Intelligence, Learning, and Testing

by Tim Brunson PhD

Intelligence is primarily a measure in one's ability to learn. The underlying theory of intelligence presumes that there are individual differences in the capability to use perception, memory, and learning. This article addresses the relevance of intelligence testing, its proper use in society (to include academic endeavors), and the roles of Gardner's multi-intelligence theory in our societal functioning. Together I see these issues as having scientific, philosophical and even religious/spiritual dimensions. Other than the utility and morality issues, the concept of static versus dynamic/changing intelligence must be discussed.

Over the years I've read extensively the works of Freud, Jung, Dennett, Ramachandran, Piaget, Gardner and others on the psychology of intelligence and consciousness. Additionally, I've noted the philosophies of J. Krishnamurti, Ken Wilber, and even the Buddha as they've covered the same topics. While there are many ways, theories and concepts regarding consciousness and intelligence, these thinkers share many concepts. These include that consciousness exists, the ability to learn from one's environment, and that a person can change and therefore he/she is not doomed to the restrictions of heredity.

Neurologists tend to see intelligence and consciousness as phenomenon that is fixed in the geography of the brain. In fact, some would go so far as to say that our brains are wired for God (Newberg, et. al., 2001). My favorite pundits in this area are Richard Restak, M.D., who has written 18 books on this topic, and Daniel Amen, M.D. of the Amen Clinics, who has likewise published numerous books. (I've read about a third of Restak's materials; I've personally taken classes with Amen to include his "Brain and Behavior" graduate-level course.) Both Restak and Amen see intelligence related to specific interrelated neural substrates. Noteworthy, they both agree that lifestyle, environment, novel stimulation, and even medications can affect mental functioning – hence, intelligence. (Stimulation of the serotonin-producing neurons of the brain stem through conscious slow breathing can improve cognitive functioning. In my extensive studies of Tibetan Buddhist monks I've noticed the dramatic memory capabilities and a phenomenal clarity of mind of both young and aged meditators. Could such conscious regulation of breath before an intelligence test warp the results? What would be the impact of such breathing on learning and test-taking? I've seen several studies that relate relaxed breathing and increase reading speeds and comprehension.) Another issue that Restak mentions in his latest book, The Naked Brain, is how knowledge of the structure and function of the brain can be used by elements of our society to make preemptive decisions about employment, mates, etc. This social neurology is similar to recent fears that information provided by DNA and human genome research may be used for similar decisions. Likewise, this addresses the morality of intelligence testing that uses well crafted questions to determine the state of a subject's intelligence level. Like decisions made based upon neurology and DNA research, typology resulting from intelligence testing begs the question of accuracy, relevance, and one's ability to change.

At best, intelligence testing can only give indications that may be less relevant over time. These indications provide a picture of an ability to learn. It is my professional opinion that, while there is considerable relevance to such testing (especially when comparing people), it still measures only a temporally limited "snap shot" which provides a comparative tool among candidates. However, like the Myers-Briggs personality typology, I find that it is overused. If this was the appropriate place, I could easily give multiple cases where a person's therapy was misdirected based upon too much credence placed upon intelligence testing. (For instance in one recent case, intelligence tests failed to recognize neurological damage to a teenager's prefrontal cortex. His misdiagnosis by several licensed professionals led to inappropriate drugs being given for ADD.)

Since intelligence testing is still in its evolutionary stage, I cringe at the thought that intelligence and personality testing will be used with certainty to make critical decisions about people's lives. When I was being interviewed to work as a financial advisor for American Express I went through a battery of intelligence and personality tests. Indeed, I noticed that the trainees who made it to their center in Chaska, Minnesota, had uncanny similarity when it came to personality. However, despite Amex's best efforts, still 80% of these tested individuals failed to make it past the first 18 months in the field.

The aspect of malleability of intelligence must be considered when making decisions about such tests. My office library contains books on hypnosis, NLP, psychology, neurology, and consciousness. Of these, there are several works that specifically discuss theories of human change. The consensus of these authors is that we are not stuck with what we inherit. These authors, most of which have the M.D., Ph.D. or Psy.D. degrees, could be branded by some as adherents of "popular psychology." Nevertheless, these books are full of valid scientific research, much representing published peer reviewed endeavors, and loads of undeniable anecdotal evidence. Coupled with my observations during over 14 years as a clinician, I'm comfortable that people can change dramatically. Measurable intelligence must be considered along with a person's sense of identity, their values, their beliefs, and even their realization of a spiritual dimension and mission.

People have various propensities and intelligence capabilities AT A GIVEN MOMENT. Howard Gardner of Harvard University developed a theory of multiple intelligences. Personally, I love this theory as it makes me realize that no matter how good someone is at a given skill, everyone is very good at something. Even people that recall haunting memories of abuse can be applauded for their high level of talent when it comes to beating themselves up emotionally. Indeed, even failure shows a high level of expertise. For instance, once I learned that I had mastered the strategy of loosing money as a day trader, it took just a slight change that allowed me to turn this "expertise" into a money making proposition. So, I agree that it is a given that everyone is to be honored for their specific expertise or genius.

Then the question is, like intelligence, is one's given genius permanent and unchanging. As an example, within NLP we teach the five basic communication modalities: Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Olfactory, and Gustatory. The recognition is that a person has a preferred learning and communication modality. On the other hand, NLP promotes the Law of Requisite Variety, which states that: "The element of a system that has the most flexibility will become the catalyst of that system." What NLP is promoting is that a person needs to become comfortable outside their proverbial box. Meaning, that a person, such as myself, who is most comfortable learning visually, needs to learn to communicate with predicates, gestures, tonality, and other techniques associated with the other modalities. Likewise, although we should learn and respect that others have specific geniuses not shared by ourselves, doesn't mean that we cannot improve our ability to function within those other areas. I am the firm believer that a person needs not only to communicate within all VAKOG modalities, but should, among other flexibilities, expand their experience other geniuses. Once someone detects a lack in one area, I feel that there should be a concerted effort to explore the others. As a life-long learner, I've attempted to live by this philosophy. This has led me to take this undergraduate course, take dance lessons, learn Sudoku, study musical instruments, take classes in German, Spanish, and Tibetan, and even challenge my fear of heights by becoming licensed as a helicopter pilot.

I see that the typologies represented by intelligence testing and things like MBTI as relevant only in that they give indications for further exploration. However, I still believe that they lack the certainty and are still only at the stage of being a pseudo-science, thus needing further study and development. Therefore, when used to make firm academic and sociological decisions as a result thereof, these tests could constitute an un-justice. Furthermore, I see such evaluations as giving the aura of certainty that belies the fact that as individuals and as a race we are creatures that are going through a constant journey of transformation. Any pseudo-science phenomenon which attempts to narrowly define a person as an "it" rather than a creature who is "becoming" should be questioned.

The International Hypnosis Research Institute is a member supported project involving integrative health care specialists from around the world. We provide information and educational resources to clinicians. Dr. Brunson is the author of over 150 self-help and clinical CD's and MP3's.