Today this post might be slightly controversial to some but here goes.
A few weeks ago, I read some online articles and part of the book about the Bell Curve by Charles Murray. This scholar is known to be quite controversial as he believes that everyone has their place in society and no amount of education is going to change that. In other words, your intelligence or "g" factor are both genetic and environmental with a leaning towards genetic. Also your IQ will determine what career is in store for you.
(Courtesy of the Savoisien)
Not only does this book argue that everyone has their place in society, Murray and Herrnstein also argue that the "cognitive elite" are becoming isolated from the masses. These authors believe that there will always be an elite in society and these are the people with higher IQ's as they have well paying careers. I would have to disagree with these authors to an extent because not everyone who has a higher IQ has a well paying job. In fact in some cases, it is quite the opposite. I have read about some people who are supposed to be geniuses working in jobs that pay just above the minimum wage whereas those of average intelligence are CEOs of companies.
I almost forgot to say that the title of the book stems from the idea of the bell curve as the average IQ is 100, 50% will be below and 50% will be above.
To me the "Real Education" book is almost a sequel to the "Bell Curve" as it discusses education of children. Murray states that the "No Children Left Behind" act in the U.S is a fallacy and we need to be realistic and get the education system back where it should be. I'm not sure if Australia has a similar policy but the design of the education system is similar as we believe that most children should aim for higher education. Unfortunately I have read in forums that some believe that TAFE and vocational schools are not as good and university is the key to success. While I chose to attend university, that is not true as TAFE is just as good but it is just a different path that prepares people for different careers. Murray also states this as there are too many people going to university and that people with IQs of 100 to 115 should not attend university at all. This is a difficult one to comprehend because I don't know what the strengths and weaknesses of these people are. Neither does he. Additionally, Murray states somewhere that the end of high school will be as far as your academic talents will take you if your IQ is 100.
(Courtesy of wmbriggs.com)
Now to the part that many of you may not want to read but sadly it is true. Half of everyone is below average in intelligence. As much as I hate to say it, I have to agree with him on this one. For example a child's IQ may be 85 and no amount of education is going to enable it to grasp the law of physics or read Shakespeare plays. As I have mentioned earlier, Murray argues that many educators have succumbed to the idea of "educational romanticism" that everyone can be above average when this is false. Everyone has a ceiling and no amount of help will make little Johnny grasp more vocabulary than what his IQ states. I'm not a teacher but I do know many people who are so maybe I can find out their input on this.
Although he mentioned those of low average intelligence, he seemed to leave out those who have intellectual disabilities. He didn't seem to mention what their abilities are. While I don't live in Lake Wobegon, I'm sure that these kids still have some things that they are capable of. For example, I know some people with an intellectual disability that work in retail and are quite good at it. Murray also mentions that people of low average intelligence cannot read beyond the 4th grade level but yet it states that people with a mild intellectual disability can learn up to the upper primary level. Hmm..that is confusing but I'm sure that these kids that I have mentioned above can learn up to at least the end of the compulsory school years which would be about Year 10. I know some people that did exactly that.
I think Murray may live in a bit of a Disneyland too as he states that if we get back to reality, almost everyone will be able to work a job that they A. Enjoy and B. that is within their capabilities. My pessimist self may be talking but aren't many of these jobs being taken over by robots?? I have read about a few already in South Korea where the robots work in fast food jobs. Also I saw a vending machine that squeezes juice.
Ok that all for now about this. If you want to read more about it, I will provide the link to another blog that talks about this in more depth.
So what do you think, do you believe that everyone has a ceiling or we can go beyond our capacities?
And remember....be the best you can be!!!
Until next time,
Laura xx
Hey there,
ReplyDeleteNice post! I have to say that I do agree ( to an extent ) that everyone has a ceiling. I often discuss this with my colleagues as well. My theory is that there is a threshold IQ above which success is not proportional to IQ. But if you are below that threshold, then what you can achieve in life is largely limited by your intelligence. And this threshold need not be the average IQ (may be lower than or higher than average IQ).
Best way (I read this somewhere) to explain this would be by giving the example of basketball. If you are above a certain height, you can play the game well. Then it does not matter whether you are 6 feet or 6.5 (assuming 5.8 is the threshold). Then other things like your strategy, energy, reflexes, speed come into play. Similarly, beyond a certain IQ other factors like your ability to connect with people, emotional intelligence, etc etc will be important in determining success. That is why people who have very high IQ (180 plus , mostly savants who can recite pi to 20000 plus places after decimal) do not become successful (except the limited fame they get when a documentary is made on them) where as people with much lesser IQs (110-130 ) become billionaires.
So there is some truth in saying everybody has a place in the society determined by the intelligence. Although, beyond a certain threshold things can change dramatically ;)
PS : I am a PhD student focusing on computational neuroscience and I do read about the brain quite much and spend a lot of time thinking how information is processed in this damn thing. Discussing IQ happens to be my fave topic during coffee break . So I found this post interesting. Thank you!!