Practical intelligence

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a practical intelligence often that part of the area is intelligence indicated that with everyday is near mental benefits in conjunction. It differs from the conventional construct of intelligence, which is determined relatively easily using psychometric test procedures and encompasses a rather static knowledge or problem-solving capacities in connection with varied levels of difficulty.

The concept of practical intelligence is not clearly defined; in the field of everyday professional life, for example, practical intelligence is referred to as "tacit knowledge" ( implicit knowledge ), in addition to the terms already listed above. Their degree of severity is shown in fitness for life, personal success and happiness and often does not match what the intelligence test records and predicts.

Success intelligence represents a similar construct . It shows itself in everyday life in the active handling of specific challenges, which are solved by taking into account the existing wealth of knowledge and experience. Practical intelligence is therefore dependent on the individual, the specific situation and their respective framework conditions and can only be reflected to a limited extent by the author, which makes scientific investigation and process development difficult.

First doubts about the informative value of the IQ

Ever since the study of intelligence began, the definitions and models have reflected disagreements and doubts about the significance of what the tests measure and contain more or less vague references to other intelligences.

Charles Spearman (1904) Two-Factor Theory of Intelligence .

Even Alfred Binet (1905) "father" of the first intelligence tests brought the criterion of judgment on even common sense called, which consisted of three elements of thought:

  1. the direction: what has to be done and how
  2. the adaptation of the approach to the changing situation in the course of the process (see also: situation awareness )
  3. the criticism: the subsequent assessment and conclusion of the individual approach.

Theories about intelligence systems

In a critical further development of the existing theories, scientists tended to see intelligence as a hierarchical, multi-factorial system (LL Thurstone's primary factor model, Joy Paul Guilford's intelligence structure model of 120 dimensions from four categories).

According to Howard Gardner (1983), Theory of Multiple Intelligences , intelligence consists of a system of mutually independent, partially acting together, influencing intelligences.

Based on Raymond Bernard Cattell's theories, Robert Sternberg (1985) developed the triarchic theory, according to which intelligence consists of three interdependent aspects.

Contextual intelligence or practical intelligence
individual-specific ability to adapt to the culture-influenced environment, with the aim of survival and the satisfaction of needs, to select it and, if possible, to change it.
Component-related or analytical intelligence
universal, the contextual intelligence supporting, psychometrically measurable aspects of knowledge acquisition (integration of new experiences, comparisons, combinations), metacognition (control processes with regard to planning, procedure, review and conclusion) and processing (coding, assignment).
Creative intelligence (experiential intelligence)
Universal ability to exchange new requirements and existing experiences, automated processes of thought and action, interacting with analytical intelligence.

Turning to practical intelligence

Existing intelligence tests were expanded to include parts of the action with different focuses, such as technical, manual skills or contextual issues. Using interviews and similar methods, attempts were made to examine practical intelligence as everyday requirements. Studies, including by Sternberg & Wagner (1986), especially in the area of ​​professional success under the term “tacit knowledge” ( implicit knowledge ), did not yield any clear results. There seemed to be a correlation with professional success, but not significantly with the intelligence measured in the conventional IQ test.

Robert J. Sternberg (1998) continued his theories, combining under the term success intelligence the analytical (problem-solving-related processes), creative (imaginative, sometimes illegal experimentation) and practical intelligence, whereby only the balanced interaction and not the quality of the individual intelligence are decisive for the result.

In his opinion, practical intelligence is weighted differently over the course of life, so academic intelligence decreases, while practical intelligence tends to increase. The former is based on formal academic knowledge, while practical intelligence is based on the aforementioned silent knowledge. This is composed of the knowledge of the right course of action, in connection with the pursuit of personal goals and the individual independence from other people.

Critique of Empirical Science

In empirical science, the independence of practical intelligence, in addition to emotional intelligence according to Goleman (1996), is mostly questioned, just as the placement or proximity to other types of intelligence remains unclear. At the international symposium “Emotional and Practical Intelligence” on July 11th and 12th, 2003, the focusing attention was seen more as a popular, pseudoscientific approach. Even if intelligence in the sense of widespread intelligence tests should not be the sole basis of assessment for many questions , it is recommended to use established personality diagnostics methods (e.g. the NEO-FFI ) as a supplement . Elements of practical and emotional intelligence should be given greater consideration in the development of the tests.

See also

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Robert J. Sternberg: Success intelligence. 1998.