What do you think?
Rate this book
Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count
A bold refutation of the belief that genes determine intelligence. Who are smarter, Asians or Westerners? Are there genetic explanations for racial differences in test scores? What makes some nationalities excel in engineering and others in music? Will math and science remain a largely male preserve. From the damning research of The Bell Curve to the more recent controversy surrounding geneticist James Watson's statements, one factor has been consistently left out of the equation: culture. In the tradition of The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould, world-class social psychologist Richard E. Nisbett takes on the idea of intelligence as something that is biologically determined and impervious to culture--with vast implications for the role of education as it relates to social and economic development. Intelligence and How to Get It asserts that intellect is not primarily genetic but is principally determined by societal influences. Nisbett's commanding argument, superb marshaling of evidence, and fearless discussions of the controversial carve out new and exciting terrain in this hotly debated field.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published January 8, 2009
46 people are currently reading
2,111 people want to read
About the author
Richard E. Nisbett
16books83followersRichard E. Nisbett is one of the world's most respected psychologists. His work focuses on issues in social psychology and cognitive science. He has received the Award for Distinguished Scientific Contributions from the American Psychological Association and many other national and international awards. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and is a recipient of the John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship. His book The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently . . . and Why won the William James Award of the American Psychological Association. That book, as well as Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count and Mindware: Tools for Smart Thinking have been translated into multiple languages. His newest book is Thinking: A Memoir.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews
January 5, 2013
DISCLAIMER: Strap yourselves in, folks. This is going to be a long one. Please bear with me for a paragraph or two of nonrigorous noodling. This is not a peer-reviewed essay and I ain't no neuroscience expert. I won't be citing (m)any sources, so feel free to use the comments to challenge any assertion I make that you have evidence to debunk. (I've also put an extra paragraph there, to save space.) I live for guided learning. And I'll get to Nisbett in short order.
We know . We know . (Formoron more on this conundrum, see my earlier review of .) To discuss the heritability of intelligence traits one must assume some critical organic equivalence between parents and children, but the invention of the fMRI aside, the brain is a very difficult organ to study. We don't even know whether its functions are fundamentally complex or simple. Study is further complicated by virtue of the brain being a dynamic system highly influenced by external factors (hence, our penchant for schooling and apprenticeships). All of this is to say that the quantification of intelligence heritability, to say nothing of pinpointing what exactly is being passed on, is absolutely a nontrivial problem.
To illustrate this, it pays to go back to basics. The nervous system works through chemical and/or electrical communication between and among a bunch of specialized cells and cell-groups (neurons, glial cells, axons, etc.). The Schoolhouse Rock telegraph line metaphor is a popular method for illustrating how this works. Submitted for your consideration are two successive events: one in which a string of sensory data runs up from your foot to your head (and back, and around) when some oaf steps on your foot, the other when you decide to retaliate by kicking said oaf in the butt. From these you can start to see that equivalent mechanisms might not be at work.
The example offers (at least) two distinct forms of input/output: sudden compression of nerve endings, bone, and flesh in the foot -> experience of pain -> translation of pain and association with other pre-existing data about oafs in general or the stepping oaf in particular -> resentment -> determination to escalate -> coordination of balance and muscular response -> a well-targeted lashing out of the leg, etc.
Where and how did these discrete events occur? Were some or all of them linear chains of cause-and-effect? Was the information exchange (if there was a specific exchange as opposed to a more general transitional process of oozing and interacting fluid events) contained exclusively in the nervous system, or did other body systems/parts play a role(s)? Does each body part/system really have a discrete function in the process or do different combinations have single, consistent meanings/impacts? We don't yet know.
In fact, we don't even really understand the role that electrical impulses and chemical release/reception play in actual thought/sensory response, at least, not sufficiently to accurately predict the effect(s) that one or more chemicals (dopamine, adenine, serotonin, etc.), at what dosage levels, in what combination with or without jumping electrons, in what brain region(s). Each person's brain is maddeningly different, yet tantalizingly similar. Is everyone born with the same mental potential (I'm guessing probably not), or does heredity play a role (I'm guessing probably, if only for the same superficial reason I don't look like my sister or neighbor), and if so, how significant is it on its own to the determination of our present selves (bias alert: I'm guessing just enough for personal conceit but ultimately very little on the hunch that the mental achievement we realize is but a small fraction of the potential available to be tapped in a typical human lifespan)? What role does heredity play in the passing on and fulfillment of intelligence?
James Watson (co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix) reopened the eugenics can of worms in 2007 whites were genetically predisposed to be smarter than blacks. Had he but read , Watson . But one thing leads to another, and in his wake came political scientists and with a book of their own lending apparent justification to support Watson's prejudices ().*
The present limits to our knowledge of knowledge are not just some theoretical problem, either, but have profound policy implications for education at all levels, ranging from pedagogical design (what subjects we should teach to whom, in what order, and at what age, and how can we best teach them), equal opportunity (how do we best/fairly allocate resources), and decision-making (business and economics from to to ). Because we lack a fundamental understanding of what the brain is and how it works, we are extremely limited in our ability to distinguish organic effects from psychological and cultural ones. How do we learn? How do we forget? What motivates or causes us to remember, to distinguish truth from error, and as we continue to fill in the blanks of our mental slate, to change our minds? So crude is our overall understanding, that we can only rely on longitudinal studies and repeated testing -- themselves subject to competing interpretations -- to guide our attempts at social engineering.
It is in part this definitional problem (and the wrongheaded interpretations of intelligence studies made in The Bell Curve) that Richard Nisbett confronts with his book. So, first things first. How to define intelligence that we may measure it? The author lays this out on pages 4-9 of his first chapter:
Nor are causal links between one-time IQ measurement and academic achievement all that easy to nail down. Showing up as a whiz on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) at the age of six doesn't place you on a primrose path to Princeton. The brain is a machine that wants constant feeding, or it starts to wither. Nesbitt goes on to show that environmental and cultural advantages can outweigh genetics in life as well as academic (and IQ test) performance.
Here the author alludes to the neurobiological thicket he has so far skirted, writing at p. 122,
If Nesbitt's working to humble Bell Curve proponents, then so far, so good, but I think he can go further by casting a greater spotlight on the cerebral thicket. What really is intelligence? Not, "what do we mean by intelligence," the question he answers in the first chapter, but "what is going on in the brain that lends itself to that result?" Suppose that g reduces to a collection of data (knowledge) and the ability to manipulate it. Before considering the latter ability, we might wonder how granular each datum is as well as how we group (and store and access) sets of data. We come by our knowledge in a variety of ways: linguistically via memorization of facts, as sensory input, experientially by doing, and algorithmo-logically (by induction and deduction, manipulation of other data we regard as trustworthy by means we likewise believe to be trustworthy). However, the physiological process(es) we use to store, access, and manipulate this information is not at all clear, nor is there reason to think these process(es) are other than idiosyncratic.
Learning requires not only acquisition of new knowledge, but also the ability to unlearn—to identify and correct faulty data. Learning can be achieved through imitation/demonstration, association/juxtaposition/analogy, and didactic/exploration/empirically with varying degrees of effectiveness depending in no small part on our reaction to cognitive dissonance, our emotional resistance or psychological commitment to challenge our ever-developing worldviews. We are by no means infallible, but tend to live in the here-and-now and apart from abstract concepts. When not conscious of the incompatibility of different data (that the size of the sun in the sky belies its distance from the Earth rather than orbital and physical similarity to the moon), or when convenient we can hold internally inconsistent views and behave in ways inconsistent with our purported beliefs (weight loss and consequent maintenance would be healthy for me, I'd like to maximize my life-span, and I think I'll have that second slice of fudge thankyouverymuch). It's not always giggles and ha-has. Such cognitive dissonance means that learning can be a frustrating, agonizing, and anger-inducing process. I suspect that Nesbitt's summary of this problem (at page 148) as it relates to minority children and the poor is actually generalizable, "Perhaps the main lesson is that what works and what doesn't is an empirical question." We can get so far by deriving general principles against the aggregated results of various reports, yet the physiological process that governs the way(s) we learn remains hazy, nor is there reason to think these process(es) are other than idiosyncratic.
Consider this trivial example of one man's mental rut inaction. Every morning I ride my bike to work and take it through security. For me, this involves navigating past a pair of stanchions connected by a single rope. Obviously, there are many ways to circumvent this obstacle; I typically get through by unhooking one end of the rope. That's always worked, but this morning the connection mechanism was jammed. After a few failed attempts to budge it, I ended up lifting and moving the offending stanchion outright. Now, somewhere in my brain resides a standard "how to get through a stanchion" solution. This is a longtime, inburned groove� or is it a datum or a data set or just a particularly familiar process? At what point does my brain quit on the usually trustworthy unclip-the-rope technique and start revisiting the problem anew? When it alights on one or more different solutions, how does it optimize the results? Are these activities measurable or comparable? Is there an ideal, gradable solution? What other factors come into play to affect the outcome? What will I do the next time? (Stay tuned.)
Although Nesbitt begins his book in the deep end of cognition, he retreats quickly to the shallower waters of social psychological research, and there remains. His aims are limited to casting doubt on the claims of genetic determinists and (at p. 152) calling out for "a huge amount of research� to find out what kinds of intensive programs do the most good." In so doing, he acknowledges a tremendous limitation of sociological research, to wit, that the problems being addressed are multivalent ("if we want to make the poor smarter, a good way to do it might be to make them richer").
Or Jewish. Or, as Randy Newman would have it, just give them . This seems a Watsonesque joke, but Nesbitt actually goes there with serious intent in his last two chapters. "Asian intellectual achievement is due more to sweat than to exceptional gray matter," he writes at page 154, and rattles along for another fifteen pages to distinguish the intellectual culture deriving from Confucius from that arising from Aristotle. In his next chapter, he argues that Jews share with the Chinese a predilection for achievement and demanding mothers (page 180). He laments the lack of credible studies in this area (?!?), proposing to test the whys or establish genetic bona fides for this mass population, but then proceeds anyway to spew out a bunch of anecdotal nonsense by way of explanation.
I don't know what happened here, it's like he completely lost his mind. My personal favorite from this nonsense comes at p. 178, "In AD 1000� Arab sheiks were discussing Plato and Aristotle, and Chinese mandarins were practicing all the arts, at a time when European nobles were gnawing haunches of meat in cold, dank castles." There's humorous material to be mined in these two chapters to be sure, but it tends to gnaw away the gravitas he has worked throughout the book to establish. Good sir, this will cost you at least a star in my review.
Apart from confronting personal prejudices, why does the identification of factors most likely to contribute to successful performance on IQ tests matter? It's not because we want to be able to tell kids they're smart. Quite the contrary, really. Nisbett describes a study at p. 189 showing that high-performing kids whose early success was attributed to native intelligence tended to backslide (they began quitting on difficult tasks in favor of seeking out less intellectually-challenging problems), while those who were instead praised for hard work continued to persist and find new successes. Ironic conclusion: when it comes to intelligence, ignorance is bliss.
IQ-awareness is important because in the 1970's, Bell Curve co-author Murray found that middle-class kids who tested for higher IQs ended up earning more than their lower-IQ siblings (see page 19). Per Murray, 10 points of IQ carries with it an additional $10,000 worth of earnings-potential. Nisbett takes pains to point out that if accurate to the general population, this observation is still correlational, not causational, and would be an effect likely amplified by the sort of increased educational opportunities, professional tracking, mentoring, and associated motivational and other social cues that smarter people receive. Dumber kids tend to run in less-advantaged life grooves, unless they're especially pretty or good at sports.
Again, while the intellectual potential of parents may well be passed along in some way to their children, the heritable potential of brain function is not well understood. Just like height, the phantom qualia 'g' might go up, down, or stay roughly the same. What's more, potential brain potential is in play from birth; any correlation to intellectual realization must surely be overwhelmed by cultural and environmental factors.
You'd have to be an insecure idiot to dispute that it's preferable for kids (and adults) to be smart. It would seem that intelligence acquisition is freely available, under the right conditions. An intellectual culture and strong work ethic promote advancement, and gains beget gains throughout one's lifetime, but of course especially so while the brain is developing. Fortunately, there are things we can do to improve our kids' intellectual odds beyond getting them to stay in shape and eat their Omega-3's. Schooling is important, and good schooling the more so. Captain Obvious suggestions for parental and personal encouragement abound. Read. Avoid stress. Pepper your speech with higher-level vocabulary. Practice thinking.
Well? Is it working?
We know . We know . (For
To illustrate this, it pays to go back to basics. The nervous system works through chemical and/or electrical communication between and among a bunch of specialized cells and cell-groups (neurons, glial cells, axons, etc.). The Schoolhouse Rock telegraph line metaphor is a popular method for illustrating how this works. Submitted for your consideration are two successive events: one in which a string of sensory data runs up from your foot to your head (and back, and around) when some oaf steps on your foot, the other when you decide to retaliate by kicking said oaf in the butt. From these you can start to see that equivalent mechanisms might not be at work.
The example offers (at least) two distinct forms of input/output: sudden compression of nerve endings, bone, and flesh in the foot -> experience of pain -> translation of pain and association with other pre-existing data about oafs in general or the stepping oaf in particular -> resentment -> determination to escalate -> coordination of balance and muscular response -> a well-targeted lashing out of the leg, etc. Where and how did these discrete events occur? Were some or all of them linear chains of cause-and-effect? Was the information exchange (if there was a specific exchange as opposed to a more general transitional process of oozing and interacting fluid events) contained exclusively in the nervous system, or did other body systems/parts play a role(s)? Does each body part/system really have a discrete function in the process or do different combinations have single, consistent meanings/impacts? We don't yet know.
In fact, we don't even really understand the role that electrical impulses and chemical release/reception play in actual thought/sensory response, at least, not sufficiently to accurately predict the effect(s) that one or more chemicals (dopamine, adenine, serotonin, etc.), at what dosage levels, in what combination with or without jumping electrons, in what brain region(s). Each person's brain is maddeningly different, yet tantalizingly similar. Is everyone born with the same mental potential (I'm guessing probably not), or does heredity play a role (I'm guessing probably, if only for the same superficial reason I don't look like my sister or neighbor), and if so, how significant is it on its own to the determination of our present selves (bias alert: I'm guessing just enough for personal conceit but ultimately very little on the hunch that the mental achievement we realize is but a small fraction of the potential available to be tapped in a typical human lifespan)? What role does heredity play in the passing on and fulfillment of intelligence?
James Watson (co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix) reopened the eugenics can of worms in 2007 whites were genetically predisposed to be smarter than blacks. Had he but read , Watson . But one thing leads to another, and in his wake came political scientists and with a book of their own lending apparent justification to support Watson's prejudices ().*
The present limits to our knowledge of knowledge are not just some theoretical problem, either, but have profound policy implications for education at all levels, ranging from pedagogical design (what subjects we should teach to whom, in what order, and at what age, and how can we best teach them), equal opportunity (how do we best/fairly allocate resources), and decision-making (business and economics from to to ). Because we lack a fundamental understanding of what the brain is and how it works, we are extremely limited in our ability to distinguish organic effects from psychological and cultural ones. How do we learn? How do we forget? What motivates or causes us to remember, to distinguish truth from error, and as we continue to fill in the blanks of our mental slate, to change our minds? So crude is our overall understanding, that we can only rely on longitudinal studies and repeated testing -- themselves subject to competing interpretations -- to guide our attempts at social engineering.
It is in part this definitional problem (and the wrongheaded interpretations of intelligence studies made in The Bell Curve) that Richard Nisbett confronts with his book. So, first things first. How to define intelligence that we may measure it? The author lays this out on pages 4-9 of his first chapter:Experts in the field of intelligence agree virtually unanimously that intelligence includes abstract reasoning, problem-solving ability, and capacity to acquire knowledge. A substantial majority of experts also believe that memory and mental speed are part of intelligence, and a bare majority include in their definition general knowledge and creativity as well�. Developmental psychologist Robert Sternberg� finds that a good many people include social characteristics, such as ability to understand and empathize with other people�. There are actually two components to g or general intelligence. One is fluid intelligence, or the ability to solve novel, abstract problems � the type requiring mental operations that make relatively little use of the real-world information you have been obtaining over your lifetime�. The other type of general intelligence is called crystallized intelligence. This is the store of information that you have about the nature of the world and the learned procedures that help you to make inferences about it.There are a variety of IQ tests out there of varying predictive quality and effectiveness, but Nesbitt takes "IQ test" to mean a test of comparative validity and rigor to measure one person's 'g' at a given time, and he takes care to offer examples and describe each one's respective predictive correlation to academic performance. That said, he observes that such traditional IQ tests rarely have anything to say about kinesthetic capability, artistic talent, emotional intelligence (e.g., empathetic accuracy, emotional control, and interpersonal relationship skills), delayed gratification and impulse control, or work ethic, and so concludes at p.17 that "IQ is not the be-all and end-all of intelligence, and intelligence, even when defined more broadly than IQ score, is not the only important factor influencing academic success or occupational attainment. And academic success is itself only one predictor of occupational success."
Nor are causal links between one-time IQ measurement and academic achievement all that easy to nail down. Showing up as a whiz on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) at the age of six doesn't place you on a primrose path to Princeton. The brain is a machine that wants constant feeding, or it starts to wither. Nesbitt goes on to show that environmental and cultural advantages can outweigh genetics in life as well as academic (and IQ test) performance.
Here the author alludes to the neurobiological thicket he has so far skirted, writing at p. 122,
Fading is to be expected if high-quality environments are not maintained. Only if children's brains are like clay would we expect them to remain in good shape years after they were formed. If children's brains are like muscles, however, then we would expect exercise, in the form of stimulating environments and activities, to be necessary to maintain good performance. I favor the muscle view, and so do the data.Those data include a number of studies of early childhood intervention and are buttressed by inferences from social psychology tests designed to undermine pernicious cultural influences (ostensibly giving people permission to demonstrate their smarts; promote an environment that rewards concentration, study, critical thinking, and exploration; and overcome otherwise self-fulfilling internal and external prejudices � he addresses stereotype threat at page 147).
If Nesbitt's working to humble Bell Curve proponents, then so far, so good, but I think he can go further by casting a greater spotlight on the cerebral thicket. What really is intelligence? Not, "what do we mean by intelligence," the question he answers in the first chapter, but "what is going on in the brain that lends itself to that result?" Suppose that g reduces to a collection of data (knowledge) and the ability to manipulate it. Before considering the latter ability, we might wonder how granular each datum is as well as how we group (and store and access) sets of data. We come by our knowledge in a variety of ways: linguistically via memorization of facts, as sensory input, experientially by doing, and algorithmo-logically (by induction and deduction, manipulation of other data we regard as trustworthy by means we likewise believe to be trustworthy). However, the physiological process(es) we use to store, access, and manipulate this information is not at all clear, nor is there reason to think these process(es) are other than idiosyncratic.
Learning requires not only acquisition of new knowledge, but also the ability to unlearn—to identify and correct faulty data. Learning can be achieved through imitation/demonstration, association/juxtaposition/analogy, and didactic/exploration/empirically with varying degrees of effectiveness depending in no small part on our reaction to cognitive dissonance, our emotional resistance or psychological commitment to challenge our ever-developing worldviews. We are by no means infallible, but tend to live in the here-and-now and apart from abstract concepts. When not conscious of the incompatibility of different data (that the size of the sun in the sky belies its distance from the Earth rather than orbital and physical similarity to the moon), or when convenient we can hold internally inconsistent views and behave in ways inconsistent with our purported beliefs (weight loss and consequent maintenance would be healthy for me, I'd like to maximize my life-span, and I think I'll have that second slice of fudge thankyouverymuch). It's not always giggles and ha-has. Such cognitive dissonance means that learning can be a frustrating, agonizing, and anger-inducing process. I suspect that Nesbitt's summary of this problem (at page 148) as it relates to minority children and the poor is actually generalizable, "Perhaps the main lesson is that what works and what doesn't is an empirical question." We can get so far by deriving general principles against the aggregated results of various reports, yet the physiological process that governs the way(s) we learn remains hazy, nor is there reason to think these process(es) are other than idiosyncratic.
Consider this trivial example of one man's mental rut inaction. Every morning I ride my bike to work and take it through security. For me, this involves navigating past a pair of stanchions connected by a single rope. Obviously, there are many ways to circumvent this obstacle; I typically get through by unhooking one end of the rope. That's always worked, but this morning the connection mechanism was jammed. After a few failed attempts to budge it, I ended up lifting and moving the offending stanchion outright. Now, somewhere in my brain resides a standard "how to get through a stanchion" solution. This is a longtime, inburned groove� or is it a datum or a data set or just a particularly familiar process? At what point does my brain quit on the usually trustworthy unclip-the-rope technique and start revisiting the problem anew? When it alights on one or more different solutions, how does it optimize the results? Are these activities measurable or comparable? Is there an ideal, gradable solution? What other factors come into play to affect the outcome? What will I do the next time? (Stay tuned.)
Although Nesbitt begins his book in the deep end of cognition, he retreats quickly to the shallower waters of social psychological research, and there remains. His aims are limited to casting doubt on the claims of genetic determinists and (at p. 152) calling out for "a huge amount of research� to find out what kinds of intensive programs do the most good." In so doing, he acknowledges a tremendous limitation of sociological research, to wit, that the problems being addressed are multivalent ("if we want to make the poor smarter, a good way to do it might be to make them richer").
Or Jewish. Or, as Randy Newman would have it, just give them . This seems a Watsonesque joke, but Nesbitt actually goes there with serious intent in his last two chapters. "Asian intellectual achievement is due more to sweat than to exceptional gray matter," he writes at page 154, and rattles along for another fifteen pages to distinguish the intellectual culture deriving from Confucius from that arising from Aristotle. In his next chapter, he argues that Jews share with the Chinese a predilection for achievement and demanding mothers (page 180). He laments the lack of credible studies in this area (?!?), proposing to test the whys or establish genetic bona fides for this mass population, but then proceeds anyway to spew out a bunch of anecdotal nonsense by way of explanation.
I don't know what happened here, it's like he completely lost his mind. My personal favorite from this nonsense comes at p. 178, "In AD 1000� Arab sheiks were discussing Plato and Aristotle, and Chinese mandarins were practicing all the arts, at a time when European nobles were gnawing haunches of meat in cold, dank castles." There's humorous material to be mined in these two chapters to be sure, but it tends to gnaw away the gravitas he has worked throughout the book to establish. Good sir, this will cost you at least a star in my review.
Apart from confronting personal prejudices, why does the identification of factors most likely to contribute to successful performance on IQ tests matter? It's not because we want to be able to tell kids they're smart. Quite the contrary, really. Nisbett describes a study at p. 189 showing that high-performing kids whose early success was attributed to native intelligence tended to backslide (they began quitting on difficult tasks in favor of seeking out less intellectually-challenging problems), while those who were instead praised for hard work continued to persist and find new successes. Ironic conclusion: when it comes to intelligence, ignorance is bliss.
IQ-awareness is important because in the 1970's, Bell Curve co-author Murray found that middle-class kids who tested for higher IQs ended up earning more than their lower-IQ siblings (see page 19). Per Murray, 10 points of IQ carries with it an additional $10,000 worth of earnings-potential. Nisbett takes pains to point out that if accurate to the general population, this observation is still correlational, not causational, and would be an effect likely amplified by the sort of increased educational opportunities, professional tracking, mentoring, and associated motivational and other social cues that smarter people receive. Dumber kids tend to run in less-advantaged life grooves, unless they're especially pretty or good at sports.
Again, while the intellectual potential of parents may well be passed along in some way to their children, the heritable potential of brain function is not well understood. Just like height, the phantom qualia 'g' might go up, down, or stay roughly the same. What's more, potential brain potential is in play from birth; any correlation to intellectual realization must surely be overwhelmed by cultural and environmental factors.
You'd have to be an insecure idiot to dispute that it's preferable for kids (and adults) to be smart. It would seem that intelligence acquisition is freely available, under the right conditions. An intellectual culture and strong work ethic promote advancement, and gains beget gains throughout one's lifetime, but of course especially so while the brain is developing. Fortunately, there are things we can do to improve our kids' intellectual odds beyond getting them to stay in shape and eat their Omega-3's. Schooling is important, and good schooling the more so. Captain Obvious suggestions for parental and personal encouragement abound. Read. Avoid stress. Pepper your speech with higher-level vocabulary. Practice thinking.
Well? Is it working?
July 14, 2009
Important on its own, but doubly so because it has had such an impact on the cognoscenti, in large part due to Nicholas Kristof's much discussed June 6 column in The New York Times. Malcolm Gladwell also acknowledged his debt to Nisbett's work in 'Outliers.' Will all the chatter about 'Outliers' and 'Intelligence' translate into change and an educational system where the assumption is that most children have the ability to be successful? I hope so.
Gladwell bemoans society's failure to make use of so much opportunity and potential. Right now I'm reading John Mighton's 'The Myth of Ability,' where he points out that in the current system, 'children who are lazy or uncooperative are often treated as if they have made a free and informed decision to receive a grade of D or F.'
Nisbett admits that because educational research rarely meets scientific standards, he cannot make a convincing case that environment trumps DNA. However, that means the hereditarians' arguments (such as those presented in 'The Bell Curve') are unconvincing, too. Here is where Nisbett is strongest; he persuasively dismantles the case for intelligence being fixed and determined by genetics.
Nisbett also frames concepts in strikingly clear ways. For example, IQ tests often categorize intelligence by dividing it into two groups: the kind that is based on what you already know, and the kind that solves novel problems that do not require background knowledge. After showing that the latter can hardly be free of cultural bias (a claim made by some psychologists), Nisbett labels these two types of smarts as 'crystallized' and 'fluid.' This was easier for me to to grasp than the Wechsler IQ test's division into 'verbal' and 'performance' measurements.
Additionally, Nisbett gives good practical advice. As a tutor, I particularly appreciated his citing Mark Lepper's five qualities of a good tutor, the five c's: control, challenge, confidence, curiosity, contextualize.
Highly recommended.
Gladwell bemoans society's failure to make use of so much opportunity and potential. Right now I'm reading John Mighton's 'The Myth of Ability,' where he points out that in the current system, 'children who are lazy or uncooperative are often treated as if they have made a free and informed decision to receive a grade of D or F.'
Nisbett admits that because educational research rarely meets scientific standards, he cannot make a convincing case that environment trumps DNA. However, that means the hereditarians' arguments (such as those presented in 'The Bell Curve') are unconvincing, too. Here is where Nisbett is strongest; he persuasively dismantles the case for intelligence being fixed and determined by genetics.
Nisbett also frames concepts in strikingly clear ways. For example, IQ tests often categorize intelligence by dividing it into two groups: the kind that is based on what you already know, and the kind that solves novel problems that do not require background knowledge. After showing that the latter can hardly be free of cultural bias (a claim made by some psychologists), Nisbett labels these two types of smarts as 'crystallized' and 'fluid.' This was easier for me to to grasp than the Wechsler IQ test's division into 'verbal' and 'performance' measurements.
Additionally, Nisbett gives good practical advice. As a tutor, I particularly appreciated his citing Mark Lepper's five qualities of a good tutor, the five c's: control, challenge, confidence, curiosity, contextualize.
Highly recommended.
June 22, 2014
This book was like a more meticulously researched version of Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers. Malcolm Gladwell is a better story teller but Richard Nisbett uses more scientific evidence to explain his conclusions. And he is very careful. He states several times that he believes X to be true based on these studies but there was some self-selection in this study and some other flaw in that study so there isn’t enough evidence to definitely prove X yet.
One of the chapters I found fascinating was the chapter about how the intelligence of children correlates with the intelligence of their parents. The conventional wisdom, which Richard Nisbett freely admits he used to believe, is that intelligence is mostly genetically related. This belief came to be because in many studies the intelligence of children genetically related to their parents correlates with their parents� intelligence. But the correlation between the intelligence of adopted children and that of their parents shows a poor correlation. The trouble with these studies is that when one is correlating two variables against each other and one variable shows very little variation, the correlation will be poor. In the US there is very little variation in the SES (social economic status) of adoptive parents. Most are middle class or above and even the lower SES parents do more things that correlate with high intelligence such as reading to their children. In some more carefully controlled studies from another country, it was found that children born to low SES biological parents but raised in high SES households had higher intelligence on average than children born to lower SES households and adopted by lower SES households (but not as high as children born to high SES parents and adopted by high SES parents). I am leaving out too many of the subtle features of the study, you will have to read the book to get a clearer picture but there is some evidence that environmental factors contribute to intelligence, it isn’t solely genetic factors as previously believed.
One of the chapters I found fascinating was the chapter about how the intelligence of children correlates with the intelligence of their parents. The conventional wisdom, which Richard Nisbett freely admits he used to believe, is that intelligence is mostly genetically related. This belief came to be because in many studies the intelligence of children genetically related to their parents correlates with their parents� intelligence. But the correlation between the intelligence of adopted children and that of their parents shows a poor correlation. The trouble with these studies is that when one is correlating two variables against each other and one variable shows very little variation, the correlation will be poor. In the US there is very little variation in the SES (social economic status) of adoptive parents. Most are middle class or above and even the lower SES parents do more things that correlate with high intelligence such as reading to their children. In some more carefully controlled studies from another country, it was found that children born to low SES biological parents but raised in high SES households had higher intelligence on average than children born to lower SES households and adopted by lower SES households (but not as high as children born to high SES parents and adopted by high SES parents). I am leaving out too many of the subtle features of the study, you will have to read the book to get a clearer picture but there is some evidence that environmental factors contribute to intelligence, it isn’t solely genetic factors as previously believed.
May 26, 2017
My parents, who gave me this book, claimed that it dissuaded them from the strong hereditarian view of intelligence. I remain a strong hereditarian.
Nisbett's customary tactic is to admit what he might not be expected to, earning points with readers for honesty, and then proceed to argue as if he had never made the admission, hoping his readers have forgotten it. To judge by the critical reception of this book, they have.
Chapter Six, on race and IQ, in which Nesbitt says, without qualification, that *all* of the IQ gap between blacks and whites (and Asians) is environmental, illustrates this as well as any. He writes early on, "We do know that blacks have lower IQs than whites at every level of SES [socio-economic status:], so SES cannot be the full explanation of the black/white IQ difference." Quite so: in fact this is one of the strongest hereditarian arguments. But then, after a brief excursion into the arguments about brain size and a summary of a couple of dubious adoption studies, he spends the rest of the chapter discussing the ways low SES contributes to low IQ!
Occasionally Nisbett makes you think he is studying American education through a powerful telescope from a distant planet. "The fact that a teacher is certified is not proof that the teacher is particularly good at the job. Nor, surprisingly, is the possession of a master's degree." Perhaps if Nisbett had bothered to inform himself that most of those master's degrees are in education, he might have been less surprised.
He is also very selective with the evidence, as Jensen and Rushton point out in It is technical, but the lazy reader can skip straight to the final section where they summarize Nisbett's various omissions and manipulations.
Nisbett's customary tactic is to admit what he might not be expected to, earning points with readers for honesty, and then proceed to argue as if he had never made the admission, hoping his readers have forgotten it. To judge by the critical reception of this book, they have.
Chapter Six, on race and IQ, in which Nesbitt says, without qualification, that *all* of the IQ gap between blacks and whites (and Asians) is environmental, illustrates this as well as any. He writes early on, "We do know that blacks have lower IQs than whites at every level of SES [socio-economic status:], so SES cannot be the full explanation of the black/white IQ difference." Quite so: in fact this is one of the strongest hereditarian arguments. But then, after a brief excursion into the arguments about brain size and a summary of a couple of dubious adoption studies, he spends the rest of the chapter discussing the ways low SES contributes to low IQ!
Occasionally Nisbett makes you think he is studying American education through a powerful telescope from a distant planet. "The fact that a teacher is certified is not proof that the teacher is particularly good at the job. Nor, surprisingly, is the possession of a master's degree." Perhaps if Nisbett had bothered to inform himself that most of those master's degrees are in education, he might have been less surprised.
He is also very selective with the evidence, as Jensen and Rushton point out in It is technical, but the lazy reader can skip straight to the final section where they summarize Nisbett's various omissions and manipulations.
August 19, 2009
The experience of reading this book in public was not pleasant. I got several poorly-crafted observation jokes of "trying to be more intelligent, eh?" from some co-workers, who met my withering glance and then scurried away. But that was harmless in comparison to the on-edge feeling that I had in the subway, holding my book open as little as possible to minimize the potential for people reading over my shoulder. Was I ashamed of the topic? Not at all, but the language used to discuss a semi-sensitive topic sometimes left me wondering if people might think I was a racist as page after page went on about studies connecting race and IQ. (I realize that this suggests people read more than just a word or two when glancing at the things other people read on the subway, but still, it was enough to unnerve me. All someone needed to do was see "blacks with lower IQs"...)
That said, clearly the point of this book is to say that nature has little to do with IQ and nurture far and away takes the cake. And to make that point, many discussions of race and IQ had to take place (which bring us back to me feeling uncomfortable in the subway). Even in the event of disproving things, we do need to confront some awkward truths, and within Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count, Richard Nisbett does a fair job at assuring us that we're not all doomed from the start to be limited in our abilities, though that doesn't mean we don't need to act fast in order to get our children prepared for their lives.
Nisbett includes a great deal of data to carry his point that environment is the major factor in affecting the intelligence of children (and for that matter, adults), which might seem overwhelming for someone who isn't a statistician, but I think it's all presented in a coherent manner, so I never found myself lost completely. Of course, the complex issue that is raised by Nisbett's work suggests that genes have little to do with predicting your IQ... but your cultural and socioeconomic influences do. The ugly truth of that statement? Your genes won't hold you back, but your ignorant family just might as soon as you're out of the womb, so keep those fingers crossed that you're born into an upper-middle class family that converses with each other.
Of course, that's the negative view that one can take away. The positive approach is that parents and schools (or any kind of programs) can have a big impact on the intelligence of children... provided that they're good ones. Without concerned and caring parents, experienced and committed teachers... well... things don't look good. The current socioeconomic system then becomes a kind of caste system, condemning children to repeat the lives of their parents and be unable to rise above, resulting in children who end up classified as disabled when different circumstances could have certainly avoided such a fate.
As a reasonably intelligent person, I feel that most of the conclusions drawn from this data are, in fact, things that make perfect sense if your mind ever happens to alight upon the topic. If you only surround the average child with influences that aren't encouraging or challenging, then the child's curiosity and intelligence will suffer as a result. Of course, Nisbett has data to back all of this up, resulting in some fascinating (and frightening) statistics. (And, of course, he states from the outset that not all families are alike an it's not great to make generalizations, but then the studies make their generalized statements and I start feeling awkward again.) For instance... a child in a middle class family will hear several million more words than a child in a lower class family, and beyond improved vocabulary isn't the only thing that results from that. Parents of middle class children (and again, the generalizations make me uncomfortable, but this was how it was presented in the book) are more likely to be engaged in conversation with their parents, to be asked questions that both draw out the child's opinions and logical reasoning abilities. When lower class children are spoken to by adults, they're often spoken to in terms of orders, such as to perform tasks, rather than engaged in conversation. It sounds pretty bleak, but thankfully, he did at least report on some programs that are invested in teaching better parenting skills or serving as day care facility with trained staff.
And lest you think he dodged some other issues in terms of race and IQ, Nisbitt did include chapters on "the Asian Advantage" and Jewish intelligence. While speaking of Asians, I feel that he didn't include nearly as much research in his discussion as he had with other chapters... which seemed rather odd, given that he himself does a great deal of research in Asia. He made some interesting (though not new) statements about the cultural differences between Asian and Western societies, given one's focus on the family and society's success and the other's focus on personal and individual success. What seemed a bit out of place, however, were statements like Confucius is responsible for all Asian thought, etc. (I did, however, like one Asian father commenting on the idea that it's not "Asian overachievement" so much as it's "American underachievement" when he witnessed his daugher's class give an award for completing all of the homework assignments.) And as far as Jewish intelligence, this chapter jumped away from his general format and seemed only to bring up the various theories that people have about why Jews are so smart and dismissed them pretty quickly. Perhaps he thought the majority of the book's arguments covered these, but still, it might have been worth repeating a bit.
We read this book for my book club and we actually had some great conversations result, particularly surrounding the idea of affirmative action and school funding. A great deal of Nisbett's points seemed to bring focus to early childhood development (though clearly, many educational researchers do), but almost to the point where it overlooked what can be done for older students. And I couldn't help but feel like I was waiting for Nisbett to make some kind of recommendation... to endorse certain practices or programs... but if you're waiting for that, you might as well skip to his last chapter when he tosses in a few common sense recommendations for parents (which can hardly be seen as serious, given that if someone is reading this book, they're clearly committed to their child's education and must be doing all these things already).
Don't feel intimidated by the size of the book if this isn't your usual kind of reading, for you're only reading about two-thirds of the pages... the rest are taken up by optional appendices, footnotes, and research citations. And yes, you can say that the title is stupid, as the book isn't much concerned with telling you how to acquire intelligence, be it for you or your precious little one. It was an interesting read (the studies were my favorite part, when certain things are isolated and the variables are charted) and you'll feel like it was worthwhile if you can manage to stir up some discussions on the topic. Since I work for an educational publisher, you can bet that it wasn't too hard to collect a group that wanted in on the discussion when I started talking about this book with co-workers, and I think that anyone (particularly parents) will be asking you to borrow your copy once you're finished.
That said, clearly the point of this book is to say that nature has little to do with IQ and nurture far and away takes the cake. And to make that point, many discussions of race and IQ had to take place (which bring us back to me feeling uncomfortable in the subway). Even in the event of disproving things, we do need to confront some awkward truths, and within Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count, Richard Nisbett does a fair job at assuring us that we're not all doomed from the start to be limited in our abilities, though that doesn't mean we don't need to act fast in order to get our children prepared for their lives.
Nisbett includes a great deal of data to carry his point that environment is the major factor in affecting the intelligence of children (and for that matter, adults), which might seem overwhelming for someone who isn't a statistician, but I think it's all presented in a coherent manner, so I never found myself lost completely. Of course, the complex issue that is raised by Nisbett's work suggests that genes have little to do with predicting your IQ... but your cultural and socioeconomic influences do. The ugly truth of that statement? Your genes won't hold you back, but your ignorant family just might as soon as you're out of the womb, so keep those fingers crossed that you're born into an upper-middle class family that converses with each other.
Of course, that's the negative view that one can take away. The positive approach is that parents and schools (or any kind of programs) can have a big impact on the intelligence of children... provided that they're good ones. Without concerned and caring parents, experienced and committed teachers... well... things don't look good. The current socioeconomic system then becomes a kind of caste system, condemning children to repeat the lives of their parents and be unable to rise above, resulting in children who end up classified as disabled when different circumstances could have certainly avoided such a fate.
As a reasonably intelligent person, I feel that most of the conclusions drawn from this data are, in fact, things that make perfect sense if your mind ever happens to alight upon the topic. If you only surround the average child with influences that aren't encouraging or challenging, then the child's curiosity and intelligence will suffer as a result. Of course, Nisbett has data to back all of this up, resulting in some fascinating (and frightening) statistics. (And, of course, he states from the outset that not all families are alike an it's not great to make generalizations, but then the studies make their generalized statements and I start feeling awkward again.) For instance... a child in a middle class family will hear several million more words than a child in a lower class family, and beyond improved vocabulary isn't the only thing that results from that. Parents of middle class children (and again, the generalizations make me uncomfortable, but this was how it was presented in the book) are more likely to be engaged in conversation with their parents, to be asked questions that both draw out the child's opinions and logical reasoning abilities. When lower class children are spoken to by adults, they're often spoken to in terms of orders, such as to perform tasks, rather than engaged in conversation. It sounds pretty bleak, but thankfully, he did at least report on some programs that are invested in teaching better parenting skills or serving as day care facility with trained staff.
And lest you think he dodged some other issues in terms of race and IQ, Nisbitt did include chapters on "the Asian Advantage" and Jewish intelligence. While speaking of Asians, I feel that he didn't include nearly as much research in his discussion as he had with other chapters... which seemed rather odd, given that he himself does a great deal of research in Asia. He made some interesting (though not new) statements about the cultural differences between Asian and Western societies, given one's focus on the family and society's success and the other's focus on personal and individual success. What seemed a bit out of place, however, were statements like Confucius is responsible for all Asian thought, etc. (I did, however, like one Asian father commenting on the idea that it's not "Asian overachievement" so much as it's "American underachievement" when he witnessed his daugher's class give an award for completing all of the homework assignments.) And as far as Jewish intelligence, this chapter jumped away from his general format and seemed only to bring up the various theories that people have about why Jews are so smart and dismissed them pretty quickly. Perhaps he thought the majority of the book's arguments covered these, but still, it might have been worth repeating a bit.
We read this book for my book club and we actually had some great conversations result, particularly surrounding the idea of affirmative action and school funding. A great deal of Nisbett's points seemed to bring focus to early childhood development (though clearly, many educational researchers do), but almost to the point where it overlooked what can be done for older students. And I couldn't help but feel like I was waiting for Nisbett to make some kind of recommendation... to endorse certain practices or programs... but if you're waiting for that, you might as well skip to his last chapter when he tosses in a few common sense recommendations for parents (which can hardly be seen as serious, given that if someone is reading this book, they're clearly committed to their child's education and must be doing all these things already).
Don't feel intimidated by the size of the book if this isn't your usual kind of reading, for you're only reading about two-thirds of the pages... the rest are taken up by optional appendices, footnotes, and research citations. And yes, you can say that the title is stupid, as the book isn't much concerned with telling you how to acquire intelligence, be it for you or your precious little one. It was an interesting read (the studies were my favorite part, when certain things are isolated and the variables are charted) and you'll feel like it was worthwhile if you can manage to stir up some discussions on the topic. Since I work for an educational publisher, you can bet that it wasn't too hard to collect a group that wanted in on the discussion when I started talking about this book with co-workers, and I think that anyone (particularly parents) will be asking you to borrow your copy once you're finished.
January 11, 2022
Interesting reading. Recommended.
June 4, 2011
OK book. He makes several claims that he gives no evidence for. For example, on multiple occasions he states that inner city teachers are worse than in wealthy suburban teachers. I have taught in two of the wealthiest school districts in the country, in Westchester, NY, and I have taught in two different NYC schools. I would say that the teachers in both were overall very good. However many of the suburban teachers would not make it a month in the city. As an inner city teacher you have to be a lot more than a teacher. We have far more students coming from difficult situations. Poverty, is just one. Less education parents. I have had students with unstable homes and living in shelters. Kind of hard to concentrate in physics when you have to go to a shelter after school is out. Nisbett claims on multiple occasions in this book that inner city teachers are not as good. He does not point to any studies that prove this.
By the way, the inner city schools I have taught science in have had far better facilities and equipment than either of the suburban schools. New books too. I tutored a girl that attends a very expensive Jewish private school in NYC, and her text book was the exact same one I had in HS. I'm 38. Literally, the same edition too.
Also, her teacher had a PhD but never took a teaching class. She was treating 9th graders like they were college students. Many of the private school kids I know have shared similar anecdotes.
Why do they do so well. One-Their parents, Two-Their Peers (who also have parents like theirs)
By the way, the inner city schools I have taught science in have had far better facilities and equipment than either of the suburban schools. New books too. I tutored a girl that attends a very expensive Jewish private school in NYC, and her text book was the exact same one I had in HS. I'm 38. Literally, the same edition too.
Also, her teacher had a PhD but never took a teaching class. She was treating 9th graders like they were college students. Many of the private school kids I know have shared similar anecdotes.
Why do they do so well. One-Their parents, Two-Their Peers (who also have parents like theirs)
May 31, 2009
I will definitely be reading this one again soon! Nisbett makes a strong case for emphasizing hard work over natural ability and gives some concrete advice on how parents can strengthen their kids' minds.
May 7, 2021
Excellent book, but not sure about the title! It is not done to be seen reading a book on "how to get intelligent" is it? And yet that is not really what the book is about. In fact it is all about the debate regarding the question of heritability of intelligence. To what extent is our intelligence programmed in by our genes and to what extent is it mutable, something we can control.
It seems to me that people instinctively believe a bit of both propositions. Some people are more naturally intelligent, but we can also train our minds. And that is what this book says too, with emphasis on the training. Although it says it very well! Making use of a wealth of scientific evidence, studies, school programmes etc., it makes the point that what we measure as intelligence is hugely influenced by culture, expectation, education and other factors too.
Of course, measuring intelligence is infamously hard. IQ tests measure this thing called IQ, but that may not actually equate with intelligence, although it is thought to correlate with it at least. Nisbett categorises two types of test: Tests of fluid and crystallised intelligence. By this he means fluid intelligence is the innate ability and crystallised intelligence translates to things like good vocabulary or good general knowledge. A useful distinction because most people would agree that crystallised intelligence is definitely affected by education and fluid intelligence is not.
Except it is not so. Nisbett shows that on all measures of intelligence, scores are increasing over time for intelligence at a rate so rapid that genetics cannot be the explanation. He also shows this increase is faster in disadvantaged groups, and he has to take issue with the race debate too, because in the past it was found - particularly in America - that IQ scores for black people were much lower than for white. What Nisbett shows is that the acceleration in scores is much higher in black people, and he systematically and thoroughly debunks the hereditarian explanations for this difference. This is one of the best parts of the book - demolishing the arguments of hereditarians and thus also proving his thesis that the uplift in intelligence scores over time (particularly for fluid intelligence) shows that both measures of intelligence are very strongly affected by culture, education, economics etc.
The book also looks at what school programmes work, and points to resources of more information on that score. It discusses costs and benefits of programmes that could achieve better results across the board (in the American context, but applicable elsewhere too).
All in all a very good read.
It seems to me that people instinctively believe a bit of both propositions. Some people are more naturally intelligent, but we can also train our minds. And that is what this book says too, with emphasis on the training. Although it says it very well! Making use of a wealth of scientific evidence, studies, school programmes etc., it makes the point that what we measure as intelligence is hugely influenced by culture, expectation, education and other factors too.
Of course, measuring intelligence is infamously hard. IQ tests measure this thing called IQ, but that may not actually equate with intelligence, although it is thought to correlate with it at least. Nisbett categorises two types of test: Tests of fluid and crystallised intelligence. By this he means fluid intelligence is the innate ability and crystallised intelligence translates to things like good vocabulary or good general knowledge. A useful distinction because most people would agree that crystallised intelligence is definitely affected by education and fluid intelligence is not.
Except it is not so. Nisbett shows that on all measures of intelligence, scores are increasing over time for intelligence at a rate so rapid that genetics cannot be the explanation. He also shows this increase is faster in disadvantaged groups, and he has to take issue with the race debate too, because in the past it was found - particularly in America - that IQ scores for black people were much lower than for white. What Nisbett shows is that the acceleration in scores is much higher in black people, and he systematically and thoroughly debunks the hereditarian explanations for this difference. This is one of the best parts of the book - demolishing the arguments of hereditarians and thus also proving his thesis that the uplift in intelligence scores over time (particularly for fluid intelligence) shows that both measures of intelligence are very strongly affected by culture, education, economics etc.
The book also looks at what school programmes work, and points to resources of more information on that score. It discusses costs and benefits of programmes that could achieve better results across the board (in the American context, but applicable elsewhere too).
All in all a very good read.
May 12, 2009
A little dry in the beginning, but I'm looking forward to the part where he suggests how one's intelligence can actually be improved. I was under the impression that intelligence was genetically determined and not much could be done to change it up or down. FINISHED: Well it wasn’t as exciting as I expected, but there were particularly good sections worth reading. His principal argument is that the hereditarian or genetic determination of IQ argument is only partly true. In fact, to a great extent, one’s IQ is also determined by one’s cultural and educational environment. The best chapters are those discussing the reasons why Jews and Asians are such high achievers. Appendix B: “The Case for a Purely Environmental Basis for Black/White Differences in IQ� is worth reading, despite the complex statistical discussion, meant more for the professional researcher. He gives good tips on how parents can raise their child’s intelligence and how best to tutor a child having difficulty with school work (p. 76). The most compelling message of the book is “� intelligence is highly malleable and can be developed by hard work. � learning changes the brain by forming new neurological connections…�
December 26, 2010
Children of middle-class and rich Americans are raised in a way that lets them reach their genetic potential (which, admittedly, is different from one child to another) to a much greater extent than children of poor Americans. Therefore, the heritability of intelligence is much greater among the rich and the middle class than among the poor. Poor people tend not to adopt children; therefore, estimates of the heritability of intelligence based on adoption studies are too high. Intelligence tests that are touted as being culture-neutral, such as Raven's Progressive Matrices, are actually extremely culture-laden; in several countries the scores rose much faster than genes could change. There is a lot of indirect evidence that the score gap between white Americans and African Americans is due to culture, not genetics; this is also true of the gap between Ashkenazi Jews and other whites. Ashkenazi Jews made a contribution to Western culture in the 20th century that was hugely disproportionate to their numbers; so did Sephardic Jews in the age of Maimonides and Ibn Gabirol; what did the (ancestors of the) Ashkenazim do back then, and what did the Sephardim do in the 20th century?
December 12, 2009
This is Nisbett's answer to the landmark book "Bellcurve". Essentially, he offers data to suggest that while some amount of intelligence is heritable, a vast majority of intelligence is malleable. Clearly, both schools of thought are correct.
This isn't a glossed over easy read like so many nonfiction best sellers today where the author basically talks about the headline news and leaves out the gory statistics. (Think Gladwell, Friedman). Still, it is an interesting topic as a mother and a citizen. Here is a hint, you can be sure that I will tell my kids that success/intelligence are products of hard work and resilience. Even if they are stuck with my genes, I'm going to program them for the best case scenario. :)
This isn't a glossed over easy read like so many nonfiction best sellers today where the author basically talks about the headline news and leaves out the gory statistics. (Think Gladwell, Friedman). Still, it is an interesting topic as a mother and a citizen. Here is a hint, you can be sure that I will tell my kids that success/intelligence are products of hard work and resilience. Even if they are stuck with my genes, I'm going to program them for the best case scenario. :)
May 15, 2012
Thus isn't a book for popular consumption. The author gets mired in statistical references and his frame of reference is heavily dosed with measures of standard deviations used to back up the author's arguments.
My thought is that Nisbett could have said a lot more without cluttering up his message so much.
My thought is that Nisbett could have said a lot more without cluttering up his message so much.
Want to read
October 17, 2015Discussed in a by Nicholas Kristof on June 6, 2009.
September 11, 2018
Not for the general reader.
Summary:
1- IQ is not genetic
2- more money equals more IQ
Summary:
1- IQ is not genetic
2- more money equals more IQ
April 4, 2024
Providing a good summary of theories and models of intelligence, we hear about multiple intelligences, Fluid and Crystallized intelligence, and contrasts between Analytic, Creativity and Practical Intelligence.
The core thesis is that intelligence is partially heritable, but variously so. For example, in conducive environments (such as upper middle class) then it could be up to 70% heritable. But in more challenging environments, such as low economic status, then heritability might only account for only 10% of intelligence variability. (67%).
The author illustrates his argument by noting that physical height is one of the most heritable characteristics, but it can also be influenced significantly by environmental factors. For example, between 1965 and 2005, the average height in Korea increased by 7 inches (14%). The fact that a highly heritable characteristic can nonetheless be modified by environmental factors shows that even if there is a significant component of heritability in what we understand as ‘intelligence� that does not preclude it still being significantly influenced by wider environmental factors.
Considerations like this lead the author to unambiguously reject any aspect of genetics in intelligence differences between the races. He makes a persuasive case, but he sometimes risks overstating his conclusions. For example, he states: ‘Genes account for none of the difference in IQ between blacks and whites; measurable environmental factors plausibly account for all of it.� (41%). But if environmental factors only ‘plausibly� explain all IQ differences between races, then isn’t it going beyond the evidence to deny absolutely (rather than plausibly) that there is any genetic link?
A similar evidential gap occurs in a few other places. We hear, for example, that ‘vouchers for attending private schools have been given out to poor and minority children, but there is not much evidence that they are the answer (46%). However the book gives no indication of what the evidence actually is, so it is unclear if the author’s claim is in fact justified.
We see more missing evidence when the author comments on parenting styles and states that marching children from hockey to piano to cub scouts ‘is not something I would personally recommend.� (63%). But no actual reason, or evidence is given to justify that claim.
Overall, this is a book which is well worth engaging with, as it presents a lot of research and different examples and evidences to illustrate its argument. However, the few places where there are unevidenced claims make the book feel a little unfinished, or hurried.
April 15, 2018
The office manager at the school I'm working at recommended (and lent me) this book. Starts out very dry (which he admits) with a lot of stats. I am not good at stats, at all. But over the course of reading the book I started to get more comfortable with it (in the context of his book). He spent a lot of time trying to say that heredity doesn't play a big role in intelligence and then proceeded to talk about how much what family we are born into/raised by can affect our overall intelligence. So in a lot of ways genetics does matter, right? Because those born into low socioeconomic households can't all be adopted into high socioeconomic households. So while it is luck of the draw, who your parents are matters. But I get what he's really trying to say. We shouldn't let that luck of the draw stop us if handed the short end of the stick. For many it is simply ending cultural stigmas about learning. Which is no easy task. And I'm not sure he provides much on how anyone has managed to do that yet.
So after all of that, I liked the book. It had a lot of food for thought. But left a few holes in places, and the stats dragged it down for me at times.
So after all of that, I liked the book. It had a lot of food for thought. But left a few holes in places, and the stats dragged it down for me at times.
February 26, 2021
Richard E. Nisbett je významný americký psychológ, ktorý sa zaoberá výskumom kognitívnych schopností, kultúr, spoločenských tried a starnutia. V roku 2009 publikoval knihu Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count (Inteligencia a ako ju získať: prečo na školách a kultúrach záleží), v ktorej sa venuje inteligencii a vplyvom prostredia na ňu.
Z obsahového hľadiska možno v tejto knihe identifikovať dve línie: jednak ide o opis inteligencie a zdôrazňovanie toho, že obvykle má na ňu rozhodujúci vplyv prostredie, a jednak ide o reakciu na tvrdenie niektorých výskumníkov inteligencie, ktorí hovoria o dominantnom vplyve génov na inteligenciu a o geneticky podmienených rozdieloch v inteligencii medzi rôznymi rasovými alebo etnickými skupinami.
Zvyšok mojej recenzie tejto knihy si možno prečítať tu:
Z obsahového hľadiska možno v tejto knihe identifikovať dve línie: jednak ide o opis inteligencie a zdôrazňovanie toho, že obvykle má na ňu rozhodujúci vplyv prostredie, a jednak ide o reakciu na tvrdenie niektorých výskumníkov inteligencie, ktorí hovoria o dominantnom vplyve génov na inteligenciu a o geneticky podmienených rozdieloch v inteligencii medzi rôznymi rasovými alebo etnickými skupinami.
Zvyšok mojej recenzie tejto knihy si možno prečítať tu:
November 15, 2020
Intelligence seems like a very touchy and controversial subject. I think Nisbett does a great job of explaining what we know about the influence of genes and environment on intelligence, and what can be done to lift the influencing parts that we have under our control. He also daringly tackles the subjects of race and intelligence and does a convincing job (to me) that any differences in IQ between races can be wholly attributed to environmental factors. He also deals have explicit chapters on subjects like why Asians and Jews are over-represented in mathematics and science, Nobel prizes and so on. Finally, there are great advice on the individual level on what you can do yourself and for your children to foster intelligence (the how to get it part).
January 11, 2023
If this is for lay people on environmental factors on general intelligence, then it's a dull one at best. What your left with is ambiguous findings from correlational results with not much experimental research. The writing from this author is borderline lazy through passing on the research to someone else, or to depend on future research. It's a waste of your valuable time.
April 4, 2022
One of the best statistical books I have ever read. Nisbett gives the data behind what works and what doesn't work on increasing intelligence. Filled with all the statistical math you could ever hope to read.
November 13, 2018
Some interesting points, but problematic language and problematic conclusions. I get that he has to simplify a broad range of topics for laypeople, but still problematic.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 14, 2019
Подход к ссылкам на литературу раздражает (их нет в тексте). Перевод лучше, чем у предыдущей прочитанной мной книги из серии, но переводчики не умеют считать, а научного редактора не завезли.
May 3, 2019
Very good read, great compilation of information.
August 17, 2021
Geography of Thought Man
April 19, 2022
Goes completely against genetic theory. Focuses on shaping attitude of a person rather than inherent intelligence.
July 24, 2022
I was hoping to get more actionable items out of the book to help increase my intelligence. But he mostly talked about generalities. But he is more of the opinion that intelligence can be improved.
June 10, 2024
Lots of statistics. Great insights for teachers
April 27, 2009
This is a book everyone must read! If at least 50% of IQ is environmental, this has profound implications on how we educate our children and close the achievement gap between poor children and middle class ones. The book presents all the research on the effects of parenting styles and other low socio-economic factors on student achievement as well as differences in cultural mores. This book examines KIPP schools, vouchers, class size, teacher quality, praising for effort over ability, Asians, European Jews, black/white gap, you name it. This book covers it all, presenting the supporting research and arguments. It's really fascinating and hopeful and a must-read for all parents, teachers, educators, citizens. The author concludes that only 10% of variation in the intelligence of poor children is due to heredity. We really can improve their lives, and not through NCLB:
"The No Child Left Behind Act demands that the difference in academic achievement between the classes and between the races be erased in half a generation by the schools alone. This is absurd. It ignores the fact that class and race differences begin in early infancy and have as much to do with economic factors and neighborhood and cultural differences as schools."
Intelligence and How to Get It by Richard E. Nisbett, p. 197
"The No Child Left Behind Act demands that the difference in academic achievement between the classes and between the races be erased in half a generation by the schools alone. This is absurd. It ignores the fact that class and race differences begin in early infancy and have as much to do with economic factors and neighborhood and cultural differences as schools."
Intelligence and How to Get It by Richard E. Nisbett, p. 197
April 19, 2009
Author Richard E. Nisbett gives an easily accessible account of what intelligence is, the different types of intelligence, how you get intelligence, along with what works and doesn't work in acquiring and maintaining intelligence in children and adults. Nisbett's primary focus is on schools and cultures (race, nationality, socioeconomic status) and their influence over intelligence from the womb to adulthood. He provides ample evidence for his conclusions in the form of results from psychological and sociological studies. In the epilogue, Nisbett gives the reader tips on improving his/her own intelligence as well as that of his/her children.
I think two of the most interesting facts I learned from this book are: 1) breast feeding for the first nine months of live improves IQ by approximately six months. There is no improvement after more than nine months of breast feeding.
2) Exercise improves intelligence. Seniors in their 60s can reduce their chances of Alzheimer's Disease by beginning to exercise, even that late in life.
I would recommend this book to anyone interested in human intelligence as well as to parents looking to foster intelligence in their children.
I think two of the most interesting facts I learned from this book are: 1) breast feeding for the first nine months of live improves IQ by approximately six months. There is no improvement after more than nine months of breast feeding.
2) Exercise improves intelligence. Seniors in their 60s can reduce their chances of Alzheimer's Disease by beginning to exercise, even that late in life.
I would recommend this book to anyone interested in human intelligence as well as to parents looking to foster intelligence in their children.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.