Have kids gotten smarter?

Only read part of this thread but I work with families and do psychoed testing on kids pretty frequently and can scientifically state that kids are definitely not getting smarter. There are benefits to accelerated programs for some kids who simply get bored with standard curriculum and need the intellectual stimulation but I've seen it create narcissistic streaks and entitlement in many kids as well. I'll rarely recommend kids for accelerated placement unless they are functioning intellectually at a very high caliber both in general and/or in comparison to their current curriculum, particularly if its dumbed down to accomodate a generally "less gifted" class.

dl

Originally Posted by HORNS

Click to expand...

Nowhere did I use either of these terms, and if you disliked of my reference to creative, artistic, or leadership intelligence, it doesn't make such qualities disappear or discount their importance - regardless of their relative intangibility and thus their absence from the criteria of teasing apart smarter children from the average. Also, sometimes truisms need to be brought up in a conversation.

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

But that's my point: how are creative and artistic intelligences defined and separated from one another? Much of the creative arts are analytical at their core: equating colors or shapes with cultural symbols, diction as a calculated instead of whimsical process, etc. Other 'intelligences' you mentioned spill over into the realm of the unconscious behavioral aspect of the psyche and have more to do with intuition than intelligence. Even intuition as distinct from intelligence is a difficult concept for me to rationalize. When does intuition cease being animalistic and instead become a product of acquired mental acumen?

Why has more or less stated my objections to attempts at separating "creative and artistic" intelligence from analytical ability. It's artificial, and typically stems from deep-rooted anti-intellectualism.

Originally Posted by montecristo#4

Click to expand...

As you pointed out, kids nowadays are considered gifted when they accomplish the same things that average people accomplished 20 years ago (calculus and physics in high school, etc.). The average kid has gotten stupide, not smarter, and the reason for it is that children are coddled by a nanny mentality that starts in Washington and ends in every living room.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure that the average kid is stupider, but certainly, I feel that much less intellectual effort is required of the average kid. My feeling is that they are over-extended (why the **** does a 10 year old need piano lessons + hockey + karate + lego mindstorm "team" + some online course where they solve problems with other not stupid kids) and intellectually undernourished at the same time.

I'm not sure how you started with dumb kids and drew the line back to Washington though. Some of the nations with the most paternalistic governments are remarkably good at both getting the best out of the average, and allowing their best to excel.

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

Not really what I was getting at, and I can't even say I agree at all. These demarcations are by their nature impositions and do little more than redraw boundaries depending on what categories of 'intelligence' the author feels like drawing up. And really, using Freud as the model for my point, where does the id end and the ego begin? It may sound like sophistry, but there are no strict delineations between the different parts of the human geist.

This lack of a comprehensive or accepted stratification of intelligence is something Matt's wife alluded to but didn't seem to focus on.
It is sophistry. When does water become cold and when does it become hot rather than merely warm? Am I going to be able to give you a specific temperature? Maybe not, but at some point hot water burns and cold water chills, whether or not your definitions of hot and cold differ from someone else's by 5 or 10 degrees. What's more, consensus on what constitutes hot and cold will always cluster around means, so there's no reason why from a practical point of view, two SDs above the mean IQ shouldn't be taken as a pragmatic indication of smarts even if clearly delineating groups is philosophically 'problematic'.

That IQ itself can be used as a reliable indicator of 'giftedness' is attested to by the strong correlation between analytical/critical ability and g, or general intelligence quotient.

Originally Posted by imhotep

Click to expand...

what do you do now?

I recently graduated, and now I'm wondering whether I should get a Master's degree or work. I'm leaning towards studying abroad for a Master's (hopefully I'll be able to get a scholarship), since the economy doesn't seem to be improving much - unemployment just hit 10.2% last month, and I don't think it'll get better soon.

Originally Posted by iammatt's wife

Click to expand...

There are some recent studies available (one researcher I can think of is Carol Dweck at Stanford) that show parents who constantly praise their children, especially about intelligence, are actually doing more harm than good for their children. Her work shows that when kids are told over and over that they're gifted, since they're kids, they don't really get it, and even if they are gifted, they start to think that since they're so freaking smart everything needs to come to them easy and fast. So, when they are put in challenging situations, they tend to give up easily because they've been primed into thinking that effort is equivalent to failure, and they'd rather be seen as smart, so they avoid taking on challenges. Over time, this could mean that some really smart kids stop trying in school and therefore become less smart than those who were just normal kids to start with, but who work hard and eventually become the more successful children and/ adults. It's interesting to think about.
Pretty sure this happened to me.

Originally Posted by Reggs

Click to expand...

I was only in 1 advanced class. It was an algebra class for the first semester. I got an F on my first homework even though I got all the answer right because I did not write down the proper steps she wanted. I transferred out after 2 days and never looked back. So much of school is impractical.
This did happen to me. I remember writing down the answers for math tests, then working backwards to figure out the work I was supposed to show. Now I'm horrible at math. I'm sure my IQ has dropped 50 points since I was 10 or whatever.

Originally Posted by Asch

Click to expand...

Here's one set of studies that may interest you: https://www.stanford.edu/dept/psycho...erformance.pdf

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).

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

It is sophistry. When does water become cold and when does it become hot rather than merely warm? Am I going to be able to give you a specific temperature? Maybe not, but at some point hot water burns and cold water chills, whether or not your definitions of hot and cold differ from someone else's by 5 or 10 degrees. What's more, consensus on what constitutes hot and cold will always cluster around means, so there's no reason why from a practical point of view, two SDs above the mean IQ shouldn't be taken as a pragmatic indication of smarts even if clearly delineating groups is philosophically 'problematic'.

I'm not talking about arbitrary definitions of intelligence (as IQ is), I'm speaking of the inner workings of the human mind. I can say with conviction when something is overtly analytical (calculus) but in something like writing when does the analysis cease and a 'feel' for the language (what I previously called intuition) begin? This isn't sophistry nor something that can easily be defined nor decided by consensus -- there still is no definition for it -- it's a sorides paradox that continually undermines research.

Originally Posted by HORNS

Click to expand...

But isn't intuition a processing of one's experiences and accumulated knowledge and acting upon that? I suppose that it falls into the realm of "mental acumen" whenever a person is able to acknowledge the parts of that myriad of experiences and knowledge and know the formula or rationale used to process that those bits of information - and then be able to communicate it.

Take grammar and my experience for example, since it's what I consider a 'good' model for this (ignore the semantic aspects, they're superficial). I'm able to communicate English effectively before my formal study of it. I might not have known what a subordinate clause or nominalization were, but I do know now that when I use them -- as I just did -- you're still able to cognate it. And I could have just as easily typed that same sentence verbatim on the first attempt without ever being capable of pre-planning its grammatical structure. So what constitutes mental acumen before and after formal study, and how can this be measured? The same result is achieved.

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about arbitrary definitions of intelligence (as IQ is), I'm speaking of the inner workings of the human mind. I can say with conviction when something is overtly analytical (calculus) but in something like writing when does the analysis cease and a 'feel' for the language (what I previously called intuition) begin? This isn't sophistry nor something that can easily be defined nor decided by consensus -- there still is no definition for it -- it's a sorides paradox that continually undermines research.
Ah well, the inner workings of the human mind. Forgive me for my blitheness, Socrates, but I thought we were going somewhere with this. Perhaps I am trapped in the false logic of the 'sorides paradox', a term I readily admit I have never heard in my life. Neither has google, apparently, so I guess I'm in good company.

In any case, this is an example of sham intellectualism. A pedant defines a problem in such a way that it is not only pointless but unsolvable and then bemoans our inability to do so, which happily affords him the opportunity to chastise those around him for their hubris. Unfortunately, neither 'inner workings' nor 'intuition' are very technical terms. It's like asking, "what is the essence of man?" or, "is there truth in beauty?" Great for motivational calendars, not so good for serious inquiry. These are questions for colloquia-hosting humanities PhDs whose practical import is to write tedious books for the next generation of PhDs, not create useful knowledge.

The Gordian knot is much more quickly undone if we approach the issue from a scientific or practical standpoint. Instead of worrying about the existence of souls and essences and inner workings, we should focus on statistical research in order to observe trends and patterns, then exploiting that data in order to maximize our potential. We may not be able to define intelligence as cleanly as, say, strength, but we know that it's related to creative achievement and average income more or less in the same way as developed musculature is related to the ability to lift heavy objects and run for long distances. It seems to me that there remains enough work to be done in this particular field without having to worry about the burden of solving the world's existential mysteries at the same time.

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

Is there anything solid on that matter? I can't imagine there could be. It sounded like contrarian conjecture to me despite my personal agreement with the principles (although that's more due to an opposition to flattery and disingenuous comments in general than potential adverse effects on a child's acquired behavior; either way, I see it as something to be avoided).


Well, Mrs. Iammatt readily admits that there's not much (if any) hard data to support her assertions, so already she sets a reasonable tone and expectation - as opposed to something preached from on high from Educators.

You can quibble with the details if you like, I'm sure there's room for disagreement, but the different developmental speeds is a recurring theme I've heard - both in terms of cognitive and emotional development. For instance: I learned to read at 3. Let's say you learned to read at 4. I picked it up 33% (or 25%) earlier than you did, but I would not bet that today I'm a 33% better or faster reader than you: we may be even or you may pick up more out of the written word than would I. So, at some point your development caught up. So, early developmental spurts do not a genius make.

But here's what I find most interesting about your post: you agree with the assertion that blanket praise is best avoided, but still you dismiss her assertion as contrarian conjecture. Why is this?

Originally Posted by Pennglock

Click to expand...

Setting aside the question of identifying 'gifted' kids, what do you guys think we should be teaching them?

IMO there is not much useful teaching to be done without segregating these kids in separate schools and hiring extremely capable faculty. In theory this should be the situation at elite prep schools, but thanks to the nature of the college admissions game, these institutions' curricula aren't much different than the average high school.

You could give the kids a 3rd foreign language and try to impart a deeper understanding of maths, but beyond that, what?

My main memory of my elementary school gifted program is of watching Voyage of the Mimi with a young Ben Affleck...

I'd go for giving them a first language before going gaga over the other two they won't learn anyway...

Originally Posted by montecristo#4

Click to expand...

As you pointed out, kids nowadays are considered gifted when they accomplish the same things that average people accomplished 20 years ago (calculus and physics in high school, etc.). The average kid has gotten stupide, not smarter, and the reason for it is that children are coddled by a nanny mentality that starts in Washington and ends in every living room.
Thanks for the insight Glenn Beck, now go back to the CE.

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

Ah well, the inner workings of the human mind. Forgive me for my blitheness, Socrates, but I thought we were going somewhere with this. Perhaps I am trapped in the false logic of the 'sorides paradox', a term I readily admit I have never heard in my life. Neither has google, apparently, so I guess I'm in good company.

In any case, this is an example of sham intellectualism. A pedant defines a problem in such a way that it is not only pointless but unsolvable and then bemoans our inability to do so, which happily affords him the opportunity to chastise those around him for their hubris. Unfortunately, neither 'inner workings' nor 'intuition' are very technical terms. It's like asking, "what is the essence of man?" or, "is there truth in beauty?" Great for motivational calendars, not so good for serious inquiry. These are questions for colloquia-hosting humanities PhDs whose practical import is to write tedious books for the next generation of PhDs, not create useful knowledge.

The Gordian knot is much more quickly undone if we approach the issue from a scientific or practical standpoint. Instead of worrying about the existence of souls and essences and inner workings, we should focus on statistical research in order to observe trends and patterns, then exploiting that data in order to maximize our potential. We may not be able to define intelligence as cleanly as, say, strength, but we know that it's related to creative achievement and average income more or less in the same way as developed musculature is related to the ability to lift heavy objects and run for long distances. It seems to me that there remains enough work to be done in this particular field without having to worry about the burden of solving the world's existential mysteries at the same time.

But this line of reasoning is a classic ipse dixit and can be reduced to the tautology 'it's right because it's right'. In other words, your standard measure of intelligence is based on an unproven, unreliable, and undefined model -- the sorites paradox I mentioned before. It's like medieval scholars who taught geocentric theory and the math behind it: their students learned how to calculate the position of planets and other forms of astronomy, but the math was always a bit off or incredibly complex because the model was wrong. Enter Tycho Brahe and his proofs of the heliceontric theory and the mathematical problems went away. Additional construction on a faulty foundation will always be shaky.

There are ways to formally study subjects without ever seeing their borne fruits (to paraphrase Bacon) who himself did it when he more or less studied science qua science and defined the model the modern scientific method is based on. And he did it all without ever taking a single humanities class.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Click to expand...

Well, Mrs. Iammatt readily admits that there's not much (if any) hard data to support her assertions, so already she sets a reasonable tone and expectation - as opposed to something preached from on high from Educators.

Yes, I agree. I had something to that effect in my original post but decided against it. Tone doesn't change the message: my reply would more or less be the same if she felt like being pig-headed. I'm still glad she's not as belligerent as I can be.

But here's what I find most interesting about your post: you agree with the assertion that blanket praise is best avoided, but still you dismiss her assertion as contrarian conjecture. Why is this?

Click to expand...

The same way I can live my life while still believing it's completely pointless. A decision needs to be made -- agree or disagree, live or not live -- and I follow that decision even if it's not based on absolute, conclusive rational knowledge (ie. based on conjecture). I'm more inclined to think 'blanket praise' is deleterious to development simply because it's disingenuous; it is by its nature false, so attempts at guiding the child's development are undermined by an incongruence between the child's true ability and their perceived ability. If I convinced a child he could fly, I would expect him to at some point jump off a building.

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

(...)
The same way I can live my life while still realizing it's completely pointless. A decision needs to be made -- agree or disagree, live or not live -- and I follow that decision even if it's not based on absolute, conclusive rational knowledge (ie. based on conjecture). I'm more inclined to think 'blanket praise' is deleterious to development simply because it's disingenuous; it is by its nature false, so attempts at guiding the child's development are undermined by an incongruence between the child's true ability and their perceived ability. If I convinced a child he could fly, I would expect him to at some point jump off a building.

Well, we agree on the idea behind blanket praise being deleterious to development.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by iammatt

Click to expand...

So, this is what she had to say on giftedness in general. It doesn't address all of the issues in the thread, but may be a helpful primer for some parents, or for other interested people.

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.