James R Flynn and Kevin Warwick both write their works centered around one controversial topic: intelligence and the measurement of intelligence. Both authors argue that intelligence can be manifested in different areas instead of in a single one: Warwick presents and explains the idea of different dimensions of intelligence and Flynn builds upon a specific catalyst of the variance in intelligence. Although both authors reach the same conclusion that intelligence can take different forms, they approach the topic with different reasonings and support. Warwick explains the multidimensionality of intelligence from a scientific point of view while Flynn explains the differences in intelligence with an emphasis on the impact of the societal environment.
…show more content…
Warwick emphasizes the influence of physical abilities on the observed intelligence by comparing the ability of different individuals to make spiderwebs. He argues that although a spider can create a better web than a human or computer because this resultant intelligence is made possible by the spider’s physical abilities, however, it does not mean the spider also has an inherent intelligence superior to that that of a human or computer (Warwick). It is because of many factors and complexity present in the relationship between inherent and resultant intelligence that Warwick argues that intelligence cannot be viewed as one dimensional but requires thoughtful consideration and, ergo, cannot be compared across individuals in …show more content…
He argues that if psychologists had greater social awareness, they would note that different dimensions of intelligence are valued amongst different communities making intelligence impossible to measure with a universal test. Thus in his view, intelligence differs not because of the differences in inherent and resultant intelligence but rather because the definition of intelligence can not be universally established. His text explains the way different communities hold different values and how they are reflected when intelligence is attempted to be measured. One clarifying example Flynn utilizes is that “in a gang-organized area… the culture was one of defense and honor” (Flynn, 176). This example shows that individuals in gangs are considered intelligent when they engage in violence because success in violence equates honor to them. On the other hand, individuals from other communities such as Chinese communities would not consider individuals who engage in violence intelligent because they do not value violence. Instead, Flynn argues that the Chinese communities value work ethic so they would regard the studious individuals as the intelligent individuals (Flynn, 177). Thus, Flynn demonstrates that intelligence varies because it is assigned different definitions throughout different societal environments. However, tests such as the IQ do
Warwick emphasizes the influence of physical abilities on the observed intelligence by comparing the ability of different individuals to make spiderwebs. He argues that although a spider can create a better web than a human or computer because this resultant intelligence is made possible by the spider’s physical abilities, however, it does not mean the spider also has an inherent intelligence superior to that that of a human or computer (Warwick). It is because of many factors and complexity present in the relationship between inherent and resultant intelligence that Warwick argues that intelligence cannot be viewed as one dimensional but requires thoughtful consideration and, ergo, cannot be compared across individuals in …show more content…
He argues that if psychologists had greater social awareness, they would note that different dimensions of intelligence are valued amongst different communities making intelligence impossible to measure with a universal test. Thus in his view, intelligence differs not because of the differences in inherent and resultant intelligence but rather because the definition of intelligence can not be universally established. His text explains the way different communities hold different values and how they are reflected when intelligence is attempted to be measured. One clarifying example Flynn utilizes is that “in a gang-organized area… the culture was one of defense and honor” (Flynn, 176). This example shows that individuals in gangs are considered intelligent when they engage in violence because success in violence equates honor to them. On the other hand, individuals from other communities such as Chinese communities would not consider individuals who engage in violence intelligent because they do not value violence. Instead, Flynn argues that the Chinese communities value work ethic so they would regard the studious individuals as the intelligent individuals (Flynn, 177). Thus, Flynn demonstrates that intelligence varies because it is assigned different definitions throughout different societal environments. However, tests such as the IQ do