[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-294680-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-294680-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","dissecting-practical-intelligence-theory-its-claims-and-evidence","Dissecting practical intelligence theory - Its claims and evidence","","Sternberg et al. argue for a general factor of practical intelligence distinct from academic intelligence that predicts future success at least as well as g. Close examination of their theoretical and empirical foundations undermines this claim: key propositions rely on disregarding contradictory evidence, six empirical claims rest largely on the illusion of evidence supported by selective reporting, and limited studies on tacit knowledge in five occupations cannot dethrone g as the most general mental ability.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/dissecting-practical-intelligence-theory-its-claims-and-evidence/294680/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/dissecting-practical-intelligence-theory-its-claims-and-evidence/294680.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Jake","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-02","2026-09-18",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",12,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What core claim do Sternberg et al. make about practical intelligence?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"They argue for a general factor of practical intelligence distinct from academic intelligence, predicting future success at least as well as g.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why does Gottfredson state the evidence collapses upon close examination?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The theoretical propositions are made plausible by ignoring substantial contradicting evidence, and the empirical claims are described as relying on an illusion of evidence enhanced by selective reporting.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What aspect of practical intelligence does the article focus on for scrutiny?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The paper concentrates on research concerning tacit knowledge, described as a particularly important aspect of practical intelligence and the aspect measured by Sternberg et al.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},294680,1789698180,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},962084928904,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Intelligence 31 (2003) 343–397  \nDissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence  \nLinda S. Gottfredson*  \nSchool of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA Received 24 February 2001; received in revised form 20 September 2001; accepted 8 November 2001  \nAbstract  \nSternberg et al. [Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J. A., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., Snook, S. A., Grigorenko, E. L. (2000) . Practical intelligence in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press] review the theoretical and empirical supports for their bold claim that there exists a general factor of practical intelligence that is distinct from ‘‘academic intelligence’’(g) and which predicts future success as well as g, if not better. The evidence collapses, however, upon close examination. Their two key theoretical propositions are made plausible only by ignoring the considerable evidence contradicting them. Their six key empirical claims rest primarily on the illusion of evidence, which is enhanced by the selective reporting of results. Their small set of usually poorly documented studies on the correlates of tacit knowledge (the ‘‘important aspect of practical intelligence’’) in five occupations cannot, whatever the results, do what the work is said to have done—dethroned g as the only highly general mental ability or intelligence.  \nD 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.  \n1. Introduction  \nCritics of the general intelligence factor, g, often assert that it is merely ‘‘book smarts’’ and, therefore, can provide little or no advantage in the real world. Among the various multiple intelligence theories (e.g., Gardner, 1983; Goleman, 1995; for critical reviews, see Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; Hunt, 2001; Lubinski & Benbow, 1995; Messick, 1992), Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence (Sternberg, 1985, 1988, 1997; Sternberg et al.,  \n* Tel.: +1-302-831-1650; fax: +1-302-831-6058 .  \nE-mail address: [gottfred@udel.edu](gottfred@udel.edu) (L.S. Gottfredson).  \n0160-2896/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00085-5  \n344 L.S. Gottfredson / Intelligence 31 (2003) 343–397  \n2000) is the most explicit in positing separate intelligences for academic and practical affairs. State Sternberg et al. (2000, pp. xi–xii):  \n[W]e argue that practical intelligence is a construct that is distinct from general intelligence and that... [it] is at least as good a predictor of future success as is the academic form of intelligence that is commonly assessed by tests of so-called general intelligence [g] . Arguably, practical intelligence is a better predictor of success.  \nThis conclusion, they suggest (p. xii), is based on much evidence:  \n[W]e have collected data testing our theories from many studies in many parts of the world with many different populations and have published most of these data (some are too recent to have been published) in refereed scientific journals.  \nSternberg et al.’s (2000) claim is a bold and important one: bold because it seems to defy the huge edifice of research results showing that g forms the common backbone of all mental abilities; and important because, if true, it would require a major reorientation in scientific thinking on intelligence. Their summaries of the research can seem impressive at first glance, but the work itself has received little scrutiny from mainstream intelligence researchers. g theorists have criticized certain aspects of the work on practical intelligence (e.g., Barrett & Depinet, 1991; Jensen, 1993; Ree & Earles, 1993; Schmidt & Hunter, 1993), but, to my knowledge, only one (Brody, 2003) has examined any part of it closely.1  \nMy aim here is to provide a close and thorough examination of the theory and research that Sternberg et al. offer and how they offer it. I examine the concept of practical intelligence and then its supporting research. I look especially at the research o","cbCait9uDxuzKpA2","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCait9uDxuzKpA2","pdf",460409,55,"English","# Introduction\n## Practical intelligence vs. academic intelligence\n## Examination of the theory and supporting evidence\n## Focus on tacit knowledge research","[{\"question\":\"What core claim do Sternberg et al. make about practical intelligence?\",\"answer\":\"They argue for a general factor of practical intelligence distinct from academic intelligence, predicting future success at least as well as g.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does Gottfredson state the evidence collapses upon close examination?\",\"answer\":\"The theoretical propositions are made plausible by ignoring substantial contradicting evidence, and the empirical claims are described as relying on an illusion of evidence enhanced by selective reporting.\"},{\"question\":\"What aspect of practical intelligence does the article focus on for scrutiny?\",\"answer\":\"The paper concentrates on research concerning tacit knowledge, described as a particularly important aspect of practical intelligence and the aspect measured by Sternberg et al.\"}]","Dissecting practical intelligence theory - Its claims and evidence | PDF",139]