Should The Police Be Defunded? Essay Example

Over the years, a debate as to whether refund the police or not has been happening. This follows the death of George Floyd in May 2020 in Minneapolis, when the Black lives matter protests started, followed by calls to defund the police on social media and protest signs. George Floyd’s death occurred after being arrested in Minnesota outside a shop by police. After following up on the case, footage that showed a white police officer, Derek Chauvin, was recovered. Derek was kneeling on Floyd’s neck while pinned to the floor in the footage. Even after pleading and saying he could not breathe twenty times, Derek and the other officers did not let go of Floyd. This was followed by his death which saw many protests on social media that demanded the ceasing of violence against people of color as they believed that defunding the police would end their violence against people of color, among other issues. The essay, therefore, discusses that defunding the police reduces violence and crimes against people of color, allows specialists and experts to step into different jobs, and because the suggested reforms on the police department and police officers have not been implemented.

Defunding the police reduces violence and crimes against people of color. The police have been labeled historically violent and oppressive against people of color. This follows the incidences that the police have oppressed black people, which led to protests. For instance, George Floyd’s case, which resulted in demonstrations on all social media platforms, gave a clear picture of how the police are against black people. It depicted how the police use force against people of color without listening to them. Furthermore, police departments are well equipped with military equipment and firearms, which escalates situations to violence as it gives the police the attitude that they are at war with communities. This is also evident in George Floyd’s case, where the police pulled a gun at him and used force to get him into their car. The police use their power and authority to oppress marginalized communities, primarily people of color. Defunding of the police could allow minor cases such as reducing the funds that are directed to the police departments means that there will be fewer police patrols and hence reducing the chances for police violence on individuals. Also, this means that the police will not handle minor cases, which will reduce their contact with individuals. Police oppression and violence against people of color and imprisoning them deprive them of their rights to vote, education, employment, access to housing, and other privileges that white people benefit automatically. In a study by Vitro et al. (2022), “police are 2.5 times more likely to kill black American men than white men and 1.4 times more likely to kill black women than white women.” The authors add that police are more likely to apply force on black Americans than white people. Defunding the police thus could be the solution to the increased violence and crimes from police as the police will not have to patrol actively for minor cases. Moreover, their response to fewer major cases presents fewer opportunities for violence.

Defunding the police allows specialists and experts to step into different jobs. Normally, police are not trained to perform the numerous tasks they perform. Most police handle challenges faced by the public that they are not the best fit to handle and should not handle. For instance, police receive 911 emergency calls that are mental health emergency cases that are supposed to be directed to mental health services for quick and professional assistance. Also, calls such as those related to minor and community-related crimes such as juvenile delinquency and physical disorders as they initiate the use of force and several arrests by the police even though they are minor offenses. According to Lum et al. (2020), reducing the involvement of police in minor crimes experienced in the community can reduce discrimination and the use of force by the police. When defunded, the funds can be directed to community programs that ensure youths are trained after school to reduce their chances of being involved in criminal activities. This also means that fewer police will be patrolling in communities, reducing their chances of oppressing or using force against communities. In a study by Cobbina et al. (2022), 16 of the 28 participants felt that defunding the police and relocating the funds to other social works, such as helping people with mental illness, is necessary. A participant from the study revealed how the police treated them like criminals instead of helping them out. He says, “The police busted into my house and then treated me like a criminal. I was not hurting anybody else. I was trying to commit suicide, and they made it ten times worse by handcuffing me, dragging me to the hospital, handcuffing me to the bed.” (Cobbina et al., 2022). This reflects what happens in society when the police are involved in handling cases they are not professionally trained for. Thus, defunding the police and reallocating the funds to mental health departments would be a better deal to help deal with victims of suicide and mental health patients accordingly. Furthermore, such funds can be reallocated to improve educational systems. This will help develop a culture of preventing rather than curing, for instance, training more mental health specialists who can identify and deal with people who are suicidal early enough before they commit suicide.

Since defunding the police means moving funds from the police department and transferring them to other community developments such as housing, mental health, and social work, the public believes that defunding the police can help improve the quality of life for different communities. Defunding the police is a way of allowing more funds into the community programs that will reduce the need for police. Such programs include neighborhood organizations that involve the youth in activities and programs that reduce their involvement in violent activities (Ahern, 2021). Moreover, these programs can help to keep the community safe as community leaders will take that as their primary task. Additionally, defunding the police and allocating the funds to creating jobs for incarcerated individuals, housing, and training more mental health professionals is beneficial. This is because creating such jobs reduces the involvement of formerly incarcerated individuals in criminal activities. Thus, defunding the police department is a crucial step.

Police should be defunded because the suggested reforms on the police department and police officers have not been implemented. Several reforms have been proposed regarding the police and police departments. For instance, suggestions for police to receive mental health training to help in case of mental health crises have been made, but none have been implemented. This is according to Ahern (2021), who also adds that suggestions have been made for police to reduce the use of force when dealing with individuals, especially communities of color. The police department reform programs are accompanied by massive funding, but none of the reforms is implemented. Since none of the suggested reforms has been implemented, the only way to control the use of force on people and harassment of non-criminal individuals needing professional help is by defunding the police and directing the funds to the necessary departments as a way of reducing police misconduct. (Su & Binder, 2022). When defunded, the funds can be used to train police officers on how to de-escalate situations, procedural justice, and reconciliatory procedures that the police can apply when dealing with individuals. Furthermore, such funds can be used to train the police on the anti-bias techniques that the police can apply to reduce biases when dealing with people of color. With such techniques, the police can deal with all individuals justly, regardless of their color or race.

As discussed above, it is clear that the police should be defunded. This is because violence and crimes against people of color will be reduced. As the police have been using force and oppression against people of color, defunding them will reduce their contact with the public and reduce violence against communities of color. Secondly, defunding the police will ensure specialists and experts step into different jobs. For instance, such funds can be directed toward mental health training and community programs that reduce criminal activities. It also ensures that only professionals will deal with cases that need their attention rather than having the police deal with everything. Moreover, defunding the police is a sure way of ensuring the reforms suggested are implemented. For instance, programs to train the police as mental health specialists and to reduce the use of force on individuals have not been implemented, but funds are allocated. Defunding the police thus reduces contact between them and the public, thus reducing the chances of violence and violence. Thus, the police should be defunded.


Ahern, M. (2021). “Defunding” the criminality of mental illness by funding specialized Police training: How additional training and resources for dealing with mental health will be beneficial for all sides. Journal of Law and Health35(1), 181–209.

Cobbina‐Dungy, J., Chaudhuri, S., LaCourse, A., & DeJong, C. (2022). “Defund the police:” Perceptions among protesters in the 2020 March on Washington. Criminology & Public Policy21(1), 147–174.

Su, R., O, R. A., & Binder, G. (2022). Defunding Police Agencies. Emory Law Journal71(6), 1197–1271.

Vitro, C., Clark, D. A., Sherman, C., Heitzeg, M. M., & Hicks, B. M. (2022). Attitudes about police and race in the United States 2020–2021: Mean-level trends and associations with political attitudes, psychiatric problems, and COVID-19 outcomes. PLoS ONE17(7), 1–27.

Should We Study Sex Differences In Psychology? University Essay Example

Studies on sex differences have always been contentious, particularly regarding whether they contribute to prejudice and sex discrimination. There has been some discussion regarding the effectiveness of sex and sexual orientation education in psychology on the life of adolescents in the contemporary world. Women are treated unfairly and oppressively in society, according to feminist theory, and men are substantially more biased than women. Research suggests that the social realities that men and women encounter are very different, with society treating the sexes differently based on imposed intellectual and cultural abilities. The idea has substantial consequences for the investigation and dissemination of sex differences.

On the other hand, proponents of sex-difference research see this research as furthering our understanding of sexual identity. More significantly, those who oppose disclosing sex differences from a scientific perspective are viewed as biased readers who view the particular topic as among men versus women. Therefore, this essay aims to determine whether We should Study Sex Differences in Psychology.

The categorization of moderate intellectual disability in both men and women is explained by the research of sex differences. Baumeister (1988) claim that understanding novel diagnosis with neurodegenerative disease comes from studying sex differences. Gender and sexual preferences fluctuate depending on the individual throughout the whole human life cycle, from birth to old age. Understanding differences between the sexes and putting what scientists learn into clinical practice can help both women’s and men’s health fortunes. To more effectively identify and treat illnesses that affect women and men differently, it is crucial to study sex and gender. A vital first method to overcome the masculinist prejudice that has caused academics to solely study males and to extrapolate recklessly to women was the reporting, publicizing, and probably even exaggeration of findings of sex differences. According to Baumeister, neither males nor women are superior to the other. Instead, there are various projects that men are superior at, whereas women excel at a different set of abilities. The trade-offs are the result of evolutionary processes and social conditioning. Baumeister (1988) contends that the pressure of development has led to disparities in the distribution of talent between men and women in a wide range of fields. Therefore, additional variations in results result from varied tastes and inclinations rather than variations in innate ability. The physiological differences between sexes are directly inherited due to the impact of genes, and they operate differently in males and females.

Sex-differences psychological studies would aid human knowledge of gender. Although feminists would like to claim that women are generally more like men, there are significant biological characteristics that separate women from men. According to Eagly (1987), the only evidence that supports the equality of women and men is null findings. Eagly contends that in order to continually advance human understanding of sexes, scientists must routinely present correct data about sex differences (Eagly, 1987). Eagly disagrees with some feminists who advocate for the publication of screened studies about gender inequalities because she believes that doing so undermines research and results in the creation of knowledge that is difficult to duplicate. Eagly (1987) claim that recent meta-analytic study on sex differences examined the small number of sex comparisons recorded for a variety of character traits and actions. In the survey were questions about moral reasoning, leadership, violence, and communication. The survey found that gender differences were significant factors in the environment that was being assessed. The analyses showed that gender discrepancies increased significantly with age, increasing or decreasing throughout the course of lifespans. Science relies on replication of findings since it verifies the discoveries of earlier research and determines if a certain theory is valid or not. Thus, those opposing to publicizing evidence on sex differences are perceived as favoring inaccurate information interpretation in an attempt to satisfy the illusion that all genders are identical in terms of biology and psychology.

Gender and sex differences are fundamentally important forces that have a huge effect on all aspects of a person’s life, helping them to comprehend their bodies, minds, and social identities. Social norms and legal restrictions on what constitutes acceptable sex between men and women influence the legal, academic, political, and medical institutions. In psychology, there are various, logical, physiological, psychological, and sexual levels at which gender differences are examined. (Marecek, 1995) contends that self-rule notions, perceptions, and degrees of motives are among the main areas where gender differences emerge. The idea clears the way for social norms and power relationships, which have a big influence on our lives and open up chances for both men and women. According to Marecek’s (1995) interpretation of gender, the terms “man” and “woman” are obvious, natural, and unambiguous. Additionally, views sex-related features and behaviors as fixed characteristics of distinct, independent persons. Psychology and the greater culture both hold to the cultural norm. There are no gender differences in sexual frustration, studies found that both men and women are equally distressed by emotional and sexual infidelity.

Although sex differences in explicit physiological mechanisms and behavior may result from the cellular and molecular modifications brought on by the y chromosome and steroid hormonal, they may also promote end-point synchronizations between males and females. The political value of sex difference research in psychology literature and its potential for long-term advancement of science are discussed by Baumeister (1988). Evidence from both clinical and pre-clinical studies suggests that gender and sex differences influence both drug use and the development of drug-induced pathophysiological processes such as dependency and addiction. The interplay with socially imposed gendered characteristics to produce sex disparities in the ability to access, willingness to participate with, and effectiveness of any treatment endeavor. Finally, researchers believe that when developing a thorough biological understanding for both males and females, “sex homogeneity” is as essential as “sex differences,” and thus provide a structure for organizing and directing research into the processes mediating differences between the sexes and sex similarity. Teaching children moral principles and the importance of taking sexuality into account in life decisions is crucial and can be viewed as practical and effective. Sexual orientation has an impact on psychological, physical, and romantic aspects. As a result, gender is defined as personal, and sexual intercourse is characterized as interpersonal.

Men and women have different levels of influence and domination over the socioeconomic factors that affect their health, quality of life, and standing in society, depending on their gender. All facets of contemporary society can be seen to influence how men and women should and ought to interact. Situational understanding is a trustworthy indicator of a person’s mental capabilities. Because beliefs start to form at a young age after maturity and teenage development, it is crucial to take these variances into account (Eagly,1987). Gender disparities exist across cultures, individuals, and society and define and impact people’s behavior. Studying gender reveals that men perform better than women in terms of independence and self-acceptance.

The argument made by those who oppose studying sex differences in psychology is that research on the human brain and behavior shows that these differences are inherent in both males and females. Studies have shown that developing a sense of social responsibility affects emotions and concentration, and that a distorted view of the world can manifest itself in one’s actions (Marecek, 1995). As a result, the opponents contend that research on gender differences fuels social prejudice and sex discrimination. The uniformity and explanatory superiority claims that psychology has traditionally made have been contested by a number of academic organizations in recent decades (Marecek, 1995). Gender, according to some theorists, is a persistent personal and cultural achievement generated by a variety of social processes, including interpersonal, symbolic, and conceptual. Sexuality and gender identity are complex and individual traits. Therefore, it is critical to safeguard this material, particularly when it is identified as such rather than posting it anonymously, which presents a significant challenge for researchers studying gender disparities. Researchers must make sure that research participants share this data in an environment that is both comfortable for them and protects their privacy.

Conclusively, it is crucial to build a subject of psychological development in order to focus and define humanity’s emotions about society. The study has shown why it is important to research sex differences in psychology. Thus, a precise portrayal and explanation of how the two sexes view human behavior shape human life. Consequently, psychologists should keep researching sex disparities in order to create new theories about human psychology and health. To prevent exaggerating of certain facts, which could skew the information, presenting such information should indeed be done within defined bounds.


Baumeister, R. F. (1988). Should we stop studying sex differences altogether?.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Reporting sex differences.

Marecek, J. (1995). Gender, politics, and psychology’s way

Single Factor Theories Of Human Intelligence Sample Essay


Intelligent human behavior is often attributed to a single underlying element or construct in single-factor theories. This construct is measurable, stable, and related to performance on cognitive tasks. According to these theories, intelligence comprises a single general factor or several distinct factors measuring a particular ability or set of capabilities. Spearman’s g-factor hypothesis is one of human intelligence’s most prominent single-factor theories (Deary, 2012). This theory proposes that intelligence comprises a single general factor (g) that influences all cognitive activities and tasks. This factor is the primary determinant of individual differences in cognitive ability and is often measured with intelligence tests. Throughout a person’s life, the g factor remains constant, and it has been shown to connect with many other areas of academic and professional achievement. Another one-factor explanation of intelligence is Thurstone’s leading mental capacities theory. Verbal comprehension, word fluency, memory, spatial imagery, perceptual quickness, numerical reasoning, and inductive reasoning are all proposed intelligence components in this model (Spearman, 1904). Individual variations in intellect are often explained by this hypothesis and utilized in the creation of IQ tests.

Single-factor theories of intelligence have been used to inform educational practices and to identify and support individuals with learning difficulties. For example, tests based on these theories often identify students more likely to require additional support in the classroom. These tests can also measure educational programs’ effectiveness and assess teaching methods’ effectiveness. Additionally, these theories have been used to develop strategies to support students with learning difficulties, such as providing additional instruction or using specialized teaching materials. Single-factor theories of intelligence have been criticized for their limited scope and reliance on tests that may not accurately measure a person’s intelligence (Jensen, 1998).

Additionally, these theories do not take into account the complex nature of intelligence, which is thought to be composed of many different cognitive abilities. It is also important to note that single-factor theories of intelligence cannot explain the wide range of individual differences in intelligence between individuals. In conclusion, single-factor theories of human intelligence propose that a single factor or construct is responsible for human intelligence. Examples of single-factor approaches include Spearman’s g-factor and Thurstone’s primary mental abilities theory. These theories have been used to develop intelligence tests and explain individual differences in intelligence (Gottesman, 2004). Additionally, these theories have been used to inform educational practices and to identify and support individuals with learning difficulties (Jensen, 1998). However, single-factor theories of intelligence are limited in scope and need to consider the complex nature of intelligence.

Spearman’s Theory of Intelligence

British psychologist Charles Spearman presented his theory of intelligence, or cognition, in the early 1900s. According to this idea, there are two parts to intellect: the general factor (g), which applies across the board, and the specialized variables, which explain individual differences in performance (s). The general aspect is an innate character feature that determines how well a person does in school and life. This overarching quality is indicative of one’s logical thinking, problem-solving skills, capacity for abstraction, and capacity for rapid knowledge acquisition. Ability in arithmetic computation, language proficiency, and perceptual acumen are all examples of domain-specific components. Based on this idea, performing most cognitive activities requires a mix of both broad and specialized knowledge. Therefore, an individual’s total score on a cognitive test depends on both aspects. According to this idea, one’s general intelligence is mainly determined by the degree of the general factor, which is why it places such high emphasis on it (Huang et al., 2019). A popular and valuable tool in contemporary psychology, Spearman’s theory of intelligence has stood the test of time. It serves as the basis for many current intelligence and cognitive growth theories. Differentiation of intelligence and the maturation of intelligence are two more phenomena that this theory has been used to explain.

The essential premise of Spearman’s Theory of Intellect is that a single, universally applicable measure of intelligence exists. According to this idea, intelligence has two parts: a generic component (g) and a set of domain-specific elements (s). The general aspect is a hidden personality attribute that determines how well a person does in school and life (Spearman, 1904). This overarching quality is indicative of one’s logical thinking, problem-solving skills, capacity for abstraction, and capacity for rapid knowledge acquisition. Ability in arithmetic computation, language proficiency, and perceptual acumen are all examples of domain-specific components. The general factor is emphasized in Spearman’s theory of intelligence as a significant determinant of success. According to this view, there is only a limited amount of variation in a cognitive capacity that can be attributed to the specialized aspects, and the degree of the general part ultimately defines a person’s comprehensive intelligence (Jensen, 1998). Since its introduction in the 1920s, Spearman’s Theory of Intelligence has been extensively adopted and is often used in psychology. Some have looked to this idea to shed light on individual IQ variance and the maturation of intellect across time.

Thurstone’s Primary Mental Abilities

Psychologist Louis L. Thurstone proposed the PMA hypothesis in the 1930s, arguing that seven core cognitive talents together make up intelligence. These seven skills are reading comprehension, vocabulary expansion, numeric aptitude, spatial imagery, memory associations, processing speed, and inductive reasoning (Spearman, 1904). The hypothesis states that these seven skills are the foundation of intelligence and may be utilized to evaluate a person’s IQ.

Thurstone Theory

The PMA theory is widely accepted and used in many areas of psychology, including educational and occupational testing. It has been used to explain differences in intelligence among various populations, such as gender, socioeconomic status, and race. Additionally, the theory has been used to develop educational programs and interventions to help students with learning disabilities. Furthermore, it has been used to help diagnose and treat psychological disorders.

According to the PMA hypothesis, intelligence is not a single trait but a collection of skills that may be assessed and ranked (Gottesman, 2004). This theory contrasts other theories of intelligence, such as Spearman’s g-factor theory, which suggests that intelligence is composed of only one general ability. The PMA theory is widely accepted as a reliable measure of intelligence and has been used to identify people who are gifted or have learning disabilities. It is also used to assess individual performance on educational and occupational tests.

Additionally, the PMA theory has been used to develop educational programs and interventions to help students with learning disabilities. The PMA theory has been criticized for its lack of predictive validity and limited ability to assess complex behaviors (Gottesman, 2004). Additionally, it has been argued that the PMA theory needs to address the full range of human intelligence adequately. Despite these criticisms, the PMA theory is still widely accepted and used in many areas of psychology.

Guilford’s Structure of Intellect Model

The Guilford Structure of Intellect Model (SOI) is an influential cognitive theory developed by psychologist J.P. Guilford in 1967. This comprehensive approach to understanding how the mind works propose that intelligence comprises a total of 120 different abilities, which can be divided into three broad categories: operations, contents, and products. Operations are the basic mental processes used to think and reason. This includes functions such as memory, analysis, and problem-solving. Contents refer to the categories of information used in these operations, such as words, numbers, and images (Spearman, 1904). Finally, products direct to the result of these operations, such as decisions, plans, and solutions. The SOI model is essential to psychology because it comprehensively understands how the mind works. It provides a framework for understanding how different abilities interact and contribute to intellectual development. It also sheds light on how different types of thinking can be used to solve different kinds of problems.

Furthermore, the model may create efficient pedagogical and treatments by highlighting areas of strength and improvement in cognitive functioning (Jensen, 1998). A person with strong analytical talents may be more equipped to tackle complex challenges than their less analytical counterparts. A person with a strong memory may also be better able to recollect previously learned material than one with a weak memory.

SOI model

SOI Model

By understanding a person’s strengths and weaknesses, the SOI model allows educators and therapists to create tailored educational and therapeutic interventions. The SOI model also provides insight into how different types of thinking can be used to solve different kinds of problems. For instance, someone with strong analytical abilities may be better suited to solving complex problems, while someone with strong memory abilities may be better suited to remembering and retrieving information. The model may also aid in determining where a person’s cognitive skills excel and where they require improvement so that appropriate instructional and therapeutic measures can be taken. Finally, the SOI model is also helpful in understanding the relationship between different types of intelligence (Jensen, 1998). For example, someone with solid numerical abilities may also have strong verbal skills, and someone with strong creative abilities may also have strong analytical abilities. By understanding the relationship between different types of intelligence, educators and therapists can develop interventions tailored to each person’s needs.

Guilford Theory

Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory

Popularly known as the “CHC” hypothesis, it was devised by psychologists Raymond Cattell, John Horn, and John Carroll to explain how intelligence is measured. According to the notion, there are three types of intelligence: innate, acquired, and learned. Thinking quickly on one’s feet, using reasoning, and finding creative solutions are all examples of fluid intelligence. Crystallized intelligence refers to a person’s acquired expertise and knowledge from life experiences and formal education. The flexibility of mind, openness to new ideas, and a vast repertoire of problem-solving methods all contribute to general intelligence. The CHC Theory also proposes that intelligence is hierarchical, meaning that the three factors of intelligence are made up of more specific abilities and skills (Deary, 2012). Psychologists and educators have widely accepted the CHC Theory because it provides a comprehensive framework for understanding individual differences in intelligence.

It is based on the idea that intelligence is composed of multiple components which can be assessed and measured. The theory suggests that different abilities and skills can be identified and used to evaluate an individual’s intelligence. For example, setting an individual’s fluid and crystallized brightness can provide insight into their problem-solving and academic performance. Additionally, understanding the hierarchical structure of intelligence can help educators better understand individual learning styles and create curricula tailored to meet each student’s needs (Spearman, 1904). The CHC Theory has been used as a theoretical basis for the creation of various forms of assessment and as a framework for investigating intelligence variation. It is also used to inform interventions and to help professionals create individualized plans for students who are struggling in school. For example, understanding the components of an individual’s intelligence can help identify areas in which they may need additional support, such as mathematics or reading.

Additionally, the theory can be used to inform instruction and to create learning environments that are tailored to the individual needs of each student. In conclusion, the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory is a widely accepted and valuable theory of intelligence used to inform educational and psychological assessments (Jensen, 1998). It provides a comprehensive framework for understanding individual differences in intelligence and creating individualized instruction and interventions for struggling students. By understanding the components of an individual’s intelligence, psychologists, educators, and other professionals can better identify areas of strength and weakness and create individualized plans for success.

Catell's Intelligence Theory

Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences

According to Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, there are eight different kinds of intelligence, each with its traits and abilities. Language, mathematic-logical, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, social, intrapersonal, and naturalist intelligence are all in this category. Individuals, this idea suggests, possess varying degrees and types of intelligence, none of which is more vital than the others (Deary, 2012). Educators have utilized Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences to construct individualized lesson plans and classroom activities that appeal to all students. For instance, by understanding each student’s unique combination of intelligence, teachers can create learning experiences tailored to the individual student’s strengths and interests (Spearman, 1904). This helps to guarantee that all students, regardless of their individual talents and shortcomings, have the opportunity to participate in meaningful learning activities. In addition to this, better assessments based on Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences have been established (Jensen, 1998). If teachers have a solid understanding of the many types of intelligence that are represented in their classroom, they will be better able to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each individual student. This helps to guarantee that tests are able to appropriately evaluate a student’s knowledge and comprehension without being too biased toward any certain intellect. This helps to guarantee that all students, regardless of their individual talents and shortcomings, have the opportunity to participate in meaningful learning activities. In addition to this, better assessments based on Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences have been established (Jensen, 1998). If teachers have a solid understanding of the many types of intelligence that are represented in their classroom, they will be better able to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each individual student. This helps to guarantee that tests are able to appropriately evaluate a student’s knowledge and comprehension without being too biased toward any certain intellect. In addition to this, Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences has been used to the process of determining a person’s learning preferences and areas of interest. Teachers are able to identify which sorts of courses and activities are most beneficial for each individual student if they have a solid grasp of the many forms of intelligence (Deary, 2012). This helps guarantee that every student has the opportunity to participate in meaningful learning experiences that are suited to their individual abilities and areas of interest.

Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence

Psychologist Robert Sternberg created an all-encompassing theory of intelligence, Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence, in the ’80s (Huang, 2019). The model postulates that intelligence has three facets: analysis, imagination, and experience. The idea states that achieving optimal intelligence requires a combination of all three components. One definition of intelligence is the capacity to understand and resolve issues. Logic and reason are the tools of this intelligence’s trade, used to overcome difficult situations. It is often linked to conventional forms of IQ testing and indicators of academic success. The capacity to come up with fresh concepts and “think outside the box” is what we mean when we say someone is creatively intelligent (Jensen, 1998). The process requires one to be open to novel ideas, discover novel connections, and think of novel approaches to old issues. Practical intelligence can put acquired information and abilities to use in real-world situations. The capacity to put one’s knowledge and skills to use in suitable cases and the flexibility to adjust to new circumstances are hallmarks of this kind of intelligence. According to Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence, all three elements are required for practical intelligence (Deary, 2012). According to the idea, these components may also interact, with each component having the potential to influence and improve the performance of the others. For instance, analytical intelligence may be utilized to come up with original ideas, while creativity can be employed to find solutions to difficult situations. This idea has had a significant impact on the field of psychology and has been used to shape educational procedures and get a deeper understanding of individual variations in intelligence (Huang, 2019).

The conventional ideas that people have about intelligence have been called into question by Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence, which has also made it possible to get a deeper understanding of the complexity of human cognitive development. The Triarchic Theory of Intelligence developed by Sternberg is an all-encompassing and multi-dimensional perspective on what it means to be intelligent (Deary, 2012). It acknowledges the significance of all three aspects of intelligence and implies that the effective application of intelligence involves the combination of all three aspects. Additionally, the idea has played a significant role in the formation of educational procedures and the comprehension of individual variations in levels of intellect. Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence, in the end, offers a complete understanding of what it means to be intelligent and has proven to function as a vehicle for challenging established ideas of intelligence.

Kaufman’s Theory of Intelligence

Kaufman’s Theory of Intelligence is an integrative theory of intelligence that suggests three mental acuity tiers. According to Kaufman, all three types of intellect are necessary for success. Kaufman posits three kinds of intelligence: analytical, creative, and practical. The capacity for abstract reasoning and developing novel ideas is logical intelligence. Most people believe in and research this kind of intelligence. Standardized test intelligence is the kind of intelligence most often evaluated by IQ testing and strongly correlates with high test scores. Creativity is the ability to generate new ideas and approaches to problems (Deary, 2012). This intelligence is associated with thinking creatively, solving problems, and developing new ideas. Practical intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge and skills to everyday situations.

This intelligence is associated with making decisions and adapting to new conditions. Kaufman’s Theory of Intelligence suggests that intelligence should be viewed holistically as a combination of different cognitive abilities. It emphasizes the importance of developing all three levels of intelligence to be successful in life. Kaufman’s theory also suggests that intelligence is shaped by innate abilities and environmental and cultural factors (Spearman, 1904). Kaufman’s Theory of Intelligence has been criticized for being too broad and vague and for failing to consider how intelligence is shaped by cultural and environmental factors (Jensen, 1998). Additionally, there needs to be more empirical evidence for the three levels of intelligence proposed by Kaufman.


Theories of human intelligence based on the idea of a single component or construct being accountable for intelligence argue that such a factor or construct exists (Jensen, 1998). The g factor proposed by Spearman and the main mental talents hypothesis proposed by Thurstone are examples of single-factor theories. These ideas have been used in developing many IQ tests and explaining individual variances in intellect. In addition, these beliefs have informed educational methods, and people with learning impairments have been identified and supported using these theories (Deary, 2012). On the other hand, single-factor explanations of intelligence have a restricted scope and fail to consider the multifaceted character of intelligence. Other theories of intelligence, such as the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory, Guilford’s Structure of Intellect Model, Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences, and Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence, provide more comprehensive frameworks for understanding individual differences in intelligence. Some examples of these theories include the following: These ideas highlight the significance of intelligence having various components and imply that intelligence is molded not just by inherited talents but also by environmental and cultural variables (Spearman, 1904). Psychologists, educators, and other professionals are better equipped to recognize areas of strength and weakness and design tailored strategies for success when they have a more profound knowledge of the multifaceted structure of intelligence.


Deary (2012) “Intelligence” Annu Rev Psychol 63: 453 – 482 C

Gottesman (2004) “Just one g: consistent results from three test batteries,” J Intelligence 32: 95–107

Huang, M. H., Rust, R., & Maksimovic, V. (2019). The feeling economy: Managing in the next generation of artificial intelligence (AI). California Management Review, 61(4), 43-65.

Jensen (1998) “The g factor” W Johnson, TJ Bouchard, RF Krueger, M McGue, II

Spearman (1904) “General Intelligence: objectively determined and measured” Am J Psychol 15: 201 – 293 AR

error: Content is protected !!