Not Every Child A Genius Article!

[Kimba15]

I have recently been spending some time on the talentigniter website amd found tis article. I am unsure if the writer has no belief in children's willingness to learn or just believes that our IQ is set? I sometimes think experts can do more damage than good and are too set in their ways. Read below and tell me what you think.




June 14, 2009
Not Every Child Is Secretly a Genius
Not Every Child Is Secretly a Genius 1 Enlarge Image

By Christopher Ferguson

The idea of intelligence —that human beings possess, to varying degrees, an innate and universal ability to learn—has taken a beating in recent decades. Ever since Stephen J. Gould's Mismeasurement of Man (Norton, 1981) and Howard Gardner's Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Basic Books, 1983), the notion of a single intelligence entity, typically called "g," has come under assault. That is unfortunate.

A number of scholars, including L.L. Thurstone and more recently Robert J. Sternberg, have argued that intelligence has been defined too narrowly. But Gardner, a professor of cognition and education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, who won a prestigious MacArthur Foundation "genius award" in 1981, has had enormous influence, particularly in our schools.

Briefly, he has posited that our intellectual abilities are divided among at least eight abilities: verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, naturalistic, musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. The appealing elements of the theory are numerous.

It's "cool," to start with: The list-like format has great attraction for introductory psychology and education classes. It also seems to jibe well with the common observation that individuals have particular talents. More important, especially for education, it implicitly (although perhaps unintentionally on Gardner's part) promises that each child has strengths as well as weaknesses. With eight separate intelligences, the odds seem good that every child will be intelligent in one of those realms. After all, it's not called the theory of multiple stupidities.

Multiple intelligences put every child on an equal footing, granting the hope of identical value in an ostensible meritocracy. The theory fits well with a number of the assumptions that have dominated educational philosophy for years. The movements that took flower in the mid-20th century have argued for the essential sameness of all healthy human beings and for a policy of social justice that treats all people the same. Above all, many educators have adhered to the social construction of reality—the idea that redefining the way we treat children will redefine their abilities and future successes. (Perhaps that's what leads some parents to put their faith in "Baby Einstein" videos: the hope that a little nurturing television will send their kids to Harvard.) It would be difficult to overestimate the influence of Gardner's work, both in repudiating that elitist, unfair concept of "g" and in guiding thought in psychology as it applies to education.

The only problem, with all respect to Gardner: There probably is just a single intelligence or capacity to learn, not multiple ones devoted to independent tasks. To varying degrees, some individuals have this capacity, and others do not. To be sure, there is much debate about Gardner's theory in the literature, with contenders for and against. Nonetheless, empirical evidence has not been robust. While the theory sounds nice (perhaps because it sounds nice), it is more intuitive than empirical. In other words, the eight intelligences are based more on philosophy than on data.

Of course, nothing is ever cut and dried when it comes to the social sciences. Gardner and the psychologist Lynn Waterhouse engaged in a lively debate in the journal Educational Psychologist in 2006. While the exchange was informative, empirical evidence to support multiple intelligences was largely absent. As Waterhouse put it, the theory is "persisting without adequate evidence"—and was likely to continue to do so, she added, because of the "good news stories" it provides. By contrast, a wealth of evidence supports the existence of "g," which, contrary to the claims (or wishes) of some people, remains a strong predictor of academic performance, job performance—particularly in highly technical careers or those requiring decision making—and other markers of "success."

Another issue with the theory of multiple intelligences is that too many of the categories correlate too highly with one another to be separate intelligences. Cognitive performance on skills related to verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, and visual-spatial tasks, as well as many memory tasks, tends to be highly related. In other words, it goes back to "g."

The remaining intelligences have nothing to do with intelligence or cognitive skills per se, but rather represent personal interests (for example, musical represents an affinity for music; naturalistic, an affinity for biology or geology) or personality traits (interpersonal or intrapersonal skills, which correspond best to the related concept of emotional intelligence). And even those interest areas may be enhanced by "g." Only bodily-kinesthetic—the ability to manipulate one's own body with dexterity—may truly represent a separate cognitive ability, probably stemming from cerebellar activity involved in fine motor control. It may be better represented as a neurophysiological trait than as intelligence. Even for related activities—dancing, for instance—having at least a modicum of "g" is still going to be necessary to learn, say, complex dance choreography.

Finally, as Waterhouse noted in her exchange with Gardner, the theory of multiple intelligences has little value for clinical testing of intelligence or the prediction of future performance. "G" alone is highly predictive of both academic and work success. The other intelligences, or whatever they are, add very little.

Part of the confusion that has allowed the theory to survive long past the stage of empirical disrepute is the irascible debate regarding what intelligence is in the first place. Intelligence is among the most stable of psychological constructs. It is as possible to define it both operationally and conceptually as it is for almost any other psychological variable, although that might not be saying much. At worst, intelligence is like pornography: I may not be able to define it to the satisfaction of all, but I sure know it when I see it (or, in the case of intelligence, when I come across its absence). At the optimistic extreme, a reasonable definition of intelligence is not hard to come by. Intelligence: An innate cognitive ability that powers learning. Perfect? No. But that's basically it.

Aren't there plenty of Ph.D.'s who can't fix their cars? Sure, but the majority of them could learn if they were so inclined. An individual with low "g" is going to struggle at both book learning and auto repair (although perhaps car mechanics would prove more manageable than literary theory or quantum physics). In other words, individuals high in "g" are going to be able to learn a wider range of activities with greater ease than individuals low in "g". The "g" that assisted our hominid forebears in learning the skills of hunting, gathering, and toolmaking is the same "g" that gives gifted/talented students an advantage in calculus. Of course, one person can't learn everything, so some folks pick, say, European history over Math Without Numbers (or whatever the rage is in mathematics these days). The theory of multiple intelligences fundamentally conflates intelligence and motivation. It's a fatal flaw. Motivation is certainly important, and it works alongside intelligence to produce results. However, having the raw biological machinery of intelligence is simply irreplaceable.

Perhaps in a naïve effort to deny that inconvenient truth, the debate about intelligence has become largely political, at times even facetious. Intelligence certainly is not the only predictor of success in work or in school, college, or scholarship, but it's as strong as any. Unfortunately, it's also largely genetic. Social justice, treating people the same, bringing out their best abilities are all worthy ideals. Yet we must be cautious when ideals conflict with reality. The world in which we live has no obligation to be politically correct. And it is not politically correct to say that one person is, well, simply more talented than another.

Despite some naysayers (think of Richard E. Nisbett's Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count, published this year by Norton), evidence from behavioral-genetics studies has long shown that environment plays a much smaller role than inheritance in the development of intelligence. And that's defining "environment" so broadly that it includes head injuries, infections like encephalitis, malnourishment, and neglect. You've probably heard of those studies of twins raised separately who show similar intellectual abilities when reunited 50 years later. Many people like to think that any child, with the proper nurturance, can blossom into some kind of academic oak tree, tall and proud. It's just not so.

Multiple intelligences provides a kind of cover to preserve that fable. "OK, little Jimmie may not be a rocket scientist, but he can dance real well. Shouldn't that count equally in school and life?" No. The great dancers of the Pleistocene foxtrotted their way into the stomach of a saber-tooth tiger.

That is the root of the matter. Too many people have chosen to believe in what they wish to be true rather than in what is true. In the main, the motive is a pure one: to see every child as having equal potential, or at the very least some potential. Intelligence is a fundamentally meritocratic construct. There are winners and there are losers. A relative doofus may live a comfortable life so long as his or her parents are wealthy. However, clawing one's own way out of abject poverty is best achieved with a healthy dose of both motivation and "g."

Naturally, we must be careful to avoid the fallacy that some people deserve to live in poverty, or that entire groups of people are inherently inferior in regard to intelligence. In the past, those arguments have been used to support oppression, racism, and slavery, and we must not repeat those mistakes.

Yet the belief that intelligence does not exist as a single, reliable, important, genetically determined construct is an equal fallacy. Unfortunately, some children and adults are just unintelligent. It's not fair, it's not politically correct, but reality is under no obligation to be either of those.

A pedagogy designed to identify strong and weak areas of achievement is not a bad idea. But believing that such an approach rests on the existence of multiple intelligences has real risks. It could lead us down the path to intellectual relativism. Students encouraged to explore their talents in dance or socializing may find themselves slammed against a wall of reality when expected to actually know how to do algebra or read a book in college. I'm not opposed to exploring those talents (that's what recess and gym classes are for, and getting rid of them has been a horrible idea), but national and international tests indicate that we may be doing so to such an extent that we are overwhelming our curricula.

Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences was a great idea and worth investigating. It's just not panning out. Hanging on to the theory for nostalgic or political value is not science. It's time that we begin to work with the reality that we have, not the one we wish we had. To do otherwise would be just plain stupid.

 

Christopher J. Ferguson has been promoted to associate professor in the department of behavioral and applied sciences, and criminal justice at Texas A&M International University.

[DadDude]

Frankly, I find it refreshing that someone is coming out against the Gardner "multiple intelligences" orthodoxy.  I thought this was exactly right:

Briefly, he has posited that our intellectual abilities are divided among at least eight abilities: verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, naturalistic, musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. The appealing elements of the theory are numerous.

It's "cool," to start with: The list-like format has great attraction for introductory psychology and education classes. It also seems to jibe well with the common observation that individuals have particular talents. More important, especially for education, it implicitly (although perhaps unintentionally on Gardner's part) promises that each child has strengths as well as weaknesses. With eight separate intelligences, the odds seem good that every child will be intelligent in one of those realms. After all, it's not called the theory of multiple stupidities.

Multiple intelligences put every child on an equal footing, granting the hope of identical value in an ostensible meritocracy. The theory fits well with a number of the assumptions that have dominated educational philosophy for years. The movements that took flower in the mid-20th century have argued for the essential sameness of all healthy human beings and for a policy of social justice that treats all people the same. Above all, many educators have adhered to the social construction of reality—the idea that redefining the way we treat children will redefine their abilities and future successes.

The theory of multiple intelligences, as far as I can tell, is a P.C. revolt against the idea of an objective component of intelligence.  If you jettison the idea of objective, measurable intelligence, and substitute "multiple intelligences" which really amount to multiple talents, then you avoid all sorts of facts that don't sit well with a rigidly P.C. mindset.  The well-studied, well-supported facts, however, are that (1) "g" or intelligence is measurable and reasonably stable (after a certain age), implying that it corresponds to an actually, objectively existing brain state, and is not merely a "social construct," and (2) intelligence has a significant genetic component.

But...while I'm no expert, and this hasn't been scientifically established, I do think that a child's intelligence can be at least modestly increased.  I doubt a bona fide genius can be made out of average-intelligence genes, but I'll bet you can increase a child's intelligence score modestly by using certain educational techniques, especially early in life.

[timandsveta]

I tend to agree with DadDude. The article is against theory of multiple intelligence, which is essentially a philosophical concept rather than a scientific one that doesn't seem to have any objective support in reality. Multiple studies have shown that intelligence is inherited rather than acquired, but as it's been said before, genius is 99% perspiration 1% inspiration. So, working hard is likely to make you more successful than any talent you may or not have been born with. You may have great intelligence that is never realized without education, and a lot of people do. After all, no matter how smart you are, you can't read if you haven't been taught how.

That being said, success is a combination of inheritance and environment, and even if inheritance plays larger role in intelligence, environment still matters. This is why studies also show that early learners tend to stay ahead. This is why Doman program is successful. So, I wouldn't see the article is discouraging. This is all old news. The truth is that no one really knows for sure, and social sciences are not exact science. One expert can say one thing and another expert can say something completely opposite, and a lot of this is just non-sense. I do agree that "experts" tend to cause more damage rather than produce value.

[fma001]

I agree with DadDude as well. Multiple intelligences really is a PC idea. Intelligence has both inherited and environmental components. Getting the right start in life can definitely increase intelligence but I think it's accurate to say that not everyone is starting at the same starting line when it comes to ability. I came across the argument about the Ph.Ds who couldn't fix their own cars before and I thought the same thing. They most likely would be able to if they put in the effort to learn. But the fact is most auto mechanics couldn't earn a Ph.D in neuroscience or physics. Intelligence really does matter because the level you have places a ceiling over what you can do. This is why I think doing all we can to increase the intelligence of our kids is so important, even if there is an inevitable limit they will reach.

[khatty]

What is the quote at the beginning of one of Doman Book's?  It goes something like your baby has the ability to be smarter than M. Angelo ever was.  I do not have the book handy, but the idea behind the quote is that your baby has the opportunity to be smarter than the smartest person of the previous centuries.

The nature vs nurture question... does a baby with very strong 'g' genes who is left is a bare room for 5 years grow to be as smart as the baby with very low 'g' genes who is provided every opportunity to learn?

I too think that it important to do all we can with our kids, not to make them geniuses but to give them as much as possible so that they can then have the choice to be a scientist or a mechanic, not that scientist is better, but that the choice isn't limited by their intelligence/lack thereof.  Perhaps there is an upper limit to a person's intelligence - does that mean we shouldn't try to be as smart as we possible can be?  We shouldn't try to provide as much happiness as we can to our children?

[DadDude]

I totally agree with you, khatty!

[clutch]

yes i also agree with you people,not every child is a genius .1thing you can make them genius and 2nd they are naturally genius   in their own skill which is god gifted to him for e.x someone can sing better,someone fight better,someone can play better and some childs are master in studies even we never need to force them to study like many other childrens.

[Latreia]

I had my bb when I was 41 y/o & I dreaded the days I had to wait for bb to be born, not to mention all the extra tests at the gynae. For nine months, I just did what I could do; eat well, take all (alot) of nutrition, talk to bb,
sing & tap & tickle. I wasnt sure that was really right, but beyond that, not much I could do.
But to my surprise, no matter what I did to her just 2/3 times, she would do the same to me ie,tickle/tap my
tummy etc.Relieved she is born a normal bb. More amazed she could turn her head to the direction & focus at the moving black/white dot/stripes card,this she could do on the 1st day she was born ! 

Now I truly believe food/nutrition + early stimulation really give a hand to develop a genius !

document.getElementById('recent_loading').style.display = 'none';document.getElementById('recent_page_box').style.display = '';

Page: 1/4  

Loading...

Members

• Total Members: 214772
• Latest: addisonjones

Stats

• Total Posts: 110526
• Total Topics: 19136
• Online Today: 209
• Online Ever: 826
• (January 22, 2020, 12:09:49 AM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 180
• Total: 180