Intelligence, whatever way we wish to discuss it, is a highly-regarded faculty, but it’s problematic. Researchers consider the term intelligence to be too broad to be helpful in understanding human behaviour and personality. The word simply does not allow us to discuss the depth and breadth of human abilities–or indeed their growth and development–in any meaningful way. But that doesn’t stop people from using it to pigeonhole other people
Find out about Sunday Letters
I’m Larry Maguire, work psychologist. Read how technology is changing how we work and get essays on leadership, culture, well-being and performance every week in Sunday Letters.
Support Sunday Letters
Sunday Letters is the weekly newsletter on life and work. Consider Supporting Sunday Letters and get access to the members’ community, access reserved content, discounts & other perks. And crucially, you’ll be supporting independent thinking and writing.
I teach personality theory – identity, concepts of the self, individual differences, etc. As if these things we identify in ourselves and others really exist. There are many perspectives on personality: psychoanalytic (freud), humanistic (Maslow), Behaviourist (Skinner), Trait (Goldberg), Type (Jung), Evolutionary (Buss), and Neurological (Fisher), to name a few. They all have merit, and they are not necessarily contradictory. We might form a more holistic picture of the human condition when taken together, but they all miss something. The problem is, I can’t quite put my finger on it. Therefore, I question the existence of a self or personality at all. Just because I believe myself to be, because I convince myself of my own existence by virtue of my thoughts and words…