how many different types of intelligences there are. A general intelligence There are strong arguments in support of 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 governing an individual's level of intelligence. This is also known as positive manifold (Spearman, 1904). Furthermore, there is a very high correlation between IQ and very simple cognitive tasks, which supports the theory of a general intelligence (Eysenck, 1982). Positive multiplicity. The first argument in support of general intelligence is the fact that there is a high positive correlation between different tests of cognitive ability. Spearman (1904), in conducting his research, administered different types of tests to many people, covering different areas of cognitive ability. When he examined 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 ability, then that same person also performed well on another test of another cognitive ability, such as a math test. Spearman called this positive correlation between tests the positive variety. This positive variety was also called the general intelligence factor, or g. This is the only factor that determines the intelligence of the individual. Jensen (1997) supported the theory of a general intelligencestating that “the positive correlation between all elements of cognitive tests is a fact, an inexorable fact of nature. The correlation matrix between all-positive items is not an artifact of test construction or item selection, as some critics of the test mistakenly believe” (p. 223). This positive variety led Spearman (1904) to find a first major factor which was nicknamed general intelligence, og reaction time and g. Another strong argument in support of general intelligence is the fact that there is a very high correlation between reaction time and IQ. According to Eysenck (1982), “IQ is highly correlated (0.8 and above, without correction for attenuation) with tests that are essentially 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 test 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 he sees the light turn on. From tests like these it is possible to measure reaction time. Since only very simple sensory and motor movements are required to respond, it is difficult to argue that cultural, environmental, gender, socioeconomic, or educational discrepancies will influence participants' ability to answer testers' questions (Eysenck, 1982). common definitions of intelligence are “success in problem solving, the ability to learn, the ability to produce noegenetic solutions, understanding complex instructions, or simply well-rounded cognitive ability” (Eysenck, 1982, p. 8). A common thread in all of these The definition of intelligence is that they all require the nervous system, particularly the brain, and sensory organs to function properly. Furthermore, for these types of tasks to be completed, the information processing that occurs within body systems must be relatively error-free. Jensen (1993), as well as others, have summarized these facts and conjectured that “the most obvious hypothesis is that information processing speed is the essential basis if g, and a possible neurological basis of processing speed is the speed of transmission through the nervous pathways” (p. 54). The speed of information transmission can be measured or extrapolated reasonably well from reaction time scores. Therefore, if an individual has a faster neural processing speed, they will have a better reaction time. In turn, because reaction time is highly correlated with IQ, individuals with faster neural processing speeds have higher IQs. Consequently, neural processing speed determines the individual's level of intelligence; this intelligence is the only general intelligence, g.Summary. Sternberg and Gardner (1982) summarized the theory of a general intelligence by stating that “general intelligence can be understood componentally as arising in part from the performance of general components in information processing behavior” (p. 251) . And Spearman (1973/1923) concluded that “cognitive events, like those of physics, admit of being 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. Whether you call that single factor positive manifold, neural processing speed, or g, the complexities of the human mind and its processes can be reduced to a single factor, defined as intelligence multiple intelligences. The different proponents of a single general intelligence all agree that there is a single factor thatdetermines intelligence, and proponents of multiple intelligences agree that there is more than a single type of intelligence. However, different proponents of multiple intelligences disagree on how many different intelligences exist or could exist. I believe that the theories advanced by Gardner and Sternberg are the most worthy ones. Both have their own theory of 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, corporeal, 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 failed[ed] to come to terms with the highest levels of creativity; and all [were] insensitive to the range of roles highlighted in human society” (p. 24). Thus, Gardner based his 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 map distinctly to a certain cognitive functioning (A), then that cognitive functioning can be isolated as a candidate of multiple intelligences (B ). (If A, then B). Premise 2: It has now been discovered that certain parts of the brain are distinctly associated with certain cognitive functioning, as evidenced by certain brain damage that leads to the loss of certain cognitive functions. (Evidence of A). Conclusion: therefore multiple intelligences. (So ​​B.). (p. 34)Gardner's theory has a very solid biological basis. The second premise considers the brain as one of the main physical determinants of intelligence. By studying individuals who had speech impediments, paralysis, or other disabilities, Gardner was able to locate the parts of the brain needed to perform physical function. He studied the brains of people with disabilities post-mortem and found that there was damage in specific areas, compared to those who had no disabilities. Gardner found seven different areas of the brain, and therefore his theory consists of seven different intelligences, each related to a specific portion of the human brain (Li, 1996). Gardner also sought to develop a theory of multiple intelligences because he felt that current psychometric tests only examined linguistic, logical, and some aspects of spatial intelligence, while other aspects of intelligent behavior such as athleticism, musical talent, and social awareness were not included (Neisser et al., 1996). Sternberg theory. The triarchic theory of intelligence developed by Sternberg is “a comprehensive, more all-encompassing theory. . . because it takes into account social and contextual factors in addition to human capabilities” (Li, 1996, p. 37). Sternberg (1985) believed that the theories that preceded him were not wrong, but rather incomplete. Consequently, his theory, like Gardner's, takes creative or musical intelligence into account. But as for the other six intelligences of Gardner's theory, Sternberg classifies them into two different types of intelligences: analytical (or academic) and practical. These two types of intelligences differ and are defined as follows: analytical problems tend to be formulated by other people, be clearly defined, equipped with all the information needed to solve them, have a single right answer, which can only be achieved by a unique method, being disembodied from ordinary experience and having little or no intrinsic interest. Practical problems tend to require problem recognition and formulation, are poorly defined, require.