Intelligence: innate ability or learned skill?

[Strix]

Following on from a variety of recent threads, I was reading a bit about intelligence and whether we are born with it or we have the power to learn it. I came across this article which I think is very interesting. Dweck believes intelligence is largely learned. And that whether or not one believes it is learned actually contributes to his/her academic success.

The article also addresses girls and math, which is also a topic which is near and dear to me.

Thought I'd share.. and of course discuss.

www.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/cgi-bin/drupalm/system/files/cdweckmathgift.pdf

I think that ability is learned and not innate. There is an element of intelligence being innate, but the major factor in success is good tuition and hard work. I agree with the father of the remarkable twins from a deprived area of London who said

?Every child is a genius. Once you identify the talent of a child and put them in the environment that will nurture that talent then the sky is the limit,"

These twins and his entire family show how important good tuition and hard work is

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/school_league_tables/article7044675.ece

when they were 6, they had extra tuition at a Saturday school and passed their GCSE maths

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article619041.ece

this is down to the fantastic tuition that they received, not in their school, but from a church-based tutoring centre.

I think Dweck's conclusion that success in maths is contingent on telling people that "maths is not a gift, it requires hard work" is too simplistic. I doubt that this will really work, because these beliefs will not be embedded deep within the psyche. I think the major determinant here is spersonality. Children who are perfectionists will lose confidence in their maths abilities when they repeatedly come across failure. Children who are more reckless, daring and risk-taking will be able to brush off the failure and continue to persevere which will lead them to do well in maths.

Dweck in 'Mindset' talks about growth and fixed mindset. If you have a growth mindset you can grow even when you 'repeatedly come across failure'. At the moment I am trying to model my own continued learning to my children, it's not easy as my children repeatedly seem to say 'I am rubbbish, I can't do writing' and similar. I do some writing and I stick up my rough drafts on the fridge and talk to them about what's challenging etc. Sometimes, even the youngest, has an insight which helps too!

If you have a fixed mindset you'll believe something like 'I am no good at maths, it isn't my subject' if you have a growth mindset you'll believe 'I find it tricky, but I wonder what I can do to get better better at i?. I've had bigger challenges I've overcome'.

Intelligence isn't unitary, it has many facets most of which can be cultivated. There is no ceiling to ability, unless sadly there are severe learning impairments. What one person can learn most can learn (albeit at different rates). Betty Edwards in 'Drawing on the right side of the brain' showed that most of us can even learn to draw and get to a reasonable standard. Many think of drawing as a magical ability as something only a few have and only a few will ever possess. Edwards says this is because most don't understand the learnable components of drawing - they are the ability to perceive edges, spaces, lights, shadows etc. When we learn to draw we learn all of this and combine it into one process. Some people pick up these skills in life and can do it anyway, others have to learn but all can do it.

It really saddens me when I hear teachers talking about year one classes in terms of the 'bright' and the 'slow'. Dips and spurts in performance are the norm especially at this age yet sadly 'labels' can be sticky and can have a habit of trailing you in school and beyond.

The genetic component of intelligence is smaller than first thought. Research on the brain also shows it is much more 'elastic' than first realised.

I love Guy Claxton's analogy:

Imagine that the genetic component of 'intelligence' is like the size of a kitchen cooker. Someone may have three cooking rings and a single oven, and someone else has four rings and two ovens. These will set different hypothetical limits on the meals they can produce. But in practice, the quality and variety of their food generally reflects quite different thing: how interested they are in cooking; the recipe books they have; how adventurous they are; who they can call for advice when a sauce curdles; and so on. In practice neither of the cooks with the different sized cookers is anywhere near the limit of their cooking 'potential'. Any differences in their meals are much more likely to reflect differences in interest, experiences and support than they do the addition of another burner or fan assisted oven.

Don't even go here. We will soon be discussing whether genetic inteligence is a function of race.

Hi Claig, the twins got F and G grades in GCSE (if I've read that correctly) which presumably means they'll need to take them again in the future? (Isn't a C seen as a pass/entry level qualification).

Mind you why they were only 6 at the time and a 'pass' at this age should build confidence!

A few I know have signed up for language GCSEs next year and are on a 'just for fun' type campaign. The stakes are not too high for them, it doesn't matter if they fail etc. It will be interesting to see if a different approach means they are more successful.

Strix, Dweck explores her ideas about Maths etc further in Mindset. I think you'd enjoy it if you haven't already read it.

Great to see others interested in her research. Very few books have changed my life, Mindset has. I am so much happier and achieved so much more since trying to adapt to a growth mindset.

Thing is my children seem naturally to be wired to a 'fixed' mindset. I wonder whether this is something that is reinforced at school? It's an ongoing battle to make them embrace the fact they have the ability do various things, it isn't that they 'can't' it's that they 'can't yet'! Thing is they seem to struggle with that concept at times!

I think that many seemingly fixed ideas about ability are unwittingly messaged early on at primary school as I've discussed on here before. If you look at threads on primary education here you will see parents asking, is my child 'average', is he 'fast' for the class or 'slow', can he get to a level 2, is he level 2 material, is he grammar stream going forward?

Thing is dips and spurts in performance are normal for young children. I know that SAT levels are there to make sure that progress is being made but the danger is when we read to much into them I think.

I'd like it if schools had 'current attainment' tables rather than 'ability' tables some subtle shifts in language would make some differences I think. After all if your child sits at the 'top' ability table many will believe, if only on a subconscious level, that he is inherently brighter than little Johnny who sits on the bottom table in the class.

Truth be told little Johnny probably has a lower attainment level currently! Of course many realise this but not all and more importantly perhaps not little Johnny himself.

thanks for telling me about the F and G grades, Cortina. I missed that. Phew that's a relief for all of us, I was beginning to think I was a failure Proves that they are human after all. Wonder what they got in their A levels? I don't think it says.

Cortina I think you are doing the correct thing at home to get over this 'fixed' mindset. It is very important to stretch them at home, give them difficult stuff to do that they are not immediately capable of understanding. The more of these situations that they come across, the more it will teach them that nothing is 'fixed' when they eventually crack these problems. If they jump these hurdles at an early age then it will become second nature for them and nothing will phase them in the future. I think you have to do this type of stuff at home, because a lot of the school work is not stretching enough. The fact that people are able to take A levels at the age of 9 shows how much easier a lot of these subjects have become.

I think I got that wrong. They passed A/AS level maths at the age of 7 and further maths at the age of 8. Amazing

First you'd want to define intelligence. If you mean aptitude for certain academic studies, then I'm not so sure. I grew up with two biological brothers and one adopted brother (joined the family as a toddler and has no memories of an earlier life). Upbringing in my family meant a lot of encouragement to learn languages and humanities; otoh very little interest in science or technology. I and my two biological brothers have always shown a marked aptitude for languages and an interest in humanities: two of us are now academics in this field. My adopted brother, despite being given exactly the same encouragement, has never shown any particular aptitude for languages; some interest in the humanities has rubbed off on him, but not the type of mindset that e.g. analyses language. Otoh he has an absolutely amazing talent for technology: even as a small child he was mending hoovers and sorting out washing machines. He now runs his own computer firm. Noone has taught him this, he certainly didn't get it from our family: it's sheer talent.

The ones who say it is all tutoring ignore the fact that Mozart wasn't the only child who was hothoused by proficient musicians- but they didn't all end up writing Mozart's music.

I agree with cory. I think that children have aptitudes for specific skills that are genetically determined, much as they have aptitude for certain sports that are genetically determined.

Most people can, with good teaching and personal application, acquire a range of general skills in, for example, language, mathematics, observation, analysis and synthesis. However, to become really good at anything does require the sort of interest that natural aptitude allows.

Hmm, I think that anyone with more than one child or indeed one or more siblings will appreciate that:

(1) That whilst most psychologists these days agree that there is a strong genetic influence on IQ, it is never a 'mean average' of the parents'. You can inherit Mum's fantastic ability with maths but you might also get Dad's total inability to cope with foreign languages. Siblings can have markedly different talents.

(2) That whilst upbringing and encouragement also play a strong part, again, siblings brought up within the same household can show markedly different talents and achievements.

It's worth reading Ouliers by Gladwell (one of the Mumsnet choices for book of the month. Feb) for an insight into this question:

'Throughout the publication, Gladwell repeatedly mentions the "10,000-Hour Rule", claiming that the key to success in any field is, to a large extent, a matter of practicing a specific task for a total of around 10,000 hours.'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_%28book%29

What Cory said (I really do seem to write that a lot. But it does save time).

LOL at the 10,000 hour rule. Given the myriad skills we are all expected to master these days, I don't think we really have time to devote 10,000 hours to all of them.

DD has had 10 half-day ski-ing lessons this winter. She can already ski a lot better than me!

I used to believe that inteligence and academic achievement were far more to do with environment than ability.
Then I had twins.
It blew many of my theories out of the water.
My children have the same environment and experience it at the same time...both home and school. Yet their genetic predispositions were clear from the very start.
Obviously, environment and effort still make a huge impact. But you can't deny genetics.

Litchick - I would have loved twins for that very reason!

I find it very interesting to observe my two DSSs. Since they are not mine, genetically, and they did not spend their early years with me, I can observe them a lot more dispassionately than one can one's own children (I find it much harder to try to identify what DD has inherited from me and DP and what we have passed on to her via the cultural bias of our family).

So much of the DSSs' characters and skills is genetically determined it is frightening! Of course they have had lots of environmental opportunities to develop their aptitudes.

I believe different levels of innate intelligence are present at birth, it is what is done to develop that potential that determines the outcome and how the intelligence is developed. We are not all born equal.

I am interested in the idea that ability is learnable and the large part that isn't genetically determined. Psychologists now seem to be saying that the genetically determined part is not as 'large' as first thought. If you think about it you can break down 'intelligence' into learnable components and most can improve each area to quite a large degree. I am also interested in how much influence your 'mindset' has on your performance.

Bonsoir you say 'to become really good at anything does require the sort of interest that natural aptitude allows' I used to believe this & can see the sense in that we usually enjoy and want to develop what comes easily. Recently I have very surprised to learn that this 'genius' gene largely is a bit of a myth - 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration really seems to be correct when you really look into it. There was no Eureka moment for Edison, his team of researchers and fellow scientists had been tinkering in labs for year. Michael Jordan didn't even make the basketball team etc. Tiger Woods was swinging a golf club every day from 5 years old, Van Gogh produced mediocre work for years, deforming his hands in the process, before anything of note and so on...Thing is as a society we don't value effort. Those that have to try have no natural endowments, they are pleasant little plodders, not much admired really. I always imagined Edison was a loner and came up with all the ideas on his own.

What's more interesting to me anyway is how we think about ability and effort and how we unconsciously transmit these beliefs.

My children feel that their talent is being judged at school, this translates into a fixed mindset ( I am not as good as X, I am rubbish, I can't write, I can't do Maths). They value speed and perfection in their work, this is the enemy of difficult learning going forward. How can I tell them that teachers are not there to judge their talents when this is what it looks like to them on a daily basis? They want to please their teachers so seemingly effortless perfection is what they are trying to project every day. I love the idea of the English teacher who puts a rough draft of a poem that is a work in progress on the wall, can anyone help her on the last stanza? This would help my kids no end!

I try to tell them that mistakes are interesting, they are how we learn. I think it's brilliant when teachers model learning and read with interest recently about a science teacher who has an ongoing experiment in his lab, he honestly has no idea of the outcome and his pupils become curious and offer suggestions. Sir has no idea, and he isn't bothered someone might think he is an inferior scientist if he gets puzzled or stumped by a particular problem. Marvellous!

Gladwell has said as a society we value natural, effortless accomplishment over achievement through effort. That's why super heroes are so popular! That's why my French teacher wrote on my report many years ago 'Cortina is in a high achieving set, if she wants to stay there I need a huge effort from her'. I got a B in the 80s, not bad going for a weak student. My French teacher thought I lacked the innate ability and I was in the mediocre slogger category. Never to be loved, revered and respected like Nicola the French genius (who also got a B)!

We have stories about Scruffy tugboats, slow tortoises, which are pretty cute and usually over matched, we are happy for them when they succeed. They are the runts, and the message seems to be if you are in this unfortunate position and lack endowment you MIGHT not be a complete and utter failure if you work hard you might succeed. Who wants to be the runt of the litter?

Carol Dweck says she had a fixed mindset about ability etc at first. She used to walk past her psychology building every night and see a fellow student burning the midnight oil. She smiled smugly to herself and thought 'ha, they are obviously not as naturally clever as me' or something like that. She hadn't thought they might be just as clever but very hard working until she changed her mindset.

I'd like to see more of a growth mindset in schools about ability and intelligence. There's nothing heroic about having a gift or huge natural ability, as Dweck says lets be positive about effort and realise it isn't just for sloggers but it ignites ability and turns it into real accomplishment.

Children's inherent ability isn't set in stone at 6 years old so let's have 'attainment' tables for starters rather than the 'ability' tables that can lead to a fixed mindset and behaviour that my children demonstrate (they need to be competitive, they need to demonstrate perfection, they believe their ability has a ceiling when they get out of their depth).

Some really interesting points here. I think it is generally accepted that we are born with varying abilities. But, only throough hard work can we actually know to what extent we may be gifted. If I never try to run I will never know if I was born with the potential to be an olympic gold medalist.

Also, I remember taking a child psych slass about amillion years ago and learning that some language connections if not made in the first year of life can never be regained. For example, people on the continent have a very hard time with the th sound as in Thursday. They tend to pronounce it like t, so tursday. This is because they did not hear this sound when they were babies and so lost the ability to differentiate between th and t. Its gone. Never to return. And I wonder if this can be extended to other things. What else, if not exposed to very young, do we lose the ability (or possibly potential ability) to do. Is is just language? Or does exposure to other subjects at an early age actually contribute to our ability to bexcel in them later on?

well, as ever, a little bit of column A, a little bit of column B...

It really depends where you are trying to apply the "intelligence".

For instance I passed my maths O level without bothering to revise and got an A. Another girl worked like mad and revised a lot and also got an A. Who is more intelligent?

I find analysing text and sorting out problems very easy, I have come across people with better degrees than me who struggle to even grasp the problem, let alone come up with the answers (work related process stuff).

Prep schools are a good example how endless repitiion and constant work can get children to perform better in tests, than if they had been allowed to "coast" or set their own learning speed.

My friend's child knows his times tables...he has been taught them since he was 2.
I expect most children, if they had had the times table played them every day since they were two would also know them.

However, not everyone who is ahead of their peer group at 8 will be ahead of the peer group at 14.

And some people are witty and some people are not. That is God given, you cannot teach that.

However, a lot of people given the chance and encouragement will do well in something as opposed to being ignored etc.

But I do think some people find things much easier and have a much quicker brain which assimilates knowledge faster.

Stix I've noticed the same thing about the 'ph' sound. I once observed a teacher in London (she was from mainland China) reading a book to a class about a 'peasant'. Who could tell her when the peasant laid an egg? My ears pricked up, of course, she meant 'pheasant'! It made me smile but of course my Chinese could never rival her English.

I've read something about pathways in the brain, 'cells that glow together grow together' or something like that. Basically that the mind is plastic and we can always establish new neural pathways etc which means we can improve our skills etc. So I am not sure there is that much that we can't do just because we didn't do it very young? No expert though and I think there's a lot of evidence that studying languages young is beneficial.

But I do think some people find things much easier and have a much quicker brain which assimilates knowledge faster.

Undoubtedly the case. What interests me is how many of us 'believe' our brain can't do this in the first place (even if we are perfectly capable)? This means that we don't perform as well as we might. I did an IQ test recently and got a fairly average score, my bandwidth was taken up with the stress of being timed and believing I couldn't do Maths etc. Took a harder test, in very relaxed circumstances and tuned out the fact I was being timed etc, I did very well indeed.

As for being witty - I think there are learnable components of being witty, you'd be surprised. Of course some are very naturally gifted etc.

One of the 'wittiest' I know has dozens of A4 notebooks with brilliant jokes and anecdotes etc scribbled down. It's amazing how if you memorise thousands you can appear the wittiest person in the world. I imagine many stand up comedians are similar.

What one person in the world can learn, even if it's learning to fly a plane etc (which some seem to imagine is incredibly difficult for some reason I've found), almost every one else can learn (although at a different pace).

However, not everyone who is ahead of their peer group at 8 will be ahead of the peer group at 14. - this is true but the NC can be prescriptive I think if not interpreted correctly, some might think it supposes progress is always linear. Dips and spurts are the norm yet there was a report published that said we fail the cream of the 11 year olds that don't go on to get 3 A's at A level.

Totally agree with Miggsie - we frequently praise 'clever' or 'brilliant' children whilst sometimes almost seeming to despise 'sloggers' (or 'girly-swots') - and yet surely a child who puts in some effort almost deserves the greater praise. I knew plenty of brilliant people at college who have done precious little in life since, and in some (not all) cases I suspect that's down to having to make some effort in the real world.

Having said that, I think that it's a real shame when children are overly-coached and pressurised. Given that the vast majority of exams, and even so-called IQ tests, will inevitably test some assimilated knowledge as well as aptitude, then it will always be possible to improve a score with hard work. And so it should be. But children need a life beyond text books.