Well I think intelligence and ability are 2 different things.
Intelligence is more or less fixed.
Obviously extreme, but no one is going to go from mentally retarded to 2 standard deviations above IQ based on hard work and a good school.
Ability can definitely change (increase or decrease) based on one's environment and opportunity. My ability to get better at swimming isn't going to happen if I don't have access to a pool and parents or a school that gives me that opportunity.
I guess I see ability and talent as two different things, whether or not that's what the words actually connote. I think of ability as inborn and talent as influenced by hard work. I think of intelligence as ability but academic performance as talent. Intelligence is not very useful without motivation and hard work. On the other hand, students without spectacular intelligence can learn to think in highly functional and creative ways. Of course, like wandering mentioned, there are limits to the effectiveness of hard work. I'm never going to be drafted in the WNBA, no matter how many thousands of hours I practice free throws. And someone born with very low intelligence isn't getting into Harvard, no matter how much he applies himself.
Ok I admit to talking out of my ass here, for real. But don't children in other countries learn math at higher levels than in the US? Even in countries far poorer (like China)? That makes me think b, if nothing else. I do realize there are other factors in play but I had that beat into me at some point (Americans suck at math!)
I think that our education system is dysfunctional and doesn't encourage some very good students to perform to their potential.
Ok I admit to talking out of my ass here, for real. But don't children in other countries learn math at higher levels than in the US? Even in countries far poorer (like China)? That makes me think b, if nothing else. I do realize there are other factors in play but I had that beat into me at some point (Americans suck at math!)
I think of intelligence and ability as two different things. Intelligence affects one's ability along with many other factors like opportunity, hard work, etc.
Using that definition I think intelligence is mostly fixed and ability is (partially? largely? IDK) affected by other things.
I think that there is some potential for neuroplasticity and increasing intelligence/intellectual ability by challenging work. Caramini and I talk about your brain being a muscle that you have to exercise to make it stronger. I do believe that there are genetic limits on how much change can occur and many other factors in academic/career success.
I think intelligence is fixed, but I don't think it's a huge contributor to academics, success, etc. (except very low IQ). I think nurture is more important. Eta: anecdotes. my mom, dad, sister and I are all very intelligent (like 125+ iq). Only my mom and I ever applied ourselves and did well in school. My dad, who has the highest IQ, is of the too smart for his own good variety (and a stoner who blames society for his failure at life) and my sister is just lazy. I've been too afraid of failure most if my to really take the chances needed for success. So I think personality and motivation play a huge role.
While of course both are important I think it's mostly nature. Your intelligence, your personality, whether you have a strong work ethic or are lazy. Things that are mostly nurture are maybe a love of learning, which can be fostered. And obviously education can help almost anyone have increased abilities. But I think birth order and nature are most important.
Ok I admit to talking out of my ass here, for real. But don't children in other countries learn math at higher levels than in the US? Even in countries far poorer (like China)? That makes me think b, if nothing else. I do realize there are other factors in play but I had that beat into me at some point (Americans suck at math!)
Well math definitely isn't a good way to measure intelligence. And I dont think that knowing how to do calculus shows that one person is way more intelligent because obviously you need a teacher to teach you the calculations.
Intelligence can definitely be measured earlier in childhood before advanced math equations come in to play and therefore I think pure intelligence is mostly nature. (And obviously I mean if a child isn't exposed to excess lead or a very poor diet or shaken baby syndrome, etc)
Intelligence definitely is a bell curve, some people are brilliant, some people not so much and the rest of us are pretty much in the middle.
I think ink most people can become proficient at a given subject or task with enough hard work, but there is an element of natural aptitude that is fixed.
Also, more anecdotes: intellegence is a very low predictor of success. My brother and I both have very high IQs but are limited by our motivation/effort and probably some ADD thrown in. There are tons of not very smart people who work hard and are extremely successful. There is also quite a bit of luck and choice in success. Not every brilliant person is going to be a Bill Gates.
hmmm I voted that it can be affected but I think I was hung up on ability. I do think intelligence is somewhat fixed. It is how it is harnessed and developed over time.
I guess my vote really should be for the first one.
Post by rupertpenny on Oct 21, 2014 8:22:00 GMT -5
I think intelligence is fixed. And this is not optimistic, but I think it's much easier to not live up to your potential than to surpass it.
And sure, maybe kids in China have higher math scores, but that does not mean they are more intelligent than American kids, or even better educated. Just differently educated. Obviously they're are myriad problems with the US education system, but Chinese elites aren't sending their kids abroad for university for no reason.
Post by imojoebunny on Oct 21, 2014 9:21:53 GMT -5
The old school thought is that it is fixed, but this has been largely disproven. Obviously, you are not going to turn a really unintelligent person into a genius, but there is a lot of evidence IQ can be manipulated. I just read a book that had a lot about studies that prove this, "How Children Succeed".
I think intelligence and ability are two very separate things, so it is really hard to vote. I think intelligence is mostly fixed, but ability can be affected by many factors.
I know it is Wikipedia, but this speaks to how intelligence can be affected before someone has reached maturity. It is why I think having a growth mindset in schools in so important.
I believe intelligence is mostly fixed. I believe that you can work hard and acquire new skills and practice can help but generally, you are wired a certain way.
I guess an example that works for me is that I'm good a some types of math but not others. I am terrible at geometry. I can understand the equations and apply them but, to me, geometry takes a certain amount of spatial reasoning which I just don't have. I am sure I can learn it but I will never be the next Euclid.
I agree with this. I can solve straight calculus, trigonometry, and algebra equations until the cows come home and love every minute of it, but give me a word problem (2 trains are travelling in opposite directions...) and I'm just going to stare blankly at it. I can't do statistics to save my life.
The old school thought is that it is fixed, but this has been largely disproven. Obviously, you are not going to turn a really unintelligent person into a genius, but there is a lot of evidence IQ can be manipulated. I just read a book that had a lot about studies that prove this, "How Children Succeed".
I never read this book nor have concrete evidence but this is my thought & personal experience.