[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Intelligence

[Shaun Hately]

> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., "Shaun Hately" <drednort at a...> wrote:
> 
> I feel I am losing track of the terms of the debate.
> 
> If the (presumed measurable) quantities that go into intelligence 
> and/or educational achievement are multidimensional, aren't you bound 
> to lose information by condensing to a single thing 
> called 'intelligence'?

Yes, you will lose information.

But if you give someone a blood test, and all you check for is cholesterol, again you 
lose information - but the test is still useful for a particular purpose.

The problem is any definition is based on assumptions - you point out one yourself 
'If the... quantities.. are multidimensional...'

There's no real dispute that what goes into educational achievement is 
multidimensional - I've never heard of a single expert who doesn't think that is so.

But there is a lot of debate as to whether intelligence is multidimensional - some 
experts (Gardner most notably) say it is, some (Spearman, most notably) feel it 
isn't.

Depending on which model is adopted, you end up with very different definitions 
and ideas.

> If all the kids you deal with fall into a cluster in this space 
> (especially if that cluster is at one end of a linear structure that 
> represents the rest of the population) then it's OK to do that.

Basically they do. In this one specific area, there is a great deal of similarity with 
regards to their educational needs - there are variations as well, but so many 
similarities that treating them as a specific group addresses most issues easily, and 
prevents effort and resources being wasted, that can then be directed to addressing 
any differences that arise.

I specialise in helping profoundly gifted children with few or no learning difficulties. I 
also know how to idenfity those difficulties and who to refer the child and their 
parents to for help with those.

The simplest analogy is between a family doctor, and the whole range of medical 
specialists. I can handle the general stuff (about 95% of cases) - and I have the 
expertise to work out when something is beyond my skills and to refer the person 
on. I also do it on a voluntary basis - which allows parents to save their money to 
deal with the more unusual problems.

> But if, as I suspect is the case, the special educational needs 
> population in general, and gifted kids in particular, are scattered 
> widely, then surely you need to retain multiple measures to properly 
> assess needs.  Some of your post implies that you do do just that.

Yes we do. But the thing is we *do* use multiple measures. We do retain them.

We use IQ tests (such as the WISC-III and SB-LM) to assess Intelligence level. The 
WISC-III is also useful for determining the existence of learning disabilities. 
Creativity can be partially assessed by the Torrance Test, Developmental levels by 
the Geselle, motor development by the VMI, etc. And, other methods besides 
testing are used as well - observation, reports by teachers, interviews with parents. 

We use specific methods for specific issues. Proper IQ testing typically costs 
hundreds 
of dollars, and takes hours of time. Many of these other tests are the same. We 
won't 
waste time and money on tests - we use the right test to identify and address the 
issues we suspect are in place. Speaking on personal experience, I had a number of 
IQ tests in childhood - because that's what my issues related to. I had no 
developmental issues, no motor development issues, no creativity issues - so using 
other tests would have been a waste of times (I did have some social issues, and 
work was done on those, but I can barely remember the details).

You use the right tool for the job. That's the key.


> But in that case it seems invidious to single out one dimension and 
> call it 'intelligence', because, whatever the experts do, the public 
> will latch onto it, and stigmatise their children accordingly.  That 
> seems to me to be just as important an issue as ensuring that 
> particular groups of kids get the right educational provision for 
> them.

We analyse things in this way because 60 years of experience has shown us that if 
we fail to do so, we fail to identify significant numbers of these kids. And if we fail to 
identify them, a very significant number of them will not receive even a basic 
education - let alone an education that is appropriate to their needs. A significant 
proportion will wind up suffering significant psychological trauma, and a greatly 
inflated number will, literally, not survive adolescence.

While avoiding stigmatisation is worthwhile, it pales in comparison to the other 
problems.

And avoiding the use of the term 'intelligence' or broadening its dimensions does 
not diminish stigmatisation - it's been tried. It doesn't diminish those problems, and 
it winds up creating new ones by giving the impression that the needs of these kids 
aren't as serious as has been claimed for years. They are. Fortunately, they aren't 
too hard to address in most cases - but we can't afford to jeapourdise our chances.

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately |webpage: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       |email: drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in
common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter
the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen
to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who:
The Face of Evil | Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia