#Intelligence #Psychology

Introduction

Mhmm. Hmm. A droning lullaby resounded in the jail cell.

No, not quite. This cell had windows.

Ah. It was AP Psych.

I was first introduced to Spearman's and Gardner's theories of intelligence in my AP Psychology class. As I was writing down the lecture notes for Spearman, I found myself hesitating.

"Is this really true?"

Disclaimer: This essay is not intended to undermine decades of established psychometric research, but rather to offer an alternative lens through which we might understand intelligence and the correlations Spearman observed.

Howard Gardner proposes 9 separate domains of intelligence: naturalist, linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, intrapersonal, interpersonal, and existential. His theory claims that intelligence or ability in any one of these fields is not necessarily correlated with other domains. In other words, there is no "general intelligence—g" that underlies all mental abilities, as Spearman suggests.

In this essay, I hope to develop a more nuanced understanding of "intelligence." This is not a definitive claim of understanding intelligence, but a catalyst for discussion.

General Intelligence

General intelligence is defined by the Myers' Psychology textbook: "according to Spearman and others, underlies all mental abilities and is therefore measured by every task on an intelligence test."

General intelligence is supported by statistical correlational analysis. Indeed, many who score high on logical-mathematical intelligence tests may score well on spatial intelligence tests. Take theoretical physics where multidimensional analyses and mathematical prowess are required. Theoretical physicists will no doubt score highly in those two domains. At the same time, they may be the most musically and interpersonally challenged people we know. Likewise, a rhetorician will score highly on linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence; rhetoric is, after all, the art of articulating logical arguments. Yet again, this doesn't mean that their musical or bodily-kinesthetic abilities are just as, or more likely to be, outstanding.

There can be correlation in intelligence between fields. However, the rarity of an individual with intelligence encompassing all 9 domains, even within the ranks of the genius, suggests that the correlation is not caused by an underlying general intelligence but another factor.

Redefining "g"

Underlying intelligence, in any field, is curiosity, perceptivity, and receptivity. The ability to question, see, and understand develops a passion and talent for select domains, translating into "intelligence." By effect, I believe that Spearman's notion of “g” is simply a measure of one’s perceptivity, receptivity, and curiosity that drives a desire for learning and exploration in different fields.

However, this understanding of "g" alone does not explain the correlation within fields of intelligence. A more nuanced understanding of intelligence and "g" will require an analysis of the intellect's disposition for curiosity and the resulting interdisciplinary thought.

Previously, I defined "g" as the underlying perceptivity, receptivity, and curiosity towards certain experiences and ideas. While true, I would argue that this definition could be simplified to "an underlying curiosity of experiences and ideas." This is because curiosity trains perceptivity and receptivity. The ability to perceive, or see, new ideas is built upon a curiosity to explore the unknown. Likewise, the ability to receive, or accept, new ideas is based on a curiosity that refuses to accept dogmas and explore the possibilities of challenging the accepted.

With the premise that curiosity drives the pursuit of knowledge, which develops intelligence, an explanation of intellectual correlation can be derived. Because intelligence is developed by a pursuit of knowledge, which is driven by curiosity, it can be reasoned that the highly intellectual are highly curious. It is this curiosity that develops an interdisciplinary correlation.

Interdisciplinary Thought

When we think of minds that exemplify this principle, DaVinci comes to mind: artist, inventor, mathematician, physiologist. Driven by curiosity, he achieved great feats in an array of fields. Rather than seeing the various fields as isolated silos, DaVinci saw them as interconnected scaffolds—structures where insights from one field build upon theories from another. What set DaVinci apart was his ability to synthesize multiple disciplines. His art captivates because he understood human physiology; his inventions innovated because he mastered mathematics and physics.

More abstractly, everything—from technology to theology—is connected. All disciplines are an attempt at uncovering "truth"—the truth of our existence, reality, being—in each discipline's unique way. This search is analogous to attempting to uncover the same archeological finding with different tools. Perhaps poetry is used to find the site, mathematics to map it, and physics to dig it. Truth, or the complete understanding of our reality, can only be found with a variety of disciplines or tools. The only way to find new insights is to find inspiration and learn from other domains.

DaVinci, the curious genius, understood this principle of interdisciplinary thought. This principle is not limited to DaVinci. Aristotle's systematic curiosity drove him across philosophy, biology, politics, and rhetoric, creating foundational works that drew connections between ethics and politics, between observation of nature and logical reasoning.

In more recent times, we can look to Steve Jobs. As he reflected, "You can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future." The revolutionary design of the Mac computer emerged not from pure technical knowledge, but because Jobs had taken a random calligraphy class years earlier. His curiosity about typography, combined with his understanding of technology and human psychology, created something entirely new. The dots connected backwards—curiosity about beautiful letterforms transformed how we interact with computers.

Curiosity, the driving factor behind intelligence, cultivated at a high level leads to interdisciplinary thought because a pursuit of truth at a high intellectual level will inevitably lead to other disciplines. A high intellectual ability and understanding within one domain necessitates an understanding of other fields.

Thus, while distinct disciplines have their own unique forms of intelligence, the observed correlation among highly intellectual individuals across fields isn't due to an innate, singular 'general intelligence.' Instead, it's a testament to a cultivated curiosity that naturally drives them towards interdisciplinary thought and, consequently, proficiency in related domains.

The correlation in fields of intelligence that Spearman found is simply the byproduct of an underlying capacity for curiosity, and therefore, interdisciplinary thought. Rather than possessing some underlying "general intelligence," what drives performance across diverse fields is an insatiable curiosity and a tendency to see connections where others might see separation.

A Personal Reflection

In my own experience, this perspective on intelligence is more satisfactory. In my AP Psychology class, when I first learned about Spearman's g-factor, something felt incomplete about the explanation. Here I was, someone who finds equal fascination in writing poetry and studying financial engineering, in exploring philosophical questions and training neural networks. My curiosity doesn't recognize disciplinary boundaries—insights from theology inform my economic thinking, mathematical concepts inspire my creative writing, and psychological principles shape my philosophical explorations.

Rather than possessing some underlying "general intelligence," I believe what drives my performance across these diverse fields is an insatiable curiosity and a tendency to see connections where others might see separation. When I study financial models, I'm drawn to their philosophical implications. When I write poetry, I find myself applying logical structures I've learned elsewhere. This isn't because I have high "g"—it's because curiosity has trained me to look for bridges between seemingly unrelated domains.

Conclusion

Redefining the correlation of general intelligence as a result of curiosity and interdisciplinary thought, not an underlying mental ability, offers a more nuanced view of intelligence.

Beyond redefining general intelligence, the analysis reveals the importance of curiosity and interdisciplinary thought. The exploration of geniuses and those with a high "g" factor reveals the vital role curiosity and interdisciplinary thought play in intelligence.

While defining "intelligence" is beyond the scope of this piece, and I definitely have much to learn, I hope it's gotten you to stop and think. Perhaps even prompted you to question "what is intelligence?"

If there's one takeaway from this piece, it's to never stop questioning. Keep questioning, keep learning.