Theories of Intelligence
I've been working with a local elementary school this fall (and loving it!). In my last session with them, I did a one-hour workshop based on Carol Dweck's work on self-theories of intelligence. Dr. Dweck's work has focused on how individuals (pre-school to adults) theorize about intelligence, morality, love, and the world in general. For each topic, she and her colleagues have found that indiviudals can have entity/fixed or incremental/growth theories. For intelligence, this means thinking that smart is something you are (entity/fixed) or something you become throuh effort (incremental/growth). This concept is very close to Seligman's attributional style theory (and, in fact, Dr. Dweck's initial work used that as a launching point).
Here are index card versions of the correlates of these theories. For full information, try Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (2006) or Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development (2000). Mindset is obviously newer and it's written more for a lay audience, but I found Self-Theories very clear and it lays out the research base more fully.
Entity/Fixed Theory
Smart people just ARE!
No need to work at it.
Effort is a sign of not-smart.
And pointless -- effort can never compensate for not-smartness.
Difficulties in school or with learning signal my not-smart point.
I must avoid becoming a not-smart, at all costs.
I must avoid difficulties
Tasks that are easy are good.
Tasks that are easy for me and hard for others are better.
Even one action can show the core traits of a person.
Once you know a person's core, no reason to expect change.
And no reason to look for contrary evidence. (Stereotypes)
Incremental Theory
Smart is the combination of knowledge, strategy, and effort.
Learning is good because it makes me smarter.
I can always work harder.
I can always find better strategies, or someone can help me!
Difficulties in school or with learning signal insufficient effort or
Improper strategies, or inadequate knowledge – all fixable!
I must seek out challenges in order to get smarter.
What others accomplish does not diminish my increasing smarts!
People have tendencies, but situations often shape their actions.
It takes a lot of observations to start to know someone.
Even then, they can change.
Dave,
I'm one of your Instalanche customers (grin) who hung around to read some other posts. I have ever been fascinated by intelligence (On another post, I was alarmed to see that teachers with 1070 SATs were one SD above the median... but I agree that anything that makes for smarter teachers by any increment is a positive thing and to be encouraged).
I began to read this post thinking I was getting Gardnerian feel-good psychobabble or some other trendy theory that whizzes into the wind of 100 years of stable psychometry. To my surprise (and delight!), this post presents a positive approach to thinking about your own intelligence (at whatever level it is).
And it highlights how the traditional (and scientifically established) model of intellect engenders negative motivations (this is good). But then it goes on to provide a road map for turning these motivations around and arming one's charges -- whether they are kids, employees, partners -- with a constructive way of thinking about intelligence which will make them much more productive with the intelligence they have.
After all, raw intelligence is only one factor in the productivity, happiness, etc. equations. Two others are knowledge and effort. All of us have been in grade or high school and known the kid who got all top grades without trying, and so never tried (that was me) and the other kid, blessed with an average intellect, who rose to the head of the class on discipline and effort.
My faith in Spearman's hypothesis of general intelligence has not been shaken, but you have given me a new, productive and enabling way of looking at it. Thanks.
-=K=-
Posted by: Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien | October 26, 2006 at 09:45 AM