Pioneers in Psychology

Introduction:

Without a doubt, the definition of intelligence, and IQ tests, is debatable. This paper will examine how numerous scholars have defined intelligence and what the outcomes of these definitions are. One direct effect of the definition of intelligence is eugenics. Scientists who believe that heredity mainly influences intelligence support eugenics, and those inclined to the nurture 'camp' of the debate are opposed to it. Various arguments often arise wherever two or more intelligence schools of thought fail to reach conciliation, or whether a researcher is accused of perverting facts to support a certain motion.

The Nature of Nature-Nurture Debate in Intelligence:

Psychologists, scientists, and philosophers have been engaged in disputes as to whether heredity has a greater role in influencing intelligence than the environment. There are some who belong to the nature 'camp' of the debate. They believe that heredity plays a major role in defining intelligence. The nurture 'camp,' on the other hand, believe that the environment enacts a major role in determining the intelligence of an individual. They believe that environment is specifically accountable for enlightening the intelligence of an individual

Thus, the nature-nurture debate is not about what effects a person's intelligence; both camps acknowledge that both heredity and environment have influence on intelligence. Rather the argument is whether heredity or the environment that plays a larger role in the determination of intelligence.

Numerous researches have recognized that individuals who achieve high scores in an IQ tests and are later placed in harsh environments, which do not encourage the growth of their intelligence declines with time. They attain low scores when IQ tests are assigned to them after being exposed to such an environment. On the other hand , several researchers have discovered that people who get low scores originally, but were placed in an supportive environment, registered high scores (Plucker, 2003).

This disagreement illustrates both sides spectrum. The initially brighter were brighter because they had inherited superior genes; however, the environment was able to relegate them. The originally dull were dull because they had inherited inferior intelligence genes, yet the environment was able to improve them. It is apparent that both nature and nurture play a critical, role in determining intelligence, yet it is challenging to tell with certainty whether it is heredity or environment that plays a major role. The debate on how nature and nurture interrelate to determine intelligence is extremely intense.

The Pioneers of Intelligence Testing:

Pierre Broca:

Pierre Broca was part of the nature 'camp' of nature/nurture debate in intelligence. He is one of the most prominent scholars interested in craniology and craniometry. Pierre was convinced that intelligence was determined by the size of the brain of an individual. And an individual's craniometry was determined by heredity. Since craniometry determined the size of an individual's brain, ultimately heredity, had greater influence on a person's intelligence than environment in Broca's view (Mitchell, 2007, pp. 58-60).

Because of his studies in craniology, Broca mostly featured in what became known as "scientific racism." It is important to note that intelligence was defined in relation to craniometry. This is because it was assumed that male whites were the most intelligent while female blacks were the dullest. As a result, craniology was labeled as being racist as well as sexist (Mitchell, 2007, pp. 58-60).

Furthermore, Bronca and many anthropologists contributed to the development of craniometry as an intelligence test. In order to determine one's intelligence, facial angles, the size of the brain, and the nose were the parameters used. . In the intelligence test, distinction was drawn between "brachycephalic" and "dolichocephalic" skulls, and "orthognathic" (European), "eurygnathic" (Asian), and "Prognathic" (African) (Ferguson, 1984, p. 18). A combination of "dolichocephalic" skull and "orthognathic" jaw (Europeans) meant the individual was most intelligent, and a combination of "brachycephalic" skull and "prognathic" jaw (African) meant the individual was dullest (Ferguson, 1984, p. 19).

Franz Joseph Gall:

During his time, Frank Joseph Gall was known as one of the supporters of the nature "camp" of intelligence. He founded phrenology which explained the spherical divisions of the brain that represented organs responsible for particular psychological functions. More importantly, his most vital contribution is the establishment that the brain is in fact responsible for psychological functions. The contemporary belief was that it was the heart that was responsible for such functions.

Phrenology and organology (the doctrine of the skull) were dismissed by scientists as simplistic, yet they were a basis of later research such as craniology. The intelligence test created by Gall used the "doctrine of the skull theory" in order to explain people's behaviors as well as their intellectual abilities. The theory was based on the fact that different sizes and shapes of the skull determined the intellectual ability and psychology of people.

Francis