I also agree with him when he says quite clearly that this does not imply that how you interact with your kids is meaningless. To say that this is the logical consequence of the importance of genetics in personal development is like saying that life in the absence of God is meaningless.
Good point, Brennen. I am glad you liked the book.
I didn’t find the term “psychological conditioning” in the thread.
How much of so called schooling is simply psychological conditioning. Producing people that think intelligence involves conforming. Success in school is doing lots of idiotic busy work from which nothing is learned.
So are “intelligent” young kids more difficult to condition than most?
Fascinating discussion about Pinker’s Blank Slate book. I suppose that I’ll fall so far behind the Blank Slate discussion by the time that I actually read it, but I certainly am eager at this point. I wonder if he really argues so strongly in favor of nature over nurture as people seem to be suggesting in the discussion on this forum. To me it would take a heck of a lot to believe that we are only the product of either nature or nurture. It seems rather obvious that we are the product of both. But there is definitely much to be understood with regards to the specifics of what parts of each of us fit into each of those categories or the interplay of the two.
George - 28 April 2008 01:08 PM
I am not sure I know what meaningful is.
Also, a burger flipper at McDonald’s can prepare my burger, and a cardiologist will fix my heart. They are both important to me, and to our society. But it would be much easier to train a cardiologist to work at McDonald’s than the other way around.
I am not making an assertion about that “meaningful” is. My point was only that a Stanford-Binet score does not precisely equate to real life performance on any given task apart from the sorts of puzzles that belong to the test. I did not assert that Stanford-Binet scores or any other traditional measures of “intelligence” are lacking in value. To the contrary, I think that they are quite useful for specified purposes. For example, they can assist us in realistically deciphering our strengths and weaknesses so that we can best address our individual learning needs. It is my understanding that this was Alfred Binet’s original intention for the function of IQ assessment. Consequently, I think that a multiple intelligence model is more useful for this purpose. Also useful is a recognition of differences in individual learning styles.
My concern is with the use of intelligence as a means of ranking individuals competitively and positioning them for certain future positions in society before they have actually performed. Personally, I would much rather consult an average IQ cardiologist with a superb education, experience and diligence for their work then a “genius” scored cardiologist who’s mind is off some other place flipping burgers. The same point could apply, I suppose, to the matter of who I might prefer to buy a veggie burger from. That does not mean that I think that just anyone is entitled to be a cardiologist. It means that the best and most committed cardiologists should be cardiologists. Not necessarily the persons with the highest IQ scores. However, and for the record, I am no happier than anyone else about having a stupid man in the white house.
Fascinating discussion about Pinker’s Blank Slate book. I suppose that I’ll fall so far behind the Blank Slate discussion by the time that I actually read it, but I certainly am eager at this point. I wonder if he really argues so strongly in favor of nature over nurture as people seem to be suggesting in the discussion on this forum. To me it would take a heck of a lot to believe that we are only the product of either nature or nurture. It seems rather obvious that we are the product of both. But there is definitely much to be understood with regards to the specifics of what parts of each of us fit into each of those categories or the interplay of the two.
To be accurate, he agrees that we are the product of both nature (genes) and nurture (environment). But in saying so he does give nature a fuller role to play than some have done in the past. Also he brings together a lot of disparate research that shows how aspects of our personality, etc., are genetic rather than learned. Of course, enculturation is an environmental process. Think of the whole thing in comparison with language: the basic structure is hardwired in humans, but the specific form of language that we speak is a product of the environment in which we were raised.
Thanks Doug. I was about to say that I didn’t need to read the book because I inherited a full understanding of the matter. But I am more confident now that there is potential for me to learn something from it.
Just to throw in a little divertissement, are any of you familiar with Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory?
Yeah, I read his ‘Frames of Mind’. Found it quite convincing: it is clear that some people are very good in one kind of thing, others at others. Gardner is supporting his ideas with the effects of brain damage, with examples of brain scans, idiot savants etc. He recognises 7 kinds of intelligence: Visual/Spatial Intelligence, Musical Intelligence, Verbal/Linguistic Intelligence, Logical/Mathematical Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence, Intrapersonal Intelligence, and Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence. Before people are critising this idea, first tell us if you read the book…
What do you think, Erasmus?
GdB
[NY TImes review of the Disciplined Mind by Howard Gardner]
I read this one in paperback while on the school board.
He has written a number of books with the same theme, and they should be treated skeptically. The main criticism I have is an implicit “post-modern” fallacy that there are all these different talents and that they are all equivalent. Gardner is doing a Humpty-Dumpty and redefining ‘intelligence’ to make his point. Sure there are lots of talents but that doesn’t mean “Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence” has anything in common with “Logical/Mathematical Intelligence”. If you log onto nytimes.com and search on “multiple intelligiences” you will see that this “meme” has really grabbed hold.
I agree that different individual strengths and weaknesses are not necessarily of equal value. But to say that this or that particular mental aptitude is more important than this or that other is a statement of valuation. Gardener’s choice of particular “intelligences” is somewhat arbitrary but, more importantly, the choice is itself a reflection of the seven particular aptitudes that he considers valuable. Gardner has his view about which mental aptitudes are most valuable and you and I have ours. The fact that we disagree does not mean that all of our opinions on the matter are equal. We can still say that what he values is wrong and present reasons why. So how is this post-modernism?
The word “intelligence” has been around much longer then have Stanford-Binet, Weschler or Kaufman assessments. And prior to the introduction and popularization of psychometrics, not more than a hundred years ago, the term was used in quite a wide variety of ways. For that reason I think that saying that Gardner is redefining “intelligence” is a bit unfair because, while he is certainly defining intelligence in his own way, he is only doing so in the sense that Binet, Weschler, etc. have done. In this sense, all intelligence theorists have done a humpty-dumpty.
I agree that different individual strengths and weaknesses are not necessarily of equal value. But to say that this or that particular mental aptitude is more important than this or that other is a statement of valuation. Gardener’s choice of particular “intelligences” is somewhat arbitrary but, more importantly, the choice is itself a reflection of the seven particular aptitudes that he considers valuable. Gardner has his view about which mental aptitudes are most valuable and you and I have ours. The fact that we disagree does not mean that all of our opinions on the matter are equal. We can still say that what he values is wrong and present reasons why. So how is this post-modernism?
The word “intelligence” has been around much longer then have Stanford-Binet, Weschler or Kaufman assessments. And prior to the introduction and popularization of psychometrics, not more than a hundred years ago, the term was used in quite a wide variety of ways. For that reason I think that saying that Gardner is redefining “intelligence” is a bit unfair because, while he is certainly defining intelligence in his own way, he is only doing so in the sense that Binet, Weschler, etc. have done. In this sense, all intelligence theorists have done a humpty-dumpty.
All your comments are reasonable, I don’t mean to be a curmugeon.... But it’s not clear to me that people ever thought of highly respected musical prodigies like Mozart or famous artists like Michaelangelo as ‘intelligent’ per se—and even now, if you say someone is “very intelligent”, people don’t ask you “in what way”..... . Let’s listen to the coverage of the Olympics this summer.
It is already long ago I read the book, but it is obvious for me that intelligence is more than just what some intelligence test measures. (If it measures anything). In its best, an intelligence test is a prediction how well the tested person will act (think, do, whatever) when confronted with situations that are similar to the tasks he did in the test. It turns out that people can do very well only on a very limited set of mental capabilities (idiot savants on the extreme side, very unsociable scientists as more common cases).
If every category of intelligence that Gardner recognise can stand the proof I don’t know. But the humblest conclusion could be that there is more to intelligence than just logical/mathematical thinking, and surely there are more mental capabilities that are useful than just that.
But it’s not clear to me that people ever thought of highly respected musical prodigies like Mozart or famous artists like Michaelangelo as ‘intelligent’ per se—and even now, if you say someone is “very intelligent”, people don’t ask you “in what way”..... . Let’s listen to the coverage of the Olympics this summer.
Semantics. Not that we couldn’t already tell about you and George, but why is it becoming more and more clear that both of you have exceptionally high IQ scores? Hah!
I thought that the article that you last referenced made quite a reasonably interesting conclusion.
MI shares with this idea its determinist orientation, its belief that nature calls most of the shots. In its pluralistic way, it is as constraining as IQ.
Children who go to school are expected to learn to read regardless of how easily it comes to them. Understanding our individual innate strengths and weaknesses is one thing. How we deal with finding ways to learn, regardless of those innate strengths and weaknesses, is another matter entirely.
I thought that the article that you last referenced made quite a reasonably interesting conclusion.
MI shares with this idea its determinist orientation, its belief that nature calls most of the shots. In its pluralistic way, it is as constraining as IQ.
Children who go to school are expected to learn to read regardless of how easily it comes to them. Understanding our individual innate strengths and weaknesses is one thing. How we deal with finding ways to learn, regardless of those innate strengths and weaknesses, is another matter entirely.
There was a speaker at the New York State School Boards Association one year who was the CEO of a high-end ice cream company like Ben & Jerry’s or Hagan-Daaz (from Ohio,as I recall). He was explaining how he once had thought the solution to the schools was to treat them as a business, and how he now understood this was wrong (at least in the main point he was emphasizing). For high-quality ice cream, you look to high quality ingredients. You reject strawberries if they don’t mean your high quality standards, etc. However the public schools take everybody, the with the widest diversity both of talents and of problems, and the expectation is that they will produce a high quality result. I agree 100% that people need to understand that the schools need to accomodate the spectrum you refer to. I also agree that helping students find where they excel is an enormous contribution. And sometimes they have potential in areas no one expected.
