Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

What is Intelligence?  Navigating the Complex Terrain of Human Cognition

Understanding Intelligence: A Complex Puzzle

“What is intelligence?” This question, seemingly simple, proves almost impossible to definitively answer. The term ‘intelligence’ has been, and continues to be, a subject of diverse definitions across the psychology research landscape. These definitions often reflect the normative ideals of Western societies, as outlined by Gregory in 2007. In contrast, African societies, for example, place a greater emphasis on social aspects, as noted by Sternberg and Kaufman in 1997. Despite this variance, a common thread among researchers is that intelligence should encapsulate two core abilities: the capacity to adapt to one’s environment and the ability to learn from experiences.

The lack of consensus on what constitutes intelligence has not deterred efforts to measure and understand it. Intelligence tests, in practice, define intelligence operationally; they measure intelligence as per their specific criteria. This approach, however, may limit our understanding to the confines of these tests, potentially reinforcing their own conceptualization of intelligence rather than expanding our understanding. If we accept a definition of intelligence that emphasizes experience and adaptation, particularly in Western cultures, then these tests should ideally assess an individual’s capabilities in learning and adaptation. Yet, as Gregory pointed out in 2007, they often fall short or at best, capture these abilities indirectly. Moreover, while there’s agreement among theorists about intelligence having multiple facets (Sternberg, 2000), the specifics of these facets – their nature and number – remain a subject of debate.

Historical Perspectives and Evolving Theories

A historical perspective offers some clarity. Spearman, in 1904, posited that intelligence comprises a general component, or ‘G factor’, along with other more specific factors. Building on this foundation, Cattell in 1971 developed a model that is still in use today. This model proposes three dimensions of intelligence: a global ability at the first level (G factor), and then crystallized abilities (representing acquired knowledge and its applications) and fluid abilities (primarily non-verbal abilities, presumably devoid of cultural biases) constituting the second and third levels. Presently, this theory encompasses more than seventy distinct abilities.

Sternberg’s approach in 1999 offers another perspective. He argued that tests assessing intelligence outside of a real-world context fail to evaluate it accurately. Intelligence, in his view, consists of three elements: the individual’s internal cognitive processes, the external world, and the varying experiences that bridge these two realms. This theory has been particularly influential in educational settings, highlighting how the type of intelligence developed by children, whether more analytical or creative, is influenced by their social environment (Sternberg, 1998).

Emotional Intelligence: Expanding the Paradigm

The concept of emotional intelligence, brought into the limelight by Goleman based on the theories of Mayer and Salovey in 1997, adds another layer to this complex construct. While it is clear from memory studies that emotions significantly influence how memories are encoded and retrieved, the role of emotions in intelligence raises several questions. Is emotional intelligence a cognitive intelligence with an emotional component? Or is it a distinct concept altogether, potentially including skills that can be taught or elements of personality traits, as Goleman suggests?

Emotional intelligence, as it pertains to interpersonal interactions, is a socio-psychological phenomenon involving cognitive processes such as perception, interpretation, and decision-making. Our behaviors and interactions shift depending on the situational and interpersonal context – we behave differently at home compared to our workplace, or with friends versus strangers. Despite its significance, research on emotional intelligence within a social context is sparse. Conversely, numerous studies have focused on its role in the workplace, with findings suggesting that scores from emotional intelligence tests may provide better predictions of workplace success than those from standard cognitive intelligence tests (Dulewicz and Higgs, 1999). Additionally, emotional intelligence is believed to play a crucial role in the effectiveness of certain leadership behaviors (Palmer et al., 2001).

However, research outcomes can vary based on experimental conditions. A study by Nikolaou and Tsaousis in 2002 found that among three groups – doctors, social workers, and administrative staff – doctors scored higher in emotional intelligence, ostensibly due to their better control over their emotions.

Spiritual Intelligence, a New Field of Research

Moreover, the recent discourse on spiritual intelligence opens up new avenues of inquiry.

The field of spiritual intelligence, a relatively nascent area of study, prompts further questions. Can the theories applicable to emotional intelligence, such as Mayer’s model in 2008, be extended to spiritual intelligence? According to Mayer’s model, emotional intelligence includes four levels of abilities: the capacity to perceive emotions in oneself and others, including in art; using emotions to aid reasoning, communication, or decision-making; understanding emotions, which involves language and thought or the ability to analyze emotions; and managing emotions and emotional responses, irrespective of the social context. A person with high emotional intelligence would adjust their responses and behavior according to their social or interpersonal environment, recognizing that appropriateness varies with context.

Yet, this model has not been directly applied to spiritual intelligence, which is currently the subject of studies and discussions among psychologists, humanities scholars, and neuroscientists, all aiming to understand the role of spirituality in human evolution.

Defining spiritual intelligence presents its own challenges. Emmons in 2000 described it as encompassing, among other things, a capacity for transcendence, the ability to enter altered states of consciousness, and the ability to infuse daily activities, events, or relationships with a sense of the sacred. Noble in 2001 expanded this definition to include the conscious recognition that physical reality is part of a broader and multidimensional reality, and the choice to develop a psycho-spiritual consciousness to promote overall or individual health – by seeking to understand the meaning behind each experience.

Empirical measurement of spiritual intelligence remains difficult, though various attempts have been made. Researchers in this area often face ostracism from a scientific community rooted in Cartesian materialism. Yet, some researchers, undeterred by potential criticism or ridicule, have made strides in this field. For instance, Kerr defined spiritual intelligence as the deliberate management of states of consciousness to foster personal and others’ development. This definition, while useful for measurements through brain imaging, is somewhat restrictive and excludes qualitative aspects such as self-transcendence, which are challenging to measure.

The Future of Intelligence Research: Interdisciplinary Implications

Looking ahead, another intriguing question, potentially the subject of future research, is whether analytical, emotional, or spiritual intelligences are mere personality traits, as some researchers like Schutte et al. in 2006 have suggested. The study of intelligence, particularly spiritual intelligence, remains a focal point where multiple disciplines converge. Its implications are profound, influencing areas such as biomedical research, neuroscience, conflict prevention, ecology, and the training of health and education professionals. The hope is that future research will continue to illuminate this complex and intriguing aspect of human cognition.


  • Cattell, R.B. (1971) Abilities: Their Structure, Growth and Action, Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin.
  • Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. (1999) ‘Can emotional intelligence be measured and developed?’, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, vol.20, pp.242–53.
  • Emmons, R. A. Is spirituality an intelligence? Motivation, cognition, and the psychology of ultimate concern. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 10 (1) (2000). 3–26.
  • Gregory, R.J. (2007) Psychological Testing: History, Principles and Applications (5th edn), Chicago, IL, Pearson.
  • Kerr, B., & McAlister, J. (2001). Letters to the medicine man: The shaping of spiritual intelligence. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  • Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997) ‘What is emotional intelligence?’, in Salovey, P. and Sluyter, D. (eds) Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications, New York, Basic Books.
  • Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R. (2008) ‘Emotional intelligence: new ability or eclectic traits?’, American Psychologist, vol.63, pp.503–17.
  • Nikolaou, I. And Tsaousis, I. (2002) ‘Emotional intelligence in the workplace: exploring its effects on occupational stress and organizational commitment’, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, vol.10, pp.327–42.
  • Noble, K. D. (2001). Riding the windhorse: Spiritual intelligence and the growth of the self. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press
  • Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z. and Stough, C. (2001) ‘Emotional intelligence and effective leadership’, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, vol.22, pp.5–10.
  • Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Thorsteinsson, E.B., Bhullar, N. and Rooke, S.E. (2006) ‘A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health’, Personality and Individual Differences, vol.42, pp.921–33.
  • Spearman, C. (1904) ‘‘General intelligence’’, objectively defined and measured’, American Journal of Psychology, vol.15, pp.201–93.
  • Sternberg, R.J. (1999) ‘A triarchic approach to the understanding and assessment of intelligence in multicultural populations’, Journal of School Psychology, vol.37, pp.145–59.
  • Sternberg, R.J. (ed.) (2000) Handbook of Intelligence, New York, Cambridge University Press.
  • Sternberg, R.J. and Kaufman, J.C. (1998) ‘Human abilities’, Annual Review of Psychology, vol.49, pp.479–502.”

Leave a comment