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

Cortina, interesting point about comedians

"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."

Bob Monkhouse used to do that, he used to study and try to remember old jokes os that he could bring them up at the appropriate time. Many of the top comedians look back and study the masters in order to understand timing etc. Preparation and rehearshal are key, it doesn't all come naturally.

Twas said that Ronnie Barker's timing was brilliant because he actually studied as a straight actor. (There again, I'm one of those people who never quite 'got' The Two Ronnies as a child - timing or no timing - but just happens to think Porridge possibly the most brilliant comedy series of all time).

I agree with Miggsie that there are parts of intelligence that can't be taught.

ie History - some people can know and be taught thousands of facts about history- but I can't see how the ability to analyse and see the whole picture of what went on can't really be taught.

My DS seems to be "gifted" in this area of humanities. He doesn't get the top marks in the class and there are probably others in the class who actually read about history so therefore know a lot more facts than he does and he has dyslexic problems so his writing hasn't caught up with him, yet all his humanities, science and even his english teachers get excited about his "intelligence" "or his "amazing brain" as his history teacher put it the other night IYSWIM. I can't see how anyone has taught him this, it is obviously something that is innate.

Some people will catch up with others if they put in the hard slog but there are obviously many other factors involved even down to whether they have a competative nature or not.

Children are rarely told what type of table they are on in infants they just know they are on is blue, or rabbit or whatever the scheme is in the class. Calling it ability or attainment is just down to semantics for adults and absolutely meaningless to a child. It doesn't make any difference to the work they get and most children are more than capable of seeing that other children find some things easier even at a very young age. DS used to come to me upset in reception because others found reading easier. Nothing to do with what table he was on, it was the fact he could see them reading books with lots of words.

agree Porridge was brilliant. I was always disappointed to see Ronnie Barker interviewed in real life, as he was unfunny and even boring. He just had a good act.

bruffin, your son is gifted in humanities and nobody taught him how to think analytically like that. He relies on his own natural ability to do that. But, if the class were to have a fantastic teacher then other pupils would be able to learn how to think in a similar way. That is why top thinkers like Plato and Aristotle wanted to study under Socrates. By listening to and watching Socrates, they were able to refine their thinking skills. He taught them how to see the wood for the trees, how to sort the wheat from the chaff. He taught them how to really think. Unfortunately none of us have access to teachers like Socrates, but if we did, we could also be taught how to improve our thinking.

nature and nurture,the inate and genetic ability has to be there to be developed,reinforced,and practised

hemispheric and genetic differences will influence abilities.as will class and educational attainment of parents.so socio-economics play huge part too

nature and nurture,the inate and genetic ability has to be there to be developed,reinforced,and practised

Thing is the genetic ability accounts for less 'IQ' than previously realised. Unless there are learning impairments recent studies have shown intelligence is learnable for everyone. If you break it down into its many components it's easier to see how this might work.

Claig, I agree.

Bruffin said: History - some people can know and be taught thousands of facts about history- but I can't see how the ability to analyse and see the whole picture of what went on can't really be taught.

I would disagree with this. Most children could be taught how to do this. A good teacher taught me precisely this when I was 13. Goes back to what Dweck said what one person can learn most can learn (albeit at different rates).

A different skill set, but arguably a hard one to learn, is learning to drive. If a great many can learn that why not analysing historical facts?

ah but there is the rub,the exact impact of nature/nurture isnt exactly known.cant easily assign a figure to it and say 80/20 or wahtever

genetics
hemispheric differences
socioeconomics
all add to the picture

if it was so straight forward as what one person can learn we all learn,then we would all be very homogenous.we all learn and undertake tasks differently.to use your driving analogy why are some functionally people able to drive but do so in anxious fearful manner.whereas others drive in much more spontaneous manner

how do you explain risk taking in individuals?we can all learn a skill as discrete tasks.but we dont all undertake it exactly the same way

learning styles also can go a long way in explaining individual differences,there is no universal fact transfer schema.we are all different

Children are rarely told what type of table they are on in infants they just know they are on is blue, or rabbit or whatever the scheme is in the class. Calling it ability or attainment is just down to semantics for adults and absolutely meaningless to a child. It doesn't make any difference to the work they get and most children are more than capable of seeing that other children find some things easier even at a very young age. DS used to come to me upset in reception because others found reading easier. Nothing to do with what table he was on, it was the fact he could see them reading books with lots of words.

Many I talk to really believe that one child in the infants has more 'ability' than another and this is 'proved' by the fact that he sits in the top ability group. Many really seem to think that it is all about inherent ability, perhaps subconsciously, even at a young age. If you read many threads in primary education you can see where I am coming from.

I believe changing the language we use can shift mindsets in subtle way, calling them 'attainment' tables may make people realise that it's all about where the children are here and now, it's not about their inherent ability (how clever they are or otherwise). Doesn't ability mean how good you are at something? Another example would be replacing the word work with learning and using 'could be' rather than 'is' language.

'It doesn't make any difference to the work they get?' It does in that the work is differentiated from top to bottom.

'DS used to come to me upset in reception because others found reading easier. Nothing to do with what table he was on, it was the fact he could see them reading books with lots of words'.

I can see what you mean. My children have been the same but this has led them to fixed mindsets and believing their ability has a ceiling. I think it would help if learning was modelled more in the classroom (as I said earlier), the teachers are still learning, everyone can grow etc.

if it was so straight forward as what one person can learn we all learn,then we would all be very homogenous.

The point I was trying to make is that it is not widely believed that what one person is capable of learning almost anyone can learn (although the signs are this belief is changing).

Dweck has done some very interesting research. Could you teach calculus to the worst school in the district? With a growth mindset and teachers asking the question 'how can I teach them' not 'can I teach them' and 'how can they learn best' not 'can they learn' you'd have more success and various Maths teachers in her studies have proved this.

With the right mindset and the right teaching people are capable of a lot more than is currently thought.

The kids all work out what the table codes mean. DD (year 2) is organised into shape tables (spheres, pyramids, etc.). WE had this conversation the other day:

me: So, who sits at the smart table for math?
DD: boy1, boy2, girl1, boy3, oh... and girl2. But, I don't think girl2 is very good. I think when Ms. x arranged the tables she thought girl1 was smarter than she really is.
me: DD! Girl2 is your friend and that is not a nice thing to say. I hope you don't ever say that to her.
DD: But it's true.

So, I don't think the children are oblivious to the streaming. Not only does DD know who sits at the top table, but she has opinions on whether or not they belong there. They may think their streaming is one big secret, but they are not fooling anybody.

Oh, and the children at the top table (whatever shape it is) get much more challenging work than the rest of the class.

and the point i make is individual personality/psychsocial differences impact upon learning styles and how one achieves tasks and outcomes

that is what makes it so damn interesting

'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'.

Mozart spent more than ten years until he produced anything noteworthy. Before this point his compositions were unoriginal and uninteresting and largely put together chunks of other composer's work. He also worked so hard he deformed his hands.

The film Amadeus gave the stereotypical view of a 'genius' - it showed Mozart churning out piece after piece of brilliant music while his rival (Saleri) was consumed with envy. It didn't happen quite like that.

Thyla Tharp in 'The Creative Habit' said that creativity takes hard work, planning and dedication and even went so far as to say there are no 'natural geniuses'.

Jackson Pollock was told he had no artistic ability. He even doubted it himself so he decided to 'get better' and did art all the time. Because he was so passionate he got others to mentor him until he mastered new techniques and began to produce very original stuff.

What set him apart from others was his mindset and drive.

and the point i make is individual personality/psychsocial differences impact upon learning styles and how one achieves tasks and outcomes

that is what makes it so damn interesting.

Agreed.

If we are talking IQ, the general consensus in academia is it is predominantly an innate ability (over 50%), but education can affect this up to 10% either way, which is quite a lot!

god i tire of your habitual cut&paste.I know^ what i said, others can read it too.just get on with making your point without needless C&P

what about the other 40?

50% seems really high, actually. I have no research to back this up, but I am surprised.

They think genetics accounts for over 50% of the variance - it is not quite possible to account for all the factors that make up the 40-odd plus % of the variance of intelligence at the moment. It could be education, chance, food, sleep, music preference, hair colour, race (v.controversial), gender, health etc etc etc......the list is endless, but genetics is apparently the predominant factor.

The kids all work out what the table codes mean. DD (year 2) is organised into shape tables (spheres, pyramids, etc.). WE had this conversation the other day:

me: So, who sits at the smart table for math?
DD: boy1, boy2, girl1, boy3, oh... and girl2. But, I don't think girl2 is very good. I think when Ms. x arranged the tables she thought girl1 was smarter than she really is.
me: DD! Girl2 is your friend and that is not a nice thing to say. I hope you don't ever say that to her.
DD: But it's true.

So, I don't think the children are oblivious to the streaming. Not only does DD know who sits at the top table, but she has opinions on whether or not they belong there. They may think their streaming is one big secret, but they are not fooling anybody.

Agreed. I can see the need for differentiation/streaming, what do you think would be a better way of handling the fact that children work at different levels?

In an ideal world the curriculum is perhaps rolled out on an individual basis to each child (not really feasible in a big class).

I've told my children it's all about current attainment and I think if they realise it isn't that ' top table Brian is cleverer' than them or whatever that this helps them move into a growth mindset. Problem is I think 'most' people really do believe Brian 'must' be inherently cleverer by and large. I hear people say 'well English isn't his thing, doesn't have an gift like her sister, we can't all be good at everything (and worse 'at least he is a nice, loving boy') and so on. Thing is dips and spurts in performance are the norm, especially at 6 years old and there's a danger this sort of talk will be self limiting. If they can't beat 'Brian', it's smart not to try.

I talk about my personal 'learning' struggles and show them my writing in old exercise books, they can't believe it! They are beginning to learn (I hope) that mistakes aren't shameful, hey maybe even Brian makes them sometimes?! It's how we learn!

Personally, I don't like streaming because it writes kids off at age 5 to be in less able groups. Then, you get boys in the playground telling the girls that boys are smarter, reinforcing why Susie is at table four and Johnny is at one. The top table then gets harder work, further widening the gap. They come ou for restreaming in a term or a year, and guess what? The kids with the harder work excel even further.

I think 5 is way too young to be making these divisions. I would prefer that everyone get the same work, and those who can't finish it in class can take it home to work out with their parents.

Streaming has it's place, but I think not before say year 3.

And what I really hate about streaming is all the secrecy. Why did no one tell me when DD was in reception that she was being assessed for year 2 streaming. I could have helped her more if I had know what the curriculum was.

I have caught onto the game now, and she is doing fine. But, she would be getting more challenging work if I had realised it mattered in reception. And I feel she is missing out because I dropped the ball... when actually I didn't know I was playing ball.

I like Cortina's cut and paste quotes. That way I know which points she is responding to.

Very interesting about Mozart, I didn't know any of that.

LadyBlaBlah, hasn't this view recently been challenged? Dwecks research says that the brain is like a 'muscle' etc.

There also seems to be controversy about what constitutes intelligence in the first place? It seems the current trend is to favour Jean Piaget's definition of intelligence 'knowing what to do when you don't know what to do'. In other words it's not about doing things easily and quickly but how you respond when things get tough, being resilient and resourceful when challenged.

Lauren Resnick has said that intelligence is 'the habit of persistently trying to understand things and make them function better. Intelligence is working to figure things out, varying strategies until a workable solution is found. Intelligence is knowing what one does (and doesn't) know, seeking information and organising that information so that it makes sense and can be remembered. In short..intelligence is the sum of one's habits of mind'.

As Claxton says Resnick's research shows that this kind of intelligence is learnable and teachable.

Like Claxton what interests me is not so much about whether IQ is innate or acquired as what effect believing these different views has on the practical intelligence of the believer.

There are many definitions of intelligence for sure, and I realise it completely depends on what you read. I have been schooled in the IQ test strain of intelligence / general cognitive ability, however there are many critics of this and I was one when I joined this particular institution.

The people I know, who regularly contribute to journals such as Intelligence would have a certain way of thinking and are prolific researchers on the subject, and Piaget would not be considered influential in this particular area. It is not clear cut, but I would say that after having researched this quite thoroughly my opinion is that it is predominantly genetically based, yet many other factors may provide some influence too.

The Flynn effect, for example, is interesting, but still does not prove teachability of intelligence.

What's the Flynn effect?

Dweck's research is very interesting and pretty compelling.

Claxton too talks about: The intelligent child: old beliefs and new science. He quotes Prof Lauren Resnick:

It is increasingly evident that the educational methods we have been using for the past 70 years no longer suffice. They are based on scientific assumptions about the nature of knowledge, the learning process, and differential aptitudes for learning that have been eclipsed by new discoveries.

Cognitive scientists have been challenging previously held views about intelligence for the last 20 years or more.

From what I read, and I have no professional expertise in the area, it used to be that intelligence was seen as being 'general purpose' - a general cognitive ability/non-specific mental competence that determined how you performed in various areas. If you were 'bright' this would follow you from maths, to PE, to English etc. You were a 'bright' child or a child of 'average ability' and so on. Being bright or dim stayed with you pretty much for life.

IQ tests tested logic via puzzles etc and were a dipstick to test general purpose ability, and people's IQ differed . They told us about people's ability to learn. Bright people learned faster than the dim and so on. If people struggled they were getting close to their ability ceiling. It was this sort of thinking that the 11 plus was based on.

Claxton has a new book out soon called 'New Kinds of smart' or something like that which I will be very interested to read. I think it explores the challenges to old views I mentioned and presents some interesting ideas.