Practicing Your Way to a Higher I.Q.

We’ve written earlier about Anders Ericsson‘s research on talent, and we’ve blogged on the subject repeatedly. Ericsson’s thesis is that raw talent is overrated, and that experts in a given field (be it hockey or music) accomplish excellence primarily through “deliberate practice.” Nicholas Kristof wrote yesterday about a new book about I.Q., also reviewed here, by Richard Nisbett. He argues that I.Q. is only 50 percent heritable and that the controversial racial I.Q. gap is environmental rather than genetic. Nisbett offers some suggestions to parents to raise their kids’ I.Q.: “praise effort more than achievement, teach delayed gratification, limit reprimands, and use praise to stimulate curiosity.” He is also strongly in favor of the intensive early-childhood programs favored by our new education secretary. [%comments]

TAGS:

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 14

  1. Mike says:

    Did he say why he is in favor of intensive early-childhood programs?

    A large body of research on Head Start programs finds that while they sometimes offer short term academic benefits, these generally disappear by the elementary school grades. The largest review of this literature, published by the Department of Health and Human Services, looked at more than 200 studies and concluded that there was no lasting academic advantage to participation in Head Start.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Laura says:

    Can we please stop throwing around heritability statistics, especially with regard to IQ, when it is such a confusing concept and so often used incorrectly?
    A heritability statistic of 0.50 (what I am assuming the 50% heritability referred to above is based on) has NOTHING to do with the relative contributions of genetics and environment in an individual. It refers to the proportion of variance in a trait that is determined by genetics at the POPULATION level. So even if 50% of the IQ of a population can be attributed to genetics, this provides no information about the degree to which genetics and environment play a role in the development of the IQ of an individual in that population
    We *do* have evidence that genetic influences are more closely related to a child’s IQ among members of higher SES levels, while among lower SES groups IQ appears to be largely determined by environment. But since we have no way to a priori determine an individual’s potential “ceiling IQ” at birth, the techniques Nisbett suggests are worth using with children of any background.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Adrian Revington says:

    So if IQ is 50% genetic. I wonder how the environmental factors breakdown X% food and Y% stimulus.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Liz says:

    Adrian has a point — I know that I would DEFINITELY do better on an IQ test if promised good coffee or chocolate

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Shay Guy says:

    On the one hand, I believe in the idea that sustained hard work is more important than talent (y halo thar Kenichi). It always makes me uncomfortable to read about it, though, because I’m not very GOOD at the “hard work and guts” side of the equation. Talent, yeah, I’ve got that. But if all this research is correct, I’M the one who’s SOL. I’m trying to change it, but still struggling.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. philip says:

    What about being talented in the inclination to practice and work hard?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Jackie says:

    There is also research that suggests that children who attend Head Start have higher graduation rates than those who don’t. The short term research isn’t very impressive, but the long term is. Early intervention is important.

    Has anyone read Malcom Gladwell’s “Outliers”? He discusses how people become great at certain things – it’s along the same vein as Anders Ericsson’s research.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Science Minded says:

    I guess my question is which 50% did I inherit and from whom. And then about the other 50% of my intelligence. Was that due to chance events, individual effort (and what part of that is talent, interest, personality or group traits like stubborness, value placed on education etc.), acquired from the groups I belong to (due to circumstances of birth and by choice).

    Whatever happened to the individual (that is me) in all this?
    As one astute observer discovered, there is a great danger in placing so much emphasis upon equity here in america, that we lose sight of the individual.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0