How intelligent are you?
Posted by tom | Jun 17, 2009With the kids nestled in bed early and Theresa sewing burp cloths, we spent a fair amount of time discussing Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences as critiqued by Christopher J. Ferguson in Not Every Child Is Secretly a Genius (Chronicle of Higher Education, 6/15/2009).* One of us (and I won't say who...) said,
Any parent should know that nature is stronger than nurture. Not that skills can't be learned or taught, but fundamental personality is just so much nature. And you can see that often from the first several days after a child is born, as it only takes a short time until you have a pretty good idea of what kind of temperament a child will have.
What are your thoughts? How would you respond to the below quote from the article? I have some thoughts, but I am interested in hearing/learning from others.
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" [i.e., single intelligence entity] 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."
*The conversation, creativity, and endorphins must have been really strong because Theresa came up with a New Theory on Personality. Well worth a read and a response ;-)
I really applaud Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences for how it validates that there are many types of smarts. People who have mechanical abilities, athletic abilities, artistic abilities, and interpersonal skills should all be validated and praised, and a system that only rewards book smarts is deeply flawed.
However, just because there are multiple ways of being smart does not mean, that if we were to add everyone's intelligences together, we'd all be given equal gifts. And nurture does play a large role - malnutrition, neglect, and illness can all have devastating effects on the brain.
Steven Pinker (in "The Blank Slate") and others have done a great job of arguing that not everyone's born with the same gifting. There are some who are born with just some extraordinary abilities. Now, this doesn't mean that some people have more intrinsic worth than others - only that, to some, "much has been given".
Malcolm Gladwell (in "Outliers") has also argued very convincingly that people's natural abilities are only expressed when given certain opportunities. Even those who were 'clawing one's own way out of abject poverty' had circumstances and people in their lives that enabled them to do so.
Seeing that all children have equal potential is very different from seeing that all children have some potential. In the first case, you have an extrinsic standard outside the child that somehow they're supposed to achieve. In the second case, you can focus on each child, seek to recognize his or her strengths and abilities, and nurture personal growth. Each child is to do as much as possible with what he or she has been given. Why would we want anything other than that?
Posted by HeidiL, Jun 17 2009, 22:21