This week, we had several discussions on special topics, culture and neuroscience and their effects on intelligence. I found the first discussion on culture and intelligence to be particularly interesting, mainly because I have already taken Intro to Neuroscience. Going into the conversation, I had thought that Sternberg's fourth model was the best (intelligence is different across cultures and must be measured differently).
As the class discussion progressed, I found myself beginning to side more and more with his third model, that intelligence is the same across cultures but must be measured in different ways. I think that different cultures value different skills, but there still must be one overall human intelligence that can be measured across cultures. Using the fourth model makes it nearly impossible to come up with this "score". I was surprised to find that my opinion changed after just one class discussion. I do still believe in multiple intelligences, but I think there are problems with Sternberg's fourth model because it seems to focus more on specialized skills instead of overall human intelligence.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Malleable vs. Fixed Intelligence - Week 5
This week, my partner and I participated in a debate on whether intelligence is fixed or malleable. We argued the side that intelligence is malleable. Overall, I was pleased with how the debate went. I thought both sides were well-prepared and able to make convincing arguments. However, I do wish that we had met with the opposing side prior to the debate so we could go over the stances we were taking.
I think there was some confusion, since the fixed side argued that intelligence was malleable only to a certain extent because of preconceived limits. This caused the debate to become a bit confusing, as it seemed at times that we were arguing the same point. We used this confusion as a counterargument, and looking back, I think it was a little unfair for us to do so, because we had not met up beforehand to discuss our sides. However, I think overall our debate was successful and brought up a lot of interesting points and questions. I was nervous going into the debate because I dread public speaking, but I was surprised that I was able to keep it together under pressure and present our arguments relatively clearly (even though I had the prepared notes in front of me!). Even though the debate was confusing at times, I thought that it was successful overall.
I think there was some confusion, since the fixed side argued that intelligence was malleable only to a certain extent because of preconceived limits. This caused the debate to become a bit confusing, as it seemed at times that we were arguing the same point. We used this confusion as a counterargument, and looking back, I think it was a little unfair for us to do so, because we had not met up beforehand to discuss our sides. However, I think overall our debate was successful and brought up a lot of interesting points and questions. I was nervous going into the debate because I dread public speaking, but I was surprised that I was able to keep it together under pressure and present our arguments relatively clearly (even though I had the prepared notes in front of me!). Even though the debate was confusing at times, I thought that it was successful overall.
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Multiple Intelligences - Week 4
This week, we began our debates about intelligence. For the first debate, we discussed whether or not there are multiple intelligences. I thought that both sides presented compelling arguments, although I do still believe there are multiple intelligences. However, I think that the presence of multiple intelligences does not mean that there cannot be one general measure of intelligence, and vice versa. I think it is nearly impossible to establish a "scoring system" of sorts to determine how much of one skill is equivalent to another.
For example, is a renowned author considered more intelligent than an individual who is an expert mechanic? Is the reverse true? If we considered the two of them equal in intelligence, would we consider the mechanic to be more intelligent if we discovered he was also highly skilled in the art of flower arranging? The problem with measuring intelligence based on skills is that this is not a video game. We cannot level ourselves up, get bonus points for skills, and choose the best character on the start-up screen based on the total number of skill points they have, no matter the distribution. We are so unique as individuals, and our skills and talents reflect that. I think it is extremely difficult to "measure" intelligence, especially when we consider multiple intelligences.
For example, is a renowned author considered more intelligent than an individual who is an expert mechanic? Is the reverse true? If we considered the two of them equal in intelligence, would we consider the mechanic to be more intelligent if we discovered he was also highly skilled in the art of flower arranging? The problem with measuring intelligence based on skills is that this is not a video game. We cannot level ourselves up, get bonus points for skills, and choose the best character on the start-up screen based on the total number of skill points they have, no matter the distribution. We are so unique as individuals, and our skills and talents reflect that. I think it is extremely difficult to "measure" intelligence, especially when we consider multiple intelligences.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Theory Meets Practice - Week 3
As we continue to explore different definitions of intelligence and various ways of testing, I wonder if and how certain disabilities are factored into the score. For example, in our book, there are ten different skills listed that fall under the category of crystallized intelligence. Many of these skills rely the test administrator to read aloud a word or short passage. How do these tests accommodate for test takers that have hearing impairments? Writing down these passages or instructions counteracts what the test creators wanted for their test, which was to have an intelligence test that did not rely directly on the participant's reading abilities.
I think intelligence tests are inherently problematic and we will not find a way to "measure" intelligence without alienating some group or ignoring external factors. In my opinion, there is no one way of defining intelligence because there are so many ways it can be expressed or influenced. There are some people who may be proficient in multiple areas of what we may call intelligence, and this may be the definition of intelligence that we are looking for, but again, there are too many factors that may have influenced this person's upbringing.
Even in schools, we can see multiple sources of what we could call intelligence. Children in the "gifted and talented" programs would be easy to label as more intelligent, but perhaps they just learn at a faster pace than others and are thus placed into theses accelerated programs. The children in grade-level courses are by no means unintelligent; perhaps they have certain learning disabilities that limit the speed at which they can learn content, or maybe their home environment is not conducive to the extra work and projects that the accelerated programs require. The point being, there is really no one concrete way of measuring intelligence. My cousin, for example, performed poorly in school because he has severe dyslexia and it made all schoolwork extremely difficult and time-consuming. Today, he is a master plumber and extremely good at what he does. He outperformed other employees years older than him, even without the years of experience that they had. He was called a prodigy by his employer. My cousin almost didn't graduate from high school, and he certainly did not attend college. The only reason that he doesn't start his own plumbing company, he says, is because he wouldn't be able to do the paperwork. I certainly wouldn't call him less intelligent than others because he struggles with reading and writing, as some intelligence tests would. I find intelligence tests to be less than helpful because it can only truly measure "intelligence" in a select few, as long as external and personal factors are ignored.
I think intelligence tests are inherently problematic and we will not find a way to "measure" intelligence without alienating some group or ignoring external factors. In my opinion, there is no one way of defining intelligence because there are so many ways it can be expressed or influenced. There are some people who may be proficient in multiple areas of what we may call intelligence, and this may be the definition of intelligence that we are looking for, but again, there are too many factors that may have influenced this person's upbringing.
Even in schools, we can see multiple sources of what we could call intelligence. Children in the "gifted and talented" programs would be easy to label as more intelligent, but perhaps they just learn at a faster pace than others and are thus placed into theses accelerated programs. The children in grade-level courses are by no means unintelligent; perhaps they have certain learning disabilities that limit the speed at which they can learn content, or maybe their home environment is not conducive to the extra work and projects that the accelerated programs require. The point being, there is really no one concrete way of measuring intelligence. My cousin, for example, performed poorly in school because he has severe dyslexia and it made all schoolwork extremely difficult and time-consuming. Today, he is a master plumber and extremely good at what he does. He outperformed other employees years older than him, even without the years of experience that they had. He was called a prodigy by his employer. My cousin almost didn't graduate from high school, and he certainly did not attend college. The only reason that he doesn't start his own plumbing company, he says, is because he wouldn't be able to do the paperwork. I certainly wouldn't call him less intelligent than others because he struggles with reading and writing, as some intelligence tests would. I find intelligence tests to be less than helpful because it can only truly measure "intelligence" in a select few, as long as external and personal factors are ignored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)