Re: [xmca] In case you missed it

jfespino@uc.cl

-- 
Juan Felipe Espinosa Cristià
e-mail: jfespino@uc.cl
David Preiss escribió:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Please see below a letter sent by Robert Sternberg to WSJ as an
> answer to Murray's piece.
>
> David
>
> Charles Murray's "Intelligence in the Classroom" is an article by a
> non-scientist filled with serious distortions and misunderstandings
> of the current state of scientific theory and research on intelligence.
>
> First, Murray is roughly correct in the assertion that "Half of all
> children are below average in intelligence."  This is true in the
> same sense that half of today's children are below the median (not
> average) in height, or below the median age of the population.  But
> median heights have risen greatly over the past several generations,
> as have median age spans.  Indeed, research by James Flynn shows
> conclusively that median IQs have risen as well since 1900. Contrary
> to the tone of Murray's comments, most of the increase is due to the
> so-called general factor, not to other factors. So Murray's comments
> regarding possibilities for educational achievement make no sense.  A
> child of today with an IQ of 100 would have been scored as having a
> substantially higher IQ 100 years ago. Given that the increase in IQs
> has been about 9 points per generation, that person would have had an
> IQ in excess of 127 at that time, which would have led to educational
> predictions very different from Murray's doom-and-gloom predictions.
> Similarly, a 6-footer today is not much above average and would not
> be considered particularly tall, whereas 100 years ago, he or she
> would have been looked at as exceptionally tall.
>
> Second, IQ is NOT a "ceiling," and I don't know of any responsible
> psychologist who believes it is.  IQ gives rough prediction of a
> child's school performance, as does socioeconomic status, motivation,
> and any other number of variables. But none of these variables sets a
> ceiling on children's performance.  First, they are all highly
> imperfect predictors--success is multi-factorial.  Second, they are
> subject to error of
> measurement.  Third, they are not etched in stone.  Research by
> Stephen Ceci and others has shown that IQ increases as a function of
> schooling, and that it is the schooling that is responsible for the
> increase, not the other way around.
>
> Third, the temporary effects of interventions to increase
> intelligence are in large part because the interventions themselves
> are temporary and usually extremely short-lived.  If you have a child
> living in extreme poverty, in a challenging and possibly dangerous
> environment, and with parents who are not in a position to provide
> the best possible education for
> their children, it is not surprising that short interventions--the
> kinds most easily funded by grants--are difficult to maintain.
> Consider an oft-made analogy to exercise.  You can exercise to
> improve your muscles.  But if you stop exercising, your muscles
> revert to what they were before.  The same is true of your
> intelligence, and research by Carmi Schooler and others shows
> precisely that.
>
> Fourth, it is fallacious to believe that brain development is etched
> in stone. Research by William Greenough, Marian Diamond, and others
> has shown that learning changes the brain--permanently.  Experience
> matters for brain development.  Charles Murray had the good fortune
> to be exposed to experiences that children in many parts of the
> United States and elsewhere never will have. Indeed, children growing
> up in war zones often need to devote all their resources just to
> staying alive.  They cannot have the kind of schooling that optimizes
> their scores on the tests of which Mr. Murray is so fond.
>
> Fifth, our own peer-reviewed, published research has shown that
> broader measures of abilities--based on the "multiple intelligences"
> that Murray disdains--can substantially improve prediction of
> academic success at the college level at the same time that they
> reduce ethnic-group differences. These assessments do not replace
> traditional measures--they supplement them.  They are not
> "refutations" of the existence of the analytical skills measured by
> tests of general ability, but rather, demonstrations that such
> measures are relatively narrow and incomplete in their measurements
> of abilities.  These conventional tests measure important skills, but
> not the only skills that matter for academic and other forms of
> success. Indeed, teaching to a broader range of abilities, our
> research shows, also can significantly improve school
> achievement over teaching that is more narrowly focused.
>
> In sum, Murray's column gives a false and misleading view of the
> state of research on intelligence.  I blieve responsible scientists
> will not take it seriously. Unfortunately, many laypeople will not be
> in a position to
> realize that the statements are seriously misleading and paint a
> picture of research on intelligence that does not correspond to reality.
>
> Robert J. Sternberg
>
> (Robert J. Sternberg is Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences and
> Professor of Psychology at Tufts University. Previously, he was IBM
> Professor of Psychology and Education and Professor of Management at
> Yale University and President of the American Psychological
> Association.)
>
> On Jan 16, 2007, at 5:51 PM, J. Mark Jackson wrote:
>
>> This article ran in today's WSJ. The link below takes you directly
>> to the full article without registration.
>>
>> Scary, very scary!
>>
>> http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25452,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
>>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>
> David Preiss, Ph.D.
> Profesor Auxiliar / Assistant Professor
>
> Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
> Escuela de Psicología
> Av Vicuña Mackenna 4860
> Macul, Santiago
> Chile
>
> Fono: 3544605
> Fax: 3544844
> e-mail: davidpreiss@uc.cl
> web personal: http://web.mac.com/ddpreiss/
> web institucional: http://www.uc.cl/psicologia
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca