Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-l] Nurture vs Nature (Was:Student engagement)



The word intelligence is a dangerous word because there are presumably tests
for this attribute. But those tests are really just tests of certain types
of things most of which are learnable. And the IQ tests were cooked up to
predict success in school.

When a baby is born they do have some innate things. For example they can
distinguish the number of things up to as I recall 4. And some animals also
have this ability. But what then happens is that babies explore and learn.
They actually experiment and figure out things. In this process they build
brain cells, literally. So if they are exposed to the right influences they
will develop certain habits and tendencies. With time this becomes a
feedback system and they develop in one direction. Then they develop fear
of the things they do not currently understand. After age 26 the brain
development is much slower, but still is going on well into the 80s.

The important thing is that the brain is extremely plastic and this is now
understood by modern psychology. So those brilliant people who could not do
math or physics might have been able to do it before the onset of slower
brain growth. The important age at which you have to hit students is 10+
when growth is rapid, and also around Kindergarten or first grade. There
are windows of opportunity to accelerate brain development. There is also
one around age 18.

So when one says it is impossible to do certain things, there may be
cognitive deficits as found by Feuerstein. But he also found out how to
remediate the cognitive deficits.

So looking at the variability between groups of peoples you find that
minorities may score as much as 18 points lower on IQ tests, but we know
that this is not genetic. We know this because this happens with minorities
who are genetically identical to the majority or who are identical to the
majority in other countries with normal IQ.

So I would say that many of these brilliant people may at one time have had
the capability of doing physics, but that was foreclosed by the natural
tendency to go with what you know best rather than other things. And there
is also the barrier that certain things like perfect pitch or the ability to
pronounce foreign words is fixed by about age 6 when the brain
specialization solidifies. Anyone who is bilingual before age 6 will be
able to distinguish more phonemes and will have better pronunciation.

To decide how much is nature and how much is nurture you need to look at
development of babies and young children. Looking at the adult final
product does not really give you a clue as to what has actually happened to
make them that way. Again I think that the arguments are not looking at
research, but expressing personal bias based on natural observations.
Natural observations lead to misconceptions, biased conceptions, and
superstitions because our brains seek correlations and manufacture them when
none exist. The FCI as a pretest reveals that clearly.

And notice that again, I do not deny that people sometimes have unremediable
difficulties which stand in the way of talents. My daughter scores
extremely low on fine motor control, so writing is painful and slow, and
drawing is almost impossible. She learned to color extremely late and
enjoyed it when other children were finding it boring. But she still was
able to become a masters degree chemist with a reasonably good job. The
fine motor control was easily overcome by using a keyboard, and she was
first chair flute. So now she wants to learn the accordion Bulgarian style.
She is also a superb dancer. Could the fine motor control be remdiated? I
have not seen any methods of doing that. But I have seen methods of
remediating cognitive difficulties.

I would also point out that in prior eras people with average IQ could be
quite accomplished. Many kings were also accomplished riders, fencers,
dancers, composers and musicians. This was considered to be important in
their social circle and they learned it. The Emperor Josef was actually an
accomplished musician despite the inaccurate scenes in Amadeus. He
certainly was not as good as Mozart. Josef is actually remembered for the
many good laws he promulgated to help his people.

I have seen plenty of students with cognitive deficits that I could not
remediate, but I know that there are techniques for remediation that would
probably work. I always feel sad when I know something could be done, but
won't. At one time these students might have dropped out, but not now.
Shouldn't we have a method for identifying such deficits and remediating
them?

So I would put the genetic aptitude thing as less than 50% in light of what
I have already said, but probably more than 10%. The Chinese teachers
apparently also put it very low. I would say that practically all can come
up to the formal operational level and be capable of understanding basic
science and math. But there are many who have no need to go beyond simple
algebra and geometry. In the end it is anyone's guess, but it is wise to
use research in making that guess.

OH YES, please forgive the occasional typos which have reversed the meaning
of some sentences in this and previous messages.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

1. I DO believe that there is a natural component to aptitude, and I
suspect that you do as well, though it comes up later in your post with
the name "general intelligence". But since I have known BRILLIANT people
who could not do math and physics, I don't really know that "general
intelligence" is what we are concerned about here.