Shenk refers to footnote 50, in which Sternberg compares intelligence tests and achievement tests, such as the SAT. Sternberg realized that it was hard for him to find "any real difference between them" (230). He found that the actual tests aren't the distinguishing factors, but how "psychologists, educators, and other interpret the scores on these tests" (230). Footnote 51 goes onto say how intelligence isn't fixed, but rather a dynamic and ongoing process. Sternberg argues how "no current tests actually measure built-in intelligence and that intelligence tests are rather measuring how well a child learned" certain skills at school (231).
So Do you think there is any way to measure innate intelligence? Is there even such a thing as innate intelligence? How much does it affect actual intelligence and learning abilities? Are these IQ tests accurate? If not, then what is the purpose of IQ tests?
-Arjun Ahuja (aahuja12@gmail.com)
Sternberg is saying that there is innate knowledge, but there is no way to measure it as it is changing continuously. According to the Flynn Effect, over the generations, the intelligence of the people is growing, therefore over the generations there is natural intelligence. Sternberg’s equation for Intelligence is (mental age)/(chronological age) multiplied by 100, so he is saying that there is a set equation for intelligence where the average age determines where in a bell curve distribution one individual is set in.
ReplyDeleteSternberg believes in 3 intelligences called the Triarchic theory of Intelligence of Practical, Creative, and Analytic which shapes your overall knowledge. Sternberg says: “there are different ways to be smart but ultimately what you want to do is to take the components, apply them to your experience, and use them to adapt to, select, and shape your environment.”
There is not a way to measure innate knowledge, according to GxE, this could influence the way your knowledge changes, and then in the end from what you learn, would be acquired knowledge, and by that time innate knowledge can’t be measured. Also I don’t think a test could be made to “measure” innate knowledge as it differs from individual to individual, from topic to topic, so that would be a wide range.
I believe that innate knowledge would affect actual intelligence and learning abilities as some people have mental retardation, which refers to sub average general mental ability accompanied by deficiencies in adaptive skills, originating before age 18, and some have giftedness. These are not always caused by genetics or environment factors; therefore there must be some innate knowledge within each individual.
IQ tests are accurate as they are designed by psychologists to study the intelligence of an individual to see if they are placed in the normal distribution, a symmetric, bell-shaped curve that represents the pattern in which many characteristics are dispersed in the population. They have validity, but only to measure academic work, as it gets to a broader sense, it is questionable. There are also different kinds of intelligence, like verbal, practical, and social intelligence, so it would be hard to test them all by using a simple IQ tests, but by taking very unbiased and valid IQ tests (more than one) that can be more accurate.
Sruthi(gangasruthi@gmail.com)
Used the Textbook Psychology Themes & Variations(Intelligence & Psychological Testing)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that people are born with varying levels of intelligence, but this is drastically offset by numerous other factors. Even this statement is conditional, as Shenk questions, "Was intelligence a facility in logical reasoning? Spatial visualization? Mathematical abstraction? Physical coordination?" (37). There is theoretically not a true innate "intelligence", because intelligence has so many aspects that it is almost impossible to measure it according to a single standard. Therefore, IQ tests do not accurately measure intelligence for 2 reasons: first, because its tests that measure "intelligence" do not indicate assets that will more likely contribute to success, such as hard work or people skills. Also, IQ tests, in many cases, do not correlate with grades that a person will recieve; an average scorer could have high grades while a high scorer might have mediocre grades. Second, IQ tests are inaccurate because they do not account for the growth or expansion of a individual's performance due to practice. This makes IQ tests detrimental as a fixed mindset because it implies that a person's intelligence is fixed when it is in fact the opposite.
ReplyDeleteExternal factors such as family, upbringing, schooling, and environment can affect the "intelligence" of a child much more than genetics; in most situations, these external factors have a much stronger influence. A recent Harvard study showed that intelligence is not tied to a couple of specific genes; it was based on much more complex interactions between genetic variants and external influences. Genes that supposedly influenced intelligence were found either to not serve this function or have a greatly reduced role- Christopher Chabris says, "But, in retrospect, either the findings were false positives or the effects of the genes are much, much smaller than anyone had anticipated". Therefore, genes that may or may not affect a person's "innate intelligence" do not impact their capacity to learn or expand their abilities.
I disagree with Sruthi when she said IQ tests are designed to "study the intelligence of an individual to see if they are placed in the normal distribution..." because these tests are not always consistent even with academic "intelligence" markers such as grades. Also, some of the greatest thinkers, most talented musicians, and successful people in general do not all have higher IQ scores than an average person. This shows that the number from an IQ test is just a number-it has not been shown to reliably foretell success, academic or otherwise. However, I agree with her concept of a reasonably innate knowledge that is lacking in mentally disabled people. People are born with varying levels on intelligence on a bell curve, but it only makes a significant difference when one is on the extreme end, such as with mental retardation. Being more or less anywhere else on the bell curve results in an almost nominal difference in intelligence that is much more dependent on work ethic, environment, and mindset.
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120224140506.htm)
-Akila Khan (starlight608@gmail.com)