Terman's experiment was to see whether children who were exceptionally smart during childhood would become successful when they became adults. (278-279) In the end, while the students he selected to monitor were somewhat successful, many people that he had passed over during inspection became famous intellectuals such as Nobel Prize winners. The students were judged by their IQ score. They were also picked by their teachers. This would have some bias, as socially awkward students or students that the teacher did not like would not be picked, while social and friendly students would have been more likely to be chosen. Also, the majority of students were white and middle class. This narrow range of subjects could also have skewed the results of the experiment. Terman also altered the results by making it easier for his students to get into good schools and to succeed.
Was Terman's experiment proof that environment has a large influence on a person's development? Was his experimental design flawed so that the result wasn't accurate? Or could it be both?
Terman's experiment was largely biased, which severely restricts Shenk's claim: that the environment is the largest determinant in "success" or "intelligence." As mentioned above, the majority of test subjects were "overwhelmingly white and middle-class" (278). This flaw in experimental design can be connected with Shenk's earlier findings that wealthier, more affluent homes, exposed their children to more words, in effect, creating "smarter" kids. While Shenk also discredits the IQ Test as a reliable measuring tool of someone's intelligence, Terman still uses it to choose his test subjects. Therefore, his subjects were, presumably, from a home that cultivates education and also tested to be relatively smarter than the majority of the population. As such, the increased environmental advantage should have produced an equally advantaged product, however, Terman notes that "none of his subjects grew up to be extraordinary adult achievers" (91). Based on these conclusions, Shenk's argument falters that environment dictates success. While one experiment does not completely discredit his revelation, it is still important to note the implications made by Terman' experiment.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the opposite argument can also be made by those that do succeed despite not being "gifted" with a high IQ or the ideal upbringing. Examples from a website include Henry Ford, Walt Disney, Einstein, and even Darwin. Their success can be attributed to a societal system of positive feedback. Their own work ethic and drive elicited even more work and success, thus proved the fact that feedback "is a regulatory motif common to life at all levels, from the molecular level to ecosystems and the biosphere" (Campbell 11). Conversely, a bright student's inability to produce success can be (but is not necessarily) attributed to negative feedback: where complacency can prevent someone from being that "Nobel Prize winner."
http://www.onlinecollege.org/2010/02/16/50-famously-successful-people-who-failed-at-first/
Nathan Ro (nathanro94@gmail.com)
Although Terman’s experiments cannot 100% prove certain positive or negative environmental influences on personal development, it does offer some reasoning to a person’s individual success. Also, his experiments could also be viewed as particularly biased because his test subjects were “mostly middle class and mostly white; there were just two African Americans, which Terman took care to note ‘are both part white.’” (Shenk 279). Basically, this shows Terman’s focused on one specific group of people. Though this could be viewed as a way to increase accuracy of results by narrowing the observed group, Terman could have selected a more diverse subject groups with different wealth groups and ethnic backgrounds in order to increase the validity of his research experiment. So, this shows Terman’s experiments were both flawed in experimental design as well as lacking in validity.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the fact that none of Terman’s selections proceeded to succeed exceptionally and two children rejected from Terman’s original group turned out to receive the Nobel Prize, could support Shenk’s argument of environmental factors affecting success. This is true because the children rejected from his original group were obviously of a different wealth group and ethnic background. Therefore, their life could have been drastically different than all those in the Terman experiment. Because of this, their lives ended up being considerably different as well. Though some of them could have failed due to environmental factors, many of them proceeded to be the best of the best because of environmental factors. So, in conclusion, this proof both disproves the validity of Shenk’s claim of environmental factors on individual success and passively asserts the legitimacy of Shenk’s claim of environmental factors on individual success.
-Sachin Vasikaran (sachinvasikaran@gmail.com)