vundertand Mae VO EDNETESchenp ine peat, Francois De La Rochefo, sqntoetv Ucaulg rhage. Sometimes age just sh -come with a9¢ OWS up at, 3 old person KNOWS the exception 0) ae saneaestarl the als are imperFet, he becomes, ocr ad He dO Re raves ims, 2senirmoment and You can't teach an old dog Procedural memory adults? What may account for individual differences? PROBLEM-SOLVING, DECISION-MAKING ANDhow well older ag, Nts and problem, CAN be > and lifelong learn MING, but 2 ng. 1 intelligence at may be asked is: dog ? a eS intel age? The answer may not 1 cS be idee deere ®asy ang May dep Pend on ; What is intelligence? e the word intelligence, but do We know y at defining this concept is not that know what intetigen £85y. Generally, how, r, Most Charles Spearman (1927), one of the founding fathers of ence testing, identified intelligence as a unitary skill. In words, no matter what intellectual task was set, such as. numerical or visual-spatial (called specific factors ors), the sic ability was involved in the performance. Spearman is the g factor. It was assumed individuals high in g do well, whereas those low in g would do less well in tests pecific abilities. Charles Spearman Thurstone (1935) debated whether intelligence was a "ge unitary factor. According to him, intelligence passes many different kinds of abilities. / oo that intelligence is made up of the following se istnct components called primary mental abl ve ‘prehension, word fluency, number, spatial orien me | “Mory, perceptual speed and reasoning. Tous L Thurstone 108proposed the concept of Multiple Gardner | ified eight distinct intelligences: lingyjsy, : Jentl ; : retigences and @ " ‘eh iene . in ntelligence Le intelligence bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, wot . inte ie ne intelligence music ligence, intrapersonal intelligence ang ot = en ie nce. A specific individual may be stronger in, alsticintellige” une! natura see some intelligences that INO oo Howarda mechanic > ather than thinking in terms of See and ear intelligences « Spero 1095), in his triarchic theory of intelligence, emp) asised three Compone” comet intelligence that work together: the contextual, experiential meron sity componential components, The contextual component wean takes into consideration that the definition of intelligence may a eis vary from culture to culture and from one historical period to i; Rs another. The experiential component takes experience into “somait account. A person will approach a familiar task differently to a now! novel (new) task; therefore it is important to know a person's priot experience in similar tasks before the person's ee - : e evaluated. © The ~componential component. i component focuses on the cognitive aspects of intelligent Early haviour, such as being able to identi Reverses | —— © identify a problem and es PPropriate strategy to solve it wwe According to the hier a archical all intellectual skills make use of g cera a Catel 1971) be general 2 hy al on mae pecahng Sle aby Fe at " , ts ha Cat (1971) and Horn (1979) pent On the ir sh S it which they ey Sr vat 2 swge purth to 29° thwouah the senses and movement ing eet vel Sensorimoter and grasping). Object permanence et, ig jon the child starts to realise that a phys t go" ond exist even if itis notin view, ne 308 ind ses | Semweciemmett eet ome wis (al Heless objects aso hore . rere thoughts) and egocentric thinking nap | wnt the wort fom ather people point yal rust develop. mee na “Tosical thinking develops, But only asi rink char? real concrete objects. Abstract thinkingis ey” largelyabsent. ‘Adolescent or adult thinks abstractly, hypothetical situations and reasons deductns about what may be possible thought Toaw 8 Louw, 2007 Piaget (1972) himself admitted that formal operations are probably not universal, by, rather tend to appear only in those areas in which individuals are highly trained o, specialised. Formal reasoning is often tested on psychometric tests, especially those that measure fluid intellectual abilities. Many items on tests of fluid ability invove abstract problem-solving and the correct answer is determined through logical deduction. As we have seen earlier, older adults perform less well than younger aduts on tests of fluid abilities. However, not all problems occurring in everyday life lend themselves to formal logical solutions, while some real-life problems may have more than one possible solution. Furthermore, it may also be that the Piagetian conception of formal operational thinking is inappropriate when applied to older adults. Older ea cee seneerns ee People and as a result, they may use pace a ‘as inspired a number of researchers to look 'g pathways of adult cognitive development. 3.3.6.2 Neo-Piagetian approach: Postformal thought By the 1970s it was clear that Piaget's content , tention that formal operati ‘aking was the end point of cognitive development, had serious Sete a that the concept of formal operations was quite limited in its a mi 9 = icability. 133,at Piaget Was concey hat Piag oncerned wy out tl 1g, but th; need eink HIS 15 not thy. wctbin formal operational thinking gy OV king a is also limiting, since This adut fo accept SeVEFA! POSsible Mespanse tO sOcial OF oth ne ave arth t9KES place beyona fa coral thidKiNG. Postformat qr we Pie. the COMFECE answer) varies pe cetalistct0 Be reasonable, that am a peexception and that emotion a 0 ON (cavanaugh & Blanchard-Fie| d by the following: * Feallstic const, Mal Peratic a eu ion, nbiguity and contrag Subjective facto... Ids, 2006, p, 288). 9 ing’ ‘raters | gbsolutist, relativistic and dialectical thinking, jen think in an absolutist way. This invalves fin Aolescens and young adul gne correct solution toa problem and that person Peleving that theres se they typically think that by logic one can determine ate Provides wrath contest, relativistic thinking involves realising that wan oe m8 MONG. in isue and that the right answer depends on the cra are many sides to an thinkers accept conflicting opinions and explore the eras Postformal wich an issue can be argued. Making inteligent ite a understanding the relativity of all decision-making, Relativistic faces at encountered in young and early middle-aged adults. One potential — relativistic thinking is that relativistic thinkers may avoid making decisions or having strong beliefs. They may adopt a cynical approach such as "I'l do my thing and you do yours.” However, the final step, dialectical thinking clears this problem. Dialectical thinkers see the merits of the different viewpoints but can synthesise or integrate them into a workable solution. This synthesis often produces strong commitment and a definite plan of action (Kramer & Woodruff, 1986). itatively, thinking in postformal ‘thought Integration ic. Quali 9) of emotion and logic. Q: “Vm not so sure because proceeds from “I'm right, because I've experienced it’ to \d and synthesise Your experience is different from mine.” An ability (© ae is problems. This another's point of view may be beneficial in the resolution o! ith logic in their ° - . te emotion wit nt be linked to adults’ increased ability to he main goal of adult thought inking, For example, Labouvie-Vief (1997) sees ° 134