The Genius in All of Us: New Insights Into Genetics, Talent, and IQ by David Shenk
Authors: David Shenk
Ads: Link
results reveal a person’s raw intelligence, when all they actually reveal is how well a child learned those skills. All we’re really learning from intelligence tests is that some kids do better than others in school. We are not, as intelligence testers claim, uncovering the innate cause of these differences.
Is Sternberg saying there’s no such thing as innate intelligence?
No. But he is saying that such intelligence is “not directly measurable,” that it is not one general ability which can be scored, and that it is not inherently limiting. The evidence shows that skills and abilities are inextricably interwoven and that all skills are modifiable.
“The main constraint in achieving expertise,” says Sternberg, “is not some fixed prior level of capacity, but purposeful engagement involving direct instruction, active participation, role modeling, and reward.”
What about the famous correlation between intelligence test scores on the one hand and job performance/life success on the other?
It’s a mirage. The correlation does exist, says Sternberg, but not because one causes the other; rather, it’s because they both measure the same abilities.
Or as Sternberg puts it: “Such correlations represent no intrinsic relation between intelligence and other kinds of performance, but rather overlap in the kinds of competencies needed to perform well under different kinds of circumstances. The greater the overlap in skills, in general, the higher the correlations.”
Sternberg then points to a series of studies demonstrating that practical expertise does not correlate well with analytical (“intelligence”) tests but does correlate very nicely with job performance and life success:
The Yup’ik Eskimo children of Alaska have “extremely impressive competencies and even expertise for surviving in a difficult environment, but because these skills are not ones valued by teachers” they tend to do very poorly in school. ( Grigorenko et al .)
In Brazil, street children who are extremely successful in running street businesses, and highly expert in math skills necessary for those affairs, do very poorly in abstract, pencil-and-paper math problems. ( Nunes )
In Berkeley, California, there is “no correlation” between housewives’ impressive abilities in comparison shopping math and scores on pencil-and-paper math tests. ( Lave )
The essential point being that whatever our innate abilities—which clearly exist but are still far from being understood and specified—they do not limit us in a way that IQ scores imply. Ultimately, life success is a function not of inherent abilities, but of highly developed skills.
Sternberg depicts a Western society having painted itself into a logical corner: as we’ve succeeded with our own brand of academia, we’ve devised tests— g , IQ, SAT, etc.—which we’ve convinced ourselves show actual innate intelligence, when all they show is achievements according to those particular standards. When you look around the world, you see there are all different kinds of intelligence. Western societies have nothing to be ashamed of in having created successful academies and economies, but we can’t let that success corrupt our judgment of where abilities actually come from.
Sternberg: “Skills develop as results of gene-environment covariation and interaction. If we wish to call them intelligence , that is certainly fine, so long as we recognize that what we are calling intelligence is a form of development competencies that can lead to expertise.”
Robert Sternberg, “Intelligence, Competence, and Expertise.” In Handbook of Competence and Motivation , edited by A. J. Elliot and C. S. Dweck, Guilford Publications, 2005.
Grigorenko, Elena. “The relationship between academic and practical intelligence: a case study of the tacit knowledge of native American Yup’ik people in Alaska.” Office of Educational Research and Improvement, December 2001.
Nunes, T. “Street
Is Sternberg saying there’s no such thing as innate intelligence?
No. But he is saying that such intelligence is “not directly measurable,” that it is not one general ability which can be scored, and that it is not inherently limiting. The evidence shows that skills and abilities are inextricably interwoven and that all skills are modifiable.
“The main constraint in achieving expertise,” says Sternberg, “is not some fixed prior level of capacity, but purposeful engagement involving direct instruction, active participation, role modeling, and reward.”
What about the famous correlation between intelligence test scores on the one hand and job performance/life success on the other?
It’s a mirage. The correlation does exist, says Sternberg, but not because one causes the other; rather, it’s because they both measure the same abilities.
Or as Sternberg puts it: “Such correlations represent no intrinsic relation between intelligence and other kinds of performance, but rather overlap in the kinds of competencies needed to perform well under different kinds of circumstances. The greater the overlap in skills, in general, the higher the correlations.”
Sternberg then points to a series of studies demonstrating that practical expertise does not correlate well with analytical (“intelligence”) tests but does correlate very nicely with job performance and life success:
The Yup’ik Eskimo children of Alaska have “extremely impressive competencies and even expertise for surviving in a difficult environment, but because these skills are not ones valued by teachers” they tend to do very poorly in school. ( Grigorenko et al .)
In Brazil, street children who are extremely successful in running street businesses, and highly expert in math skills necessary for those affairs, do very poorly in abstract, pencil-and-paper math problems. ( Nunes )
In Berkeley, California, there is “no correlation” between housewives’ impressive abilities in comparison shopping math and scores on pencil-and-paper math tests. ( Lave )
The essential point being that whatever our innate abilities—which clearly exist but are still far from being understood and specified—they do not limit us in a way that IQ scores imply. Ultimately, life success is a function not of inherent abilities, but of highly developed skills.
Sternberg depicts a Western society having painted itself into a logical corner: as we’ve succeeded with our own brand of academia, we’ve devised tests— g , IQ, SAT, etc.—which we’ve convinced ourselves show actual innate intelligence, when all they show is achievements according to those particular standards. When you look around the world, you see there are all different kinds of intelligence. Western societies have nothing to be ashamed of in having created successful academies and economies, but we can’t let that success corrupt our judgment of where abilities actually come from.
Sternberg: “Skills develop as results of gene-environment covariation and interaction. If we wish to call them intelligence , that is certainly fine, so long as we recognize that what we are calling intelligence is a form of development competencies that can lead to expertise.”
Robert Sternberg, “Intelligence, Competence, and Expertise.” In Handbook of Competence and Motivation , edited by A. J. Elliot and C. S. Dweck, Guilford Publications, 2005.
Grigorenko, Elena. “The relationship between academic and practical intelligence: a case study of the tacit knowledge of native American Yup’ik people in Alaska.” Office of Educational Research and Improvement, December 2001.
Nunes, T. “Street
Similar Books
