Intelligence Research: Keeping us in a Cycle of Ignorance

A treatise on Intelligence research communication

If we can understand Intelligence research, we can probably understand each other better, what’s not to like – the study of Intelligence is actually called: the study of individual differences.

The study of intelligence is, perhaps ironically, often shrouded in language that makes it anything but accessible. Consider, for example, the Developmental Priority Theory (DPT) and the AACog mechanism, terms that are meant to advance our understanding of intelligence. Instead, they have become a tangle of acronyms that obscure rather than inform. Imagine sitting in on a lecture where the speaker throws around terms like ‘g’, 'relational integration', 'cognizance processes' and the ‘cognitive underpinnings of prodigiousness’, without pausing to explain their real-world relevance. This kind of inaccessible language forms a barrier, not just between researchers and the public, but between knowledge and its potential impact. The study of intelligence is so crucial to society, and those who study it must learn to communicate more effectively with the world beyond the academy and scientific conferences. Yet, the language of Intelligence research is mindogglingly dense, excrutitingly complex and unnecessarily brain numbing.

Have I lost you yet? Believe me reading about the science of intelligence is a decent into brain fog.. yet it should be something we all care about.

This is how Intelligence science sounds with a simple metaphor : Developmental Priority Theory (DPT) suggests a fluid, non-static approach to understanding intelligence. It invites us to see intelligence not as a rigid machine gradually becoming more complex, but like a river, constantly flowing, and adapting to the terrain it encounters.

The crux of DPT shows intelligence is shaped by the unique developmental needs of each individual.

Yet, when Intelligence researchers describe this theory, and sub theorem, using terms like 'Alignment, Abstraction, and Cognizance', non-imaginetevely called “AACog” for short, they alienate the very people who stand to benefit from these insights. The language is opaque, and the terminology all too often feels like an exclusive password, only comprehensible to those already initiated.

The Intelligence Illuminati

But the study of intelligence is not meant to be a secret society, like the Illuminati of cognitive science, accessible only to those with the right codes and acronyms. Intelligence research is deeply relevant to how we understand human potential, how we educate our children, how we develop AI, and how we envision the future of our societies. Intelligence defines how we engage with the world, it is about learning, adapting, problem-solving. The promise of theories like DPT is in how they can reshape educational practices, help identify areas of cognitive growth, and ultimately, contribute to personal and societal flourishing. This relevance is lost if the conversation around these topics remains ensconced in insular academic language, which is medieval Greek to most of the population (and many scientists too).

Pale Blue Dot

Consider, for a moment, the simplicity and elegance with which great science communicators have shaped our understanding of complex ideas. Carl Sagan, for example, took the enormity of the cosmos and condensed it into metaphors that spoke to everyone, he famously described Earth as a "pale blue dot," encapsulating both the grandeur of the universe and the fragile beauty of our planet. Richard Feynman brought the joy of physics to life with analogies so visceral that even quantum electrodynamics seemed accessible; he once compared the interactions of particles to the dance of a couple at a party, breaking down daunting concepts with a mix of precision and playfulness. And then there's Oliver Sacks, who transformed complex neurological phenomena into stories of deeply human experiences, helping readers not just understand, but empathize with those whose minds worked differently. These communicators didn’t just simplify, they made complex subjects unforgettable by weaving them into the narrative fabric of everyday life.

The field of intelligence research is in desperate need of its own Sagan or Feynman, it’s own pale blue dot moment. Someone who can disentangle the AACog mechanisms and developmental shifts, and show the public why any of it matters. We need voices that can bring theories like DPT out of the ivory tower and into the world where educators, parents, and policymakers can use them to make tangible changes.

When we speak of AACog, we refer to a process that integrates core elements of intelligence: matching information, abstracting it, and becoming aware of these mental operations. It’s an essential part of understanding how our minds work, but the very term 'AACog' adds a layer of unnecessary distance between the concept and the people it is meant to serve. To the average person, AACog might sound more like a new tech startup than an essential element of human cognition. Instead, we need to describe this idea plainly: how do we learn to match patterns, generalize from them, and reflect on that learning? And why does that matter?

Better Prepared

The cost of neglecting public engagement in intelligence research awareness is high. Misunderstandings about intelligence are rife; many still equate intelligence solely with knowledge acquisition, failing to appreciate the role of reasoning, creativity, and adaptation. Many university psychology students graduate without a basic understanding of human intelligence, and instead harbor misconceptions that reduce it to mere knowledge retention or test-taking skill. This is the consequence of a broader failure to communicate, to teach, in a meaningful way, what intelligence actually is. For a start psychology students, cognitive science students, behavioral economists and many other disciplines who seek to understand human cognition, could start with reading the book Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies considered as the Rosetta stone "for future human intelligence researchers”. Or as Jordan Peterson put it: "…this is a book that everyone who is a psychologist needs to read in order to be one."

The Mess that is Intelligence Communication

Here are some more examples of acronyms and terms in the study of Intelligence and how they are used in the intelligence research community:

g - General Intelligence. Refers to the common factor that influences performance on various cognitive tasks, proposed by Charles Spearman.

Gc - Crystallized Intelligence. Involves knowledge acquired from past learning and experience.

Gf - Fluid Intelligence. Refers to the capacity to solve novel problems, independent of acquired knowledge.

Gq - Quantitative Knowledge. Refers to an individual's mathematical knowledge and skills, which are often part of intelligence assessments.

Gs - Processing Speed. A measure of the speed at which someone can perform simple or automatic cognitive tasks, which is often linked to overall intelligence.

CCM - Cognitive Control Mechanism. A term used to explain the processes involved in managing and directing thought, particularly in complex problem-solving tasks.

EDE - Executive Developmental Efficiency. Refers to the efficiency of executive functions (like working memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility) as they develop across different stages of growth.

FGM - Fluid General Mechanism. Describes the fluid reasoning processes that allow individuals to solve novel problems, generally without relying on prior knowledge.

IDP - Individual Developmental Prioritization. A term used to describe how developmental priorities can differ between individuals, influencing the trajectory of their intellectual growth.

And do not get me started on the names of tests and theories. Here are a few theories that could be transformational to many if it was communicated better:

CHC - Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory. A prominent model of cognitive abilities that integrates Cattell-Horn's theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence with Carroll's three-stratum theory.

P-FIT - Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory. A theory that suggests the integration of the parietal and frontal lobes in the brain is crucial for high-level cognitive functions and general intelligence.

RIT - Relational Integration Theory. Often used to describe how different types of relationships between concepts are processed and understood as part of cognitive development.

Believe me there are a lot more acronym’s and Jargonese!

Misunderstanding

We must also remember that intelligence, as a concept, has a fraught history. Missteps in early intelligence research contributed to harmful ideologies, including eugenics, and led to biases in how intelligence was understood and measured. These legacies linger, contributing to public skepticism and misunderstanding of the field. Researchers, need to ensure that intelligence research serves the public good, and must actively dismantle the barriers, linguistic and conceptual, that clearly stand between Intelligence research and the wider world.

Critics might argue that simplifying complex theories risks distorting them, that nuance will be lost in translation. Reason can answer questions, but imagination has to ask them, and AACog captures this interplay, highlighting how alignment and abstraction push the boundaries of understanding while cognizance reflects upon and deepens that process. Apparently, Albert Einstein once said, 'If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.' This quote speaks to the necessity of clarity in communication, emphasizing that true understanding lies in the ability to convey complex ideas in an accessible way. Sometimes science must be poetic, it needs to capture the complexity of discovery without losing the audience. We can retain complexity while making it engaging; the key lies in storytelling that invites rather than excludes. Rigorous research must coexist with clear communication because without understanding, the research serves only a narrow purpose.

Research must be accesible

The task, then, is twofold. First, Intelligence researchers must simplify without simplifying away, retain the rigor, but translate the terminology. When describing how intelligence evolves through shifting developmental priorities, they should resist the urge to lean on acronyms and jargon, and instead focus on illustrating the principles with vivid, relatable examples. Second, they must remind themselves, repeatedly, that the value of Intelligence research is not in its obscurity, but in its applicability. The AACog mechanism is significant, not because it sounds sophisticated, but because it describes the evolving ways in which we humans make sense of our experiences.

The study of Intelligence holds immense promise for better understanding how people learn, adapt, and grow. But for this promise to be fulfilled, intelligence researchers must learn to communicate to ensure insight and understanding. It’s not enough to publish papers or develop elaborate theories, they must also be storytellers, capable of making the complex not only understandable but fascinating. Imagine a future where teachers integrate developmental priority theory into classroom strategies, where parents understand how to nurture reasoning and problem-solving in their children, and where policymakers make informed decisions that harness the full spectrum of human potential. For Intelligence research to succeed, they must help others see intelligence for what it truly is: a dynamic, evolving interplay of mind and environment, one that, when understood, can empower individuals and transform lives.

Stay curious

Dr Colin W.P. Lewis