Conceptual review investigates how high-stakes environments reshape intelligence functions, implying diverse implications for various sectors.
This conceptual integrative review and theoretical proposal investigates how the functional architecture of Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence is reconfigured when the framework is translocated from low-risk academic settings, in which analytical intelligence predominates, to high-stakes professional environments characterised by extreme cognitive load, temporal compression, irreversible consequences, and multicultural team dynamics. To construct a mechanistic account of this translocation, we integrate the triarchic framework with three complementary cognitive–ecological traditions—Cognitive Load Theory, the three-level model of Situational Awareness, and the distributed-cognition tradition—and we use the maritime industry as a paradigmatic case where communication failures are directly implicated in catastrophic outcomes. On this basis we propose a Context-Dependent Reweighting Model of Successful Intelligence which maps how, under high-stakes conditions, practical intelligence shifts from a supporting role to a central, integrative function that operates in part through distributed cognitive systems, while creative intelligence assumes elevated weight for adaptive problem-solving when standardised procedures fail. We treat this reweighting as a theoretical proposition supported by convergent but heterogeneous secondary evidence, and we frame the cross-domain extension to aviation, emergency medicine, military operations, and other safety-critical sectors as theoretically plausible parallels and hypotheses for future empirical testing rather than as established empirical claims. The review concludes by articulating implications for intelligence research, proposing a pedagogical framework operationalised through a Triarchic Maritime ESP curriculum, and explicitly delimiting the boundary conditions and limitations of the present contribution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: