Language and intelligence It is evident that the fundamental nature of human knowledge and the way it is acquired has been witnessed. The main tension lies when it comes to acquisition of words (language), theories and concepts. Such tensions develop precisely when researchers opt to pit one type of content or process onto the other. The truth is that such strategy can never be successful since there is insufficient consideration primarily on the diversity and structure of the words and concepts. For young children (infants) who are learning, they take advantage of both perceptual and conceptual strategies on information, just to establish categories and also to acquire words. As far as language and cognitive development is concerned, there are two different metaphors that are related. The first one “child-as-data analyst” describes the child as an analyst who poses an exceptional impressive brain capacity that assist in solving statistical regularities within their environment (Sandra & Susan 365). Moreover, they have rich sensory perception resources that again attend to the task of knowledge acquisition. The second metaphor, “child-as-theorist” demonstrates the capabilities of infants to capture and impressively express the core knowledge of physical objects (Sandra & Susan 367). Furthermore, this metaphor also captures the infants array of conceptual capacities expressing their aggressiveness in skeletal theories of intimate objects. Generally, these two metaphors shouldn’t be competing since most infants completely depend on both theories they hold and also the statistic they witness in their environment to be able to acquire and describe concepts and words. As far as language development is concerned, a strong difference still exist on whether the human knowledge especially on conceptual primitives came exactly from the bedrock of perceptual primitives or whether they are precisely built upon the very same conceptual primitives (Sandra & Susan 378). However, the only option is to marry both metaphors, which has yielded a productive interchange and also a supportive debate. On language development, the child-as-data-analyst is categorized to be the most exclusive associationist as afar as the approach to early word learning is concerned. Such infants witness sensory and perception experience via interactive learning and similarity assessments (Sandra & Susan 380). Moreover, the child also demonstrates higher sensitivity to statistical regularities. Nevertheless, it has been proven that very high levels of conceptual processes exhibited in most children are not a must for infant early word developments. On the other hand, child-as-theorist model simply supports the fact that the child must be a theorist for the process of early word learning and also conceptual development to take place. Intellectually, words are simply symbolic elements that refer and that they hardly associate (Sandra & Susan 368). Intelligence is just like belief. Any time it can be changed and that it is an acquired trait or ability exhibited by an expandable quality. It is good to note that, similarly to word development of infants, intelligence can also be exposed to students. This can either be accomplished by teaching students different views of intelligence, different interpretations of failure (lack of the efforts) and direct perspective of orient