IQ and Learning

This will probably be a shorter entry tonight, but we'll see how it goes.

So I've spent a little bit of time thinking about the Flynn Effect in relation to Incremental vs. Entity theories of learning. The Flynn Effect is basically summed up as the observed phenomenon of the increase in IQ scores over time. An average or even gifted IQ score a century ago would, in today's standards, classify as mental retardation while conversely, a score indicating mental retardation today would classify as average or gifted a century ago. It's interesting to think about this in relation to the aforementioned theories of learning. The incremental theory of learning states that certain aspects of our minds or brains, such as intelligence, are malleable and be bolstered and improved with practice. On the other side of the fence, the entity theory of learning states that such qualities are largely innate and fixed, unaffected by practice. That particular sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? I mean, if intelligence was fixed, then what is the whole point of education? One of the main goals of post-secondary education is to gain advanced knowledge and to hone your executive processing abilities. Furthermore, contemporary learning theory tells us that the process of learning actually changes the structure of your brain by creating new neural connections and networks and strengthening those connections while trimming or eliminating unused connections. So the entity theory seems to be complete nonsense. But when you look at what research tells us, the majority of individuals from individualistic/Western cultures seem to operate under the assumptions of the entity theory. When people from these cultures fail a task, they're likely to chalk it up to lack of ability and their motivation to do well decreases. But people from Eastern or collectivist cultures show the opposite thought patterns. They, for the most part, subscribe to the incremental theory of learning. If people from these cultures fail a task, they're likely to react in a manner that would suggest that they simply need to try harder or study more or what have you in order to improve their performance. Even when they succeed, they don't gloat about it like us in the West do. But what does have to do with IQ test scores throughout history? The IQ test was originally a Western construct. In fact, the majority of IQ measurements would appear to be heavily biased towards a Western demographic and it's only been within recent years that a multicultural approach has been utilized in IQ test implementation. Taking the Flynn Effect into consideration, you might come to the conclusion that intelligence as whole, at least in Western standards, has vastly increased in the last century. But this conclusion would appear to contradict the entity theory of fixed intelligence that most people in the West subscribe to. It's contradictory when you think about. Then only explanation I can think about is that topics related to intelligence and learning are really under known by a small demographic existing within the larger Western culture. Most people aren't aware of the research and theories underlying the learning process, and this ignorance may be perpetuating the otherwise debunked entity theory of learning. It would seem that incremental learning really is correct, giving further credence to my previous rant where I outlined that collectivistic thinking just makes more sense than individualistic thinking. That's my theory, anyway. I'm probably wrong, but I think it's worth considering anyway.

Well, there you go. That's my post for tonight!