'An Appalling Report'

[Homo Aestheticus]

The situation is the same as the one between Steinberg and Murray. The rebuttal is not a denial. It's more like "I don't like your tone". Nothing is being effectively rebutted. All that about the below average guy with the widget versus the genius with nothing is just smoke.

In the real world the smarter you are the greater the chance that you already have the widget. You have to read these supposed rebuttals carefully.

Drogulus,

Thanks for noting the untenableness of Murray's points... (And I was very convinced by that widget argument for a long time.   )

Yesterday I came across the following abstract and was just amazed by some of the statements:

Today's neglect of the general intelligence factor (g) and IQ by psychologists, educationists and the media is the West's version of Lysenkoism. By 2000, hysterical denial of g became effectively the official science policy of the USA as Stephen Jay Gould, the author of The Mismeasure of Man -- and thus Arthur Jensen's main rival -- was elected President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Rooted in an egalitarian ideology that the West had managed to expel from the field of economic policy in the Reagan/Thatcher years, denial of g has typically been supported by wilful ignorance, wishful thinking and downright censoriousness. Such denial provides a powerful base for social work and state education.

Those who deplore g and its links to heredity, achievement and race often rehearse the multifactorial/componential ambitions of the nineteenth-century phrenologists which eventually appealed to American psychologists in the 1930's and subsequently. Alternatively, g-denial may deploy both ancient and modern arguments that nothing can be 'measured' in psychology. These two contradictory positions of IQ's more scholarly detractors are especially considered in this chapter, as is the less-often-remarked problem for the London School that so few Christian-era philosophers and psychologists -- prior to Herbert Spencer and Sir Francis Galton -- made much room in their systems for g

Despite considerable tacit acceptance of Plato's stress on the centrality of reason in human psychology, Plato's elitism and eugenicism are feared for their supposedly authoritarian implications. A hypothesis is advanced here, and supported empirically, which attributes neglect of g by intellectuals partly to their limited experience of real life - across the full IQ range; and it is suggested that Platonic realism actually enjoys distinguished support in modern philosophy and provides a basis for a new liberalism.

****************

I especially like the first and last sentences:

"Today's neglect of the general intelligence factor (g) and IQ by psychologists, educationists and the media is the West's version of Lysenkoism. By 2000, hysterical denial of g became effectively the official science policy of the USA"

"Platonic realism actually enjoys distinguished support in modern philosophy and provides a basis for a new liberalism"


Here in full: Why ignore the G factor? -- Historical considerations

[Homo Aestheticus]

Andrei,

Define intellectual ability

I know it's late but to me Gottfredson's is correct and simple:

"the ability to deal with cognitive complexity"

High linguistic ability does not necessarily imply concept-grasping ability and viceversa;

How can that be since concepts are encoded in all words ?  Whether it be clock, falling snow, pernicious, empiricism, osmosis, bed, phenomenology, rinse, thermodynamics, malleable, inordinate, bread and so on.

Reading comprehension is quite different from reasoning; reasoning is one thing and expressing the thoughts in a linguistically proper manner is another thing.

Quite different ?

My sister's ex-boyfriend was a double major in physics and philosophy at an Ivy League school and graduated with honors.... (Just so you know the ability to grasp all sorts of concepts, to comprehend thoroughly and to reason well does exist)

[Florestan]

How can that be since concepts are encoded in all words ? 

Have you never encountered, live or in print, persons who could talk or write endlessly, using  complicated words, parading them actually , about each and every subject under the Sun, without actually having studied none thoroughly and being as intellectually shallow as they got?

Quite different ?

Conversely, have you never encountered, this time live, very intelligent persons, accomplished scientists, engineers or physicians sometimes, who could not express their thoughts in an intelligible and linguistically propoer manner?

[Josquin des Prez]

Have you never encountered, live or in print, persons who could talk or write endlessly, using  complicated words, parading them actually , about each and every subject under the Sun, without actually having studied none thoroughly and being as intellectually shallow as they got?

Welcome to post modernism.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Andrei,

Conversely, have you never encountered, this time live, very intelligent persons, accomplished scientists, engineers or physicians sometimes, who could not express their thoughts in an intelligible and linguistically proper manner?

No, I have not.

But I would like to know why you feel these are inadequate defintions of intelligence:

1. The ability to grasp concepts and to organize experiences into a context that can be understood/interpreted.

or

2.  A general capacity for inferring and applying relationships drawn from experience.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Andrei and others,

I strongly disagree. It's "educational romanticism" at its worst.

(Actually, I believe the correct term would be "Rousseau-ism" rather than "romanticism".)

If you don't mind I'd like to resume discussion on this for a moment. Also, to refresh your memory your above quote was in reply to this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/22/opinion/tomorrow-s-education-made-to-measure.html?sec=health

Now, in the May/June issue of  Foreign Policy  magazine there is a special section called 'The Next Big Thing'. Howard Gardner, the famed professor of cognition and education at Harvard was one of the contributors with the following:

Personalized Education: A Quantum Leap In Learning Will Allow Everyone To Go To The Head Of The Class:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4844

******

Do you see these as positive developments to be endorsed or is it essentially the same philosophy as Mr. Levine was advocating ?

[Florestan]

to teach each person what he or she needs and wants to know in ways that are most comfortable and most efficient, producing a qualitative spurt in educational effectiveness

Who decides, and how, what a person needs and wants to know?

Something being simultaneously "most comfortable" and "most efficient" amounts to an oxymoron.

Just another piece of bla-bla-bla.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Thanks Andrei.

Damn, this is Howard Gardner,  one of the leading men in his field. He is also the one who pioneered the theory of multiple intelligence back in the early 80's.

From his book 'Frames of Mind':

"In the heyday of the psychometric and behaviorist eras, it was generally believed that intelligence was a single entity that was inherited; and that human beings - initially a blank slate - could be trained to learn anything, provided that it was presented in an appropriate way. Nowadays an increasing number of researchers believe precisely the opposite; that there exists a multitude of intelligences, quite independent of each other; that each intelligence has its own strengths and constraints; that the mind is far from unencumbered at birth; and that it is unexpectedly difficult to teach things that go against early 'naive' theories of that challenge the natural lines of force within an intelligence and its matching domains..."

[Florestan]

Damn, this is Howard Gardner,  one of the leading men in his field. He is also the one who pioneered the theory of multiple intelligence back in the early 80's.

I don't question his qualifications and competence. I just commented upon that specific article.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Andrei,

Here is an article (from last week) which addresses the main concern I've had in this thread:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/schoolgate/2009/05/teaching-to-get-the-best-out-of-a-child-is-setting-or-mixed-ability-the-best-way.html

Where do you stand on this issue ? Should children be streamed according to ability ?

I am definitely for setting...

[Florestan]

http://timesonline.typepad.com/schoolgate/2009/05/teaching-to-get-the-best-out-of-a-child-is-setting-or-mixed-ability-the-best-way.html

Actually, I believe that any meaningful discussion of "how to best do something?" must start with "what purpose is doing that something?".

Before talking about "which is the better way to teach children?" (as one comment very aptly noted, it's not a matter of "best" but "better") we must first define the purpose of teaching children.

So, in your opinion, what should be the goal of elementary and secondary school teaching?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Andrei,

Actually, I believe that any meaningful discussion of "how to best do something?" must start with "what purpose is doing that something?".

Before talking about "which is the better way to teach children?" (as one comment very aptly noted, it's not a matter of "best" but "better") we must first define the purpose of teaching children.

So, in your opinion, what should be the goal of elementary and secondary school teaching?

Honestly, I don't know.

But I am not sure that gathering 30 to 40 kids in a classroom with one teacher up front and where everyone is expected to do work at essentially the same pace (and with little outside help) is the best system.

All throughout I produced mostly 'D' schoolwork with the occasional 'C'.  For those with little academic talent, it does a lot damage to one's self-concept to have to go through that  year after year.

Shouldn't there be a better way ?

[Bulldog]

Andrei,

Honestly, I don't know.

But I am not sure that gathering 30 to 40 kids in a classroom with one teacher up front and where everyone is expected to do work at essentially the same pace (and with little outside help) is the best system.

All throughout I produced mostly 'D' schoolwork with the occasional 'C'.  For those with little academic talent, it does a lot damage to one's self-concept to have to go through that  year after year.

Shouldn't there be a better way ?

Perhaps you should have been in special ed where the pacing would have been more congenial.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Perhaps you should have been in special ed where the pacing would have been more congenial.

That would not have been appropriate since I am not even close to being borderline mentally retarded...

[ChamberNut]

That would not have been appropriate since I am not even close to being borderline mentally retarded...

That's not what special ed classes are for.

[karlhenning]

And a peculiarly unfeeling remark on your part, Eric, especially considering all the sympathy you plead for on your own behalf.

[Florestan]

Andrei,

Honestly, I don't know.


Shouldn't there be a better way ?

If you have no idea about the goal to be attained, how can you tell this or that way to that goal is better or worse?

[Bulldog]

That's not what special ed classes are for.

Correct.  Eric's just being defensive.

[Homo Aestheticus]

And a peculiarly unfeeling remark on your part, Eric, especially considering all the sympathy you plead for on your own behalf.

No Karl, I sense the mild disdain in the wording of Don's remark.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Chambernut,

That's not what special ed classes are for.

When I attended elementary and secondary school in the 70's and 80's 'special education' meant programs for the mentally retarded... I guess things have changed now ?

There was no real assistance for the merely 'slow' back then. The assumption was that they also had the potential to do very well if only they were focused, motivated and disciplined.