At the end of this week's class we discussed how we would set up our own theory of what intelligence is. This is certainly a challenge because intelligence is such as wide and complicated concept. There are so many things that can play a role in intelligence.
First and foremost, I think my own theory would not choose between intelligence being innate and intelligence being developed. I think that both are possible and in many cases they work together. I think that everyone is born with a certain level of intelligence which is then influence by many factors as the child grows and develops. Therefore, it would be impossible, I feel, to truly measure innate intelligence because babies cannot be tested and too many variables occur during childhood. For example, level of education for the child, level of education of the parents, living situation, economic standings, and nutrition. All of these factors make it impossible to separate how much intelligence a person is born with and how much a person develops. On top of that I think there are multiple types of intelligence and being intelligent in one thing and not another is completely possible. We see it all the time with experts in certain fields. They are highly capable in their own specific field, but most likely less so in other fields because that is not where they have spent their time and attention. I do not think intelligence can be assigned to a person as a blanket quality. A person can be highly intelligent in one subject and fail at another. If I were to develop this into a more concise theory I do not think it would be easy to test if even possible. Since I believe that innate intelligence and learned intelligence are so closely intertwined it would only be possible to measure a persons IQ, but not how they came to have that IQ.
This leads me to compare this debate to the nature/nurture debate that is so often discussed in psychology.Through many arguments over which side takes more dominance in development it is my understanding that psychologists have reached a conclusion that it is a combination of both. I feel the same way about intelligence. There will never be only one side that is completely influencing a persons level of intelligence.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Intelligence Tests
This week in class we looked at several different intelligence tests. We also read about tests in the IQ Testing 101 book. I found it particularly interesting to look at the tests designed for children. I work at a day care with children every day, between the ages of 6 weeks and 6 years. I have a pretty good idea of what milestones children are reaching at what ages. The Stanford-Benet test in particular stood out to me because the intelligence tests assigned to certain ages were not challenging enough. For instance, a milestone for children who were 9 years old was the ability to say the date. The children I work with are able to say the date at 4 and 5 years old. This made me consider how children's intelligence tests find a good balance that keeps them challenging but also without being too difficult for the designated age group.
Another thing to consider is how education has progressed over time. For example, I think that intelligence is partly inherited and partly learned. I definitely think it is possible for intelligence tobe obtained through studying a subject. How can you be good at something if you have never been taught it? So my next question is, how has education changed since the Stanford-Benet test was created. Perhaps at that time students were being taught to say the complete date when they were 9 years old. The children I work with are only capable to say the date because it is taught to them and reiterated every single day they are at school. When I was in elementary and middle school my parents always told me they did not learn the things I was learning until a later age. This makes me wonder when it was decided that education should be pushing its students harder and challenging them more at earlier ages.
This in turn would cause intelligence testing to be more challenging as well. The more students are learning in earlier grades the more material they would know to be tested on. This also makes me wonder if this makes people more intelligent over all. If students are learning more challenging material younger are they mastering more difficult material overall by the end of their education? Also, will this be a continuing trend? Will my children come home to tell me they are learning things I did not master until I was several years older than them? These are just some things I was considering when thinking about intelligence testing and our class this week.
Another thing to consider is how education has progressed over time. For example, I think that intelligence is partly inherited and partly learned. I definitely think it is possible for intelligence tobe obtained through studying a subject. How can you be good at something if you have never been taught it? So my next question is, how has education changed since the Stanford-Benet test was created. Perhaps at that time students were being taught to say the complete date when they were 9 years old. The children I work with are only capable to say the date because it is taught to them and reiterated every single day they are at school. When I was in elementary and middle school my parents always told me they did not learn the things I was learning until a later age. This makes me wonder when it was decided that education should be pushing its students harder and challenging them more at earlier ages.
This in turn would cause intelligence testing to be more challenging as well. The more students are learning in earlier grades the more material they would know to be tested on. This also makes me wonder if this makes people more intelligent over all. If students are learning more challenging material younger are they mastering more difficult material overall by the end of their education? Also, will this be a continuing trend? Will my children come home to tell me they are learning things I did not master until I was several years older than them? These are just some things I was considering when thinking about intelligence testing and our class this week.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Race and IQ
I found our discussion about Race and IQ very interesting. There's so many variables that have to be considered when it comes to intelligence. As we saw in class this past Wednesday there are so many ways to define intelligence it makes it challenging to find a way to measure it. We will cover this more when we debate it in class, but these discussions really led me to think about how I feel there are multiple types of intelligence. There are so many different areas or skills that require a different kind of intelligence.
Another thing that was on my mind a lot during class is how the IQ tests are created to be equal among different people. Testing bias is the first thing I thought of when we were asked to think of reasons for the gap in different races IQ's. Throughout the class period a quote from Albert Einstein continuously came to mind; "If you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree it will spend it's whole life believing that it is stupid." I thought this quote was relevant because if the test is something only a certain group is good at or some don't have experience with then other groups will certainly score low and have a "low IQ."
My final thought throughout this discussion was the idea that a person can be intelligent in one subject and not in others. For example, if I have a wonderful memory for directions and could go almost anywhere without a map, that might be a quality that encourages people to think I'm intelligent. At the same time, I could be horrible at the most basic math. Then would I still be considered intelligent? It is hard to judge intelligence as one blanket quality when there are so many different ways and areas a person could be intelligent in. We see this all the time with people that are brilliant but have horrible social skills, or people who are particularly good at either math or reading comprehension but not both. Are those people not intelligent because they are only good at certain things? I don't think I have a specific answer, but it is interesting to consider.
Another thing that was on my mind a lot during class is how the IQ tests are created to be equal among different people. Testing bias is the first thing I thought of when we were asked to think of reasons for the gap in different races IQ's. Throughout the class period a quote from Albert Einstein continuously came to mind; "If you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree it will spend it's whole life believing that it is stupid." I thought this quote was relevant because if the test is something only a certain group is good at or some don't have experience with then other groups will certainly score low and have a "low IQ."
My final thought throughout this discussion was the idea that a person can be intelligent in one subject and not in others. For example, if I have a wonderful memory for directions and could go almost anywhere without a map, that might be a quality that encourages people to think I'm intelligent. At the same time, I could be horrible at the most basic math. Then would I still be considered intelligent? It is hard to judge intelligence as one blanket quality when there are so many different ways and areas a person could be intelligent in. We see this all the time with people that are brilliant but have horrible social skills, or people who are particularly good at either math or reading comprehension but not both. Are those people not intelligent because they are only good at certain things? I don't think I have a specific answer, but it is interesting to consider.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)