Intelligence

{{significantly problematic}}
{{Psychology}}
{{hatnote|Were you looking for [[Intelligence (government)|government intelligence]]?}}
{{cquote|No sooner does man discover intelligence than he tries to involve it in his own stupidity.|||{{wpl|Jacques Cousteau}}}}
'''Intelligence''' is commonly defined as a set of cognitive capacities involved in [[reasoning]], {{wpl|learning||,}} {{wpl|problem-solving}} and [[adaptation]] to the environment. However, there is no universally accepted definition and researchers differ in how they {{wpl|conceptualize}} and {{wpl|operationalize}} the construct. Some debate whether intelligence should be understood as a single general ability, a collection of distinct abilities or primarily as a statistical construct derived from patterns of cognitive performance. While most researchers regard intelligence as a meaningful and useful concept, there is disagreement about the extent to which a single definition is necessary or informative.<ref>{{cite web |author= Charlotte Ruhl |date= February 1, 2024 |title= What Is Intelligence In Psychology|url= https://www.simplypsychology.org/intelligence.html|website= Simply Psychology|access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Huitt, W.  |date= 2002|title=Intelligence |url=https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/intell.html |website=Educational Psychology Interactive  |publisher=Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University |access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref><ref>Coyle, T. R. (2021). Defining and Measuring Intelligence: The Psychometrics and Neuroscience of g. In A. K. Barbey, S. Karama, & R. J. Haier (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence and Cognitive Neuroscience (pp. 3–25). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref><ref name="Marenus2025">{{cite web |last= Marenus |first=Michele |date=March 26, 2025 |title= Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences|url= https://www.simplypsychology.org/multiple-intelligences.html|website= Simply Psychology |access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref>

In popular discourse, the term ''intelligence'' is often used more loosely and ambiguously than in [[scientific]] {{wpl|context||s,}} frequently conflated with {{wpl|academic achievement||,}} {{wpl|Mental chronometry|processing speed}} or {{wpl|social status||.}} This has contributed to widespread misunderstandings regarding what intelligence tests measure, the [[Evidence|evidentiary]] basis of intelligence research, and the appropriate interpretation and use of such measures. Additionally, a number of [[pseudoscientific]] claims and ideological positions have arisen from misinterpretations or selective readings of intelligence research, further obscuring the [[Empiricism|empirical findings]] and limitations of the field.<ref>Adrian Furnham, George Horne, Myths and misconceptions about intelligence: A study of 35 myths, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 181, 2021, 111014, ISSN 0191-8869, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111014. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886921003895)</ref><ref>Paskiewicz, T., Kurtz, K., & Pearrow, M. (2018). Intelligence tests. In The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (Vol. 4, pp. 846-848). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139.n338</ref><ref>Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the Mind: Conceptual Issues in Contemporary Psychometrics. Cambridge University Press.</ref><ref name="Gould1996">{{cite book |author=Gould, S. J. |date=1996|orig-date=1981 |title= The Mismeasure of Man (Revised and Expanded Edition)|publisher= W. W. Norton & Company|chapter=3., 5-7 |isbn=9780393314250 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author1=Hannah Devlin |author2= David Pegg |date=December 10, 2024 |title=Publisher reviews national IQ research by British ‘race scientist’ Richard Lynn |url= https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/dec/10/elsevier-reviews-national-iq-research-by-british-race-scientist-richard-lynn|website= The Guardian |access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref>

==General intelligence==
In his pioneering research on the subject, twentieth century British psychologist {{wpl|Charles Spearman}} administered a variety of cognitive tests and observed that individuals who scored well on one test tended to score above average on others. This phenomenon, called '''positive manifold''', led him to propose a statistical concept called '''general intelligence''' (aka {{wpl|g factor (psychometrics)|'''''g'' factor'''}} or just '''''g'''''), which he described as a latent statistical factor rather than a directly observable mental faculty and represents the shared variance across different cognitive abilities. Spearman also acknowledged the existence of test-specific abilities (''s'' factors) alongside ''g''.<ref> Holden, L. R., & Tanenbaum, G. J. (2023). Modern Assessments of Intelligence Must Be Fair and Equitable. Journal of Intelligence, 11(6), 126. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060126 </ref><ref name="Jensen1998">Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishing. Chapters "A Little History" and "The Discovery of g" {{isbn|978‑0275961039}}</ref><ref>Joseph A Buckhalt, A short history of g: Psychometrics' most enduring and controversial construct, Learning and Individual Differences, Volume 13, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 101-114, ISSN 1041-6080, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(02)00074-2. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608002000742)</ref> Although [[Francis Galton]] had earlier explored the measurement of mental ability (often through sensory and reaction-time measures and within a [[eugenicist]] framework), it was Spearman’s work that provided the first systematic statistical evidence for a general factor of intelligence, using early forms of factor analytic methods.<ref>Gray, Peter, and David F. Bjorklund. (2014). ''Psychology''. Worth Publishers.</ref><ref name="Jensen1998"/><ref>{{cite book |author= Carroll, J. B. |date= 1993|title=Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor‑Analytic Studies  |publisher=Cambridge University Press |chapter=2-4, 15-16 |isbn= 9780521382755}}</ref>

In contemporary psychology, intelligence is recognized as hierarchically structured and '''multi-dimensional''' (particularly in {{wpl|Psychometrics|psychometric research}}) with broad abilities (e.g., verbal, spatial, working memory) and narrow abilities (as formalized in frameworks such as Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory), within which g occupies the highest level of abstraction. While ''g'' remains a central and empirically robust statistical construct for understanding patterns of cognitive performance and for predicting certain educational and occupational outcomes, many researchers emphasize that ''g'' should not be interpreted as a single, unitary psychological mechanism or as a complete explanation of intelligence.Critics like {{wpl|Robert Sternberg||,}} statistician {{wpl|Cosma Shalizi}} and [[Stephen Jay Gould]] argue that claims portraying ''g'' as "revealing fundamental truths about the mind" or "the [[fate]]s of individuals" are unjustified, and that focusing too heavily on g can distract from studying the mind’s complex, multi-dimensional nature, as well as the roles of development, culture and context.<ref>W. Joel Schneider, Daniel A. Newman, Intelligence is multidimensional: Theoretical review and implications of specific cognitive abilities, Human Resource Management Review, Volume 25, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 12-27, ISSN 1053-4822, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.09.004. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053482214000497)</ref><ref>Sternberg RJ. A Theory of Adaptive Intelligence and Its Relation to General Intelligence. J Intell. 2019 Oct 1;7(4):23. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence7040023. PMID: 31581505; PMCID: PMC6963795.</ref><ref name="Bactra2007">[http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html ''g'', a Statistical Myth] by (October 18, 2007) ''Three-Toed Sloth''.</ref><ref name="Gould1996"/> Shalizi goes as far as to say:<ref name="Bactra2007"/>
{{quotebox|…the myth of ''g'' legitimates a vast enterprise of intelligence testing and theorizing. There should be no dispute that, when we lack specialized and valid instruments, general IQ tests can be better than nothing. Claims that they are anything more than such stop-gaps&nbsp;— that they are triumphs of psychological science, illuminating the workings of the mind; keys to the fates of individuals and peoples; sources of harsh truths which only a courageous few have the strength to bear; etc., etc.,&nbsp;— such claims are at present entirely unjustified, though not, perhaps, unmotivated. They are supported only by the [[myth]], and acceptance of the myth itself rests on what I can only call an astonishing methodological backwardness.<BR> The bottom line is: The sooner we stop paying attention to ''g'', the sooner we can devote our energies to understanding the mind.}}

Historically, measures of ''g'' and intelligence tests have sometimes been misused to support [[scientific racism]], racial hierarchies, and [[Discrimination|discriminatory]] policies. Early applications often ignored {{wpl|Socioeconomic status|socioeconomic conditions,}} {{wpl|Educational inequality|educational opportunities,}} [[cultural]] context (e.g, culturally biased test items or norms), {{wpl|mental stress}} and other systemic and bias-related factors -- portraying group differences in [[IQ]] as innate. The mainstream scientific consensus is that there is no compelling evidence for [[Genetics|genetically]] based differences in ''g'' between socially defined racial groups and genetic explanations of group disparities lack robust support while perpetuating stereotypes and structural inequalities. Although ''g'' remains a robust statistical construct, it cannot justify claims about the intellectual capacities of racial or ethnic groups. Misinterpreting it in this way [[Correlation does not imply causation|conflates correlation with causation]] and diverts attention from the environmental and structural factors that shape cognitive development.<ref>Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL, Kidd KK. Intelligence, race, and genetics. Am Psychol. 2005 Jan;60(1):46-59. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.46. PMID: 15641921.</ref><ref>Lawrence G. Weiss, Donald H. Saklofske, Mediators of IQ test score differences across racial and ethnic groups: The case for environmental and social justice, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 161, 2020, 109962, ISSN 0191-8869, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109962. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886920301513)</ref><ref>Hiermeier, Ursula & Verity, Sarah. (2022). 'Race' and racism in intelligence testing. Clinical Psychology Forum. 1. 10.53841/bpscpf.2022.1.352.30. </ref><ref>Guttman, Louis. (2010). The Irrelevance of Factor Analysis for the Study of Group Differences. Multivariate Behavioral Research - MULTIVARIATE BEHAV RES. 27. 175-204. 10.1207/s15327906mbr2702_2.</ref><ref>Kovacs, Kristof & Conway, Andrew. (2016). Process Overlap Theory: A Unified Account of the General Factor of Intelligence. Psychological Inquiry. 27. 151-177. 10.1080/1047840X.2016.1153946. </ref>

==Forms of intelligence==
Psychologists have proposed many models of intelligence. Several of the most common are expanded upon below.
===Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence===
{{wpl|Raymond Cattell}} proposed in the 1960s (and continued refining it into the 1970s) that performance on mental tests tends to rely on two broad factors: reasoning ability and prior knowledge. Based on this distinction, his model partitions intelligence into the following two categories:<ref>Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 1–22. doi:10.1037/h0046743</ref><ref name="HornCattell1967">Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1967). Age differences in fluid and crystallized intelligence. Acta Psychologica, 26, 107–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001‑6918(67)90011‑X</ref><ref>{{cite book |author= Cattell, R. B.|date=1971 |title= Abilities: Their Structure, Growth, and Action |publisher= Houghton Mifflin|isbn= 9780395042755}}</ref><ref name="SchneiderMcGrew2018">Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2018). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & E. M. McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (4th ed., pp. 73–163). The Guilford Press.</ref>
* '''Fluid Intelligence (Gf)''': The ability to reason and solve novel problems independent of prior experience. It is biologically based and can be assessed with tasks measuring memory span, spatial reasoning, and processing speed.
* '''Crystallized Intelligence (Gc)''': Knowledge and skills acquired through experience and education. It can be measured with tasks assessing vocabulary, general knowledge, and learned problem-solving strategies.
Cattell’s distinction forms the foundation of modern theories of intelligence, including the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model. One compelling piece of evidence supporting this framework is the observed divergence of these two forms of intelligence across the lifespan: fluid intelligence tends to peak in early adulthood and gradually decline, while crystallized intelligence generally increases into late-middle age and often remains stable afterward.<ref name="HornCattell1967"/><ref name="SchneiderMcGrew2018"/><ref>Schaie, K. W. (1994). The course of adult intellectual development. American Psychologist, 49(4), 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.4.304</ref><ref>Timothy Salthouse. (2012). [http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100328?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed& Consequences of Age-Related Cognitive Declines]. ''Annual Review of Psychology''.</ref>

===Theory of Multiple Intelligence===
This model of categorizing intelligence was first introduced in {{wpl|Howard Gardner||'s}} ''Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligence'' published in 1983. Gardner was the first to argue that intelligence was not determined by a single ability, but a whole variety of skills. The proposed "intelligences" include:<ref>{{cite web |author1=Ronald J. Nuzzi|author2= Britannica Editors |date= December 22, 2025 |title=multiple intelligences: psychological theory |url=https://www.britannica.com/science/multiple-intelligences |website=Encyclopaedia Britannica  |access-date=January 29, 2026}}</ref><ref>Brualdi, Amy C. (1996). [https://edpsycinteractive.org/files/gardner.html Multiple intelligences: Gardner's theory]. Washington, D": ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ED410226)</ref><ref name="Marenus2025"/>
*'''Logical Mathematical''': This area has to do with [[logic]], [[reasoning]], and [[critical thinking]]. This is the type of intelligence [[IQ]] tests focus on.
*'''Spatial''': This area deals with spatial judgment and the ability to visualize with the mind's eye. People having this ability tend to be architects and designers.
*'''Linguistic:''' This area focuses on a person's ability to display a facility with [[language]]. People with high linguistic intelligence tend to be writers and story-tellers.
*'''Bodily-kinesthetic''': This intelligence deals with a person's control over his/her body. They tend to have a good sense of timing and a clear sense of a goal of a physical action and learn more effectively through muscular movement. They tend to be actors, dancers, and athletes. 
*'''Musical''': This area focuses on sensitivity to rhythms, tones, and [[music]]al notes. People with high musical intelligence are usually (not surprisingly) musicians, including singers, songwriters, and composers.
*'''Interpersonal:''' People with high interpersonal intelligence tend to learn best through interaction and communication. They are usually salespeople, social workers, [[politicians]], and teachers.
*'''Intrapersonal:''' People with high intrapersonal intelligence are more introspective and reflective. They are usually novelists and [[philosopher]]s.

While the theory has gained significant influence in education - where it is used to design learning activities that cater to diverse student strengths - ''it remains scientifically contested''. Critics argue that empirical evidence for the independence of the proposed intelligences is limited, as many appear correlated, suggesting the presence of a general intelligence (''g'') factor. Additionally, the theory lacks standardized, objective methods for measurement, and rigorous studies demonstrating that MI-based teaching improves academic outcomes are sparse. Despite these criticisms, Multiple Intelligence is still regarded as a practical framework for recognizing diverse talents and fostering engagement in educational settings, though ''it is not universally accepted'' as a formal psychological model of intelligence.<ref name="Marenus2025"/><ref>
Kornhaber, M. L. (2020). The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 659–678). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref><ref>Rousseau L (2021) “Neuromyths” and Multiple Intelligences (MI) Theory: A Comment on Gardner, 2020. Front. Psychol. 12:720706. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.720706</ref><ref> Mavrelos, M., & Daradoumis, T. (2020). Exploring Multiple Intelligence Theory Prospects as a Vehicle for Discovering the Relationship of Neuroeducation with Imaginative/Waldorf Pedagogy: A Systematic Literature Review. Education Sciences, 10(11), 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10110334 </ref><ref>Willingham, Daniel & Hughes, Elizabeth & Dobolyi, David. (2015). The Scientific Status of Learning Styles Theories. Teaching of Psychology. 42. 266-271. 10.1177/0098628315589505.</ref>

===Triarchic Theory of Intelligence===
Proposed by {{wpl|Robert Sternberg}}, the {{wpl|Triarchic Theory of Intelligence}} is, as defined by Sternberg's own words; "Mental activity directed toward purposive adaptation to, selection of, and shaping of real-world environments relevant to one’s life." Sternberg proposed that intelligence is multi-faceted, extending beyond what traditional IQ tests measure. It consists of three interrelated components:<ref>Sternberg, R. J. (1985). ''Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Intelligence''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press</ref><ref>Sternberg, R. J. (1997). ''A Triarchic View of Giftedness: Theory and Practice''. In N. Coleangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education </ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Kretchmar |first=Jenifer |date= 2021|title=Sternberg's Triarchic Theory |url= https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/sternbergs-triarchic-theory|website=EBSCO Knowledge Advantage |access-date=January 29, 2026}}</ref>
*'''Analytical / Componential:''' Involves problem-solving, reasoning, and critical thinking -- the type most measured by traditional [[IQ]] tests. People strong in analytical intelligence are often seen as "book smart." While valuable, relying solely on this type can limit creative and practical problem-solving, as it may not support generating new ideas independently.
*'''Creative / Experiential:''' This part of intelligence deals with how well a task is performed in regards to how familiar it is. There are two parts of Experimental intelligence:
:*''Novelty:'' The ability to adapt to a new situation and find new ways of solving problems not seen by others.
:*''Automation:'' The ability to perform a task multiple times without much thought.
:People with high experimental intelligence tend to be intuitive and creative. Unfortunately, according to Sternberg, experimental intelligence is not focused on by IQ and other intelligence tests. Therefore, a person with high experimental intelligence may score low on an IQ test, despite his/her robust intellect. 
*'''Practical / Contextual:''' This intelligence involves applying knowledge effectively in everyday life, often called "street smarts". It is the ability to adapt to one’s environment and navigate challenges. For example, students who may lack strong analytical or creative skills can succeed academically by understanding how to "play the game", while relatively uneducated individuals can grow a [[business]] by knowing how the business world operates.

== Non-human intelligence ==
[[File:Jigokudani hotspring in Nagano Japan 001.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The {{wpl|Japanese macaque|snow monkeys}} at {{wpl|Jigokudani Monkey Park}} periodically bathe in hot springs, a behavior that is considered a sign of animal cognition.{{efn|Because the behavior is learned, socially transmitted and adaptive -- not instinctive. It shows behavioral flexibility and animal culture --though it does not demonstrate abstract or human-like reasoning.<ref>Zhang P, Watanabe K, Eishi T. Habitual hot-spring bathing by a group of Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) in their natural habitat. Am J Primatol. 2007 Dec;69(12):1425-30. doi: 10.1002/ajp.20454. PMID: 17554750.</ref><ref>Matsuzawa, T. Hot-spring bathing of wild monkeys in Shiga-Heights: origin and propagation of a cultural behavior. Primates 59, 209–213 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-018-0661-z</ref><ref>Springer. (2018, April 3). Spa therapy helps Japan's snow monkeys cope with the cold. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 31, 2026 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180403115957.htm</ref>}}]]
'''Non-human intelligence''' is a catch-all term used to describe cognitive or intelligence-like behavior in things that are not us humans.<ref name="Hoffmann2023">Hoffmann, C. H. (2023). Fighting human hubris: Intelligence in nonhuman animals and artefacts. Ethics & Bioethics, 13(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.2478/ebce-2023-0001</ref><ref name="Silva2022">Silva, R. E. (2022). Intelligent behaviour. Erkenntnis, 87, 2667–2691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-022-00552-8</ref> The term is often deployed either to expand legitimate scientific inquiry ''or'' to smuggle in vague metaphors, anthropomorphism, and occasionally outright [[pseudoscience]] under the banner of "open-mindedness."<ref>Trestman, Michael, Jonathan Birch, and Colin Allen, "Animal Consciousness", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2026 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), forthcoming URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2026/entries/consciousness-animal/>.</ref><ref name="Dennett">{{cite book |last= Dennett|first=  Daniel C.|date=1989|orig-date=1987 |title=The Intentional Stance |chapter=1-3 |publisher= A Bradford Book |isbn=0-262-54053-3}}</ref><ref>Wynne, C. The perils of anthropomorphism. Nature 428, 606 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/428606a</ref><ref name="Searle1980">Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–457.</ref>

The study of nonhuman intelligence has influenced debates about the definition and measurement of intelligence itself.<ref name="Silva2022"/> Expanding the concept beyond humans challenges anthropocentric frameworks and prompts interdisciplinary discussion across psychology, biology, philosophy, and computer science.<ref name="Hoffmann2023"/> Key issues include whether intelligence requires consciousness, intentionality, or neural structures, and how diverse forms of intelligence can be meaningfully compared.<ref name="Searle1980"/><ref>Block, Ned (1995). On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 18 (2):227-–247.</ref><ref>Birch J, Schnell AK, Clayton NS. Dimensions of Animal Consciousness. Trends Cogn Sci. 2020 Oct;24(10):789-801. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.07.007. Epub 2020 Aug 20. PMID: 32830051; PMCID: PMC7116194.</ref>

===Animal intelligence===
The existence of '''{{wpl|animal intelligence}}''' is well supported by empirical research and comparative psychology. Many animals can solve problems, use tools, recognize themselves in mirrors, communicate symbolically, and maintain complex social structures. Corvids, primates, dolphins, elephants, and octopuses routinely embarrass humans who still think intelligence requires a necktie.<ref name="Roth2015">Roth G. Convergent evolution of complex brains and high intelligence. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Dec 19;370(1684):20150049. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0049. PMID: 26554042; PMCID: PMC4650126.</ref><ref> Wasserman, Edward A., and Thomas R. Zentall (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Cognition, 2nd edn, Oxford Library of Psychology (2012; online edn, Oxford Academic, 18 Sept. 2012), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195392661.001.0001, accessed 23 Jan. 2026.</ref><ref>Gallup, Gordon. (1970). Chimpanzees: Self-Recognition. Science. 167. 86-87. 10.1126/science.167.3914.86.</ref><ref>Loth, A., Güntürkün, O., von Fersen, L. et al. Through the looking glass: how do marked dolphins use mirrors and what does it mean?. Anim Cogn 25, 1151–1160 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-022-01680-y</ref>

However, popular treatments frequently overinterpret animal behavior by projecting human emotions, intentions, or moral reasoning onto animals. Us rationalists generally frown upon claims that animals possess "human-like consciousness" without rigorous evidence, especially when anecdotes replace controlled experiments. "Clever" does not automatically mean "philosopher".<ref name="Roth2015"/><ref>Dacey, M. (2017). Anthropomorphism as cognitive bias. Philosophy of Science, 84(5), 1152–1164. https://doi.org/10.1086/694039</ref>

===Plant intelligence===
'''{{wpl|Plant intelligence}}''' is where things start to go off the rails. Proponents argue that plants "learn, remember, communicate and make decisions" -- despite lacking [[brains]], neurons, or anything resembling a central nervous system. These claims often rely on redefining intelligence so broadly that thermostats, slime molds and damp socks can qualify.<ref>Mallatt J, Blatt MR, Draguhn A, Robinson DG, Taiz L. Debunking a myth: plant consciousness. Protoplasma. 2021 May;258(3):459-476. doi: 10.1007/s00709-020-01579-w. Epub 2020 Nov 16. PMID: 33196907; PMCID: PMC8052213.</ref><ref name="Castiello2023"> Castiello, U. (2023). Plant Intelligence from a Comparative Psychology Perspective. Biology, 12(6), 819. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12060819 </ref><ref name="Robinson_et_al_2020">Robinson, D.G., Draguhn, A. & Taiz, L. Plant “intelligence” changes nothing. EMBO Rep 21, EMBR202050395 (2020). https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202050395</ref> The [[Crank|usual suspects]] in this field include likes of {{wpl|James Perchard Tupper||,}} {{wpl|Federico Delpino||,}} {{wpl|Jagadish Chandra Bose||,}} {{wpl|Thomas G. Gentry||,}} {{wpl|Cleve Backster}} ([[CIA]] fruitcake known for 1960s plant [[polygraph]]/[[ESP]] experiments that got tested and debunked in [[MythBusters]]), {{wpl|Plant_intelligence#Dorothy_Retallack|Dorothy Retallack}} (aka "the plants react to music" lady from the 1970s) and {{wpl|Tony Trewavas}} (who reintroduced the idea for 21st century.)<ref name="Castiello2023"/><ref>Kingsland SE, Taiz L. Plant "intelligence" and the misuse of historical sources as evidence. Protoplasma. 2025 Mar;262(2):223-246. doi: 10.1007/s00709-024-01988-1. Epub 2024 Sep 14. PMID: 39276228.</ref><ref>Mark C. Mescher, Consuelo M. De Moraes, Role of plant sensory perception in plant–animal interactions, Journal of Experimental Botany, Volume 66, Issue 2, February 2015, Pages 425–433, https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eru414 </ref>

While plants do exhibit complex [[Biochemistry|biochemical]] signaling and [[adaptive]] responses, labeling this as intelligence is largely [[metaphor]]ical. Much of the "plant intelligence" discourse tends to be [[anthropomorphism]] wrapped in [[technobabble]], occasionally drifting into [[New Age]] [[mysticism]] about plant consciousness, feelings, or moral status. When people start asking "whether carrots feel pain", the skepticism alarm should already be blaring.<ref name="Robinson_et_al_2020"/><ref>Khattar, J., Calvo, P., Vandebroek, I. et al. Understanding interdisciplinary perspectives of plant intelligence: Is it a matter of science, language, or subjectivity?. J Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine 18, 41 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-022-00539-3</ref><ref>Segundo-Ortin M, Calvo P. Consciousness and cognition in plants. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2022 Mar;13(2):e1578. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1578. Epub 2021 Sep 23. PMID: 34558231.</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Pigliucci |first=Massimo |year=2024 |title=Are plants conscious? |url= https://skepticalinquirer.org/2024/08/are-plants-conscious/|journal=Skeptical Inquirer |volume=48 |issue=5}}</ref>

===Artificial / machine intelligence ===
{{main|Artificial intelligence}}
'''Artificial intelligence (AI)''' refers to the simulation of intelligent processes by machines, particularly computer systems. Despite the name, modern AI systems do not think, understand, or want anything -- they manipulate symbols according to mathematical rules and training data.<ref name="Dennett"/><ref name="ColombattoFleming2024">Colombatto C, Fleming SM. Folk psychological attributions of consciousness to large language models. Neurosci Conscious. 2024 Apr 13;2024(1):niae013. doi: 10.1093/nc/niae013. PMID: 38618488; PMCID: PMC11008499.</ref>

Public discourse often exaggerates AI’s capabilities, treating algorithms as sentient entities or existential threats. Some skepticism should be directed to hype-driven narratives that confuse statistical pattern matching with consciousness, agency, or moral responsibility. A CPU defeating you at chess doesn’t imply intent any more than a calculator "wants" to dominate arithmetic.<ref name="ColombattoFleming2024"/><ref>van Zyl, L.E. The competence paradox: when psychologists overestimate their understanding of Artificial Intelligence. AI & Soc (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02814-9</ref>

== Myths about intelligence == 
# '''"Smart Food" Improves Intelligence'''
#: You've heard these claims. There are always these magazine articles recommending one to consume fish oil or blueberries to improve his/her ability to solve the crossword puzzle on the next page (i.e., "[[superfoods]]"). Unfortunately, there are no such things as "smart food" that can magically increase your IQ. Beyond "prevent developmental problems due to malnutrition", such as those suffering from iodine deficiency (resulting in a medical condition known as "cretinism"),<ref name="did we seriously just copy someone else's list?">Meredith Bower. [http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/myths-about-intelligence.htm 10 Myths About Intelligence]. ''Discovery Channel''.</ref> there is no "smart food". However, ''healthy'' food still is incredibly important for being "smart", as healthy people tend to have more energy and are thus more capable of doing this "learning" thing.
# '''Crossword Puzzles Make You Smarter.'''
#: Chances are, you probably know a person in their late 40s, 50s, 60s, or older who is into Sudoku and crossword puzzles. They are under the impression that these puzzles will improve, or at least, maintain their cognitive abilities as they age. However, puzzlers aren't more intelligent than the rest of the population. They're just more skilled at solving puzzles. Solving puzzles is great, but this particular skill doesn't necessary improve the skill to remember names or addresses, which is what most elderly people intend to do.  
#: On the other hand, "mindless" [[video games]] actually have an ability to improve cognitive skills. People who play video games tend to have better navigation skills, reaction time, and hand-eye coordination. In addition, gamers are found to be good laparoscopic surgeons (provided they paid attention in medical school). So, put down the puzzle and grab a controller and prepare for a 6-hour COD marathon!<ref name="did we seriously just copy someone else's list?"/>
# '''Listening to Classical Music Raises IQ.'''
#: It's known as the [[Mozart effect]]. Apparently, not only did Mozart have an IQ of 189 (This precise number came from [[PR]] [[PIDOOMA]]), but he also had the ability to raise the IQ levels of his listeners! However, scientists in Vienna, proud of their national hero, were disappointed to find out that wasn't necessarily the case. They determined that there is no evidence that listening to Mozart had a significant effect on one's IQ. However, it is likely that listening to music, any music (from Mozart to Lady Gaga) can stimulate one's neurological abilities, which can be beneficial right before taking an exam. However, the idea that it could improve one's IQ by 10 points is a bit far-fetched.<ref name="did we seriously just copy someone else's list?"/> 
# '''We're Headed for [[Idiocracy]]'''
#: Despite the perennial griping that kids these days don't think good, there's a long-term, international trend for each new generation to have a higher mean IQ score than the last. This trend, known as Flynn Effect, is dramatic: one cognitive psychologist estimated that an average American from 1932 would score an 80 on an IQ test normalized for the 1997 [[US]] population &mdash; one point away from borderline intellectual disability.<ref name="rise_in_IQ">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Rise_in_IQ</ref> Critics, perhaps trying to reconcile this data with the continued popularity of [[Fox News]] and [[faith healing]], have suggested the higher IQ scores are mostly the result of increased crystallized intelligence. (''Crystallized intelligence'' is one component of general intelligence, specifically the ability to remember and apply knowledge gained from learning and experience. Many IQ tests provide subscores for crystallized intelligence and ''fluid intelligence'', the ability to think logically and solve novel problems.) In other words, young people haven't gotten smarter, they've just memorized more information and gotten better at taking standardized tests. Surprisingly, however, the opposite is true: younger generations consistently show big increases in fluid reasoning ability, with smaller or nonexistent improvements in crystallized intelligence.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Intelligence</ref> Most of this improvement comes from the bottom half of the IQ distribution, meaning the youngest generation has many fewer people with IQs in the low-average to mildly intellectually disabled range, but no more 'geniuses' than their great-grandparents.<ref name="rise_in_IQ"/> The Flynn Effect seriously challenges the claim that IQ tests measure a fixed ability that's mostly or solely determined by genetics. Four generations is far less time than it takes for natural selection to produce such a large change, but plenty of time for drastic improvements in nutrition, medical care, and educational opportunities to take effect.  
# '''Former President Bush had a below-average IQ'''
#: According to a 2001 report released by the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pa., President [[George W. Bush]] has the lowest IQ of any president in the past 50 years. His below-average score of 91 is half that of the smartest president, [[Bill Clinton]], and only seven points below his father [[George H. W. Bush]], who scored a 98.
#: Obviously Bush was not the most brilliant man the United States had for president{{efn|By today's [[GOP]] [[Donald Trump|presidential standards]], he has been decisively outshone in the "not the most brilliant" category.}},  but the information regarding his low IQ is a [[hoax]] by the Lovenstein Institute. The truth is, the IQs of most people are not public information and are often unknown to the individual. A proxy for intelligence, the SAT test, had Bush with a rather respectable score of about 1210,<ref>[http://blog.prepscholar.com/celebrity-act-scores Celebrity SAT scores]</ref> indicating an IQ of around 115, at least before the booze and blow got to it.<ref name="did we seriously just copy someone else's list?"/>
#'''[[Ten percent myth|Most people use 10 percent of their brains]]'''
#: This may sound silly, but the truth is, humans use 100 percent of their brains! The brain is not just thinking and creating. It's also responsible for all of our motor functions, including movement, balance, and breathing. It controls our conscious and unconscious activities and is active 24/7. Without us even being aware, our brains are constantly absorbing, processing, storing, and recalling information thanks to the billions of neurons that communicate with each other non-stop.
#: It is true that humans do not concurrently demonstrate activity in all of the regions of the brain. However, every region is used regularly throughout the course of a day.
#: Now obviously, humans do have the ability to increase their cognitive abilities, but cognitive abilities is a small portion of a brain's functions.<ref name="did we seriously just copy someone else's list?"/>
# '''Improve IQ Scores by Holding Your Breath Underwater'''
#: This myth was first proposed by Win Wenger in his book ''The Einstein Factor -- A Proven New Method for Increasing Your Intelligence''. Wenger proposed two methods to increase one's IQ. One is a complex technique based on Image Streaming and the other involves holding your breath underwater. In order to achieve success with the second technique, over a three-week period, participants must accumulate 20 hours of holding their breath underwater. The reward is a 10-point gain in IQ, improved awareness and attention span, and greater success at winning arguments.
#: Sounds fishy, doesn't it? While Wenger's claims may not be entirely accurate, he may be leading on to something. Underwater swimming, not just putting your face in the water, increases the amount of carbon dioxide in the blood. Because you are holding your breath, a warning signal is sent to your body announcing that your [[oxygen]] supply is being cut off. The carotid arteries carrying blood to your head dilate, delivering to your brain and other major organs rich, oxygenated blood. However, claiming a 10 point IQ adjustment is misleading.<ref name="did we seriously just copy someone else's list?"/>  
# '''Watching TV Is Bad for You'''
#: Known as the idiot box and boob tube, the television has always been everyone's favorite target for corrupting the youth. However, while not physically stimulating, television may not have a negative effect on a person's IQ. In fact, television might, in certain cases, be intellectually stimulating. Compared to television of 30 years ago, many of today's dramas are more intellectually demanding, requiring viewers to focus on the plot and storyline, make inferences, fill in information, and track shifting social relationships. In addition, there are also many educational programs, especially on National Geographic and [[PBS]]. Yes, I know, there are also stupid reality shows like ''Honey Boo Boo'' and ''Jersey Shore'', along with ''very'' poorly-scripted dramas like ''Secret Life of the American Teenager'', but come on, you shouldn't scapegoat TV for dumbing down the youth.<ref name="did we seriously just copy someone else's list?"/>

== See also ==
*[[Cognitive differences between sexes]]
*[[Emotional intelligence]]
*[[IQ]]: Intelligence is so incredibly complex, we have no choice but to boil it all down to a single number
*[[Singularity]]: A hypothesized explosion in artificial intelligence

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note|2}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Social justice]]

Categories: Sociology, Social justice