This site contains affiliate links to products sold by selected self improvement partners. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
In order to increase intelligence, it makes sense to first try and define what we mean by intelligence.
Can you measure it?
How do you measure it and what precisely is it?
As it happens, the official answer at this point is ‘no one knows’.
Intelligence is a highly abstract concept and, in fact, might not even be a useful term at all.
Or is it?
That may be because intelligence is a mixture of subjectivities and objectivities.
Mind and brain.
Right-brain and left-brain.
In a previous article we looked at designing a program for brain training.
In this article, we will look at some practical ways to train your brain. We will also look at learning styles. Consider this part two of that article.
Have you noted that the video starts out with learning and ends with discovery?
One aspect of brain training that links both topics is learning how YOU learn.
This is important now because I will return to it when we come to discussing the metaphysical aspects of brain training.
Do you know what your learning style is?
Perhaps you completed one of those learning style questionnaires at college or university.
The purpose of doing these tests is not simply to find out how you learn. It is also designed to match appropriate teaching styles and techniques to your learning style.
In addition to this, you might have completed a personality-type questionnaire. However, personality is a different area and will not be discussed in this series.
Throughout my teaching career, I came across a range of different learning theories. Perhaps you have also come across these.
Honey and Mumford (1984)
This was the first theory I was introdeuced to during teacher training. Honey and Mumrford theorized that there are four types of learners:
- theorist: good with abstract concepts,
- activist: practical, learns by doing,
- pragmatist: learns by doing, learning needs to be relevant,
- reflector: tend to observe others and to reflect on what they have observed before jumping in.
A copy of the questionnaire has been provided online for free by MINT™, a human resources consultancy and member of the Chartered Institute for Personnel Development (CIPD: UK).
The second theory I came across both in the UK and in the US, where it is also referred to under representational styles, is…
The VAK model
VAK stands for
- visual: the level of the eye, uses language related to the visual and vision (“I see”, for example), needs images, graphics, video;
- auditory: the level of the ear, uses language related to sound (“I hear you”, for example), needs sound files (does not need to include the visual), likes listening to the radio, podcasts;
- kinesthetic: level of the gut, sense of touch (tactile), practical, enjoys movement, uses language related to the sense of touch/gut (“I feel you”, for example).
The third theory takes some getting used to for those I would call empiricists.
Dr. Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (1983)
One common measure of intelligence is IQ or Intelligence Quotient, which looks at our ability to use abstract reasoning and other forms of ‘fluid intelligence’ (fluid intelligence being dynamic and distinct from ‘crystalized intelligence’ – which amounts to knowledge).
IQ scores are awarded on the basis of national averages.
The problem with IQ tests is that they tend to totalize the notion of ‘intelligence’ and do not allow for the existence of multiple forms of intelligence.
What if you’re amazing at math or not so good at English?
And if you’re fantastic at music but lack social skills?
Does it make you any less intelligent if you are good at one thing and not the other?
Perhaps your notion of intelligence was reinforced by your parents when you brought home your report cards from school.
We know that language and math are handled by different brain regions (language is handled by Broca’s Area, among other structures) and so it is perfectly reasonable to imagine some might be more developed than others.
In fact, this is often the case: Einstein was famously dyslexic for instance.
And many dyslexics tend to be highly creative.
This is where psychologist Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences come in.
He suggested the following types of intelligence:
- Linguistic Intelligence,
- Logic Intelligence,
- Kinesthetic Intelligence,
- Spatial Intelligence,
- Musical Intelligence,
- Interpersonal Intelligence,
- Intrapersonal Intelligence.
Dr. Gardner’s theory was further developed by Thomas Armstrong, author of Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom.
Someone could be ‘intelligent’ in at least one of these areas but less so in others and would still be considered intelligent. We call this the ‘modular’ view of intelligence.
If there is a problem with this theory, it is probably the perception that it might be/is arbitrary.
We might ask questions, such as:
Why do we have musical intelligence and not ‘computer game’ intelligence?
It might be argued that the theory ignores possible connections between the different forms of intelligence and it that ignores the underlying cognitive functions that might give rise to specific measurable abilities.
Likewise, it might be further argued that this theory still doesn’t really explain the kind of person who seems to be ‘generally intelligent’, who is sharp and witty and who quickly picks up new subjects.
Doesn’t it?
It is a step in the right direction, but not a comprehensive explanation of intelligence.
No?
Take a look at that list again.
Here’s an exercise for you.
Take each type of intelligence mentioned and decide for yourself whether it involves right-brain or left-brain. Or both.
Here’s another suggestion for education research: take any one of these learning styles and combine it with another system like, say, the Silva Method.
Or has it already been done?
The Silva Method is the only system I know of that has been EMPIRICALLY tested to work. This is what you would mean by having something “scientifically” tested.
And the method is repeatable, by the way.
Which leads very nicely into…
Whole brain connectivity and plasticity
It would be fairly logical to assume that someone who we would generally consider to be intelligent might perform better than average in multiple of these categories.
In fact, genius – which is considered to describe a form of additional ‘insight’ and to be distinct from pure mastery – likely comes from the ability to apply multiple perspectives and approaches to a single problem.
More recent research shows that intelligence is predicted by ‘whole brain connectivity’ – the ability of the brain to utilize lots of different brain areas at once in a cohesive manner.
It even appears that connectivity between prefrontal regions may provide a basis for consciousness.
So, to be truly intelligent, you need to have better-than-average performance in multiple mental faculties and have better-than-average connectivity between those corresponding brain regions.
How to become more intelligent
So how does this come about?
Simple: through enabling brain plasticity.
Brain plasticity describes the ability for our brain to grow, adapt and change shape, right?
Greater plasticity means greater potential to learn. Greater potential to develop specific brain regions and the connectivity between them.
If you have greater plasticity during your development as a child and you are then given the opportunity to learn by being exposed to the right stimuli, then you will develop more areas of your brain and more connectivity between them.
Intelligence = adaptability + opportunity
It is quite likely that some limiting factors, usually environmental, might influence greater brain plasticity in certain individuals, however, better sleep, increased happiness, exercise, and certainly better nutrition will all play a role too.
That is how you make a super-smart child…
…if you’re already an adult and you feel you missed the boat, then be encouraged.
It is never too late to be a lifelong learner. Start looking at ways to increase your brain plasticity again and start learning!
Was it Nietzsche who said:
Freedom is the will to be responsible to ourselves
Friedrich Nietzsche
To a better, wiser, strong – YOU.
PS: I am a firm believer in triangulation, a term I came across during my graduate studies. It is the practice of backing up/testing a hypothesis using three research methods.
In Jamaica we say, “One hand cannot clap”.
And, while I am fully aware that I might be taking it out of its context, there is even a biblical passage which can be loosely quoted to mean something similar: “in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word is to be established”.
In order words, you do not build a doctrine on one passage of scripture.
What I am implying here is, don’t just do one learning styles test. Do at least two and see if they agree and note where they might overlap.
If there is an area you would like to/need to develop, the tests could be useful in helping you with that too.
You know that saying, “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”?
If we continue to reinforce this saying as part of our self-talk, we are seriously undermining our own potential to live life to the fullest.
What do YOU want to learn? Go for it!
By the way…you do know there are brain training programs for dogs, right?
In the next article, we will take at look at mindfulness.
Sources:
Honey and Mumford Learning Style Questionnaire. Located at MINT™
https://www.mint-hr.com/mumford.html [Accessed August 21, 2022]
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
This site contains affiliate links to products sold by selected self improvement partners. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.