The idea of intelligence and ranking that intelligence is still alive and well. The arguments that surface most often in favor of its existence are that some kids score high on tests consistently, understand a concept the first time, need very little reinforcement to retain the concept, and retain the concept over a six-month span of time or longer.
They make some good observations that have to be addressed. Those who believe in intelligence take the three observations above and construct measurements that correlate initial depth of understanding, speed of understanding, and length of understanding.
At the outset, a definition of terms needs to be addressed. Understanding and learning are terms that appear to be synonymous among those doing the measuring. In popular vernacular, the two terms certainly have the same meaning. But, when working with statistical measurement, it is important to make all terms clear. Understanding contains the idea that information has been taken in and that a person can manipulate it, use it, have experience with its applications, and have enhanced familiarity with it without forgetting the concept or the mechanics involved in massaging it. Learning is related to taking in information and in a very short period of time after the information has been presented, mimicking or applying the principles to a problem containing them on a test (an artificial written instrument, not experience nor manipulation in real-world use).
So, when people begin to make observations about intelligence, they tend to measure learning rather than understanding, they exclude real world application and experience with a concept in favor of presenting information in books and testing retention. And, they restrict the learning to academic subjects. Of course, many kinds of information can be learned besides what is contained in books in a so-called core curriculum... many, many kinds.
Just on the basis of how restricted the sources for learning are (academic sources only) that are measured, the results should never be generalized from such a narrow database to the larger world of learning. The learning is different outside the books and core curriculum, so the results cannot be generalized. A non sequitur exists.
When it comes to the observations of depth, speed, and length of time applied to learning, then one sees right away that other factors enter in. What is depth? Is it how much that can be reflected in a test once or should it be how much can be applied in 10 different situations? Is it a percentage of correct answers on a test or is it knowing how to act, what to say when one is in the presence of someone whose career or life's work uses the information, someone with the knowledge of something through experimentation and presentation of a variety of problems?
What is speed? Reflecting a right answer on a test immediately following a concept? Showing knowledge after working with carefully constructed experimentation? Spending a year in the same grade level and remembering a particular fact for that length of time? Is it learning something, forgetting it, being reminded, forgetting again, finally seeing the fact appear in one's environment, forgetting, seeing the fact again being presented in the environment, not forgetting finally (like learning the tax code, jumping a car from another car's battery, knowing to check air pressure in tires in spring and fall because of the fluctuation in temperature during those seasons, applying rate of metabolism to exercise and intake of calories, etc.)?
What is length? Understanding implies experience. How long does that take? Learning doesn't necessarily require experience or manipulation. Learning can be a demonstration of facts. Retention of facts depend on how synapses in the brain have been organized by individuals. That organization is dependent on children's backgrounds. So, is length related to a type of background that produces a particular synaptic organizational pattern? Of course, that thought is absurd since synaptic organization is as individual as fingerprints. So, should there be different measurements for length? One for learning facts and one for learning applications?
Even if one could measure what is learned, then is it proper to tie those individual measurements to a general number, an index number? What does a 70 IQ mean? Does it mean that someone has difficulty with understanding or learning? Is the problem with speed, length, and depth, or is one area more affected than another? Is the problem transferring learning to understanding? Oh, right, transfer was not part of the measurement process... ha. And other factors enter in that are considered more minor to the intelligence measurers like background and personality traits, neither of which is considered in their IQ index.
I wish people would not be fooled. Unless there is a defect in the development of the mind in the womb or shortly after birth, every child is smart because the chemicals of the brain are distributed to the same areas and in amounts common to all humans. Biologically, infants learn to navigate their new environments in predictable ways. After two years of age, personality enters into the equation of navigating the environment as does a child's health. As time goes by, the influence of the parents begins to enter into the navigation. And as a little more time goes by, peer influence becomes a factor.
Intelligence is a false notion. It is a game concocted by those who want to structure society according to a system of role recognition so that they can belong to the role in some prestigious way, a way that touts the taste of apples above the taste of oranges or grapes.
No comments:
Post a Comment