"Intelligence" is used as if it is one-dimensional, as you noted, smart or not smart. Howard Gardner defined the first seven intelligences in Frames of Mind in 1983. He added the last two in Intelligence Reframed in 1999. 1 - verbal-linguistic. 2 - mathematical-logical 3- musical 4- visual-spatial 5- bodily-kinesthetic. 6 - interpersonal 7- intrapersonal 8- naturalist. 9- existential. There are many kinds of smarts including street-smarts that most kids in dense urban areas learn early on. Scores and labels do not help kids, or teachers, learn. Learning is better developed by feeding curiosity not answers to tests.
Raised by a single mother nurse in the 70's who couldn't afford daycare... A very quality education by trial; she gave us the basics: a wooden spoon to the ass if we effed up and further education in everything else in a simplified fashion. Basically: "Don't be a dick and work hard and smart."
Happily married for 30 years now with three self-sustaining GenZers who understand how our institutions are very flawed.
(raises hand) Me too! Now we four are 59, 54, 53, 52 and have finally formed non-competitive relationships with each other. That’s been one of the joys of my 50s, I must say.
Insightful and thought-provoking post. I was reminded of Malcom Gladwell's 'Outliers'. Success is often about opportunity, time, and environment. Intelligence is multifaceted and measurement is not that straight-forward. Different people learn in different ways. I feel that all humans have an innate curiosity to learn the world around them. Bucketing knowledge into Mathematics/Physics/Geography/Literature/etc., and when a child excels in one, nudging them towards a particular career path, may not even be the right approach, I guess, as you pointed out in your example.
Thank you, thank you for this week’s ideas. My 17-year-old son is sensitive, creative, smart, and funny. He is also a square peg in the Swiss system of perfectly calibrated round holes. There is a round hole for everyone here: Switzerland prides itself on its dual system of academic and professional-vocational education. Rightly so. But not all pegs become round to the same degree, much less at the same time.
After completing the nine years of obligatory schooling (you read that right: after 9th grade is done) he was accepted at 16 to the college-prep level public school. Less than 20% are granted this privilege. And he crashed and burned halfway through the first year.
In August he will start a one-year program in Denmark for 16 to 19-year-olds to (re-)find themselves. After that, we’ll see. I hope he will regain the joy in learning for learning’s sake and the self-confidence that he lost along the way.
Wow--what an adventure! I can't imagine what it's like to be in your position, but I'm sure your son will be better off when all this (re)finding and discovery is said and done. He certainly will gain a lot of life experience. Thanks for sharing!
Assessing children based on memory recall is deeply flawed. There used to be a saving grace that memory recall could be a useful skill, both personally and professionally.
Now with Google and ChatGPT, the counterbalance of that argument grows weaker by the day.
Dear Jen/Joe-Kwame, excellent essay on learning and teaching strategy to the benefit of our juveniles and common future. What you found out, reflected and concluded is true with a relevant set-back - individuality versus complex learning and conducting capacities available. Notwithstanding the limited number of teachers available to understandingly comprehend, sense and teach in the well-planned manner your describe.
Individuality is a dilemma and perspective at the same time. So it very much depends on the environment you grow up in, to propel your giftedness (--> Aptitude) for mastery or fall short to adverse conditions. Thank you so much for that idealistic and true study and findings.
Yours got me thinking about the use of the bell-shaped distribution curve. I recall that the idea of the bell-shaped curve came from random or independent coin tosses. Wouldn't that be a sick idea when applied to humans and learning? Is there such a thing as learning independent of context and connection? High-performing teams might have a bi-model distribution for each performer in the context of the team performance. Is aptitude measured in hindsight or for sight? Either way, doesn't it have the risk of pre-ordained or self-fulfilling? Lastly, as a grandparent of 5 college-bound grandkids I can affirm to you that they have learned the regurgitation system. Has it taught them how to live a life? Time will tell.
i just used it because I find visuals helpful. Of course, unique/diverse/free-spirited individual people dont fall perfectly into a graph, chart, excel spreadsheet, distribution, etc--but the visual helps us distill big ideas.
It's up to the reader to take away from it what they will
I understand your purpose. My thoughts or questions about the bell-shaped curve as a model or visual. Does it create a form of confirmation bias or sort of self fulfilling prophecy. The academics or experts in statistics and data will say they allow for that. Will they admit to not knowing all the variables. The bell shaped curve was conceived from totally independent random coin flips. In a sense it eliminated "connection" and "variables", Where in G_d's universe does that exist? Was it Twain who said "it's not what we don't know that gets us. Rather it is what we think we know that is not true" Sorry for the misquote. You get the idea? I, do so appreciate your efforts and insights.
Hi Bruce, good questions. I'll try my best to respond based on what I think your overall message is, but please know that this is merely my opinion.
Re: self-fulfilling prophecy and confirmation bias, I think these are individual issues and they could, in theory, happen following any stated idea. Should we stop putting ideas out there because someone chooses to look at them in a way that confirm some bias they have or use it in a self-fulfilling prophetic way? I don't think so.
Now, re: the bell curve, this is merely a visualization to help support an idea. As you can see, there's no data points or units of measurement on it. When stating any supporting idea and showing a visual, a reader could hyperfixate on one small bit of information and make it come true in their own life (SFP) or they could use it to confirm their biases, but that's not the point of the idea as a whole. The point is that we shouldn't base kids' intelligence off of comparison and uniformity and that the measure we use for intelligence is flawed.
If someone were to use the bell curve graphic (which was merely a supportive visual) to fulfill some prophecy or confirm some bias they have, it seems like they missed the point. They're too busy looking at one tree and are missing the forest. There's always the potential for that in any writing because people will get out of it what they're looking for (as Stephen King says, no two people read the same book); but that wont keep me from putting ideas (and visuals) out there.
Does this answer the question? Hope Im not overlooking something.
The bell curve, or what the statisticians call Gaussian distribution, is a good way to show normal distribution amoung random things. Since the inputs of educational aptitude and the outcomes of learning are implicitly random, then a bell curve distribution shows statistical relevance of the teaching method.
All that to say, statistics help us quantitfy concepts. And many times the money people are more interested in statistical metrics than the benefits of the money on an individual basis.
If you apply the bell curve, which is based on totally random independent coin flips, aren’t you pre-determining the outcome of any analysis? What activities or studies can replicate isolated independent coin flips? Even at the quantum level, unknown variables are called into play, aren’t they?
This makes no sense to me. Is the universe designed with the bell shape in mind? I think not. At its best and worst, it is self-fulfilling. We get what we create for, don’t we?
Lastly, I sense that the “bell “ is more nefarious than one might suspect, as it justifies “comparisons.” and the illusion of “objectivity.”. This quote comes to mind, Not everything that can be counted counts. Not everything that counts can be counted.” ( Einstein and others).
These are all good questions. And there are entire courses you can take in masters level statistics and sociology to help you figure it out. A good place to start is by asking claude.ai. It's pretty good at reasoning for what it is.
Thank you. I might need help understanding the theory.
I am questioning or trying to understand how we got from counting “random independent coin flips” to its broader applications to things like learning, which, on the surface, would seem anything but random.
Public Education's most challenging task is balancing the funds necessary for adequate individual instruction with the resources available for the child's home learning environment. Large metropolitan schools spend money, time, and labor on the lack of suitable home environments for students inadequately prepared for learning. Education starts in the home environment and has become a hot topic or mess based on socioeconomic factors. Those lucky enough to be born in an environment that encourages learning should be grateful. Placing children in public schools versus private is an industry that has grown tremendously in the last fifty-plus years as the middle class has shrunk considerably.
Loved this post Jen, feel so deeply about this perspective on learning as I’ve seen very talented individuals ‘give up’ under the belief they aren’t good enough at learning to pursue it. On the other side, I’ve seen people absolutely crippled by perfectionism because they were excellent students who felt the pressure of high achievement. It reminds me of the quote: “Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
"Intelligence" is used as if it is one-dimensional, as you noted, smart or not smart. Howard Gardner defined the first seven intelligences in Frames of Mind in 1983. He added the last two in Intelligence Reframed in 1999. 1 - verbal-linguistic. 2 - mathematical-logical 3- musical 4- visual-spatial 5- bodily-kinesthetic. 6 - interpersonal 7- intrapersonal 8- naturalist. 9- existential. There are many kinds of smarts including street-smarts that most kids in dense urban areas learn early on. Scores and labels do not help kids, or teachers, learn. Learning is better developed by feeding curiosity not answers to tests.
absolutely!
'what they’ll care about is the impact we made on the lives of those around us when we had the opportunity to do so.'
This should be everyone's main life principle. We gotta focus on the truly meaningful and impactful things in life.
I agree with your points, Jen.
💙
Raised by a single mother nurse in the 70's who couldn't afford daycare... A very quality education by trial; she gave us the basics: a wooden spoon to the ass if we effed up and further education in everything else in a simplified fashion. Basically: "Don't be a dick and work hard and smart."
Happily married for 30 years now with three self-sustaining GenZers who understand how our institutions are very flawed.
🙌
What an insightful article!
“Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." - ...anonime
love this quote
I was also the oldest smart one who my siblings were compared to, and that was so destructive to our relationships with each other.
it's a tough dynamic to live through
(raises hand) Me too! Now we four are 59, 54, 53, 52 and have finally formed non-competitive relationships with each other. That’s been one of the joys of my 50s, I must say.
I'm glad to know its possible!
“Thought” over-values thinking. Knowing this, perhaps thought can be encouraged to take a back seat sometimes and see what else arises.
🙏
Insightful and thought-provoking post. I was reminded of Malcom Gladwell's 'Outliers'. Success is often about opportunity, time, and environment. Intelligence is multifaceted and measurement is not that straight-forward. Different people learn in different ways. I feel that all humans have an innate curiosity to learn the world around them. Bucketing knowledge into Mathematics/Physics/Geography/Literature/etc., and when a child excels in one, nudging them towards a particular career path, may not even be the right approach, I guess, as you pointed out in your example.
Thank you, Rob!
Thank you, thank you for this week’s ideas. My 17-year-old son is sensitive, creative, smart, and funny. He is also a square peg in the Swiss system of perfectly calibrated round holes. There is a round hole for everyone here: Switzerland prides itself on its dual system of academic and professional-vocational education. Rightly so. But not all pegs become round to the same degree, much less at the same time.
After completing the nine years of obligatory schooling (you read that right: after 9th grade is done) he was accepted at 16 to the college-prep level public school. Less than 20% are granted this privilege. And he crashed and burned halfway through the first year.
In August he will start a one-year program in Denmark for 16 to 19-year-olds to (re-)find themselves. After that, we’ll see. I hope he will regain the joy in learning for learning’s sake and the self-confidence that he lost along the way.
Wow--what an adventure! I can't imagine what it's like to be in your position, but I'm sure your son will be better off when all this (re)finding and discovery is said and done. He certainly will gain a lot of life experience. Thanks for sharing!
Assessing children based on memory recall is deeply flawed. There used to be a saving grace that memory recall could be a useful skill, both personally and professionally.
Now with Google and ChatGPT, the counterbalance of that argument grows weaker by the day.
it certainly does seem that way
Dear Jen/Joe-Kwame, excellent essay on learning and teaching strategy to the benefit of our juveniles and common future. What you found out, reflected and concluded is true with a relevant set-back - individuality versus complex learning and conducting capacities available. Notwithstanding the limited number of teachers available to understandingly comprehend, sense and teach in the well-planned manner your describe.
Individuality is a dilemma and perspective at the same time. So it very much depends on the environment you grow up in, to propel your giftedness (--> Aptitude) for mastery or fall short to adverse conditions. Thank you so much for that idealistic and true study and findings.
Namasté, Joe-Kwame
Thank you, Joe-Kwame!
As an unschooling parent I have found there are a few paradigms we should be willing to test.
1. The stuff worth learning comes from prescribed textbooks only.
2. Only school teachers can teach you.
3. Schools are the only place for learning.
4. There is a specific time frame for learning (first 20 years of life), then we start the business of living our lives. Based on what we learned.
These are feelings we believe as facts due to our conditioning.
All four of those paradigms would fall flat on their face.
Thank you for listing them out--it's powerful to see them in writing, as people usually just accept them subconsciously.
Yours got me thinking about the use of the bell-shaped distribution curve. I recall that the idea of the bell-shaped curve came from random or independent coin tosses. Wouldn't that be a sick idea when applied to humans and learning? Is there such a thing as learning independent of context and connection? High-performing teams might have a bi-model distribution for each performer in the context of the team performance. Is aptitude measured in hindsight or for sight? Either way, doesn't it have the risk of pre-ordained or self-fulfilling? Lastly, as a grandparent of 5 college-bound grandkids I can affirm to you that they have learned the regurgitation system. Has it taught them how to live a life? Time will tell.
i just used it because I find visuals helpful. Of course, unique/diverse/free-spirited individual people dont fall perfectly into a graph, chart, excel spreadsheet, distribution, etc--but the visual helps us distill big ideas.
It's up to the reader to take away from it what they will
I understand your purpose. My thoughts or questions about the bell-shaped curve as a model or visual. Does it create a form of confirmation bias or sort of self fulfilling prophecy. The academics or experts in statistics and data will say they allow for that. Will they admit to not knowing all the variables. The bell shaped curve was conceived from totally independent random coin flips. In a sense it eliminated "connection" and "variables", Where in G_d's universe does that exist? Was it Twain who said "it's not what we don't know that gets us. Rather it is what we think we know that is not true" Sorry for the misquote. You get the idea? I, do so appreciate your efforts and insights.
Hi Bruce, good questions. I'll try my best to respond based on what I think your overall message is, but please know that this is merely my opinion.
Re: self-fulfilling prophecy and confirmation bias, I think these are individual issues and they could, in theory, happen following any stated idea. Should we stop putting ideas out there because someone chooses to look at them in a way that confirm some bias they have or use it in a self-fulfilling prophetic way? I don't think so.
Now, re: the bell curve, this is merely a visualization to help support an idea. As you can see, there's no data points or units of measurement on it. When stating any supporting idea and showing a visual, a reader could hyperfixate on one small bit of information and make it come true in their own life (SFP) or they could use it to confirm their biases, but that's not the point of the idea as a whole. The point is that we shouldn't base kids' intelligence off of comparison and uniformity and that the measure we use for intelligence is flawed.
If someone were to use the bell curve graphic (which was merely a supportive visual) to fulfill some prophecy or confirm some bias they have, it seems like they missed the point. They're too busy looking at one tree and are missing the forest. There's always the potential for that in any writing because people will get out of it what they're looking for (as Stephen King says, no two people read the same book); but that wont keep me from putting ideas (and visuals) out there.
Does this answer the question? Hope Im not overlooking something.
Isn't the Bell Shape Curve a depiction of the bias itself?
The bell curve, or what the statisticians call Gaussian distribution, is a good way to show normal distribution amoung random things. Since the inputs of educational aptitude and the outcomes of learning are implicitly random, then a bell curve distribution shows statistical relevance of the teaching method.
All that to say, statistics help us quantitfy concepts. And many times the money people are more interested in statistical metrics than the benefits of the money on an individual basis.
If you apply the bell curve, which is based on totally random independent coin flips, aren’t you pre-determining the outcome of any analysis? What activities or studies can replicate isolated independent coin flips? Even at the quantum level, unknown variables are called into play, aren’t they?
This makes no sense to me. Is the universe designed with the bell shape in mind? I think not. At its best and worst, it is self-fulfilling. We get what we create for, don’t we?
Lastly, I sense that the “bell “ is more nefarious than one might suspect, as it justifies “comparisons.” and the illusion of “objectivity.”. This quote comes to mind, Not everything that can be counted counts. Not everything that counts can be counted.” ( Einstein and others).
These are all good questions. And there are entire courses you can take in masters level statistics and sociology to help you figure it out. A good place to start is by asking claude.ai. It's pretty good at reasoning for what it is.
Thank you. I might need help understanding the theory.
I am questioning or trying to understand how we got from counting “random independent coin flips” to its broader applications to things like learning, which, on the surface, would seem anything but random.
Excellent. I’m nudging up to discussion of foundations for development of maximal intellectual powers during first two years at Home Cooked Psychoanalysis. Doing less is more during our secoond year. https://homecookedanalysis.substack.com/p/shame-corruption-of-your-baseline
👏
One measurement
GREAT thorough article
Thx
👏
I corrected the typo - so annoying when I miss it. Thank you Jen.
Public Education's most challenging task is balancing the funds necessary for adequate individual instruction with the resources available for the child's home learning environment. Large metropolitan schools spend money, time, and labor on the lack of suitable home environments for students inadequately prepared for learning. Education starts in the home environment and has become a hot topic or mess based on socioeconomic factors. Those lucky enough to be born in an environment that encourages learning should be grateful. Placing children in public schools versus private is an industry that has grown tremendously in the last fifty-plus years as the middle class has shrunk considerably.
this is so true. education starts at home.
Loved this post Jen, feel so deeply about this perspective on learning as I’ve seen very talented individuals ‘give up’ under the belief they aren’t good enough at learning to pursue it. On the other side, I’ve seen people absolutely crippled by perfectionism because they were excellent students who felt the pressure of high achievement. It reminds me of the quote: “Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
Thanks so much, Lisa! Also, I love that quote! Totally forgot about it!