The Concept of Intelligence in Cross—cultural Perspectives

任才淇 王静静

One of the positive outcomes from so much research on the relationship between culture and intelligence is an expanded view of what intelligence may be，and how it may be conceptually related to culture.This issue is intricately intertwined with cross-cultural research on intelligence because one of the possible confounding factors in previous studies that documented cultural differences has been cultural differences in the very concept and meaning of intelligence.

Researchers in this area have discovered that many languages have no word that corresponds to our idea of intelligence.The closest Mandarin equivalent，for instance，is a Chinese character that means “good brain and talented”.Chinese people often associate this concept with traits such as imitation，effort，and social responsibility.Such traits do not constitute important elements of the concept of intelligence for most Americans.

African cultures provide a number of examples.The Baganda of East Africa use the word obugezi to refer to a combination of mental and social skills that make a person steady，cautious，and friendly.The Djerma-Songhai in West Africa use the term akkal，which has an even broader meaning – a combination of intelligence，know-how，and social skills.Still another society，the Baoule，uses the term nglouele，which describes children who are not only mentally alert but also willing to volunteer their services without being asked.

Because of the enormous differences in the ways cultures define intelligence，it is difficult to make valid comparisons from one society to another.That is，different cultures value different traits（their definition of “intelligence”）and have divergent views concerning which traits are useful in predicting future important behaviors（also culturally defined）.People in different cultures not only disagree about what constitutes intelligence but also about the proper way to demonstrate those abilities.In mainstream North American society，individuals are typically rewarded for displaying knowledge and skills.This same behavior may be considered improper，arrogant，or rude in societies that stress personal relationships，cooperation，and modesty.

These differences are important to cross-cultural studies of intelligence because successful performance on a task of intelligence may require behavior that is considered immodest and arrogant in Culture A（and therefore only reluctantly displayed by members of Culture A）but desirable in Culture B（and therefore readily displayed by members of Culture B）.Clearly，such different attitudes toward the same behavior could lead researchers to draw inaccurate conclusions about differences in intelligence between Culture A and Culture B.

Another reason it is difficult to compare intelligence cross-culturally is that tests of intelligence often rely on knowledge that is specific to a particular culture；investigators based in that culture may not even know what to test for in a different culture.For example，one U.S.intelligence test contains the following question：“How does a violin resemble a piano？” Clearly，this question assumes prior knowledge about violins and pianos – quite a reasonable expectation for middle-class Americans，but not for people from cultures that use different musical instruments.

Our expanding knowledge about cultural differences in the concept of intelligence has had important ramifications for our theoretical understanding of intelligence in mainstream American psychology as well.Although traditional thinking and reasoning abilities have dominated views of intelligence in the past，in recent years psychologists have begun to turn their attention to other possible aspects of intelligence.Until very recently，for example，creativity was not considered a part of intelligence；now，however，psychologists are increasingly considering this important human ability as a type of intelligence.Other aspects of intelligence are also coming to the forefront.A psychologist has suggested that there are really seven different types of intelligence：logical mathematical，linguistic，musical，spatial，bodily kinesthetic，interpersonal，and intrapersonal.According to this scheme，not only do the core components of each of these seven types of intelligence differ，but so do some sample end-states（such as mathematician versus dancer）.His theory of multiple intelligences has broadened our understanding of intelligence to include other areas besides “book smarts”.

Perhaps the field is coming to realize that intelligence in its broadest sense may be more aptly defined as “the skills and abilities necessary to effectively accomplish cultural goals”.If your cultures goals，for example，involve successfully pursuing a professional occupation with a good salary in order to support yourself and your family，that culture will foster a view of intelligence that incorporates cognitive and emotional skills and abilities that allow for pursuing such an occupation.Those skills and abilities may include deductive reasoning，logical thought，verbal and mathematical skills – the sorts of skills that are fostered in contemporary American culture.If your cultures goals，however，focus more on the development and maintenance of successful interpersonal relationships，working with nature，or hunting and gathering，intelligence will more aptly be viewed as the skills and abilities related to such activities.

On one level，therefore，people of all cultures share a similar view of intelligence – a catchall concept that summarizes the skills and abilities necessary to live effectively in ones culture.At the same time，however，cultural differences naturally exist because of differences in how cultures define goals and skills and abilities needed to achieve those goals.Future research will need to delve into these dual processes，searching for commonalities as well as differences across cultures and exploring what contextual variables affect intelligence-related behaviors，and why.

Awareness of cultural differences in intelligence raises difficult questions concerning testing and the use of test scores.Should bias in testing be eliminated at the expense of the predictive validity of the test？ Many educational institutions and business organizations today face this difficult question，which is compounded by legal ramifications and the constant threat of litigation.Perhaps we need to give consideration to yet another aspect of intelligence – that is，our attitudes regarding intelligence.A cross-cultural understanding of differences in the definitions and processes of intelligence should help to deepen our appreciation and respect for cultures different from our own，and help us to find similarities as well as differences among people.

譯文：

关于文化和智力之间关系的研究诸多，其产生的一个积极成果是全面了解了智力的概念，以及它是如何在概念上与文化联系在一起的。因为在过去记录文化差异的研究中，可能的干扰因素之一是智力的概念和内涵在文化上的差异，因此针对智力的跨文化调查与这个问题错综复杂、联系紧密。

该领域的研究人员已经发现，许多语言中都没有任何词汇与智力相匹配。比如，“聪慧而有天赋”是普通话中最接近“智力”的词汇。中国人通常将这一概念与模仿、努力和社会责任感等特征联系起来。然而，对于大多数美国人来说，这样的特征并非构成智力这一概念的重要因素。

非洲文化很好地证明了这一点。东非巴干达人使用“obugezi”一词表示将精神和社会技能结合起来，人会因此而坚定可靠、谨小慎微、温和友善。西非哲尔马桑海使用的“akkal”有着更加广泛的含义，它是智力、专业技术和社会技能的统一体。另外，非洲的巴乌莱族是另一个社会团体，那里使用“nglouele”来描述这样类型的孩子，他们头脑机灵，并且愿意主动承担志愿服务工作。

正因为文化定义智力的方式极为不同，因此有效地比较不同的社会团体并非易事。也就是说，不同的文化有着不同的特征（对“智力”的定义），并且对于哪种特征预测未来重要行为有益这一方面有着不同的观点。不同文化处境下的人们不仅对智力的构成因素莫衷一是，而且对于展示这些能力的正确方式也颇有不同见解。在北美主流社会，个体若能积极展示才智和技能，定会有所回报。相反，在强调人际关系、合作和谦逊等理念的社会，这种行为则是不正确的，是狂妄自大和粗鲁的表现。

这些差异的重要性对于研究智力的跨文化领域不可小觑。因为，虽成功实施某一智力任务，但这种行为可能在甲文化中却是自我吹嘘、狂妄自大的表现（因此，这种文化下的人们厌恶这样做）。相反，这种行为却在乙文化社会中备受推崇（因此，生活在这种文化下的人们很乐意展示这种行为）。很明显，同样的行为，不同的态度，可能会导致研究人员针对甲乙不同文化智力的差异得出不精确的结论。

从跨文化角度对比智力非常困难，其中另一原因是，检验智力通常依赖于某个特定文化的知识；这种文化下的研究人员甚至可能并不知道在不同文化下要检测的是什么。举例而言，美国一项智力测验包含以下内容：“小提琴和钢琴的相似点是什么？”显然，这个问题假设接受测试者对小提琴和钢琴已具备认知，的确是美国中产阶级的合理预期，然而对于使用不同乐器、来自不同文化的人来说，这种预期并不合理。

我们对于文化差异中智力这一概念的认知在不断扩大，已经对我们从理论上理解美国主流心理学中的智力问题产生了重大意义。尽管在过去，传统思维能力和推理能力支配着大众对于智力的看法，但是近年来，心理学家开始将注意力转而投向智力其它可能的领域。比如，直到最近，创造力还并非属于智力的一部分；然而现在，心理学家正逐渐将这种重要的人类能力当作智力的一种类型。智力的其它方面也正在成为人们关注的焦点。某心理学家认为，智力有七中不同的类型，分别是：逻辑数学智力、语言智力、音乐智力、空间智力、身体动觉智力、人际关系智力以及内省智力。根据这一方案，不仅智力的七大核心成分互不相同，而且一些范例的最终状态（比如数学家和舞蹈家）也有所差异。这位心理学家的多元智力理论加深了我们对于智力的理解：除了“书本智慧”，智力还涵盖其它领域。

也许，这一领域的研究者们正逐步意识到，从广义上讲，智力可能更适合定义为“有效完成文化目标的必要技能。”举例而言，假设你的文化目标是成功寻找到薪酬丰厚的专业职位，你可以因此而负担自己和家人的开销，那么这一文化目标将会培养一种智力观，其中包含了认知技能和感情技能，使你可以追求到心仪的职位。这些技能可能包括演绎推论技能、逻辑思维技能、语言能力和数学能力，这些技能正是现代美国文化会培养的技能。然而，如果你的文化目标更多关注的是发展并维护良好的人际关系、与自然共处、狩猎和采集，智力可能就倾向于与这些活动相关的技能。

因此在某种程度上，所有文化的人们对于智力有着相似的观点，即：智力是涵盖范围极广的术语概念，它总结了在某个文化里有效生活的必要技能。然而，文化差异也同时自然而然存在着，因为只有实现了这些目标，才能理解文化定义目标和技能的差异。未来还需要深入研究这些两个过程，其一是探索文化间的共性和差异，其二是探索什么样的语境变量会影响与智力有关的行为，并明白其原因。

有关智力方面文化差异的认知引出了成绩检验和成绩用途的难题。是否应该在损害检验预测效度的情况下去除检测的偏见？如今，许多教育机构和企业组织会面对这样的难题，即要承担法律后果，或者持续面临诉讼的威胁。我们也许需要考虑智力的另一方面，也就是我们对待智力的态度。从跨文化角度理解智力的定义和过程的差异，会让我们更加欣赏并尊重不同于我们的文化，有利于发现人与人之间的相似点和差异性。

作者简介

任才淇（1992年-），女，汉族，山西孝义人，首都师范大学外国语学院，硕士研究生，英语笔译方向。

王静静（1992年-），女，汉族，山西晋城人，首都师范大学外国语学院，硕士研究生，英语笔译方向。

（作者单位：首都师范大学）