智力理论的最近发展

介绍了20世纪80年代以来智力理论的最近发展,主要包括:Gardner的多重智力理论,认为存在7种相互独立的智力;Anderson的智力与认知发展的理论,认为智力的个别差异和发展变化可以用不同的加工机制来说明;Sternberg的三元理论,包括成分子理论、经验子理论和背景子理论;Ceci的生物生态学理论,认为智力性成果有赖于具有丰富的并很好组织的知识基础的多重认知潜能之间的相互作用。智力的研究焦点是探索生理和环境之间复杂的相互作用。     

智力理论的最近发展

介绍了20世纪80年代以来智力理论的最近发展,主要包括：Gardner的多重智力理论,认为存在7种相互独立的智力：Anderson的智力与认知发展的理论,认为智力的个别差异和发展变化可以用不同的加工机制来说明：Sternberg的三元理论,包括成分子理论、经验子理论和背景子理论;Ceci的生物生态学理论,认为智力性成果有赖于具有丰富的并很好组织的知识基础的多重认知潜能之间的相互作用。智力的研究焦点是探索生理和环境之间复杂的相互作用。     

智力理论和智力测验的新发展

人类对于自身的智能及其发展问题始终表现出浓厚的兴趣,对人类智能的探索也一直是心理学中极为活跃的领域。随着认知科学、脑科学和人工智能的深入研究和发展,人们更加重视对高级智能问题的探索。一、智力理论的发展几十年来,智力研究者们从心理学、心理计量学、社会学、人类学以及认知科学等不同角度和层次对人类智能问题作了种种探索,提出了各种智力理论,并在各种智力理论基础上编制了多种智力测验,对人们的智能进行评定和测量,促进了智力研究的深入和发展。在智力研究中,把智力作为大脑内部的功能结构来进行研究,并提出智力理论的主要有两大模式:心理地图模式和计算模式。     

多重智力理论及其对学校教育的价值

多重智力理论是由美国心理学教授加德纳提出的关于智力性质和结构的新理论,这个理论认为个体具有多种彼此相互联系又相对独立的智力,它由语言、数理/逻辑、视觉/空间、身体/运动、音乐/节奏、人际交往和自我认识等七种智力成分组成,这些基本智力间的不同组合,反映了个体间的智力差异。这个理论目前还有诸多争论,但因此掀起了一场教育思想的新革命,对我国学校教育中的智力观、教学观、考试观和学生观都有所启迪,为教育者充分认识和发挥学生的潜能提供了新的理论依据。     

新的多重智力观

人们可以轻易地测出高度,但智力却没有这样简单.这主要是因为人们具有多重智力,而不是简单的一种智力.总的来讲,我已区分了七种形式的智力.在现代社会得到高度评价的两种智力是语言和逻辑数理(Logical-mathematic)能力.当人们认为某人聪明时,往往是指这两种能力.因为个体有了语言和逻辑数理能力,就能在那些所谓测量智力的测验上获得好分数.     

人类智力:模式的启示

智力理论和检验这些理论研究主要是解决有关智力的三个基本问题:①智力与个体的内部世界的关系如何?②智力与个体的外部世界的关系如何?③智力与经验的关系如何?本文提出了作为各种理论的基础的心理模式,如:地理模式、生物学模式、社会学模式等,探讨了这些模式的优点和局限性。还提出了三种结构理论(triarchitictheory)把上述三个问题初步综合起来。     

智力的人类学观和社会学观介绍

智力的理论问题一直有很大的争议,不同的研究者在自己研究工作的基础上提出了相应的理论或模型。本文比较详细地介绍了目前智力研究领域的两种重要理论观点及其测验。通过对人类学观和社会学观的介绍,使人们进一步认识到对智力理解的多样性．     

心理素质对高中艺体生应对方式的影响:多重中介效应分析

该研究以423名高中艺体生为被试,采用问卷法考察了元认知和情绪智力在心理素质与应对方式间的多重中介作用,结果表明:(1)元认知和情绪智力分别在心理素质与问题解决、求助的应对方式间起多重中介作用;(2)情绪智力在心理素质与退避应对间起完全中介作用;(3)相较于情绪智力,元认知在心理素质与问题解决间的中介效应更强。     

加德纳的多种智力理论述评

1　引言一百多年来 ,智力的研究者们从不同的角度、不同的层面提出了各种各样的智力理论。早期的智力理论仅是对智力结构的一种静态描述 ,很少涉及智力活动内部的心理过程。认知心理学的发展和深入 ,导致了人们注重智力活动的内部过程 ,尤其是智能活动的高级心理过程。许多当代心理学家认为 ,传统的智力理论过于狭隘 ,使得以传统智力理论为基础的ＩＱ测验不能准确、全面地反映学生的能力。加德纳 (ＨｏｗａｒｄＧａｒｄｎｅｒ)就是其中的一个代表人物。他的多种智力理论 (ｔｈｅｏｒｙｏｆｍｕｌｔｉｐｌｅｉｎｔｅｌｌｉｇｅｎｃｅ)对传统…     

解析实践智力理论

实践智力理论是斯腾伯格等人针对智商研究解释力不足提出的,它是对传统智力理论的有益补充。本文介绍了实践智力理论的核心概念、基本观点以及当前心理学界对之提出的主要质疑,并对该理论的优长与缺憾进行了分析和讨论。     

CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research

During the past decade the Cattell–Horn Gf–Gc and Carroll Three-Stratum models have emerged as the consensus psychometric-based models for understanding the structure of human intelligence. Although the two models differ in a number of ways, the strong correspondence between the two models has resulted in the increased use of a broad umbrella term for a synthesis of the two models (Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive abilities—CHC theory).The purpose of this editorial is three-fold. First, I will describe the CHC framework and recommend that intelligence researchers begin using the CHC taxonomy as a common nomenclature for describing research findings and a theoretical framework from which to test hypotheses regarding various aspects of human cognitive abilities. Second, I argue that the emergence of the CHC framework should not be viewed as the capstone to the psychometric era of factor analytic research. Rather, I recommend the CHC framework serve as the stepping stone to reinvigorate the investigation of the structure of human intelligence.Finally, the Woodcock-Muñoz Foundation Human Cognitive Abilities (HCA) project, which is an evolving, free, on-line electronic archive of the majority of datasets analyzed in Carroll's (1993) seminal treatise on factor analysis of human cognitive abilities, is introduced and described. Intelligence scholars are urged to access the Carroll HCA datasets to test and evaluate structural models of human intelligence with contemporary methods (confirmatory factor analysis). In addition, suggestions are offered for linking the analysis of contemporary data sets with the seminal work of Carroll. The emergence of a consensus CHC taxonomy and access to the original datasets analyzed by Carroll provides an unprecedented opportunity to extend and refine our understanding of human intelligence.     

General intelligence as a domain-specific adaptation

General intelligence (g) poses a problem for evolutionary psychology's modular view of the human brain. The author advances a new evolutionary psychological theory of the evolution of general intelligence and argues that general intelligence evolved as a domain-specific adaptation for the originally limited sphere of evolutionary novelty in the ancestral environment. It has accidentally become universally important merely because we now live in an evolutionarily novel world. The available data seem to support the author's contention that intelligent people can solve problems better than less intelligent people only if the problems are evolutionarily novel, and they have no advantage in solving evolutionarily familiar problems. This perspective can also solve some empirical anomalies, such as the "central theoretical problem of human sociobiology" (D. R. Vining, 1986, p. 167) and the geographic distribution of general intelligence throughout the world.     

Reasoning as simulation

The theory that human cognition proceeds through mental simulations, if true, would provide a parsimonious explanation of how the mechanisms of reasoning and problem solving integrate with and develop from mechanisms underlying forms of cognition that occur earlier in evolution and development. However, questions remain about whether simulation mechanisms are powerful enough to exhibit human-level reasoning and inference. In order to investigate this issue, we show that it is possible to characterize some of the most powerful modern artificial intelligence algorithms for logical and probabilistic inference as methods of simulating alternate states of the world. We show that a set of specific human perceptual mechanisms, even if not implemented using mechanisms described in artificial intelligence, can nevertheless perform the same operations as those algorithms. Although this result does not demonstrate that simulation theory is true, it does show that whatever mechanisms underlie perception have at least as much power to explain non-perceptual human reasoning and problem solving as some of the most powerful known algorithms.     

Process Overlap Theory: A Unified Account of the General Factor of Intelligence

The most replicated result in the field of intelligence is the positive manifold, which refers to an all-positive pattern of correlations among diverse cognitive tests. The positive manifold is typically described by a general factor, or g. In turn, g is often identified as general intelligence, yet this explanation is contradicted by a number of results. Here we offer a new account of g: process overlap theory. According to the theory, cognitive tests tap domain-general executive processes, identified primarily in research on working memory, as well as more domain-specific processes. Executive processes are tapped in an overlapping manner across cognitive tests such that they are required more often than domain-specific ones. The theory provides an account of a number of findings on human intelligence. As well, it is formalized as a multidimensional item response model and as a structural model, and the neural mechanisms underlying the proposed overlapping processes are discussed.     

What kind of kind is intelligence?

The model of human intelligence that is most widely adopted derives from psychometrics and behavioral genetics. This standard approach conceives intelligence as a general cognitive ability that is genetically highly heritable and describable using quantitative traits analysis. The paper analyzes intelligence within the debate on natural kinds and contends that the general intelligence conceptualization does not carve psychological nature at its joints. Moreover, I argue that this model assumes an essentialist perspective. As an alternative, I consider an HPC theory of intelligence and evaluate how it deals with essentialism and with intuitions coming from cognitive science. Finally, I highlight some concerns about the HPC model as well, and conclude by suggesting that it is unnecessary to treat intelligence as a kind in any sense.     

Shavinina的智能测评观述评

近来Shavinina等人通过一系列研究,提出了一种新的智能结构观,认为智能主要包含两个部分：认知经验和智能表现。在此基础上,他们分析了未来智能测验应遵循的一系列原则,并进行了初步的测验编制尝试,提出了一些富有创意的测验方法,如“完美计算机”、“概念整合”以及“问题建构”等测验。Shavinina等人所提出的新智能观以及关于智能测验的新技术具有很强的启发性,代表了智能研究的又一新方向。     

聚焦思维结构的智力理论--林崇德的智力理论述评

林崇德的思维结构模型,是其智力理论的核心。因此,林崇德的智力理论,是一种聚焦思维结构的智力理论。不过,林崇德的智力理论,远不止其思维结构模型。他所提出的“智力结构是一个多元结构”的观点、“思维核心说”、“概括基础说”和“思维发展的模式”,也同样是其智力理论的重要内容。通观林崇德的智力理论,不难看出其四大特点:第一,理论性与实践性的有机统一;第二,两点论与重点论的有机统一;第三,智力培养与智力评价的有机统一;第四,不变性与可变性的有机统一。     

Altruistic behavior as a costly signal of general intelligence

Unconditional altruism is an enduring puzzle for evolutionary approaches to social behavior. In this paper, we argue that costly signaling theory, a well-established framework in biology and economics, may be useful to shed light on the individual differences in human unconditional altruism. Based on costly signaling theory, we propose and show that unconditional altruistic behavior is related to general intelligence. The cost incurred by engaging in unconditional altruism is lower for highly intelligent people than for less intelligent people because they may expect to regain the drained resources. As a result, unconditional altruism can serve as an honest signal of intelligence. Our findings imply that distinguishing altruistic behavior from cooperative behavior in social psychological and economic theories of human behavior might be useful and that costly signaling theory may provide novel insights on various individual difference variables.     

斯腾伯格（R．J．Sternberg）智力成分理论述评

成分是斯腾伯格提出的分析智力操作的基本单元。成分分析是对智力行为心理机制的描述。但成分理论不能独立地说明智力,它隶属于斯氏三重智力理论的总体框架。论文分析了成分的性质、种类及其相互作用,并对个体和年龄差异在各种成分功能上的表现作出解释。成分理论的提出是对人脑黑箱软件意义上的工作原理的可贵探索。但它在可证伪性方面是有缺陷的。     

A job half done: The road to intelligence testing in the year 2000

After a brief historical review of the development of the intelligence test and the study of individual differences, it is suggested that the major impediment to an understanding of human intelligence is the fragmented way it is studied. This fragmented approach is in contradiction to the very factors which make the intelligence test successful. An orientation is suggested which integrates the various aspects of the study of human intelligence. If this approach, or one like it, is adopted and applied until the year 2000 it is suggested that intelligence tests will have a very different appearance than they do today. They will be an integral, but indescriminable, part of a systematic theory of the acquisition of knowledge.