Can anyone learn anything?
September 11, 2010 4:58 PM Subscribe
Does someone with 'normal IQ' (85 - 110) have the capability to not only learn but comprehend *anything*?
Can someone with average intelligence learn and comprehend any topic? (Rocket science, string theory, etc etc)
What inspired this thought:
"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years." - John B Watson
Can someone with average intelligence learn and comprehend any topic? (Rocket science, string theory, etc etc)
What inspired this thought:
"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years." - John B Watson
To start with, you'll need to fix which IQ scale you mean (there are several), age at testing, present age, and the definitions of the terms "learn," "comprehend," "any," and "topic."
Once you've got those squared away (good luck!), the answer will be "it depends."
posted by AkzidenzGrotesk at 5:08 PM on September 11, 2010 [13 favorites]
Once you've got those squared away (good luck!), the answer will be "it depends."
posted by AkzidenzGrotesk at 5:08 PM on September 11, 2010 [13 favorites]
They may not be the best at any topic, but yes, no topic is beyond comprehension if you care about it. Motivation counts for something along with nature & nurture. But even people who are absolute geniuses in one field don't understand other fields mostly because they fundamentally don't care to.
posted by GuyZero at 5:10 PM on September 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 5:10 PM on September 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
A somewhat more philosophical answer: Suppose there are infinitely many "topics." Since it takes a nonzero time to learn a topic, for any useful definition of "learn," one can only learn finitely many topics in one's lifetime. This means that, for any given individual, you could only experimentally verify (assuming you could even do this) the learning of finitely many topics, and the question of whether that person could have learned any of the infinite list of remaining topics is unanswerable, the person now being dead of old age.
posted by AkzidenzGrotesk at 5:14 PM on September 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by AkzidenzGrotesk at 5:14 PM on September 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
Read that passage with a different interpretation. It's not about IQ, nature and nuture. It's about training. Will I end up with a genius doctor? Will they even like it? That's actually beside the point being made here, which is that, given sufficient educational resources, you can lift anyone up, and craft people into going in any specific direction.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:15 PM on September 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:15 PM on September 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
Seconding Cool Papa Bell. My reading of the quote was the same.
posted by Sara C. at 5:18 PM on September 11, 2010
posted by Sara C. at 5:18 PM on September 11, 2010
As a totally lame mathematical intro to my own anecdotal point, I want to point out that Akzidenz's infinity argument only holds if there is a non-zero lower bound to the amount of time required to learn any topic. Otherwise, there is the possibility that we could enumerate those infinitely many topics in such a way that the first takes half a lifetime, the second takes 1/4 of a lifetime, etc. leading to a single lifetime required to learn everything. (Of course it's absurd, but a philosophical answer was just asking for a mathematical rebuttal :) )
Anyway, one thing I learned in grad school was that any deficiency in cleverness, insight, or fast computation was easily compensated for by determination. Being a quick-on-the-draw type where math is concerned means bupkis compared to resolve. I'd bet it's the same in other fields. I'm thinking the answer is 'maybe'. I'd be more inclined to think 'yes' if we replaced normal IQ (or whatever metric we're using) with a little above average.
posted by monkeymadness at 5:28 PM on September 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
Anyway, one thing I learned in grad school was that any deficiency in cleverness, insight, or fast computation was easily compensated for by determination. Being a quick-on-the-draw type where math is concerned means bupkis compared to resolve. I'd bet it's the same in other fields. I'm thinking the answer is 'maybe'. I'd be more inclined to think 'yes' if we replaced normal IQ (or whatever metric we're using) with a little above average.
posted by monkeymadness at 5:28 PM on September 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
If you look at the "idiot savant" literature, you'll see that someone who focuses absolutely all of their waking hours on one thing can become quite advanced (I would say mostly in closed skill set domains). Even so, I would say that not everyone is capable of truly comprehending fields like string theory. It's not a skill where you can just train and train and get better. Really thinking about string theory requires the ability to hold many things in mind at once (one aspect of many ability tests).
Part of intelligence (let's just let IQ stand aside) is the capacity for abstract thinking and complexity. If you don't have that capacity, you might be able to memorize other people's work on string theory but you'll never contribute to the field and thus never (by my definition) really show that you comprehend it.
posted by parkerjackson at 5:34 PM on September 11, 2010
Part of intelligence (let's just let IQ stand aside) is the capacity for abstract thinking and complexity. If you don't have that capacity, you might be able to memorize other people's work on string theory but you'll never contribute to the field and thus never (by my definition) really show that you comprehend it.
posted by parkerjackson at 5:34 PM on September 11, 2010
Lets remember that "IQ" has only recently begun to accomodate for cultural implications (the past 5-10 years). That should be a window into the validity of these tests.
Unless you are looking to see how well people score in the teeny tiny area of academic learning, it's almost worthless. There are so many other factors, variables, and concepts that IQ tests (Wexler/WAIS IV) don't account for.
IQ is more about seeing how people change after an injury or trauma to the brain than it is about prediciting individual's abilty to grasp concepts.
I am much more interested in asking client's what they *do* know rather than testing in what I think they *should* know.
posted by WhiteWhale at 5:35 PM on September 11, 2010
Unless you are looking to see how well people score in the teeny tiny area of academic learning, it's almost worthless. There are so many other factors, variables, and concepts that IQ tests (Wexler/WAIS IV) don't account for.
IQ is more about seeing how people change after an injury or trauma to the brain than it is about prediciting individual's abilty to grasp concepts.
I am much more interested in asking client's what they *do* know rather than testing in what I think they *should* know.
posted by WhiteWhale at 5:35 PM on September 11, 2010
How do you feel about different styles of learning and comprehending things?
Let's say we're talking about atoms and how they form molecules. Some people might be understanding the subject by using images of little billiard balls in their head, while another might be thinking in a completely abstract way, as if atoms were numbers which get added together. One might be imagining spatial relationships like locks with keys which either fit or don't fit, the other seeing atoms as little people, some of which are friendly and gregarious and get along with other atoms and some of which are angry or indifferent and don't.
Have all those different people, with their different styles of learning and understanding a subject, learned the same thing and comprehended it the same way?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 6:03 PM on September 11, 2010
Let's say we're talking about atoms and how they form molecules. Some people might be understanding the subject by using images of little billiard balls in their head, while another might be thinking in a completely abstract way, as if atoms were numbers which get added together. One might be imagining spatial relationships like locks with keys which either fit or don't fit, the other seeing atoms as little people, some of which are friendly and gregarious and get along with other atoms and some of which are angry or indifferent and don't.
Have all those different people, with their different styles of learning and understanding a subject, learned the same thing and comprehended it the same way?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 6:03 PM on September 11, 2010
James Watson, one of the discoverers of the DNA double-helix structure, said that his IQ measured 115. Unfortunately, he also went on and on about different racial IQs, so maybe he's not the best example to use. In any case, he credited his ability to beat the world's geniuses to this discovery on his persistent curiosity.
Really, the IQ tests measure a tiny slice of problem solving and are probably irrelevant to the knowledge, talent, and skills required in much of the world's activity.
posted by eye of newt at 6:13 PM on September 11, 2010
Really, the IQ tests measure a tiny slice of problem solving and are probably irrelevant to the knowledge, talent, and skills required in much of the world's activity.
posted by eye of newt at 6:13 PM on September 11, 2010
monkeymadness: I realized that about five seconds after posting! You are, of course, correct; to avoid the convergent infinite series argument, I should have posited that there exists ε > 0 such that the amount of time required to learn any topic is at least ε.
posted by AkzidenzGrotesk at 6:23 PM on September 11, 2010
posted by AkzidenzGrotesk at 6:23 PM on September 11, 2010
I think whether you believe that Watson is correct or incorrect is going to rely on many things, including your beliefs about: behaviorism or constructivism; the influence of nature versus nurture; how to define "comprehension" (are you defining it as Bloom defined it, for example); how intelligence is defined and if there is even one valid measure of intelligence (such as the Stanford-Binet) or many; how long a subject should retain the knowledge at the mastery level you require after it is learned in order to perform adequately on an evaluation (and your beliefs about how memory works and so on)...
So, to answer your question in the oversimplified manner of John Watson and keeping in mind that I am a constructivist while he is a behaviorist, and that I do not subscribe any theory that relies upon a human being a "blank slate" at birth:
Can SOMEONE with average intelligence learn and comprehend any topic? It depends on who it is.
Can ANYONE with average intelligence learn and comprehend any topic? It depends upon how you are defining "intelligence", and "comprehension", and how you are evaluating "learning".
posted by jeanmari at 7:25 PM on September 11, 2010
So, to answer your question in the oversimplified manner of John Watson and keeping in mind that I am a constructivist while he is a behaviorist, and that I do not subscribe any theory that relies upon a human being a "blank slate" at birth:
Can SOMEONE with average intelligence learn and comprehend any topic? It depends on who it is.
Can ANYONE with average intelligence learn and comprehend any topic? It depends upon how you are defining "intelligence", and "comprehension", and how you are evaluating "learning".
posted by jeanmari at 7:25 PM on September 11, 2010
I should clarify that my answer depends upon my interpretation of "any topic" as not being equal to "all topics."
posted by jeanmari at 7:26 PM on September 11, 2010
posted by jeanmari at 7:26 PM on September 11, 2010
Not sure how abstract vs. real-world you want this answer to be, but I train people sometimes in sales/customer service, a vocation that I consider way easier than, say, being a lawyer, and I find that some people, practically speaking anyway, never can get the hang of it, so I would say no, not in the real world. And no, they're not what you'd call morons - sometimes they go on to succeed (or have succeeded) in other fields.
I also have some music experience, and the older I get the more I believe in talent. I have seen some people with very little talent get farther than you'd think by virtue of extremely hard work, but they always hit a wall, unfortunately. They may continue to enjoy doing it, but they'll never be what you'd call great (or even as good as a typical local working pro).
In trying to do things that I'm not good at, I find that I can improve somewhat with very hard work, and sometimes, maddeningly enough, I can understand, at a meta-level, what it would take to succeed, but the number and types of repeated failure frustrate me to a point that mentally I'm going to punch out. It would take more will-power than most people possess to keep hitting their head against that kind of wall, and mentally you can't continue past a certain level of frustration. At least that's my take on it.
posted by randomkeystrike at 7:33 PM on September 11, 2010
I also have some music experience, and the older I get the more I believe in talent. I have seen some people with very little talent get farther than you'd think by virtue of extremely hard work, but they always hit a wall, unfortunately. They may continue to enjoy doing it, but they'll never be what you'd call great (or even as good as a typical local working pro).
In trying to do things that I'm not good at, I find that I can improve somewhat with very hard work, and sometimes, maddeningly enough, I can understand, at a meta-level, what it would take to succeed, but the number and types of repeated failure frustrate me to a point that mentally I'm going to punch out. It would take more will-power than most people possess to keep hitting their head against that kind of wall, and mentally you can't continue past a certain level of frustration. At least that's my take on it.
posted by randomkeystrike at 7:33 PM on September 11, 2010
I think it is probably likely that the average person with the right environment can learn just about anything they want to.
I think it INCREDIBLY unlikely that anyone who believes they can make someone chosen at random into an expert in a topic despite the person having no particular interest in that topic would be able to make anyone into an expert at anything.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:05 PM on September 11, 2010
I think it INCREDIBLY unlikely that anyone who believes they can make someone chosen at random into an expert in a topic despite the person having no particular interest in that topic would be able to make anyone into an expert at anything.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:05 PM on September 11, 2010
I agree with Parker Jackson - the capacity to visually manipulate complex forms and think about abstract concepts are probably the limiting factors here.
Concerning the quote, it might be worth noting that early behaviorists like Skinner also thought they could train any animal to perform any behavior. This has been definitively disproven. For example, you absolutely cannot train a rat to escape from a shock by running from a darker place to a lighter place. They won't do it.
posted by synchronia at 9:28 PM on September 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
Concerning the quote, it might be worth noting that early behaviorists like Skinner also thought they could train any animal to perform any behavior. This has been definitively disproven. For example, you absolutely cannot train a rat to escape from a shock by running from a darker place to a lighter place. They won't do it.
posted by synchronia at 9:28 PM on September 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
But Watson didn't say he could make anyone a genius on a particular topic or a world-renowned specialist in a certain field. He said:
"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors."
Music is an interesting example. I think of myself as "not very talented at music". I was forced to take piano lessons when I was too young for it, and at a time when I wanted very badly to do a specific different after-school activity. Then, later, after finally getting my parents to let me quit, they wouldn't let me take up any other instrument.
Had anything about that experience have gone differently, I could have had a totally different relationship to music. I might be 4th chair violin in a second-rate professional orchestra, or a music industry "session" guitarist, or a voice coach. I probably wouldn't ever be Yo-yo Ma, but then how many people are?
posted by Sara C. at 9:39 PM on September 11, 2010
"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors."
Music is an interesting example. I think of myself as "not very talented at music". I was forced to take piano lessons when I was too young for it, and at a time when I wanted very badly to do a specific different after-school activity. Then, later, after finally getting my parents to let me quit, they wouldn't let me take up any other instrument.
Had anything about that experience have gone differently, I could have had a totally different relationship to music. I might be 4th chair violin in a second-rate professional orchestra, or a music industry "session" guitarist, or a voice coach. I probably wouldn't ever be Yo-yo Ma, but then how many people are?
posted by Sara C. at 9:39 PM on September 11, 2010
I think a lot of people are skirting your point. Let me presume that by average IQ what you really mean is statistically average (normal) cognitive reasoning capacity in the specific area of enquiry. So your question is: can someone with normal mathematical ability appreciate to its full extent Euler's theorem? Can someone with normal spatial and mathematical ability understand and work with the equations of general relativity? Can someone with normal physical prowess and coordination replicate the technique (if not the results) of the Fosbury Flop? Can someone with normal verbal ability understand and anayse Ulysses? Can someone with normal musical and mathematical ability discern Bach's contrapuntal technique?
And I think the answer is no.
*But these are necessarily artificial and extreme examples. From my experiences in uni and law school, I think a bright (IQ = 115**) person can achieve anything needed in the practical world of family, friends, work, travel and life experience.
**Whether or not you believe in the usefulness of IQ, by 'an IQ of 115' I mean someone whose general capabilities fall about 1 standard deviation above average.
posted by kid A at 9:54 PM on September 11, 2010 [3 favorites]
And I think the answer is no.
*But these are necessarily artificial and extreme examples. From my experiences in uni and law school, I think a bright (IQ = 115**) person can achieve anything needed in the practical world of family, friends, work, travel and life experience.
**Whether or not you believe in the usefulness of IQ, by 'an IQ of 115' I mean someone whose general capabilities fall about 1 standard deviation above average.
posted by kid A at 9:54 PM on September 11, 2010 [3 favorites]
But Watson didn't say he could make anyone a genius on a particular topic or a world-renowned specialist in a certain field...
True, he didn't say "any type of genius." He said "any type of specialist," and that's a lower standard than genius. But it has to imply some impressive level of competence, or else there would hardly have been a point to his making this pronouncement. How did how he even know that any person can be trained to be a reasonably competent specialist in any field? We can't possibly try this out -- it's just a guess. I'll happily defer to your judgment of yourself, Sara C., that you're (a) not that great at music right here and now, but (b) in an alternate world you could have gotten good enough to be a pro guitarist. I have no problem with such an assessment at the individual level, but I don't see the basis for asserting that everyone is like that.
I think we'd all agree that non-human animals aren't like that, and some humans are too mentally disabled to be like that. Granted, they don't qualify as "healthy infants, well-formed." But they show that we can easily conceive of a human being (or animal) who lacks the potential to become competent at certain skills due to innate, immutable limitations. It strikes me as sheer superstition to claim that any healthy human has crossed some magic threshold where all talents are achievable with a non-genius level of excellence.
posted by John Cohen at 9:57 PM on September 11, 2010
True, he didn't say "any type of genius." He said "any type of specialist," and that's a lower standard than genius. But it has to imply some impressive level of competence, or else there would hardly have been a point to his making this pronouncement. How did how he even know that any person can be trained to be a reasonably competent specialist in any field? We can't possibly try this out -- it's just a guess. I'll happily defer to your judgment of yourself, Sara C., that you're (a) not that great at music right here and now, but (b) in an alternate world you could have gotten good enough to be a pro guitarist. I have no problem with such an assessment at the individual level, but I don't see the basis for asserting that everyone is like that.
I think we'd all agree that non-human animals aren't like that, and some humans are too mentally disabled to be like that. Granted, they don't qualify as "healthy infants, well-formed." But they show that we can easily conceive of a human being (or animal) who lacks the potential to become competent at certain skills due to innate, immutable limitations. It strikes me as sheer superstition to claim that any healthy human has crossed some magic threshold where all talents are achievable with a non-genius level of excellence.
posted by John Cohen at 9:57 PM on September 11, 2010
As a person with a high IQ who is not competent in much, I think that talent, curiosity, and persistence outweigh native intelligence. So a person of normal intelligence, who was talented, curious, and persistent, could probably achieve many things.
posted by wandering_not_lost at 9:58 PM on September 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by wandering_not_lost at 9:58 PM on September 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
He said "any type of specialist," and that's a lower standard than genius. But it has to imply some impressive level of competence, or else there would hardly have been a point to his making this pronouncement.
I think he was using the term "specialist" in a different sense - his examples are in the range of lawyer and artist, not nuclear physicist or piano virtuoso.
I have no problem with such an assessment at the individual level, but I don't see the basis for asserting that everyone is like that.
I would assume that, if in a few seconds, I can come up with a situation wherein I could have become Person With Ability X, but instead, due to a completely random set of circumstances, became Person With Ability Y, the same would also be true of others. I'm not that special.
all talents are achievable with a non-genius level of excellence.
Again, I think you're reading something into the quote which isn't there. He's not saying "non-geniuses can become geniuses!" He's saying "ultimately, your average person basically has the potential to do just about anything, from becoming a doctor to being stuck as a petty thief."
His mention of race, to me, is key here. Though I'll admit that I don't know a whole lot about Watson. I'm just reading the words in the quote.
posted by Sara C. at 10:22 PM on September 11, 2010
I think he was using the term "specialist" in a different sense - his examples are in the range of lawyer and artist, not nuclear physicist or piano virtuoso.
I have no problem with such an assessment at the individual level, but I don't see the basis for asserting that everyone is like that.
I would assume that, if in a few seconds, I can come up with a situation wherein I could have become Person With Ability X, but instead, due to a completely random set of circumstances, became Person With Ability Y, the same would also be true of others. I'm not that special.
all talents are achievable with a non-genius level of excellence.
Again, I think you're reading something into the quote which isn't there. He's not saying "non-geniuses can become geniuses!" He's saying "ultimately, your average person basically has the potential to do just about anything, from becoming a doctor to being stuck as a petty thief."
His mention of race, to me, is key here. Though I'll admit that I don't know a whole lot about Watson. I'm just reading the words in the quote.
posted by Sara C. at 10:22 PM on September 11, 2010
So your question is: can someone with normal mathematical ability appreciate to its full extent Euler's theorem?
To give a specific example, although not of something so advanced...
A student comes from a privileged family. She has always had access to resources that some others didn't: encouraging parents, tutors, good schools. She got good grades in high school. She's not a genius, but she's not stupid either; her intelligence is probably a little higher than average.
Now she's in college studying to be an engineer. She has to learn a lot of math. She reaches calculus 2, where she hits a wall. She works incredibly hard, but it just won't "click." She has tutors, spends hours in the TA's office, but even though she was able to do high school calculus, the more intensive calculus of college is beyond her.
She drops out of calculus and doesn't become an engineer.
This is actually a student I knew. I don't know what she could have done differently. It certainly wasn't lack of trying or lack of resources at fault; she seemed to just have some trouble with the concepts. She wasn't the only one who dropped out of the class; many other students did too, and I doubt all of them suffered from lack of motivation or resources or intelligence or whatever.
I also have a friend who I would describe being of average intelligence who struggles with incredibly basic math. She tries too. She's had plenty of motivation to improve. I tried to give her advice once but she'd tried all of the things I suggested and still just could not get it. I do not think that someone who struggles to understand simple operations will be able to learn higher maths.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 8:35 AM on September 12, 2010
To give a specific example, although not of something so advanced...
A student comes from a privileged family. She has always had access to resources that some others didn't: encouraging parents, tutors, good schools. She got good grades in high school. She's not a genius, but she's not stupid either; her intelligence is probably a little higher than average.
Now she's in college studying to be an engineer. She has to learn a lot of math. She reaches calculus 2, where she hits a wall. She works incredibly hard, but it just won't "click." She has tutors, spends hours in the TA's office, but even though she was able to do high school calculus, the more intensive calculus of college is beyond her.
She drops out of calculus and doesn't become an engineer.
This is actually a student I knew. I don't know what she could have done differently. It certainly wasn't lack of trying or lack of resources at fault; she seemed to just have some trouble with the concepts. She wasn't the only one who dropped out of the class; many other students did too, and I doubt all of them suffered from lack of motivation or resources or intelligence or whatever.
I also have a friend who I would describe being of average intelligence who struggles with incredibly basic math. She tries too. She's had plenty of motivation to improve. I tried to give her advice once but she'd tried all of the things I suggested and still just could not get it. I do not think that someone who struggles to understand simple operations will be able to learn higher maths.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 8:35 AM on September 12, 2010
Race did matter to Watson. There was a massive anti-immigrant backlash in the US in the early 20th century. Some American psychologists at the time devoted a lot of effort to proving, with newly invented IQ tests, that various European "races," Slavs, Jews, Celtics, Hungarians, etc. were inferior to "Nordics" - old immigrants from England, Germany and Holland. Watson himself was a southerner. According to racial theories popular at the time, southerners were inferior because they were "tainted" with Celtic blood due to settlement patterns in the colonial period.
Watson's insistence that everything depended on conditioning, probably appealed to children of immigrants who were starting to enter the university system and sometimes majoring in psychology.
Anyway, he's sort of right.
There are genetic disorders that affect intelligence. However, high vs. normal IQ scores appear to be due solely to environmental influences. There is no evidence of 'genius genes.'
But it's more complicated than that. Some environmental influences, like childhood nutrition (and head injuries, etc.), can have permanent effects. Early training and experience can make a lot of difference. IQ tests do not measure reasoning ability or problem-solving skills, but people do vary a lot on well they're able to solve problems and how they approach figuring something out. Is some of that variation due to genetic factors? Dunno. People can have a skill or ability and apply it in one domain (say, their job or academic specialty), but fail to apply it another area they're less familiar with.
To try to get your head around the question your asking, I'd highly recommend reading Stephen Ceci's On Intelligence. Ceci's a cognitive psychologist who's done a lot research on domains and problem solving. He also talks about intelligence testing, genetic theories, and the idea of general intelligence (he's skeptical). It's a bit heady, but intended for a general audience.
posted by nangar at 9:19 AM on September 12, 2010
Watson's insistence that everything depended on conditioning, probably appealed to children of immigrants who were starting to enter the university system and sometimes majoring in psychology.
Anyway, he's sort of right.
There are genetic disorders that affect intelligence. However, high vs. normal IQ scores appear to be due solely to environmental influences. There is no evidence of 'genius genes.'
But it's more complicated than that. Some environmental influences, like childhood nutrition (and head injuries, etc.), can have permanent effects. Early training and experience can make a lot of difference. IQ tests do not measure reasoning ability or problem-solving skills, but people do vary a lot on well they're able to solve problems and how they approach figuring something out. Is some of that variation due to genetic factors? Dunno. People can have a skill or ability and apply it in one domain (say, their job or academic specialty), but fail to apply it another area they're less familiar with.
To try to get your head around the question your asking, I'd highly recommend reading Stephen Ceci's On Intelligence. Ceci's a cognitive psychologist who's done a lot research on domains and problem solving. He also talks about intelligence testing, genetic theories, and the idea of general intelligence (he's skeptical). It's a bit heady, but intended for a general audience.
posted by nangar at 9:19 AM on September 12, 2010
She reaches calculus 2, where she hits a wall. She works incredibly hard, but it just won't "click." She has tutors, spends hours in the TA's office, but even though she was able to do high school calculus, the more intensive calculus of college is beyond her.
She drops out of calculus and doesn't become an engineer.
Except that I know plenty of engineers who I'd describe as only of average or of slightly above average intelligence. It's not like you have to be a superhuman savant to become an engineer.
At the university level, people give up on things or move on from areas that just don't "click" for them for a lot of reasons. People also have or don't have what "it" takes for any number of reasons that probably don't relate to innate genetic differences.
I gave up on being an actor around the same time, and in somewhat similar contexts - I just realized that there are a lot of other things I can do, and this dream doesn't look as good in close up as I thought it would. However, I'm pretty sure that there was nothing innately different between me and the girl sitting next to me in my acting class who later went on to Broadway. Just a different set of circumstances.
posted by Sara C. at 10:03 AM on September 12, 2010
She drops out of calculus and doesn't become an engineer.
Except that I know plenty of engineers who I'd describe as only of average or of slightly above average intelligence. It's not like you have to be a superhuman savant to become an engineer.
At the university level, people give up on things or move on from areas that just don't "click" for them for a lot of reasons. People also have or don't have what "it" takes for any number of reasons that probably don't relate to innate genetic differences.
I gave up on being an actor around the same time, and in somewhat similar contexts - I just realized that there are a lot of other things I can do, and this dream doesn't look as good in close up as I thought it would. However, I'm pretty sure that there was nothing innately different between me and the girl sitting next to me in my acting class who later went on to Broadway. Just a different set of circumstances.
posted by Sara C. at 10:03 AM on September 12, 2010
IQ doesn't really test for this kind of thing. I tested 135 when I did a basic online test, but I would do poorly on a normal one, as I have very little capacity for maths and almost no spatial awareness, which makes rotating shapes hard. Add to that that IQ test questions are skewed toward a more WASPy knowledge base and it isn't always the best measure of innate ability. I was classed as Gifted and Talented at an early age but I cannot do number puzzles. I can learn things quickly - I read and recall information very very quickly - but only certain types of information; I can't learn board game rules, say, unless I'm actually being shown how to play the game, and whilst I can learn Spanish vocabulary without thinking I really really struggle with grammar. I'm sure this is not unusual - there are measures of natural aptitude and interest which really effect ability to learn. Practise is a big measure.
posted by mippy at 3:42 PM on September 12, 2010
posted by mippy at 3:42 PM on September 12, 2010
Except that I know plenty of engineers who I'd describe as only of average or of slightly above average intelligence. It's not like you have to be a superhuman savant to become an engineer.
Which is why I didn't say that the people who remained in the class were geniuses. I was just pointing out an example of someone of at least average intelligence who wasn't able to learn a subject despite having many advantages and strong motivation. Why she had such trouble with it, I don't know.
At the university level, people give up on things or move on from areas that just don't "click" for them for a lot of reasons. People also have or don't have what "it" takes for any number of reasons that probably don't relate to innate genetic differences.
Yes? Is this supposed to be a counter-point to my comment, or are you changing subjects? It seems we agree. I never claimed that her inability to understand calculus II was innate. I'm not sure where you got that. I'd never claim it was either.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 12:23 PM on September 13, 2010
Which is why I didn't say that the people who remained in the class were geniuses. I was just pointing out an example of someone of at least average intelligence who wasn't able to learn a subject despite having many advantages and strong motivation. Why she had such trouble with it, I don't know.
At the university level, people give up on things or move on from areas that just don't "click" for them for a lot of reasons. People also have or don't have what "it" takes for any number of reasons that probably don't relate to innate genetic differences.
Yes? Is this supposed to be a counter-point to my comment, or are you changing subjects? It seems we agree. I never claimed that her inability to understand calculus II was innate. I'm not sure where you got that. I'd never claim it was either.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 12:23 PM on September 13, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
In fact, people do have innate qualities, tendencies, and potentials. And people are not born identical to each other (even if they're all thoroughly "healthy" and "well-formed").
However, it's probably not possible to do an ethical and scientifically valid test of what I'm saying. You have to use common sense and everyday observation and accumulated impressions. Alas, it's all too easy to claim that any given difference is due to environment. If someone wants to believe that, they can keep believing it till the day they die. It's a secular faith.
posted by John Cohen at 5:07 PM on September 11, 2010 [1 favorite]