Psychology Aspects in Spearmans, Stenbergs and Gardners Models of Intelligence

Intelligence is among the most studied topics in the field of psychology. Ironically, it has not been possible to come up with one definition of intelligence acceptable in the whole world. Some scholars believe that intelligence is a single general ability while others believe that it incorporates many aspects like skills, talents and capacities. Nevertheless, every scholar comes up with a different definition suitable for a particular model of intelligence. Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Psychology Aspects in Spearman’s, Stenberg’s and Gardner’s Models of Intelligence specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Various scholars have come up with different models of intelligence with an aim of explaining and understanding the whole concept. However, even though models are different, all have similar concepts were it not for the fact that they are explained differently. However, this does not negate th e fact there are some notable differences. Bent on that, this paper shall discuss Spearman’s, Stenberg’s and Gardner’s models of intelligence and narrow down to major differences and similarities. Scholars describe intelligence differently especially after testing their theories. Spearman describes intelligence as a cognitive ability or g factor that can be measured numerically and expressed as such (Plucker para 4 ). He was able to make the conclusion after conducting a number of mental aptitude tests and discovered that the scores of the tests were similar (Sternberg p. 18). On the other hand, Gardner unlike Spearman illustrates that it is not accurate to measure intelligence numerically because according to him, it is composed of skills and abilities that are greatly valued in different cultures. In addition, his model explains that there are eight different types of intelligences which are inclusive of bodily kinesthetic, musical, verbal-linguistic, logical , naturalistic, intra-personal and interpersonal forms of intelligence. Finally, although Stenberg agreed that there is more than one form of intelligence, he proposed that some of the Gardner’s forms of intelligence can be perfectly described as human talents (Gardner Para 4). However, he grouped intelligence in to three categories which include practical, creative and analytical intelligence. As much as there are some differences between different models of intelligence, similarities present cannot be overlooked. All models seem to have a clear concept that intelligence is the cognitive ability of an individual that helps individuals become successful in certain areas of their lives. For instance, Sternberg explains that intelligence which results from a good balance between analytical, practical and creative abilities helps individuals to be successful within different contexts in the social environment (Sternberg pp. 92). Similarly, Gardner also proposed that different types of intelligence which are generated by mental energy enable individuals solve problems and create products that are important in different cultural settings. Advertising Looking for essay on psychology? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Lastly, Spearman model also illustrates the same concept of intelligence which is the cognitive mental ability of an individual that helps them solve some problems and that is why he used tests to measure intelligence and latter expressed it numerically as a g factor (Matthews, Zeidner Roberts pp. 91). It has been difficult to determine the most comprehensive model of intelligence because all have strong and weak points. However, according to Paik (Para 7), Gardner’s model of intelligence is the most comprehensive model because it points out more than one form of intelligence. Moreover, it has some biological foundation because there are seven different parts of brains which are re sponsible for each type of intelligence. Apart from the solid biological basis, the theory makes it possible to measure and identify other types of intelligence apart from logical, linguistic and spatial. The only problem is difficulty in experimentation because human brain is sensitive and complicated. Although there is wide range of differences between different models of intelligence, all of them are important because they have contributed greatly in helping people understand various aspects of the same. For instance, it has been possible to identify and appreciate the fact that people have different abilities which help them to become successful in the social world. As much as each theory is criticized, the importance of each cannot be overstated. In addition, all have different weaknesses and strengths. Works Cited Gardner, Howard. American Psychologist and Educator. 2007. Web. Matthews, Gerald, Moshe Zeidner and Richard D. Roberts. Emotional intelligence: science and myth. Cam bridge: MIT Press, 2004. Print. Paik, Han S. One Intelligence or Many? Alternative Approaches to Cognitive Abilities. 1998. Web.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Psychology Aspects in Spearman’s, Stenberg’s and Gardner’s Models of Intelligence specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Plucker, Jonathan. Charles Spearman. 2007. Web. Sternberg, Robert J. Handbook of intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print. This essay on Psychology Aspects in Spearman’s, Stenberg’s and Gardner’s Models of Intelligence was written and submitted by user Araceli Leonard to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Members of the House of Representatives

Members of the House of Representatives There are 435 members of the House of Representatives. Federal law, passed on Aug. 8, 1911, determines how many members are in the House of Representatives. That measure raised the number of representatives to 435 from 391 because of population growth in the United States.   The first House of Representatives in 1789 had only 65 members. The number of seats in the House was expanded to 105 members after the 1790 Census, and then to 142 members after the 1800 headcount. The law that set the current number of seats at 435 took effect in 1913. But it isnt the reason the number of representatives has been stuck there. Why There Are 435 Members   Theres really nothing special about that number. Congress regularly increased the number of seats in the House based on the nations population growth from 1790 to 1913, and 435 is the most recent count. The number of seats in the House has not been increased in more than a century, though, even though every 10 years the census shows the population of the United States grows. Why the Number of House Members Hasnt Changed Since 1913 There are still 435 members of the House of Representatives a century later because of the  Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, which set that number in stone. The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 was the result of a battle between rural and urban areas of the United States following the 1920 Census. The formula for distributing seats in the House based on population favored urbanized states and penalized smaller rural states at the time, and Congress could not agree on a reapportionment plan. After the 1910 census, when the House grew from 391 members to 433 (two more were added later when Arizona and New Mexico became states), the growth stopped. That’s because the 1920 census indicated that the majority of Americans were concentrating in cities, and nativists, worried about of the power of foreigners, blocked efforts to give them more representatives, wrote Dalton Conley, a professor of sociology, medicine and public policy at New York University, and Jacqueline Stevens, a professor of political science at Northwestern University. So, instead, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and sealed the number of House members at the level established after the 1910 census, 435. Number of House Members Per State Unlike the U.S. Senate, which consists of two members from each state, the geographic makeup of the House is determined by the population of each state. The only stipulation spelled out in the U.S. Constitution comes in Article I, Section 2, which guarantees each state, territory or district at least one representative. The Constitution also states that there can be no more than one representative in the House for every 30,000 citizens. The number of representatives each state gets in the House of Representatives is based on population. That process, known as reapportionment, occurs every 10 years after the decennial population count conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Rep. William B. Bankhead of Alabama, an opponent of the legislation, called the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 an abdication and surrender of vital fundamental powers. One of the functions of Congress, which created the census, was to adjust the number of seats in Congress to reflect the number of people living in the United States, he said. Arguments for Expanding the Number of House Members Advocates  for increasing the number of seats in the House say such a move would increase the quality of representation by reducing the number of constituents each lawmaker represents. Each House member now represents about 700,000 people. The group ThirtyThousand.org argues that the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights never intended for the population of each congressional district to exceed 50,000 or 60,000. The principle of proportionally equitable representation has been abandoned, the group argues. Another argument for increasing the size of the House is that is would diminish the influence of lobbyists. That line of reasoning assumes that lawmakers would be more closely connected to their constituents and therefore less likely to listen to special interests. Arguments Against Expanding the Number of House Members Advocates for shrinking the size of the House of Representatives often argue that the quality of legislating improves because House members would get to know each other on a more personal level. They also cite the cost of paying for salaries, benefits, and travel for not only the lawmakers but their staffs.