The Concept of Intelligence in Cross—cultural Perspectives

任才淇 王靜靜

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：

關(guān)于文化和智力之間關(guān)系的研究諸多，其產(chǎn)生的一個積極成果是全面了解了智力的概念，以及它是如何在概念上與文化聯(lián)系在一起的。因為在過去記錄文化差異的研究中，可能的干擾因素之一是智力的概念和內(nèi)涵在文化上的差異，因此針對智力的跨文化調(diào)查與這個問題錯綜復(fù)雜、聯(lián)系緊密。

該領(lǐng)域的研究人員已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)，許多語言中都沒有任何詞匯與智力相匹配。比如，“聰慧而有天賦”是普通話中最接近“智力”的詞匯。中國人通常將這一概念與模仿、努力和社會責(zé)任感等特征聯(lián)系起來。然而，對于大多數(shù)美國人來說，這樣的特征并非構(gòu)成智力這一概念的重要因素。

非洲文化很好地證明了這一點。東非巴干達(dá)人使用“obugezi”一詞表示將精神和社會技能結(jié)合起來，人會因此而堅定可靠、謹(jǐn)小慎微、溫和友善。西非哲爾馬桑海使用的“akkal”有著更加廣泛的含義，它是智力、專業(yè)技術(shù)和社會技能的統(tǒng)一體。另外，非洲的巴烏萊族是另一個社會團(tuán)體，那里使用“nglouele”來描述這樣類型的孩子，他們頭腦機(jī)靈，并且愿意主動承擔(dān)志愿服務(wù)工作。

正因為文化定義智力的方式極為不同，因此有效地比較不同的社會團(tuán)體并非易事。也就是說，不同的文化有著不同的特征（對“智力”的定義），并且對于哪種特征預(yù)測未來重要行為有益這一方面有著不同的觀點。不同文化處境下的人們不僅對智力的構(gòu)成因素莫衷一是，而且對于展示這些能力的正確方式也頗有不同見解。在北美主流社會，個體若能積極展示才智和技能，定會有所回報。相反，在強(qiáng)調(diào)人際關(guān)系、合作和謙遜等理念的社會，這種行為則是不正確的，是狂妄自大和粗魯?shù)谋憩F(xiàn)。

這些差異的重要性對于研究智力的跨文化領(lǐng)域不可小覷。因為，雖成功實施某一智力任務(wù)，但這種行為可能在甲文化中卻是自我吹噓、狂妄自大的表現(xiàn)（因此，這種文化下的人們厭惡這樣做）。相反，這種行為卻在乙文化社會中備受推崇（因此，生活在這種文化下的人們很樂意展示這種行為）。很明顯，同樣的行為，不同的態(tài)度，可能會導(dǎo)致研究人員針對甲乙不同文化智力的差異得出不精確的結(jié)論。

從跨文化角度對比智力非常困難，其中另一原因是，檢驗智力通常依賴于某個特定文化的知識；這種文化下的研究人員甚至可能并不知道在不同文化下要檢測的是什么。舉例而言，美國一項智力測驗包含以下內(nèi)容：“小提琴和鋼琴的相似點是什么？”顯然，這個問題假設(shè)接受測試者對小提琴和鋼琴已具備認(rèn)知，的確是美國中產(chǎn)階級的合理預(yù)期，然而對于使用不同樂器、來自不同文化的人來說，這種預(yù)期并不合理。

我們對于文化差異中智力這一概念的認(rèn)知在不斷擴(kuò)大，已經(jīng)對我們從理論上理解美國主流心理學(xué)中的智力問題產(chǎn)生了重大意義。盡管在過去，傳統(tǒng)思維能力和推理能力支配著大眾對于智力的看法，但是近年來，心理學(xué)家開始將注意力轉(zhuǎn)而投向智力其它可能的領(lǐng)域。比如，直到最近，創(chuàng)造力還并非屬于智力的一部分；然而現(xiàn)在，心理學(xué)家正逐漸將這種重要的人類能力當(dāng)作智力的一種類型。智力的其它方面也正在成為人們關(guān)注的焦點。某心理學(xué)家認(rèn)為，智力有七中不同的類型，分別是：邏輯數(shù)學(xué)智力、語言智力、音樂智力、空間智力、身體動覺智力、人際關(guān)系智力以及內(nèi)省智力。根據(jù)這一方案，不僅智力的七大核心成分互不相同，而且一些范例的最終狀態(tài)（比如數(shù)學(xué)家和舞蹈家）也有所差異。這位心理學(xué)家的多元智力理論加深了我們對于智力的理解：除了“書本智慧”，智力還涵蓋其它領(lǐng)域。

也許，這一領(lǐng)域的研究者們正逐步意識到，從廣義上講，智力可能更適合定義為“有效完成文化目標(biāo)的必要技能。”舉例而言，假設(shè)你的文化目標(biāo)是成功尋找到薪酬豐厚的專業(yè)職位，你可以因此而負(fù)擔(dān)自己和家人的開銷，那么這一文化目標(biāo)將會培養(yǎng)一種智力觀，其中包含了認(rèn)知技能和感情技能，使你可以追求到心儀的職位。這些技能可能包括演繹推論技能、邏輯思維技能、語言能力和數(shù)學(xué)能力，這些技能正是現(xiàn)代美國文化會培養(yǎng)的技能。然而，如果你的文化目標(biāo)更多關(guān)注的是發(fā)展并維護(hù)良好的人際關(guān)系、與自然共處、狩獵和采集，智力可能就傾向于與這些活動相關(guān)的技能。

因此在某種程度上，所有文化的人們對于智力有著相似的觀點，即：智力是涵蓋范圍極廣的術(shù)語概念，它總結(jié)了在某個文化里有效生活的必要技能。然而，文化差異也同時自然而然存在著，因為只有實現(xiàn)了這些目標(biāo)，才能理解文化定義目標(biāo)和技能的差異。未來還需要深入研究這些兩個過程，其一是探索文化間的共性和差異，其二是探索什么樣的語境變量會影響與智力有關(guān)的行為，并明白其原因。

有關(guān)智力方面文化差異的認(rèn)知引出了成績檢驗和成績用途的難題。是否應(yīng)該在損害檢驗預(yù)測效度的情況下去除檢測的偏見？如今，許多教育機(jī)構(gòu)和企業(yè)組織會面對這樣的難題，即要承擔(dān)法律后果，或者持續(xù)面臨訴訟的威脅。我們也許需要考慮智力的另一方面，也就是我們對待智力的態(tài)度。從跨文化角度理解智力的定義和過程的差異，會讓我們更加欣賞并尊重不同于我們的文化，有利于發(fā)現(xiàn)人與人之間的相似點和差異性。

作者簡介

任才淇（1992年-），女，漢族，山西孝義人，首都師范大學(xué)外國語學(xué)院，碩士研究生，英語筆譯方向。

王靜靜（1992年-），女，漢族，山西晉城人，首都師范大學(xué)外國語學(xué)院，碩士研究生，英語筆譯方向。

（作者單位：首都師范大學(xué)）