3 ms·

The implied message, that one should advocate the malleability of IQ not because it's true but because it's motivational, is a little troubling. If you're coach

The implied message, that one should advocate the malleability of IQ not because it's true but because it's motivational, is a little troubling. If you're coaching an 8th-grade gym class, everyone will probably perform better if you pull each of them aside individually and tell them they're showing real potential and should try out for the team. That is, until they figure out you were lying.

goodside 17y ago
Perhaps I should have been clearer on this: my example wasn't meant to imply that the authors of the study were lying. All I meant was that for some abstract proposition A, evidence of a benefit B gained from believing A is not evidence of A. The gym class is a case of B where A is false.
tierack 17y ago
But the fact that "many psychological studies suggest" that intelligence (not IQ specifically) is changeable makes this a different scenario than outright lying to students as in your gym class example. Whether or not the students are actually getting smarter is another question. But it doesn't look to me like anyone's getting lied to. (edit: refactoring language)
- gwern 17y ago
  Intelligence may be changeable, but this is a truism: I can 'change' my intelligence by eating some paint chips or taking a baseball bat to my head. What isn't suggested by 'many psychological studies' is that IQ can be reliably, long-term, and over general populations by any particular technique. And that's what everyone wants to exist and will read into a statement like that. So, based on the abstract, this study boils down to a good motivation technique. (I say reliably because with 0.05 significance there will be many false results; long-term because short-term studies will show anything you want them to; and over general populations because there are small deprived groups in which one can easily boost IQ long-term - eg. children in the Balkans with iodine deficiencies.) EDIT: Also note that the researchers point to increased grades - not increased IQ scores. If they have enough participation, time, and cooperation from these students to do all this teaching & motivating, then it is inexplicable - if they think they're actually boosting IQ - to have not given the students a quick hour-long IQ test; but this omission is quite understandable if they don't think their intervention is actually increasing anyone's IQ but their motivation.
  - timwiseman 17y ago
    You bring up some interesting points. But, (I am not an expert in psychology), my understanding of the article is precisely that intelligence can be reliably increased in the long term. EDIT: Also note that the researchers point to increased grades - not increased IQ scores. You are quite correct, however one would hope that grades have at least some correalation with intelligence, but more importantly they are the measurable results in school. Being able to increase those measurable results is the primary goal, even if hypothetically intelligence did not go up. I have been told that in weightlifting the first several stages do not increase the amount of muscles, but they help you call on that strength better so you can lift more and get tired more slowly. This increases your effective abilities even if you do not develop more actual muscle right away. Similarly, if the ability to use their intelligence is increased hypotethically without actually increasing the intelligence itself, this is still a major improvement.
    - gwern 17y ago
      > my understanding of the article is precisely that intelligence can be reliably increased in the long term. And why would you think that? I've already criticized the one explicit statement on that. > You are quite correct, however one would hope that grades have at least some correalation with intelligence, but more importantly they are the measurable results in school. Being able to increase those measurable results is the primary goal, even if hypothetically intelligence did not go up. They do have correlation. But correlation is not causation. Giving these students a pep talk and seeing their grades go up, and knowing about the correlation between IQ and grades, gives us as much reason to conclude their IQs went up as we had instead hired drill sergeants to stand in their classroom and yell at them in best FMJ fashion for being "slimy fucking walrus-looking pieces of shit", observed their grades go down, and then concluded their IQs went down. (Another analogy. My dog crossing the road has high correlation with the road being empty. Does my kicking him into the middle of the street clears it of the oncoming SUV?) > Similarly, if the ability to use their intelligence is increased hypotethically without actually increasing the intelligence itself, this is still a major improvement. Sure, and it's quite valuable. Self-control and self-discipline are fantastically valuable traits, and to a degree substitutable for IQ. But boosting people's motivation is not the same thing as boosting their IQ. The latter is the historic breakthrough, not the former, interesting and valuable as it is.
chadgeidel 17y ago
And what about this "lie" we tell our children: "You can be anything you want." It's not that we think that they can actually do this, we just don't want them to limit themselves to any specific thing.
ytinas 17y ago
Where does this come from? The web page seemed to indicate that (a) IQ is malleable and (b) knowing this helps people get smarter. And this makes sense. I've had so many people in my life say "oh, don't bother explaining that to me, I can't learn it". I really hate that. The only thing stopping them is their own belief. Do you think IQ is something fixed? That you can't continue learning and getting smarter?
timwiseman 17y ago
If you were lying, then I think you would have a point. I am not in favor of deliberately lying even if you think the end result will be good. But that is not an issue since there is currently good evidence that it is true that intelligence is malleable. What this shows is that it is very important for children (and indeed, all learners) to actually know this particular true fact.
tokenadult 17y ago
The implied message, that one should advocate the malleability of IQ not because it's true but because it's motivational, is a little troubling. I'm not troubled by this at all. Here's why. First of all, malleability of IQ is true. And the research finding that advocating the malleability of IQ is motivational and thus leads to better performance is a replicated research finding. In the fall semester of 2009 I participated in the University of Minnesota Department of Psychology Psychology 8935: Readings in Behavioral Genetics and Individual Differences Psychology journal club with leading researchers on human behavioral genetics such as Tom Bouchard, Matt McGue (the chairman of the journal club), Irving Gottesman, Wendy Johnson, and other colleagues and graduate students of theirs. At the end of the semester, Matt McGue asked each participant what their conclusion was about what could be done to boost IQ and academic achievement, and he noted that as a parent he will be speaking more often to his children about their ability to raise their own level. This is from a researcher who has spent years calculating figures for heritability of various behavioral traits from studies of twins and other studies with genetically sensitive designs. After reading the research and discussing it with his colleagues, he is convinced that even though monozygotic twins resemble each other more closely than other siblings as to IQ (this is what heritablity means, and it is ALL that heritability means), it is still possible for a mindset intervention to improve IQ. Here's another article about Carol Dweck's research, which I think has been submitted to HN before: http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/marapr/features/dweck.html http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/marapr/feat...

goodside 17y ago

Perhaps I should have been clearer on this: my example wasn't meant to imply that the authors of the study were lying. All I meant was that for some abstract proposition A, evidence of a benefit B gained from believing A is not evidence of A. The gym class is a case of B where A is false.

tierack 17y ago

But the fact that "many psychological studies suggest" that intelligence (not IQ specifically) is changeable makes this a different scenario than outright lying to students as in your gym class example. Whether or not the students are actually getting smarter is another question. But it doesn't look to me like anyone's getting lied to. (edit: refactoring language)

gwern 17y ago
Intelligence may be changeable, but this is a truism: I can 'change' my intelligence by eating some paint chips or taking a baseball bat to my head. What isn't suggested by 'many psychological studies' is that IQ can be reliably, long-term, and over general populations by any particular technique. And that's what everyone wants to exist and will read into a statement like that. So, based on the abstract, this study boils down to a good motivation technique. (I say reliably because with 0.05 significance there will be many false results; long-term because short-term studies will show anything you want them to; and over general populations because there are small deprived groups in which one can easily boost IQ long-term - eg. children in the Balkans with iodine deficiencies.) EDIT: Also note that the researchers point to increased grades - not increased IQ scores. If they have enough participation, time, and cooperation from these students to do all this teaching & motivating, then it is inexplicable - if they think they're actually boosting IQ - to have not given the students a quick hour-long IQ test; but this omission is quite understandable if they don't think their intervention is actually increasing anyone's IQ but their motivation.
- timwiseman 17y ago
  You bring up some interesting points. But, (I am not an expert in psychology), my understanding of the article is precisely that intelligence can be reliably increased in the long term. EDIT: Also note that the researchers point to increased grades - not increased IQ scores. You are quite correct, however one would hope that grades have at least some correalation with intelligence, but more importantly they are the measurable results in school. Being able to increase those measurable results is the primary goal, even if hypothetically intelligence did not go up. I have been told that in weightlifting the first several stages do not increase the amount of muscles, but they help you call on that strength better so you can lift more and get tired more slowly. This increases your effective abilities even if you do not develop more actual muscle right away. Similarly, if the ability to use their intelligence is increased hypotethically without actually increasing the intelligence itself, this is still a major improvement.
  - gwern 17y ago
    > my understanding of the article is precisely that intelligence can be reliably increased in the long term. And why would you think that? I've already criticized the one explicit statement on that. > You are quite correct, however one would hope that grades have at least some correalation with intelligence, but more importantly they are the measurable results in school. Being able to increase those measurable results is the primary goal, even if hypothetically intelligence did not go up. They do have correlation. But correlation is not causation. Giving these students a pep talk and seeing their grades go up, and knowing about the correlation between IQ and grades, gives us as much reason to conclude their IQs went up as we had instead hired drill sergeants to stand in their classroom and yell at them in best FMJ fashion for being "slimy fucking walrus-looking pieces of shit", observed their grades go down, and then concluded their IQs went down. (Another analogy. My dog crossing the road has high correlation with the road being empty. Does my kicking him into the middle of the street clears it of the oncoming SUV?) > Similarly, if the ability to use their intelligence is increased hypotethically without actually increasing the intelligence itself, this is still a major improvement. Sure, and it's quite valuable. Self-control and self-discipline are fantastically valuable traits, and to a degree substitutable for IQ. But boosting people's motivation is not the same thing as boosting their IQ. The latter is the historic breakthrough, not the former, interesting and valuable as it is.

chadgeidel 17y ago

And what about this "lie" we tell our children: "You can be anything you want." It's not that we think that they can actually do this, we just don't want them to limit themselves to any specific thing.

ytinas 17y ago

Where does this come from? The web page seemed to indicate that (a) IQ is malleable and (b) knowing this helps people get smarter. And this makes sense. I've had so many people in my life say "oh, don't bother explaining that to me, I can't learn it". I really hate that. The only thing stopping them is their own belief. Do you think IQ is something fixed? That you can't continue learning and getting smarter?

timwiseman 17y ago

If you were lying, then I think you would have a point. I am not in favor of deliberately lying even if you think the end result will be good. But that is not an issue since there is currently good evidence that it is true that intelligence is malleable. What this shows is that it is very important for children (and indeed, all learners) to actually know this particular true fact.

tokenadult 17y ago

The implied message, that one should advocate the malleability of IQ not because it's true but because it's motivational, is a little troubling. I'm not troubled by this at all. Here's why. First of all, malleability of IQ is true. And the research finding that advocating the malleability of IQ is motivational and thus leads to better performance is a replicated research finding. In the fall semester of 2009 I participated in the University of Minnesota Department of Psychology Psychology 8935: Readings in Behavioral Genetics and Individual Differences Psychology journal club with leading researchers on human behavioral genetics such as Tom Bouchard, Matt McGue (the chairman of the journal club), Irving Gottesman, Wendy Johnson, and other colleagues and graduate students of theirs. At the end of the semester, Matt McGue asked each participant what their conclusion was about what could be done to boost IQ and academic achievement, and he noted that as a parent he will be speaking more often to his children about their ability to raise their own level. This is from a researcher who has spent years calculating figures for heritability of various behavioral traits from studies of twins and other studies with genetically sensitive designs. After reading the research and discussing it with his colleagues, he is convinced that even though monozygotic twins resemble each other more closely than other siblings as to IQ (this is what heritablity means, and it is ALL that heritability means), it is still possible for a mindset intervention to improve IQ. Here's another article about Carol Dweck's research, which I think has been submitted to HN before: http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/marapr/features/dweck.html http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/marapr/feat...