Have kids gotten smarter?

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Hmm, thank you Mrs Iammatt. Is the goal of IQ testing to find "gifted" people (i.e. properly orient them to the right programs??). I'd have a tendency to just select people who do well to have the occasion of learning more and not to create specific programs but maybe that's me.
I think it depends on the kid being tested. Her goal is to find discrepancies between various abilities, say between processing speed and verbal ability, which make learning difficult for the kid in question, and then to tailor a plan for them so that they can work toward their strengths and overcome their difficulties. She looks more for differentials than for overall scores, mainly because her training is in learning difficulties rather than giftedness. Other people use the tests for different things.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by iammatt

I think it depends on the kid being tested. Her goal is to find discrepancies between various abilities, say between processing speed and verbal ability, which make learning difficult for the kid in question, and then to tailor a plan for them so that they can work toward their strengths and overcome their difficulties. She looks more for differentials than for overall scores, mainly because her training is in learning difficulties rather than giftedness.

Other people use the tests for different things.

I'm aware that in her case it is specialized, one-on-one work which I am fine with and even encourage (just like psychs and other useful sofa providers). I was talking about how people were referring to some form of IQ testing as a useful tool to segregate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

I'm aware that in her case it is specialized, one-on-one work which I am fine with and even encourage (just like psychs and other useful sofa providers). I was talking about how people were referring to some form of IQ testing as a useful tool to segregate the wheat from the chaff.
I don't think there is really a consensus as to how useful it is. It is a metric, but not the only one. I know that she relies as much on experience and "informal assessment" as on tests when making determinations. The whole segregation thing is so loaded that it is difficult even to have a fruitful discussion without people getting pissy.

 

[spudnik99]

No, they're not smarter, just listen to them speak.

 

[JustOut]

If you mean slang, how can that show someone's level of intelligence?

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by Stazy

This is completely irrelevant. It doesn't address wether kids have gotten smarter or if they are more coddled than in the past. Latin and Greek have very little application in todays world and that's why no one learns them anymore.
I used it (Greek and Latin) as an example... and the fact that they have to learn less than in the past shows that today, indeed they are more coddled. I would say that Latin is as important today as it was 300 years ago; Greek on the other hand is far less useable, whether today or in 1750.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by JustOut

If you mean slang, how can that show someone's level of intelligence?

Intelligence means nothing if it is not applied. Actually, application is often more important than intelligence; it is the only reason mediocre people are able to forge ahead.

 

[why]

Originally Posted by Thomas

But about conjecture and decisions...If someone makes a point based on conjecture, and you also hold the same view based on your own conjecture - what quarrel would you have with it? I would rather agree, provided that the general foundation is the same or at least similar.

I wouldn't have a quarrel with it at all, but I still think it's important to recognize it as conjecture. In this case, Mrs. Iammatt cited 'studies' which is the argumentative equivalent of 'You know they say...' My main issue was with what the 'studies' actually said and tested -- there's quite a few crackpots in academia.

As to your point about making a decision and following it through - at what point do you change your decision? If you make a decision based on conjecture - and blindly follow it - don't you sacrifice a degree of intellectual rigor?

Yes, I would sacrifice a degree of intellectual rigor were my mind already not occupied elsewhere. I have to choose my battles; my ruminations on the meaning of life and possible effects of praise on children are not my ideal terrain. I prefer meadows and mountaintops. That said, it takes little effort to realize a statement is unsubstantiated even if I can't offer my own proof.

 

[Asch]

Originally Posted by why

Not really, since it's sloppy studies opposing one another. Like I said, I can't imagine there would but anything solid on this matter since there's no real way to test this (too many variables and no way to isolate them).
Participants were randomly assigned to experimental conditions that varied only in the type of praise given. How does this method fail to isolate the variable of interest? The authors test a number of mediational stories about exactly how praise of intelligence vs. praise of effort exert their different effects, but the effects themselves are impressively consistent across the studies.

 

[why]

Originally Posted by Asch

Participants were randomly assigned to experimental conditions that varied only in the type of praise given. How does this method fail to isolate the variable of interest? The authors test a number of mediational stories about exactly how praise of intelligence vs. praise of effort exert their different effects, but the effects themselves are impressively consistent across the studies.

The children in all the studies were given a set of problems and then polled. There are enough issues with polls in studies to begin with, let alone children being polled. On top of that, these weren't tabula rasa children (and as far as I know, such creatures don't exist) and I don't think a few 'Good Job, Billy' comments would have much of an effect compared to the other 10.5 years of their psychological development.

If you're able to discern much of anything from those studies, can you condense it for me? The authors drew a conclusion (or at least titled the research as such) that at times seemed completely impertinent to any of the data gathered. It is the equivalent of 'we did some stuff, and it kinda sorta seems like kids work harder when they're successful in past achievements'.

 

[JLibourel]

Having become a stepfather to a 9 year old boy at the comparatively late age of 52 (he's about to turn 25 now) and assisted him a great deal with his school and college work and generally associated with him and his contemporaries over the years, I think I may be well positioned to comment.

My general impression is that today's young people are much more "clever" with their command of all today's techno-gimmickry. Of course, my contemporaries and I didn't have stuff like that, so a comparison may be impossible. About the best we did was move the rabbit-ear antenna around when the TV reception wasn't what we wanted.

As far as general knowledge--history, literature, geography, religion, etc.--I find today's young people vastly inferior to my contemporaries and me. I find it especially baffling as they have such excellent resources as the informative television channels (History Channel, Discovery Channel, etc.) and the Internet that were non-existent for us. I have often discussed this with friends of mine in the academic profession, and they express similar puzzlement. I think the main reason is that so few young people today are avid readers. Many are poor conversationalists with working vocabularies much inferior to the command of the language we enjoyed when we were years younger than they.

As far as the educational materials presented to today's students go, I think they are, if anything, considerably more sophisticated than in our day, but the standards of performance the students are held to are much lower.

 

[brimley]

Originally Posted by JLibourel

As far as general knowledge--history, literature, geography, religion, etc.--I find today's young people vastly inferior to my contemporaries and me. I find it especially baffling as they have such excellent resources as the informative television channels (History Channel, Discovery Channel, etc.) and the Internet that were non-existent for us. I have often discussed this with friends of mine in the academic profession, and they express similar puzzlement. I think the main reason is that so few young people today are avid readers. Many are poor conversationalists with working vocabularies much inferior to the command of the language we enjoyed when we were years younger than they.

Most physics professors eschew memorization of formulas because you can always look it up in a reference. Why memorize the details of the British aristocracy if you can just wiki it on your iphone?

 

[Asch]

Originally Posted by why

The children in all the studies were given a set of problems and then polled. There are enough issues with polls in studies to begin with, let alone children being polled.
I think you're being uncharitable to the studies. Not all of the DVs were self-reports. For example, maximal performance (i.e., problems successfully solved on subsequent tests) was affected by type of praise given.

Originally Posted by why

On top of that, these weren't tabula rasa children (and as far as I know, such creatures don't exist) and I don't think a few 'Good Job, Billy' comments would have much of an effect compared to the other 10.5 years of their psychological development.
I don't understand the complaint here. Your entirely correct observation -- that the brief experimental manipulation was minuscule compared to the kids' years of prior socialization -- only makes more impressive the fact that this brief manipulation nonetheless had robust effects on the children's behaviors. (I'm assuming you aren't objecting to the fact that the kids differed dramatically coming into the lab, since I know from your nutrition-related posts that you understand the point of random assignment in science.)

Originally Posted by why

If you're able to discern much of anything from those studies, can you condense it for me? The authors drew a conclusion (or at least titled the research as such) that at times seemed completely impertinent to any of the data gathered.
I think the first several paragraphs of the General Discussion summed up the findings adequately and did not overreach the data. Certainly a series of short-term studies with tight experimental control, such as these, would be more persuasive, in terms of implications for actual parenting and teaching practices, if they were supplemented by convergent evidence from longitudinal, correlational designs (since long-term experimental designs are obviously ethically impossible with humans for something like this). Whether such studies have been done, I have no idea.

 

[why]

Originally Posted by Asch

I don't understand the complaint here. Your entirely correct observation -- that the brief experimental manipulation was minuscule compared to the kids' years of prior socialization -- only makes more impressive the fact that this brief manipulation nonetheless had robust effects on the children's behaviors. (I'm assuming you aren't objecting to the fact that the kids differed dramatically coming into the lab, since I know from your nutrition-related posts that you understand the point of random assignment in science.)
I guess that's my problem entirely: the brief 'You're smart!' followed by a failure seems patronizing next to actual long-term encouragement. Behavioral psychology is really an odd science that I have no real knowledge of outside of random criticisms that have overflowed into my other readings (Pavlov, B.F. Skinner, and Locke among those most prominent). These Columbia studies, however, have tenuous links between data and the conclusion at best.

 

[Asch]

Fair enough, and most people err on the side of being too credulous toward most studies, whether in medicine, psychology, or even the less squishy varieties of science, so I can respect your skepticism.