Special Issue "Intelligence, Where to Look, Where to Go?"

Quicklinks

A special issue of Journal of Intelligence (ISSN 2079-3200).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 November 2014)

Special Issue Editor

Guest Editor
Prof. Dr. Paul De Boeck (Website)

Professor of Quantitative Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
KU Leuven, Department of Psychology, Tiensestraat 102, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
Interests: item response theory; mixed models; intelligence; personality; individual differences

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The first issue of the Journal of Intelligence was devoted to a discussion based on the following two questions:

  1. What are the most important scientific issues in the domain of human intelligence?
  2. What are the most promising new ideas and approaches in the study of human intelligence?

To begin this discussion, members of the editorial board of our journal have sent their answers to the above questions. Next, the same two questions, and the various answers to them, have served as input for two invited articles published in this issue, one by Wendy Johnson, and another by Earl Hunt and Susanne Jaeggi. These were the first steps in a discussion on scientific issues and approaches in the study of human intelligence. Two more steps were planned, the first of which is already realized. Members of the editorial board and prominent scholars from the field of intelligence have submitted commentaries with their own answers to the two questions or with conderations inspired by the two articles. As a final step, we are glad to invite now all reseachers from the field and from neighboring fields to submit such commentaries. All comments will be reviewed by two external reviewers.

Paul De Boeck

Submission

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. Papers will be published continuously (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are refereed through a peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on theInstructions for Authors page. Journal of Intelligence is an international peer-reviewed Open Access quarterly journal published by MDPI.

Published Papers (15 papers)

View options order results:
result details:
Displaying articles 1-15
Export citation of selected articles as:

Editorial

Jump to: Other

Open AccessEditorial Intelligence, Where to Look, Where to Go?
J. Intell. 2013, 1(1), 5-24; doi:10.3390/jintelligence1010005
Received: 6 September 2013 / Revised: 3 October 2013 / Accepted: 7 October 2013 / Published: 23 October 2013
Cited by 6 | PDF Full-text (880 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The first issue of the Journal of Intelligence is devoted to a discussion based on the following two questions: 1. What are the most important scientific issues in the domain of human intelligence? 2. What are the most promising new ideas and [...] Read more.
The first issue of the Journal of Intelligence is devoted to a discussion based on the following two questions: 1. What are the most important scientific issues in the domain of human intelligence? 2. What are the most promising new ideas and approaches in the study of human intelligence?  [...] Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence, Where to Look, Where to Go?)

Other

Jump to: Editorial

Open AccessCommentary Zeroing in on the Genetics of Intelligence
J. Intell. 2015, 3(2), 41-45; doi:10.3390/jintelligence3020041
Received: 28 November 2014 / Accepted: 16 April 2015 / Published: 20 April 2015
Cited by 2 | PDF Full-text (93 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Despite the high heritability of intelligence in the normal range, molecular genetic studies have so far yielded many null findings. However, large samples and self-imposed stringent standards have prevented false positives and gradually narrowed down where effects can still be expected. Rare [...] Read more.
Despite the high heritability of intelligence in the normal range, molecular genetic studies have so far yielded many null findings. However, large samples and self-imposed stringent standards have prevented false positives and gradually narrowed down where effects can still be expected. Rare variants and mutations of large effect do not appear to play a main role beyond intellectual disability. Common variants can account for about half the heritability of intelligence and show promise that collaborative efforts will identify more causal genetic variants. Gene–gene interactions may explain some of the remainder, but are only starting to be tapped. Evolutionarily, stabilizing selection and selective (near)-neutrality are consistent with the facts known so far. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence, Where to Look, Where to Go?)
Open AccessComment Are Humans the Most Intelligent Species?
J. Intell. 2014, 2(3), 119-121; doi:10.3390/jintelligence2030119
Received: 11 July 2014 / Revised: 9 September 2014 / Accepted: 10 September 2014 / Published: 22 September 2014
PDF Full-text (159 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Hunt and Jaeggi [1] nicely summarize the point that within the academic field of intelligence, we do not have a commonly understandable definition of what intelligence is. Still the term is used extensively and with consensus to the effect that humans are [...] Read more.
Hunt and Jaeggi [1] nicely summarize the point that within the academic field of intelligence, we do not have a commonly understandable definition of what intelligence is. Still the term is used extensively and with consensus to the effect that humans are the most intelligent species. An example is given of this problem, and a definition and solution are suggested. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence, Where to Look, Where to Go?)
Open AccessComment A New Era of Intelligence Research
J. Intell. 2014, 2(2), 33-35; doi:10.3390/jintelligence2020033
Received: 18 February 2014 / Revised: 10 March 2014 / Accepted: 24 March 2014 / Published: 8 April 2014
Cited by 1 | PDF Full-text (156 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
A consensus definition of intelligence remains elusive but there are many reasons to believe that the field of intelligence is entering a new era of significant progress. The convergence of recent advances in psychometrics, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience has set the stage [...] Read more.
A consensus definition of intelligence remains elusive but there are many reasons to believe that the field of intelligence is entering a new era of significant progress. The convergence of recent advances in psychometrics, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience has set the stage for the development of stronger theories and more sophisticated models. The establishment of a new open access journal as an outlet for new intelligence research is evidence that the new era has begun. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence, Where to Look, Where to Go?)
Open AccessComment Assessing and Revising the Plan for Intelligence Testing
J. Intell. 2014, 2(2), 29-32; doi:10.3390/jintelligence2020029
Received: 16 January 2014 / Revised: 24 March 2014 / Accepted: 24 March 2014 / Published: 4 April 2014
PDF Full-text (171 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
This brief commentary suggests that the usefulness of the concept of intelligence might depend on how one defines intelligence and on whether one is using it for scientific or practical purposes. Furthermore, it is suggested that the concept of working memory must [...] Read more.
This brief commentary suggests that the usefulness of the concept of intelligence might depend on how one defines intelligence and on whether one is using it for scientific or practical purposes. Furthermore, it is suggested that the concept of working memory must not be overlooked when considering individual differences in intelligence. 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?)
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 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 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 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 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 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 AccessCommentary Whither Intelligence Research?
J. Intell. 2013, 1(1), 25-35; doi:10.3390/jintelligence1010025
Received: 6 September 2013 / Revised: 12 September 2013 / Accepted: 7 October 2013 / Published: 23 October 2013
Cited by 7 | PDF Full-text (209 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Today we have many exciting new technological tools that allow us to observe the brain and genome and lure us into new kinds of studies. I believe, however, that we will not be able to make truly effective use of these tools [...] Read more.
Today we have many exciting new technological tools that allow us to observe the brain and genome and lure us into new kinds of studies. I believe, however, that we will not be able to make truly effective use of these tools until we understand better what it is we mean to measure when we measure intelligence, how it develops, and the impact of the clear presence of gene-environment correlation on its development. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence, Where to Look, Where to Go?)
Open AccessCommentary Challenges for Research on Intelligence
J. Intell. 2013, 1(1), 36-54; doi:10.3390/jintelligence1010036
Received: 6 September 2013 / Revised: 10 September 2013 / Accepted: 7 October 2013 / Published: 23 October 2013
Cited by 10 | PDF Full-text (258 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
After 100 years of research, the definition of the field is still inadequate. The biggest challenge we see is moving away from a de-factor definition of intelligence in terms of test scores, but at the same time making clear what the boundaries [...] Read more.
After 100 years of research, the definition of the field is still inadequate. The biggest challenge we see is moving away from a de-factor definition of intelligence in terms of test scores, but at the same time making clear what the boundaries of the field are. We then present four challenges for the field, two within a biological and two within a social context. These revolve around the issues of the malleability of intelligence and its display in everyday life, outside of a formal testing context. We conclude that developments in cognitive neuroscience and increases in the feasibility of monitoring behavior outside of the context of a testing session offer considerable hope for expansion of our both the biological and social aspects of individual differences in cognition. 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