Next Issue
Previous Issue

Table of Contents

J. Intell., Volume 2, Issue 1 (March 2014), Pages 1-28

  • Issues are regarded as officially published after their release is announced to the table of contents alert mailing list.
  • You may sign up for e-mail alerts to receive table of contents of newly released issues.
  • PDF is the official format for papers published in both, html and pdf forms. To view the papers in pdf format, click on the "PDF Full-text" link, and use the free Adobe Readerexternal link to open them.
View options order results:
result details:
Displaying articles 1-8
Export citation of selected articles as:

Other

Open AccessComment Looking at Intelligence from So-Called Noncognitive Traits: Be Open to Change
J. Intell. 2014, 2(1), 1-3; doi:10.3390/jintelligence2010001
Received: 18 November 2013 / Revised: 9 January 2014 / Accepted: 14 January 2014 / Published: 22 January 2014
PDF Full-text (35 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Within this commentary, I will try to extend the views presented in Johnson’s, as well as Hunt and Jaeggi’s, commentaries. Both commentaries address the issue of intelligence development. I will try to broaden the discussion by including noncognitive traits as predictors of [...] Read more.
Within this commentary, I will try to extend the views presented in Johnson’s, as well as Hunt and Jaeggi’s, commentaries. Both commentaries address the issue of intelligence development. I will try to broaden the discussion by including noncognitive traits as predictors of cognitive development. These ideas are founded within the environmental enrichment hypothesis and the Openness-Fluid-Crystallized-Intelligence (OFCI) model. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence, Where to Look, Where to Go?)
Open AccessComment Intelligence as Trait—and State?
J. Intell. 2014, 2(1), 4-5; doi:10.3390/jintelligence2010004
Received: 16 January 2014 / Revised: 28 January 2014 / Accepted: 29 January 2014 / Published: 11 February 2014
Cited by 2 | PDF Full-text (157 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
We tend to think of intelligence as trait-like. However, with increasing use of psychoactive drugs that enhance performance on psychometric tests of intelligence, investigators need to think of intelligence also as having state-like properties. Questions of the ethics of such drug use [...] Read more.
We tend to think of intelligence as trait-like. However, with increasing use of psychoactive drugs that enhance performance on psychometric tests of intelligence, investigators need to think of intelligence also as having state-like properties. Questions of the ethics of such drug use will need to be faced in the field of high-stakes psychometric testing as they now are being faced in professional athletics. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence, Where to Look, Where to Go?)
Open AccessComment Intelligence: Pre-Theory and Post-Theory
J. Intell. 2014, 2(1), 6-7; doi:10.3390/jintelligence2010006
Received: 12 December 2013 / Revised: 21 January 2014 / Accepted: 29 January 2014 / Published: 12 February 2014
PDF Full-text (164 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Defining “intelligence” exemplifies a mistake that has historical precedent: confusing the role of pre-theory and post-theory definitions. In every area, pre-theory concepts give broad directions for investigation: are the movements of heavenly bodies affected by the existence of other heavenly bodies? Post-theory [...] Read more.
Defining “intelligence” exemplifies a mistake that has historical precedent: confusing the role of pre-theory and post-theory definitions. In every area, pre-theory concepts give broad directions for investigation: are the movements of heavenly bodies affected by the existence of other heavenly bodies? Post-theory concepts add precision and predictability. The mistake occurs when a successful theory like Newton’s demands that its peculiar and precise theory-imbedded concept forbids competing theories: Einstein was impossible (warping of space) so long as it was assumed that all theories must be in accord with Newton’s concept (attraction across space). In psychology, Arthur Jensen made the same mistake. He gave his theory-embedded concept of g the role of executioner: the significance of every phenomenon had to be interpreted by its compatibility with g; and thus trivialized the significance of IQ gains over time. This is only one instance of a perennial demand: give us a precise definition of “intelligence” to guide our research. However, precision comes after research has generated a theory and its very precision stifles competing research. Be happy with a broad definition on the pre-theory level that lets many competing theories bloom: pre-theory precision equals post-theory poverty. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence, Where to Look, Where to Go?)
Open AccessComment Assessing Cognitive Abilities: Intelligence and More
J. Intell. 2014, 2(1), 8-11; doi:10.3390/jintelligence2010008
Received: 16 January 2014 / Revised: 29 January 2014 / Accepted: 29 January 2014 / Published: 12 February 2014
PDF Full-text (172 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
In modern cognitive science, rationality and intelligence are measured using different tasks and operations. Furthermore, in several contemporary dual process theories of cognition, rationality is a more encompassing construct than intelligence. Researchers need to continue to develop measures of rational thought without [...] Read more.
In modern cognitive science, rationality and intelligence are measured using different tasks and operations. Furthermore, in several contemporary dual process theories of cognition, rationality is a more encompassing construct than intelligence. Researchers need to continue to develop measures of rational thought without regard to empirical correlations with intelligence. The measurement of individual differences in rationality should not be subsumed by the intelligence concept. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence, Where to Look, Where to Go?)
Open AccessComment Intelligence Is What the Intelligence Test Measures. Seriously
J. Intell. 2014, 2(1), 12-15; doi:10.3390/jintelligence2010012
Received: 16 January 2014 / Revised: 12 February 2014 / Accepted: 17 February 2014 / Published: 28 February 2014
Cited by 7 | PDF Full-text (180 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The mutualism model, an alternative for the g-factor model of intelligence, implies a formative measurement model in which “g” is an index variable without a causal role. If this model is accurate, the search for a genetic of brain [...] Read more.
The mutualism model, an alternative for the g-factor model of intelligence, implies a formative measurement model in which “g” is an index variable without a causal role. If this model is accurate, the search for a genetic of brain instantiation of “g” is deemed useless. This also implies that the (weighted) sum score of items of an intelligence test is just what it is: a weighted sum score. Preference for one index above the other is a pragmatic issue that rests mainly on predictive value. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence, Where to Look, Where to Go?)
Open AccessComment New Directions in Intelligence Research: Avoiding the Mistakes of the Past
J. Intell. 2014, 2(1), 16-20; doi:10.3390/jintelligence2010016
Received: 16 January 2014 / Revised: 12 February 2014 / Accepted: 17 February 2014 / Published: 7 March 2014
PDF Full-text (182 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
This brief commentary considers the potential for new directions in intelligence research, as well as possible pitfalls associated with these approaches. Specifically, this commentary focuses on the use of big data in intelligence research, the study of genes and gene-environment interactions, the [...] Read more.
This brief commentary considers the potential for new directions in intelligence research, as well as possible pitfalls associated with these approaches. Specifically, this commentary focuses on the use of big data in intelligence research, the study of genes and gene-environment interactions, the interpretation of neuroscience evidence, and the effectiveness of intelligence interventions. The major pitfalls identified include methodological and data analytic limitations, as well as concerns regarding the communication of findings to other scientists and the lay public. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence, Where to Look, Where to Go?)
Open AccessComment Predictive Validity of Non-g Residuals of Tests: More Than g
J. Intell. 2014, 2(1), 21-25; doi:10.3390/jintelligence2010021
Received: 30 November 2013 / Revised: 7 February 2014 / Accepted: 25 February 2014 / Published: 11 March 2014
Cited by 5 | PDF Full-text (283 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract This comment argues that an important issue in intelligence research is to identify constructs with validity beyond g, and that non-g residuals of tests represent a promising target. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence, Where to Look, Where to Go?)
Open AccessComment All We Need Is Brain (and Technology)
J. Intell. 2014, 2(1), 26-28; doi:10.3390/jintelligence2010026
Received: 16 January 2014 / Revised: 3 March 2014 / Accepted: 4 March 2014 / Published: 14 March 2014
PDF Full-text (164 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Here, I suggest we must invest our scientific resources in brain research. Scientists interested in human (and non-human) intelligence should frame their key questions regarding where to look and where to go around technical advances related to the fascinating, general purpose, highly [...] Read more.
Here, I suggest we must invest our scientific resources in brain research. Scientists interested in human (and non-human) intelligence should frame their key questions regarding where to look and where to go around technical advances related to the fascinating, general purpose, highly dynamic device we call the ‘brain’. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence, Where to Look, Where to Go?)

Journal Contact

MDPI AG
J. Intell. Editorial Office
St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel, Switzerland
jintelligence@mdpi.com
Tel. +41 61 683 77 34
Fax: +41 61 302 89 18
Editorial Board
Contact Details Submit to J. Intell.
Back to Top