One-Sixteenth

It will take me a while to ponder all of what he has to say, but my immediate response, particularly to part 2, is positive. I've been ranting about college-as-vocational-training for a while now, and I'm just glad not to feel quite so alone.



At the same time, I've been reading a lot about high achievement in various fields where prodigies appear: math, music, and intellectual games like chess. According to some researchers, what makes the difference between a talented amateur and an expert is "effortful study" - at base, it's about putting in more hours and pushing oneself beyond one's current limits.



One of the examples that's routinely trotted out for this is the Polgar sisters - three chess masters who were homeschooled by their father, Laszlo. They spent about 6 hours a day on chess studies, in addition to languages and table tennis (I guess that was "phys. ed."). Polgar pere was not a particularly good player himself, and he hit on chess at the focus for their studies rather randomly, when his oldest daughter found an old chess set in the attic.



All three of Polgars are excellent players - two are grandmasters, one an international master - and it's not unthinkable that Judit, the youngest, may be in line to be the first female World Champion.



Laszlo Polgar's theory is that genius is largely made, not born, and he believes that the way he raised his daughters proves it. There was even talk at one point of his adopting children from other countries to see if he could reproduce the results of his educational experiment.



Anyway, here's an article on the subject:

The Expert Mind in Scientific American



So what does this mean for the bell curve idea? Is it really true that Charles Murray's intelligence is what prevents him from following "a proof in the American Journal of Mathematics," or is it the fact that he wasn't trained as a mathematician (I'm assuming)? Or is it the case that children who discover their natural ability in a given area can build real self-esteem (based on real achievement) early and often, encouraging them to pursue their gift more avidly?



It's possible, of course, that the Polgars have high IQ's and that they would have excelled in pretty much any field given the same amount of effort. Perhaps - and I'm thinking as I type here - this just reinforces Murray's argument in the third part of his article. If you have a child with a high IQ, the stakes are higher, both for the child and for society. I do hold that those with high intelligence should use that gift for the good of all, but then, I believe the same about all gifts, be they spiritual, physical, artistic, or what have you. But even if you don't accept that position, it's undeniably true that keeping gifted kids from using their brains makes for unhappy kids, and (if my personal observations count for anything) potentially miserable adults. And our world certainly doesn't need any more of those!



On a related note: I'd be interested to know if you have any experience with Mensa, and what your thoughts are on the organization.



Thanks for the thought-provoking articles!

Hi, Lynx--

I have been following your blog for quite some time.
I was a "teacher of the gifted" before the testing craze drove me right out of the schools and home where I am finally becoming the teacher I always wanted to be.
I am so glad to see this subject make its way into the homeschooling community. It is a really important issue that gets no press because everyone is afraid of being seen as 'elitist.'
I see the problem as one in which the equality of opportunity and the equality of outcome gets confused. Several gifted educators have written extensively about this, and I wrote an unpublished paper about it. I am tempted to post it on my blog, but it is long...anyway, keep up the good work!

We're sort of weird, too. My son's Bar Mitzvah sermon was based on the concept of the BORG!

Elisheva Levin
http://ragamuffinstudies.blogspot.com

Drew,

I don't know. Obviously, hard work and training, especially early training, count for a great deal.

But how much? I would love to see that kind of experiment done with adoptees, especially measuring IQ along the way. But I personally have never seen any studies or evidence that show that hard work can raise IQ permanently, or significantly. If anyone has pointers, show me the way.

I think I'm also talking about two different things, here. Does a high IQ mean that you can excel at *all* intellectual pursuits? I think natural talent has a bearing there, too. I know that my IQ is above average. I believe that with study and work I can do well at any intellectual discipline. However, I also know that some disciplines are easier for me than others, and no matter how hard I work, I will do better in those areas to which I am naturally inclined.

So we have two things in the structural makeup of our brains - overall intelligence, and natural gifts/inclination/ability. That accounts for a great deal of variability in the population ... yet we try to educate everyone in the same way, and largely to the same degree. It just doesn't make sense.

Nurture is extremely important. But we are born unique individuals, with unique brains and potentials. I think there's a lot of latitude within those potentials, but still.

Thanks for the link.

Rather that bog you down w/ my useless ramblings on this, I'm just going to link to it on my blog. :-) ~Dy

Thanks for pointing out that classical ed made it into the article. I've been seeing a lot of references to this on different blogs but I never read the article.

There are probably more implications for this in public education than in homeschooling. I have to proceed as if my children are capable of very high standards until it is clear to me that they are not. Another variable lacking in predicting educational achievement is motivation. A disciplined and very determined individual can accomplish a lot more in a class than an IQ test might indicate.