Evidence:
In page 231 Shenk describes how the tests taken in the western world is flawed in that the skills taught in school determine the level of a person's "raw intelligence, when all they actually reveal is how a well a child learned those skills." at the same time he is saying that intelligence is "not directly measurable". In this society however tests such as the SAT, the ACT, and the IQ determine where we are placed in society. Shenk compares that these scores don't determine the other varying skills a person develops in their lifetime based on their difference in society growth such as "a housewives ability in comparison shopping math and scores on pencile-and-paper math tests" and the ability to "survive in a difficult environment" (p.232) These so called things we call intelligence are "a form of development competencies that can lead to expertiese" (p.233)
In page 231 Shenk describes how the tests taken in the western world is flawed in that the skills taught in school determine the level of a person's "raw intelligence, when all they actually reveal is how a well a child learned those skills." at the same time he is saying that intelligence is "not directly measurable". In this society however tests such as the SAT, the ACT, and the IQ determine where we are placed in society. Shenk compares that these scores don't determine the other varying skills a person develops in their lifetime based on their difference in society growth such as "a housewives ability in comparison shopping math and scores on pencile-and-paper math tests" and the ability to "survive in a difficult environment" (p.232) These so called things we call intelligence are "a form of development competencies that can lead to expertiese" (p.233)
Is there really no absolute way to determine a person's "raw intelligence? Does intelligence come more from nature or more from nurture? Do the tests taken determine the gene expressions passed down from a parent? In other words does intelligence come from offspring to offspring or from intelligence to intelligence? Also how would you determine a person's intelligence ranking?
Christine Park (go2christine@hotmail.com)
There really is no absolute way to determine a person’s “raw intelligence”. Of course, as Sternberg pointed out, it exists, but “skills and abilities are inextricably interwoven and that all skills are modifiable” (231). So, who’s to say one skill is more important than another and what skills ‘make the list’ when accounting for ‘raw intelligence’? Intelligence is defined as “the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations” by Mirriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligence). Intelligence, while it may seem like some are born with more than others, I believe it just depends on how the environment they grew up in. The environment the person grew/grows up in heavily determines what skills he/she develop and what type of new situations he/she can handle. For example, a person growing up in the woods would have more of an adaptive response and intelligence to a sudden movement while hunting. On the other hand, though, a kid growing up in the city probably wouldn’t know how to react. This model can go both ways. A student growing up in the city’s finest schools will know exactly how to take a standardized test; but for the student who may have moved from a life living in the outdoors, dealing with the situation of taking a standardized test is a lot more difficult and confusing. The environment we grow up in strongly affects what areas of intelligence we’re stronger in. Some people may be stronger in one area than another, so how is it possible to measure one’s intelligence? It’s really not: the term is too broad, for nature develops the intelligence and its type. A person gains intelligence through experience, so measuring purely “raw” or “innate” intelligence is impossible.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, standardized tests taken do not fully reflect one’s intelligence as a whole. The gene expression is largely dependent, not as largely on genes passed down by parents, by how the parents raised their kid. It is very popularly believed that ‘all Asians are smart’. But, it can be seen that they perform well because they were trained as such. In a household where discipline, respect of elders, and hard work are stressed, the offspring adapts to that environment, learning associatively (operant conditioning) and building cognition (the process of knowing represented by awareness, reasoning, recollection, and judgment”) through problem solving adapted specially to skills needed to live in that household (Campbell 1127-1128). Therefore, these are the students who, most of the time, perform better on tests (http://www.coedu.usf.edu/zalaquett/mcdp/Asian%20handout.htm) . This reflects the nature of organisms to do what it takes to “survive and reproduce”, reflecting upon the popular biological concept. This, in turn, relates back to evolution. Through natural selection, those with better cognition abilities and intelligence would live to survive and reproduce. But, with each birth, an offspring would need to develop these skills all over again. If the offspring ended up growing up in a different area and was not able to adapt, the offspring’s intelligence would not save it from falling victim to not being able to survive and reproduce. Therefore, again stressing the importance of intelligence relating to how an organism was raised and its environment.
Intelligence, like learning, is always continuing growth. It comes from both genes and experience, but mostly experience. Of course, gene expression is important in its role of development of the body and its responses, but responses of the body can be altered through learning experiences like associative learning with a stimulus or cognition through problem solving (Campbell 1127-1128). Therefore, intelligence doesn’t necessarily come from offspring to offspring, but intelligence to intelligence as more is experienced, more is gained, especially when learning from others. There are situations where parents who did not do very well in school have a high achieving kid. Some may ask, “how come this kid does so well although his parents were slackers in high school?” You see then, it all comes down to other factors involving motivation presented by parents, teachers, or other significant figures. Also, did the kid grow up in a competitive neighborhood with a supporting household and resources? Overall, then, ranking/measuring a person’s intelligence isn’t accurate or possible. There are so many different factors that play into intelligence that simply a scantron test or IQ test cannot place a number. Skills can develop others skills that correlate with what is needed to fit the environment (http://www.springer.com/series/8335) . As Sternberg described, “a series of studies demonstrating that practical expertise does not correlate well with analytical […] tests but does correlate very nicely with job performance and life success” (232). So if ranking must be determined, it must be between people who have grown up in similar environments, and see how well each would react to change or different situations, leveling out the playing field. For, intelligence is developed in time through challenge and adaptation to change, too broad for a measurement of any kind.
ReplyDelete(Lea Nowack, lea.nowack123@gmail.com)
ReplyDeletesorry it didn't fit above!!