Starting on page 36, Shenk breaks down the concept behind the IQ Test and its inability to “objectively” measure intelligence (39). Different assessments have been made in the past, such as the SAT test, Spearman’s “general intelligence” test, etc. that try to track a person’s abilities in the world. However, such tests are unable to measure other intelligence aspects like the “carton calculus” situation (48).
In that specific “carton calculus” incident, does/should intelligence measure less noticeable factors, like a worker’s ability to maximize efficiency? Is there truth to the biological niche in humans, that some people are better suited for “blue collar” jobs as opposed to “white collar” (49)? Possibly apply this to Ivars Peterson’s A Dog, a Ball, and Calculus, where his dog similarly functioned like a dairy plant worker to fetch a ball the fastest way possible. Are Shenk’s and other real-world examples a case of innate learned abilities?
Nathan Ro (nathanro94@gmail.com)
IQ tests, the ACT and the SAT can never truly measure a person's intelligence because intelligence can exist in many different ways or aspects, such as the dog and the workers who learned through repetition how to do something the best. There is no way to accurately and fully test a person's intelligence because it is always evolving, and talents/smarts differ from person to person. Einstein failed the entrance exam to a prestigious secondary school because he flunked the liberal arts section, yet he is considered a great genius today. What is wrong about achievement tests is that they measure abilities in many different subjects while great minds tend to nurture and focus on one subject their entire lives. There is no way to test genius, or 'less noticeable' intelligence, but this doesn't mean that standardized tests or IQ tests should be thrown in the garbage. Though they are not perfect indicators of intelligence, they do indicate somethings about general intelligence levels. It just means that we should not put as much of an emphasis on the results of these kinds of tests, knowing that they can never measure our current or potential intelligence or limitations.
ReplyDeleteWhile people are not born to be white-collared or blue-collared workers, their experiences and environment growing up play a large role in what they end up doing. As Shenk points out, children who are talked to more as children tend to become more talkative and literate as they grow up. Similarly, an environment of encouragement and parents or role models setting goals of achievement influence children to reach higher goals, and perhaps land white-collared rather than blue-collared jobs. This is demonstrated in the novel, Brave New World, where 'classes' or people are raised to perform certain level jobs and tasks. Not only are they bred a certain way (alteration of genes), but they are also brought up in an environment that constantly sets limits and goals for them specifically so that they will be 'happy' doing whatever tasks they were born to do. As children, a mantra of advice and ideals are repeated to them as they sleep, demonstrating that environment, not innate ability or genepools, truly affect a person's ultimate lifestyle, and, level of work.
Emily Reinherz...ereinherz@aol.com
David Shenk is certainly not making the case in this book that “innate” abilities exist in humans. In fact, he even discourages the use of the words like “innate” or “natural” to describe athletic abilities. He even comments that “high academic achievers are not necessarily born ‘smarter’ than others, but work harder and develop more self-discipline” (Shenk 51). In truth, the “carton calculus” incident will probably support the theory that environment and need have the greatest effect on intelligence. Shenk states on page 47 that “children develop only as the environment demands development”. It is interesting then that the factory workers intelligence did not come out of desire to study or a genetic wisdom, but simply a survival skill. It benefited their bodies more to work in a more efficient pattern, therefore, their environment demanded a creation of a more effective method or organization. These workers may not have wanted to develop such abilities, but their environment put on a pressure that helped them evolve. This pertains to the theme of evolution as it applies to natural selection. This process of humans developing such abilities over time is something that is often observed in nature. A person that is smart enough to figure out how to do work more efficiently, quicker or with less harm to the body is the one that may live longer, or rise up in social standing to achieve marital status more easily. Human society still functions on a blueprint of natural selection and Darwinism, where the strongest (or the smartest) survive and live to pass on their knowledge to their children.
ReplyDeleteDavid Shenk does continue with a critique of generalized IQ testing and then to the very definition of intelligence. Shenk often states in this book that intelligence is a process not a thing and therefore is very elusive to measure or quantify through testing. On page 39, he quotes Carl Birgham, the creator of the SAT, in saying that “one of the most glorious fallacies in the history of science, namely that the tests measured native intelligence purely and simply without regard to training or schooling”. He tries to emphasize that intelligence is not something that is given, but rather is earned through hard work. In this way, it would be very hard for a test to be able to measure a process. These tests would have to be highly specialized to account many environmental factors that surround different children or adults who seek to take these tests. As Emily Reinherz mentioned in her response, intelligence is always changing and evolving it different situations as people grow and experience new environments. Intelligence is never a “fixed” thing and it is not something that can be fully defined. Stephen Murdoch author of the book IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea argues that IQ scores are a flawed measurement of intellectual ability. He asks in an interview with NPR news radio “How did schools, businesses, and governments decide that these rough, narrow estimates of innate intelligence, these stress-producing tests consisting of a series of discrete little problems, are the best way to decide who is worthy and unworthy in countless settings?”. Murdoch questions the credibility of these tests, and so do I. I would say that IQ tests are not pragmatic enough in their approach to intelligence. They take into account skills that are learned in school, or other cognitive abilities, but they fail to take into account the minds ability to adapt to a new situation applying those skills. Much like the “carton calculus” scenario, IQ tests could never measure how effective or useful a person “intelligence” could be and these test should therefore be abandoned as anything remotely conclusive about human limits or potential.
(Liz Gorelick lizgorelick@yahoo.com)