How to Raise Our I.Q.

[Richard]

Some interesting studies - let the debate begin...

Richard's $.02

How to Raise Our I.Q.
Nicholas D. Kristof, NYT, 15 Apr 2009

Poor people have I.Q.’s significantly lower than those of rich people, and the awkward conventional wisdom has been that this is in large part a function of genetics.

After all, a series of studies seemed to indicate that I.Q. is largely inherited. Identical twins raised apart, for example, have I.Q.’s that are remarkably similar. They are even closer on average than those of fraternal twins who grow up together.

If intelligence were deeply encoded in our genes, that would lead to the depressing conclusion that neither schooling nor antipoverty programs can accomplish much. Yet while this view of I.Q. as overwhelmingly inherited has been widely held, the evidence is growing that it is, at a practical level, profoundly wrong. Richard Nisbett, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, has just demolished this view in a superb new book, “Intelligence and How to Get It,” which also offers terrific advice for addressing poverty and inequality in America.

Professor Nisbett provides suggestions for transforming your own urchins into geniuses — praise effort more than achievement, teach delayed gratification, limit reprimands and use praise to stimulate curiosity — but focuses on how to raise America’s collective I.Q. That’s important, because while I.Q. doesn’t measure pure intellect — we’re not certain exactly what it does measure — differences do matter, and a higher I.Q. correlates to greater success in life.

Intelligence does seem to be highly inherited in middle-class households, and that’s the reason for the findings of the twins studies: very few impoverished kids were included in those studies. But Eric Turkheimer of the University of Virginia has conducted further research demonstrating that in poor and chaotic households, I.Q. is minimally the result of genetics — because everybody is held back.

“Bad environments suppress children’s I.Q.’s,” Professor Turkheimer said.

One gauge of that is that when poor children are adopted into upper-middle-class households, their I.Q.’s rise by 12 to 18 points, depending on the study. For example, a French study showed that children from poor households adopted into upper-middle-class homes averaged an I.Q. of 107 by one test and 111 by another. Their siblings who were not adopted averaged 95 on both tests.

Another indication of malleability is that I.Q. has risen sharply over time. Indeed, the average I.Q. of a person in 1917 would amount to only 73 on today’s I.Q. test. Half the population of 1917 would be considered mentally retarded by today’s measurements, Professor Nisbett says.

Good schooling correlates particularly closely to higher I.Q.’s. One indication of the importance of school is that children’s I.Q.’s drop or stagnate over the summer months when they are on vacation (particularly for kids whose parents don’t inflict books or summer programs on them).

Professor Nisbett strongly advocates intensive early childhood education because of its proven ability to raise I.Q. and improve long-term outcomes. The Milwaukee Project, for example, took African-American children considered at risk for mental retardation and assigned them randomly either to a control group that received no help or to a group that enjoyed intensive day care and education from 6 months of age until they left to enter first grade.

By age 5, the children in the program averaged an I.Q. of 110, compared with 83 for children in the control group. Even years later in adolescence, those children were still 10 points ahead in I.Q.

Professor Nisbett suggests putting less money into Head Start, which has a mixed record, and more into these intensive childhood programs. He also notes that schools in the Knowledge Is Power Program (better known as KIPP) have tested exceptionally well and favors experiments to see if they can be scaled up.

Another proven intervention is to tell junior-high-school students that I.Q. is expandable, and that their intelligence is something they can help shape. Students exposed to that idea work harder and get better grades. That’s particularly true of girls and math, apparently because some girls assume that they are genetically disadvantaged at numbers; deprived of an excuse for failure, they excel.

“Some of the things that work are very cheap,” Professor Nisbett noted. “Convincing junior-high kids that intelligence is under their control — you could argue that that should be in the junior-high curriculum right now.”

The implication of this new research on intelligence is that the economic-stimulus package should also be an intellectual-stimulus program. By my calculation, if we were to push early childhood education and bolster schools in poor neighborhoods, we just might be able to raise the United States collective I.Q. by as much as one billion points.

That should be a no-brainer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/op...ucation&st=cse

[Dozer523]

IQ test?
I took that!
I got an "A"
92%!

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

IQ test?
I took that!
I got an "A"
92%!

Yeah You were looking at that Redheads paper, I saw you.....
Hate to tell you she was really a blond and just had a wig on... Thats why you got a low score......

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by Richard

Some interesting studies - let the debate begin...

Richard's $.02

I don't buy the theory, but I agree with the results..

IQ test TRY to be non-bias by mixing a combination of test styles that can measure both the LEARNED skill level and the ability to Surmise or Deduce the truth..

LEARNED - is generally based on topics you can never pre-know, eg: spelling, addition, history

Four of the five words below are similar. Which one does not belong in the group?

1. badger
2. pencil
3. banana
4. carpet
5. saddle

SURMISE - is the ability to measure truths via verbal or visual acuity,
EG:

The set Q contains (amongst others) the numbers:

7 23 45 79 92 133 142

Which of the following would NOT belong in Q?

• 31
• 63
• 112
• 139
• 204

By using the logic proposed by the article, we are mis-interpreting the measure of intelligences. Intelligence is the ability to deduce, reason, and create new ideas that are not already invented.

Root teaching, in either a passive or pro-active manor, can only help one to develop socially and economically to one potential. Which is good for everyone..

It will not create an Einstein. In fact there has been numerous documented cases of extremely high levels of intelligence in persons with learning disabilities. EG: Einstein

Quote from wikipedia:

In his early teens, Einstein attended the Luitpold Gymnasium. His father intended for him to pursue electrical engineering, but Einstein clashed with authorities and resented the school regimen. He later wrote that the spirit of learning and creative thought were lost in strict rote learning.

In 1894, when Einstein was fifteen, his father's business failed, as DC had lost the War of Currents to alternating current (AC). In search of business, the Einstein family moved to Italy, first to Milan and then, after a few months, to Pavia. During this time, Einstein wrote his first scientific work, "The Investigation of the State of Aether in Magnetic Fields".[9]

Einstein had been left behind in Munich to finish high school, but in the spring of 1895, he withdrew to join his family in Pavia, convincing the school to let him go by using a doctor's note.

Rather than completing high school, Einstein decided to apply directly to the Eidgenössische Polytechnische Schule (later Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH)) in Zürich, Switzerland. Lacking a school certificate, he was required to take an entrance examination, which he did not pass, although he got exceptional marks in mathematics and physics.[10]

Einstein wrote that it was in that same year, at age 16, that he first performed his famous thought experiment visualizing traveling alongside a beam of light (Einstein 1979).

SO,, Does education help a person achieve their given potential,, and does better education do a better job???

YES..

Does a better education produce a higher intelligence.

No,, unless you measure intelligence by learned responce..


My $00.0002

[nmap]

From the article: "and a higher I.Q. correlates to greater success in life."

Not necessarily true. One should be very careful about the general statement and how they define success.

For example, one might consider Mensa. By definition, Mensa consists of geniuses - those in the top 2% of intelligence as measured by IQ tests. More formally, those who are two standard deviations above the mean. A cursory examination of the membership shows an abundance of people who do not fit the standard definitions of success.

I do agree with the general idea of the article, which seems to argue that IQ is largely a function of how a child is nurtured; however, I contend there is also an element of inheritance, or "nature". Certainly, it seems worthwhile to maximize those factors that we can control.

The only problem is - how deep can (or should) one go to correct the environmental elements. Homes that have no books, dysfunctional families, and unstable home environments all seem detrimental to the goal of improving intelligence. These are not easily modified.

Now if we consider the point made within the article that children adopted by upper-middle class families show a significant improvement in IQ, then we find ourselves asking how families can be transformed in mass to the behavioral norms and values of the upper-middle class. Can we afford it? Should we urge or compel it? Do we dispose of the cultural values held by other strata of society in pursuit of a presumptive good? Rhetorical questions all; but perhaps worthy of consideration.

In addition, we must ask a pointed (and nasty) question. Who is going to pick up the garbage? Societies have dirty, unpleasant jobs. Someone is going to get stuck with those jobs. If we improve the overall intelligence of the population, who is going to want a job tossing foul-smelling trash cans during a hot summer day? (By the way, the garbage collection job is only an example; any hard unpleasant job will do). So will social engineering produce a better, happier, and more productive society? Or will it increase the frictions as lots of bright people try to make someone else do the dirty work?

[GratefulCitizen]

Christopher Langan didn't have the best environment in which to grow up.
He's pretty smart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

I think they're trying to reduce a complex issue down to something with which they're comfortable.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by SF_BHT

Yeah You were looking at that Redheads paper, I saw you.....
Hate to tell you she was really a blond and just had a wig on... Thats why you got a low score......

LOL! Well, the redheads that I know of are far smarter than me...for sure!

And the clandestine one you mention above, that I cheated off of, only gave me an IQ score of 139...those darn blondes!


Here is an example of an I.Q. test, and explanation...(for us blondes...hehe.)

http://www.iqtest.com/

What is an IQ?

An Intelligence Quotient indicates a person's mental abilities relative to others of approximately the same age. Everyone has hundreds of specific mental abilities--some can be measured accurately and are reliable predictors of academic and financial success.

http://www.iqtest.com/faq.html#chart

Intelligence Interval Cognitive Designation 40 - 54
Severely challenged (Less than 1% of test takers) 55 - 69
Challenged (2.3% of test takers) 70 - 84
Below average 85 - 114
Average(68% of test takers) 115 - 129
Above average 130 - 144
Gifted (2.3% of test takers)145 - 159
Genius (Less than 1% of test takers) 160 - 175

[Dozer523]

Here is a fun one that I use an attention getter when I wa a substitute teacher. I give the answer at the end of the day. The younger grades figure it out faster then the older ones.

Below is the alphabet arranged above and below a line. Determine why the letters were placed where they are.

AEFHIKLMNTVWXYZ
BCDGJOPQRSU

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Below is the alphabet arranged above and below a line. Determine why the letters were placed where they are.

AEFHIKLMNTVWXYZ
BCDGJOPQRSU

Um, no curvy lines on the letters above the line?

[Richard]

I think the gist of the study's arguments are that - much like The Little Engine Who Could - the "I think I can" attitude is an important one for any of us.

Richard's $.02

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Cynic

Um, no curvy lines on the letters above the line?

YUP!
I have never had a first grade class that didin't see that (and it is unlikely they knew the answer from previous exposure). With older kids I begin by practically begging "them that knows the answer" to not reveal it. As kids get older they learn to look for complicated answer. A common answer and one of my favorites is that it is the "tune of the ABC song".

I had a Prof at GU (Tim in the Education Department, Bulldogs) who had lots of IQ tests that he loved to give. One was the Farmer's IQ test. The kids off the Palouse wheat fields laughed as they took it and were all geniuses. Us, more citified kids, were certifiably stoopid. IQ is a function of what you know and what knowledge is valued.

[BigJimCalhoun]

What are the answers to the two questions in post #4.

For the first one I said that "pencil" did not belong because it did not have the letter "A" for the second letter.

For the math one.., I looked at it for 10 min and have not found an answer, but a guess would be 31 does not belong because if you throw all the numbers into a list, you get 3 prime, one non-prime, 2prime, 2 non-prime, 2 prime, 2 non-prime, so therefore, 31 should be something like 30 or 32, but not 31.

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by BigJimCalhoun

What are the answers to the two questions in post #4.

Jim

I grabbed them off a sample test. Didn't bother to get the answers..

[Longstreet]

I think the gist of the study's arguments are that - much like The Little Engine Who Could - the "I think I can" attitude is an important one for any of us.

Richard's $.02

It is funny that you mentioned the Little Engine because this is what I tell my students. Having the genes for higher intelligence is not enough when determining one's intelligence - it is the attitude one has and the understanding that one must work hard. I was fortunate enough to go to a preppy private school and encountered many students who were extremely intelligent in their academics and totally blew me away with their school achievements. I on the other hand learned that I was not an ‘A’ student and whatever I wanted, I had to work extremely hard for. I'm a teacher now and do my best to provide a learning environment for my students that promotes excellence and nurtures student learning. I tell them on a daily basis that the secret to succeeding in life is hard work.

Over the years I have caught up with many of those students who bested me in high school. While some are successful in their lives, many are now pot heads who live off of mommy and daddy.

[Richard]

The value of EQ* to its adherants and its doubters...

Richard's $.02

*Emotional Quotient