Showing posts with label Intelligence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intelligence. Show all posts
Monday, 30 March 2009
Monday, 26 January 2009
World's cleverest child...
Great preparation for the topic 'Intelligence' later this term would be to watch:
'The world's cleverest child and me' which can be seen on Channel 4 on Wednesday night.
Thinking with analogy
The idea of using an analogy to explain something is common in everyday life and in the classroom. In psychology it is particularly important, as many key ideas cannot be seen or easily visualised. An example of such an analogy is to liken the brain to a computer hard drive and the mind to an operating system.
You can liken the problem to the difficulty in comprehending the large quantities of size and distance in the field of astrophysics. A commonly used analogy for planetary sizes is the relative sizes of fruits. I've come across a couple of examples recently of using comparison images, such as this example of the planets Earth and Neptune.
These maintain the key idea (size ratio), while leaving out such minor details as actual sizes or positions. So an analogy has one key characteristics of what we are attempting to explain, with other details being ignored. Many models and theories in psychology also rely on analogies in a sense, computer analogies being especially popular.
The concept of analogy also comes into IQ testing, with items such as:
"Hand is to palm as foot is to ____?"
These ask people to recognise that two different relationships have a common pattern. Artificial intelligence researcher Douglas Hofstadter feels this is so fundamental to thought, that he says in an interview, "analogy is really at the core of thinking", and describes it as "stripping away irrelevancies to get at the gist of things".
You can liken the problem to the difficulty in comprehending the large quantities of size and distance in the field of astrophysics. A commonly used analogy for planetary sizes is the relative sizes of fruits. I've come across a couple of examples recently of using comparison images, such as this example of the planets Earth and Neptune.
These maintain the key idea (size ratio), while leaving out such minor details as actual sizes or positions. So an analogy has one key characteristics of what we are attempting to explain, with other details being ignored. Many models and theories in psychology also rely on analogies in a sense, computer analogies being especially popular.The concept of analogy also comes into IQ testing, with items such as:
"Hand is to palm as foot is to ____?"
These ask people to recognise that two different relationships have a common pattern. Artificial intelligence researcher Douglas Hofstadter feels this is so fundamental to thought, that he says in an interview, "analogy is really at the core of thinking", and describes it as "stripping away irrelevancies to get at the gist of things".
Monday, 2 June 2008
Multiple intelligences
Multiple intelligences is a popular area of the topic intelligence, but there tend to be a lot of misunderstandings. Hope I can clarify a little:
The theory was proposed as a reaction against the idea of unitary intelligence, and the importance of IQ scores.
Gardiner (1983) felt that IQ was too simply defined and measured - short answers on a test could not accoutn for all types of intelligent behaviour.
If you compare two people, one might be less able in one area than the other, but the other might be stronger in another are of cognition.
Gardiner believes that everyone has a unique pattern of intelligences, a unique 'cognitive profile'.
Gardiner set out eight criteria for whether an ability or capacity should be defined as an intelligence, including:
- There are case studies of individuals exhibiting unusual talents in the capacity
- There is neurological evidence of areas of the brain specialized for the capacity
- The capacity has clear evolutionary relevance
- There exists a symbolic notation (e.g. written language, musical notation, choreography).
Seven intelligences were originally set out. An eigth, naturalistic intelligence, was added in 1999. Discussions are ongoing as to whether a ninth, existential intelligence, should be included in the theory.
Explanation: Reliability v's validity
As promised:
Reliability and validity can be confusing. I will try to clarify.
Any kind of test or measure - IQ tests, exams, langauge tests - should be both reliable and valid.
Being reliable means that it gets consistent results. Two people with the same ability should get the same result. The same person tested on more than one occasion should get the same result.
The problem with making an IQ test reliable is that it is hard to know someone's intelligence level without testing them, and if you then test them again on the same test, they will do better because of practice. Test can be made more reliable by reducing elements of chance or guesswork.
Being valid means that it measures what it aims to measure. Surprisingly often, this is not the case. For example, you might fail a memory test because you ran out of time. However, it was supposed to be a test of memory, not a test of speed. An IQ test is supposed to measure intelligence. You could not give someone a science test and say that it measured their intelligence, because knowledge of science is (in principle) separate from intelligence.
The problem with making an IQ test valid is that nobody seems to agree what exactly intelligence is. This makes it hard to know what kind of questions to include. For example, some people would include verbal questions such as:
What is the odd one out - hat, coat, scarf, shelf
Other people might say that language ability is separate from intelligence. Also, the question above could be accused of being culturally biased, as not all cultures wear hats etc.
Reliability and validity can be confusing. I will try to clarify.
Any kind of test or measure - IQ tests, exams, langauge tests - should be both reliable and valid.
Being reliable means that it gets consistent results. Two people with the same ability should get the same result. The same person tested on more than one occasion should get the same result.
The problem with making an IQ test reliable is that it is hard to know someone's intelligence level without testing them, and if you then test them again on the same test, they will do better because of practice. Test can be made more reliable by reducing elements of chance or guesswork.
Being valid means that it measures what it aims to measure. Surprisingly often, this is not the case. For example, you might fail a memory test because you ran out of time. However, it was supposed to be a test of memory, not a test of speed. An IQ test is supposed to measure intelligence. You could not give someone a science test and say that it measured their intelligence, because knowledge of science is (in principle) separate from intelligence.
The problem with making an IQ test valid is that nobody seems to agree what exactly intelligence is. This makes it hard to know what kind of questions to include. For example, some people would include verbal questions such as:
What is the odd one out - hat, coat, scarf, shelf
Other people might say that language ability is separate from intelligence. Also, the question above could be accused of being culturally biased, as not all cultures wear hats etc.
Culture
'Cultural factors' is a term that appears in many topics, and I thought it could use a bit of explanation.
Most psychological research is done in North America and Europe, and theories are sometimes criticised for this - do the conclusions apply to other cultures around the world?
It used to be the case that in the unit 1 topics, you could get a tricky little 4 or 6-mark question on culture. However, the new format seems to make that less likely - I can't see a ten mark question on this coming up.
However, it would still be useful to know at least one piece of info or research for each topic that will allow you to show an awareness of cross-cultural issues. This will help you pick up extra marks, especially A&E marks, and give that 'WOW' factor to the examiner by knowing things that most candidates don't know!
Here are some possibilities:
Memory: a lot of our long-term memories form culture-based bundles of knowledge called schemas. Bartlett (1932) showed how people tend to distort info from other cultures. Any good theory of LTM must take culture into account.
Early Socialisation: Morelli & Tronick (1992) gave evidence that 'stages of attachment' apply to an African hunter-gatherer tribe, despite differences in child-rearing. A strength of Ainsworth's theory of attachment types (secure, avoidant, resistant) is that she studied Ugandan children as well as American.
Stress: Social support is one of the strategies for reducing stress. Kim & McKenry (1998) studied social support in the USA, and found that ethnic minorities (e.g. black, hispanic) tended to have better support from their parents/children than the white majority.
Intelligence: The main issue to be aware of is cultural bias in IQ testing. Gould (1982) disputed evidence of racial differences in IQ, as cultural background and knowledge of English were confounding variables.
Most psychological research is done in North America and Europe, and theories are sometimes criticised for this - do the conclusions apply to other cultures around the world?
It used to be the case that in the unit 1 topics, you could get a tricky little 4 or 6-mark question on culture. However, the new format seems to make that less likely - I can't see a ten mark question on this coming up.
However, it would still be useful to know at least one piece of info or research for each topic that will allow you to show an awareness of cross-cultural issues. This will help you pick up extra marks, especially A&E marks, and give that 'WOW' factor to the examiner by knowing things that most candidates don't know!
Here are some possibilities:
Memory: a lot of our long-term memories form culture-based bundles of knowledge called schemas. Bartlett (1932) showed how people tend to distort info from other cultures. Any good theory of LTM must take culture into account.
Early Socialisation: Morelli & Tronick (1992) gave evidence that 'stages of attachment' apply to an African hunter-gatherer tribe, despite differences in child-rearing. A strength of Ainsworth's theory of attachment types (secure, avoidant, resistant) is that she studied Ugandan children as well as American.
Stress: Social support is one of the strategies for reducing stress. Kim & McKenry (1998) studied social support in the USA, and found that ethnic minorities (e.g. black, hispanic) tended to have better support from their parents/children than the white majority.
Conf & Obed: There have been various cross-cultural studies based on the Asch and Milgram paradigms. Smith & Bond (1998) looked at 31 studies of conformity, and found that people from 'collectivist' cultures (primarily African and Asian countries) tended to show higher levels of conformity than people from 'individualist' cultures (e.g. North America, Western Europe).
Intelligence: The main issue to be aware of is cultural bias in IQ testing. Gould (1982) disputed evidence of racial differences in IQ, as cultural background and knowledge of English were confounding variables.
Thursday, 15 May 2008
Explanation: Factor models & information-processing models of intelligence
A question which arose from todays revision class:
What is the difference between 'factor' & 'information-processing' models of intelligence? Which group does Gardiner's model go in?
Bear in mind that people do not universally agree what intelligence is. Some people decided that the best approach would be to give people ability tests, and use statistics to see what patterns emerge. The theory can then built from that information. This is the case with factor models. The main statistical test used is Spearman's 'factor analysis', and the term factor models derives from this test.
One problem with this is that it can depend on what tests you give to your research participants. Spearman (1904) found a single 'g' (general) factor, but Thurstone (1938) found 7 factors. Also, it only shows that certain factors exist, it doesn't tell us anything about how these processes work, or how performance could be improved.
Information-processing (or 'cognitive') models are not based on testing - instead they make models of how people process information & solve problems.
Cognitive psychologists have looked into various abilities such as reaction time, working memory, ability to retrive words from LTM, and ability to make accurate comaprisons. Rather like models of memory that we have studied, models of intelligence in this approach are built up, and include various elements that link together.
Gardiner's model of multiple intelligences doesn't fit neatly into either group. Gardiner places a lot of emphasis on neuroscience - studies of the brain and brain damage. He is also very interested in 'savants' - profoundly retarded people who have one special ability e.g. drawing or mathematics. Many people in psychology are sceptical of Gardiner's approach, which seems to rely a lot on assumptions rather than research.
If you have to place it in a category, then call it an information-processing theory, because it has developed as part of contemporary cognitive psychology. Besides, it's definitely not a factor model, as it doesn't use ability testing or factor analysis.
What is the difference between 'factor' & 'information-processing' models of intelligence? Which group does Gardiner's model go in?
Bear in mind that people do not universally agree what intelligence is. Some people decided that the best approach would be to give people ability tests, and use statistics to see what patterns emerge. The theory can then built from that information. This is the case with factor models. The main statistical test used is Spearman's 'factor analysis', and the term factor models derives from this test.
One problem with this is that it can depend on what tests you give to your research participants. Spearman (1904) found a single 'g' (general) factor, but Thurstone (1938) found 7 factors. Also, it only shows that certain factors exist, it doesn't tell us anything about how these processes work, or how performance could be improved.
Information-processing (or 'cognitive') models are not based on testing - instead they make models of how people process information & solve problems.
Cognitive psychologists have looked into various abilities such as reaction time, working memory, ability to retrive words from LTM, and ability to make accurate comaprisons. Rather like models of memory that we have studied, models of intelligence in this approach are built up, and include various elements that link together.
Gardiner's model of multiple intelligences doesn't fit neatly into either group. Gardiner places a lot of emphasis on neuroscience - studies of the brain and brain damage. He is also very interested in 'savants' - profoundly retarded people who have one special ability e.g. drawing or mathematics. Many people in psychology are sceptical of Gardiner's approach, which seems to rely a lot on assumptions rather than research.
If you have to place it in a category, then call it an information-processing theory, because it has developed as part of contemporary cognitive psychology. Besides, it's definitely not a factor model, as it doesn't use ability testing or factor analysis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
