Too Many Tests

Too Many Tests Spoil the Learning

The Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education (Acme) recently published their report on mathematics tests for 14-19 year olds in England. They concluded that too many tests damaged students= enthusiasm for maths.

“There is a danger that this can lead to an ‘exam mentality’ – for both pupils and teachers – where learning is just about passing tests,” said the report. Indeed they point out that the number of candidates applying to sit for A=level maths has fallen in the past few years.

The side effects of too many tests is not new. On the one hand tests can be used to motivate students to study. However, when the results are worse than expected, a student=s morale and self-esteem can plummet.

I remember that in my youth I was terrible at tests. Some days I could fare brilliantly, and on other days, I could fail miserably. Many a time I was careless, sometimes not reading the questions properly, sometimes completely missing out an entire page of problems.

The trouble is that teachers take test results far too seriously. We students get branded at worst as “useless”, and at best as “lazy”.

I have often campaigned against exams, but this is a battle I have lost totally and utterly. Schools in Singapore seem to have more exams nowadays than when I was a student. Principals and Ministers of Education keep on telling me that “exams are a necessary evil”. I never believed them.

The proof of the pudding is that the standard of performance, right across the board has not improved. Indeed the standard of writing has worsened in recent years. This observation, albeit anecdotal, seems to resonate not only among employers, but also among teachers.

The Acme report called for a cut in the “overall volume and frequency” of tests.

I would agree wholeheartedly.

Mind Games

Take Two Virtual Reality Games And See Me in the Morning

We have explored the lands of the earth. We have explored the seas and oceans. We have even explored the moon, Mars, and Saturn’s rings. The last remaining unexplored frontier is the human mind. Finding out how our mind works is the next major challenge facing mankind.

Sigmund Freud gave us the concept of the subconscious. He also showed that psychotherapy, a form of treatment where talking to the patient and focusing on past events, can be used to treat certain psychiatric problems including neuroses and phobias. BF Skinner demonstrated that we can modify behaviour using operant conditioning, where a desired behaviour can be trained by linking it to a system of rewards or punishments.

Both psychotherapy and operant conditioning work by inducing biochemical changes within the brain. With the development of functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans, the effects of psychotherapy and behavioural therapy can be monitored.

Recently there have been reports using virtual reality (VR) computer games to treat pain, phobias, and post-traumatic stress disorders. By getting the subject to play selected virtual reality games, one can reduce the pain following a burn or during dental procedures. The game can also be used to treat phobias, including the fear of public speaking, fear of heights, and the fear of spiders. Victims surviving the World Trade Centre attack on 9/11 who suffer from a post-traumatic stress disorder can also be treated by virtual reality games. The responses before and after treatment are mapped out on functional magnetic resonance imaging. This confirms the changes are real, and probably reflect an underlying biochemical response to the treatment.

The precise mechanism of action is open to speculation. We believe that virtual reality games work in pain reduction by distracting the mind. They reduce phobias and post-traumatic stress disorders through operant conditioning.

We are just scraping the surface. Future potential for their use in other psychiatric disorders remains unexplored.

Hey, Nintendo, Sony and other VR game-makers, I’ve got this headache….

Predicting Your Future

When I was one year old, I was subjected to my very first multiple choice test. My parents placed four objects in front of me, a pair of weighing scales, a gold coin, a toy hammer, and a book. My future career depended on the choice. If I chose the weighing scales, I would become a lawyer; if I chose the gold coin, I would be a businessman; if I chose the toy hammer, I would be a labourer; and if I chose the book, I would be a scholar. Well, I chose the book, which explains why to this day, I remain a poor scholar. The origin of this Chinese custom can be traced back to the Northern and Southern Dynasties (AD 386-589), and it persists to the present day.

Throughout our lives we are set a myriad of tests which can determine our future. Daniel Goleman devised the Marshmallow Test. A four-year-old child was given a marshmallow by the tester. The kid was informed that the tester would leave the room for a few minutes. If, when the tester returned, the marshmallow remained uneaten, the child would be given an extra marshmallow as reward. Many such children were tested and followed up all the way to high school. It was found that those children who could restrain their desire in favour of the greater reward later, were far more successful both socially and academically, compared to those kids who needed instant gratification.

Harvard psychologist, Jerome Kagan, developed a new test for four-month-old babies, as reported by the Boston Globe of 29 August 2004. Kagan showed over 450 children a series of colourful new toys for twenty seconds at a time. Their reactions were noted. There were two main groups of responses. The first were the babies who cried madly and shook their arms and legs, and were referred to as the high reactive infants. The second group consisted of rather subdued children and were dubbed the low reactive infants.

These children were followed up until they reached junior high school. The high reactive group was more likely to have serious anxiety with social interactions. These individuals were shy, sensitive to criticism, preferring to stay at home rather than attend a school dance, and would generally be unhappy with life. Such children were more likely to become brilliant solitary researchers or melancholic poets.

On the other hand, the low reactive infants who just stared sedately at the toys, would grow up to be calm on dates, but they would also be at slightly greater risk of becoming delinquent, because parental threats would not intimidate them. They would become Clint Eastwood types.

The 5th Century BC Greek physician, Hippocrates, identified four temperaments: Choleric, Melancholic, Sanguine, and Phlegmatic. Kagan’s two groups would best fit into the Melancholic and Sanguine categories. It appears that the blueprint for temperament is established at a very young age and determines behaviour for many years, perhaps for life.

Can you imagine a brave new world where your future can be predicted by a test at the age of four months? Are you destined to become a worker, a drone, or a queen bee?

At the age of one year, I already made up my mind that I would be a scholar. What if I had chosen differently? Would I be happier? But these questions are irrelevant because in reality I had no choice. Everything is predestined!

The Mozart Effect

My aunt introduced Mozart to me at the age of three years when she started to teach me the piano. I had no idea that she may have been instrumental in increasing my spatial-temporal intelligence.

In 1993 Rauscher, Shaw and Ky reported in Nature their discovery of an improvement in spatial-temporal reasoning. They took 84 college students and had them listen to either a Mozart Sonata for two pianos in D major, a relaxation piece of music, or just sat in silence for 10 minutes. Mozart caused a transient improvement in their spatial-temporal intelligence, lasting only 10-15 minutes. The phenomenon was named The Mozart Effect.

This triggered an explosion in public interest. Not unnaturally, everything became sensationalized. Amadeus’ music shot into the pop charts, and pregnant mothers blasted Mozart into their unborn babies’ ears.

Rauscher and her colleagues replicated their findings in another set of 79 college students in 1995, as did other investigators, including Rideout in 1996, Wilson and Brown in 1997, Nantais and Schellenberg in 1999, and Martin and Sword in 2004.

The last two investigators found that the improvement in spatial-temporal intelligence was not limited to Mozart. Nantais and Schellenberg discovered that Schubert or Yanni’s music, or even just reading a story, could have the same effect as listening to Mozart. Martin and Sword showed that Bach’s music could do the same. Hence they suggested that the Mozart Effect was a general effect resulting from listening to something enjoyable that enhanced one’s arousal.

In 2003, Ivanov and Geake showed that they could obtain the Mozart effect in primary school children. Playing either Mozart or Bach could both equally improve 10 to 12-year-old children’s spatial-temporal abilities.

Rauscher and Li Hong Hua (2004) demonstrated that rats exposed to Mozart could negotiate a maze better than one that listened to white noise instead. They went on to show that there was “increased expression of genes responsible for stimulating and changing brain cell connections. “Smart” genes encouraged by the music included c-AMP Response Element Binding Protein, a learning and memory compound; Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor, a nerve cell growth factor; and Synapsin I, responsible for synapse formation. Levels of these compounds were increased in the hippocampus, a brain area linked to learning and memory.”

In 1998, Johnson, Cotman, Tasaki, and Shaw studied the effects of Mozart and 1930s songs on a set of twins who were both suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. They showed that Mozart led to better performance in social and spatial tasks.

John Hughes played Mozart to epileptics (2003) and found that the music quietened their electrical activity, even in a comatose patient.

In 1999, Muftuler, Nalcioglu, Bodmer and Shaw used functional magnetic resonance imaging to study brain activity in three subjects played music by Mozart and Beethoven. Both composers activated the temporal lobe of all 3 subjects, but only Mozart increased activity in their prefrontal cortex, and in one of them, there was also occipital cortex activity during the Mozart.

Thus, there seems to be a substantial body of evidence in support of the Mozart Effect. However, there is a small but influential group of skeptics who question the validity of this phenomenon. Christopher Chabris of Harvard University, Kenneth Steele of Appalachian State University, and John Bruer, president of the James S. McDonnell Foundation in St. Louis, have looked at the experimental evidence for the putative Mozart effect, and concluded that it is not a true effect. There are some well-designed studies showing the absence of this effect.

Unfortunately in 21st century science, it takes about 10 negative papers just to disprove one positive publication. Hence the views of these critics will probably be neglected for quite a while.

I think the problem arises from the fact that we are confusing two issues. The first is whether or not Mozart’s Sonata for two pianos in D major can improve spatial-temporal reasoning. The second is whether or not music in general can have positive effects, such as helping one study better, or soothing one’s nerves. While the first aspect is controversial, no one will deny that music can calm the savage breast, as well as help one mug for exams.

It seems to me that the Mozart Effect is less the raising of spatial-temporal intelligence, but more the effect of mass media in stampeding a herd mentality. Yes, the Mozart Effect is the making of a mountain of wild promises out of a tiny molehill of equivocal experimental data.

But there are some positive aspects out of all this. For one, it will be much harder for the authorities to scrap music programs in schools to cut costs. For another, more children can benefit from being taught to play Mozart.

You ask me what skill does high spatial-temporal intelligence confer? Well, ummm, ummm, origami, yes origami. Actually, I’m hopeless at origami. Sorry, Mozart, you’ve not been as useful as I hoped!

Rise of the Creative Class

When Richard Florida’s book, The Rise of the Creative Class, was published in 2002, it touched a receptive nerve, and became an instant bestseller.

Florida’s chain of argument goes as follows: “The truly big changes of our time are social, not technological.” The social changes revolve around an increasingly important group of people, called “the creative class.” This includes occupations that encompass science and engineering, computers and their programs, architecture and design, education, arts, music and entertainment. In short, it embraces anyone who works creatively, and is paid to create, rather than to perform a task. It is this category of people who are driving our current economic growth. Within this group is a “super-creative” core of people who are the inventors, the thinkers, the scientists, the entrepreneurs, who create exciting new ideas, new products, and new industries. The creative class as a whole earns more than the other classes, and they tend to be more heteroclitic in dress, behavior and lifestyle.

Furthermore, creative people are often quite fastidious. They prefer to live in places that tolerate diversity in lifestyles, where troublemakers, weirdos, eccentrics, and deviants feel perfectly at home. Florida has evidence to show that cities preferred by the creative class, are coincidentally the same cities that harbor a higher proportion of Bohemians, and have a higher rate of gay marriages.

Whereas in the past, workers move to places where jobs are located, in the age of information technology, jobs move to places where requisite employees can be found. Florida cites Lycos, an internet company, that started in Pittsburgh, but moved to Boston when it discovered that they could more readily recruit programmers and other creative people there. In other words, the job mountain moves to Mohammed.

Based on these observations, Florida posits that in order to attract the creative industries, cities have to try to attract creative people. What the latter want is a more tolerant society, low entry barriers, with friendly, easily accessible outdoor activities such as cycling, jogging, and night cafes and eateries.

Florida asserts that cities which are more liberal tend to have more creative industries and people. This has led him to postulate a causal relationship between the two. Cool, trendy places attract creative types. Therefore, he recommends that governments or local authorities should not “waste” money on expensive prestige projects like sports stadiums or huge concert halls, because they do not attract young creative people. Instead, authorities may find it more beneficial to “throw” money at projects that will attract the creative class. This includes supporting community arts, building jogging and cycling tracks, creating places like cafes, where casual nightlife can occur.

Florida’s thesis is very bold and seductive. It challenges our current orthodoxy. In classical thinking, all things being equal, people migrate primarily to places where they can find jobs, rather than to a liberal city with only a blind faith that they will find employment. Jobs exist because highly creative people built them. It is this elite group that are the strongest magnets pulling other creative people to them, rather than to the city per se. Workers are drawn to companies started by creative giants, like Walt Disney, Steven Spielberg, Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard, Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and so on. If the companies they started were situated in an inhospitable place, people would nonetheless still throng to them, probably.

However, Florida challenges all this. Wouldn’t it be nice that if you can transform a hitherto stuffy conservative place into a kinky liberal enclave, attract a whole bunch of creative people who will create new products, new industries, and voila you have a thriving city.

Is it really so simple? Doesn’t it sound too good to be true? Does it work for all cities in the world?

Before I express my qualms about Florida’s theories, let me disclose that fundamentally I’m sold by his thesis. I consider myself part of the creative class, and his prescriptions are tantalizingly alluring. I accept at face value his idea of a creative class, which he claims amounts to 30% of our population. The numbers are staggering. Nevertheless, this is quite an innovative way of classifying people involved in the creative and thinking industries. I see no point quibbling about whether or not it is a legitimate class, who belongs to it, and how many people there are. Florida is an academic, and he has a solid body of evidence to back up his claims.

His second assertion is that creative industries are driving our modern economy. You don’t have to be a genius to realize that innovation is a major driving force in our new economy. We watch new shows, we wear new fashions, we upgrade our computers or handphones, we buy new gadgets, we benefit from advances in medical and other technologies. The list of new ideas and products is almost infinite. You may even have noted that innovators tend to cluster in certain cities or centers. University towns like Harvard, Cambridge, Stanford, and geographic locations like Silicon Valley and Hollywood, or large companies like Apple, Sony, or Ikea are places that regularly produce exciting new ideas and products. It has almost become a truism that the more innovative a company, institution or country, the greater its competitive advantage.

My reservations in accepting his theory wholesale arise from a few personal observations. Unfortunately I do not have the research data to back up my rather anecdotal evidence. Still, I have this gut feeling that Florida’s thesis may need further refinement.

The first observation concerns two thriving creative industries, sited in two cities that are quite different from San Francisco or Austin, Texas, examples used by Florida as liberal cities that attract gays and Bohemians. The two cities are Helsinki and Seoul. Nokia is one of the largest and profitable companies in Finland, churning out a stream of innovative cellular phones. I am told that some foreign workers who have transferred to the Nokia headquarters, complain that Helsinki is an inhospitable city with relatively little arts and culture, and the favorite night life seems to be drinking in the pubs. The same applies to Seoul, which is perhaps only marginally more diverse than Helsinki. Seoul is certainly not known for its gay, Bohemian, or liberal lifestyle. Once again, foreigners living there find it a difficult city to like. Yet companies like Samsung manage to attract a very creative workforce. Its electronics products are challenging well-established firms like Sony.

It did occur to me whether there was a subculture within Nokia or Samsung that provided an enclave for socializing and letting one’s hair down. But I am informed that the answer is “no.” Therefore these remarks made me wonder if Florida’s hypotheses were applicable globally. I’m the first to admit that the evidence I provide is both anecdotal and totally subjective. But on the other hand, it does not necessarily invalidate it. [Helsinki is ranked 16, and Seoul ranked 61, as best cities in the world for expatriates to live in for 2002.]

The next observation comes from Singapore. The government is aggressively trying to convert this country into a powerhouse in biotechnology, information and communications. It is spending billions of dollars building a new center which will be a city within a city, with up-to-the-minute technologically advanced laboratories, transportation, shops, theaters, and housing. It is headhunting the world’s top researchers in these areas, luring them to Singapore. Despite the fact that Singapore is an illiberal conservative city, largely intolerant of deviant behavior, with an extremely small Bohemian population, it seems to be succeeding in creating active research centers. Does Singapore defy Florida’s postulates? The answer may be the same as that for the next city.

Las Vegas, a city known for its casinos and service industry, is rapidly growing both its economy and population. It has been cited as an exception to Florida’s rule. However, I think that gambling puts a whole new spin into the equation. As shown in Singapore, one can spend one’s way into generating economic growth. Las Vegas is transforming into a family holiday resort and entertainment center, largely because of the revenues generated by the casinos.

This leads me to the final and perhaps most fundamental question. Which came first? The liberal cities tolerating a diverse lifestyle, or the creative persons, who then catalyze the city into a more liberal and diverse environment? Is the thriving city a chicken giving birth to the creative class, or is it the egg born out of the creative class? This question cannot be dismissed out of hand, because there is an unspoken assumption in Florida’s recommendations that the cause and effect is unidirectional, namely liberal cities have a gravitational pull for creative types.

Judging by my observations of Helsinki and Seoul, it appears that the city may not be that important in a creative worker’s choice, although this can be debated. Creative people will go wherever the jobs are. From the experience of Las Vegas and Singapore, it seems that creative people will go to where the money is.

In the final analysis, while I think Florida may still basically correct when applied to places like Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Austin, Texas. However, I think his theories, as they now stand, are not universal, and do not apply across the board or across international borders. There are exceptions to his thesis, and more research needs to be undertaken to determine what additional factors repel or attract the creative class.

Florida’s book is extremely well written, his theories are tightly argued, and backed up with a wealth of research data. It is mandatory reading for those interested in creativity, and in city development.

Perchance to Dream

Have you ever been stumped by an unusually tough problem, your mind blank, and no solution in sight? It happens to me a lot.

Here’s what I do. I go to sleep. I kid you not. But before going to bed, I make sure I’ve spent a reasonably long period of time fully immersed in the problem, reading up everything I can about it, and stuffing myself with information until I’m at bursting point. I try very hard to solve the problem when compos mentis. If I fail, I sleep on it. Literally zzzzz.

In the middle of the night I might be rudely awakened by the answer trying to break free from my subconscious. Sometimes when wafting in that twilight zone of half wake half sleep, the solution bursts unceremoniously into my hebetudinous mind. Occasionally, I might be taking a stroll, having a shower, chatting with friends, or sitting on my throne performing royal duties, when quite out of the blue, a bolt of lightning strikes.

The common denominator is that when the solution comes, it comes. It almost always arrives unexpectedly, without warning, like a terrorist. And often when I am most relaxed, not thinking any thoughts, non compos mentis. Fortunately I don’t take long baths, so I don’t have Eureka moments where I leap out of the tub and run down the streets naked.

Archimedes (287-212 BC) had just gotten into his bath which had too much water because it overflowed, when a small region in the right hemisphere at the anterior superior temporal gyrus lit up with electrical activity. He suddenly realised that water displacement could be used to work out the volume and density of the king’s crown. Archimedes shouted “Eureka” (I have found it), and forgetting all sense of decorum, ran home naked, whereupon his wife gave him an earful.

Psychology professor Richard Wiseman found that 89% of people obtained their top ideas outside the office. Most when in a relaxed state of mind, such as waking up from sleep. Wiseman, said: “These new results illustrate how our minds are often most creative when we relax and take time away from everyday pressures… In our dreams we produce unusual combinations of ideas that can seem surreal, but every once in a while result in an amazingly creative solution to an important problem”. He pointed out that his ressearch showed the relative ease with which ideas are produced, but suggested that bosses should alter the employees’ working habits to aid creativity.

I would second that! “Boss, let me sleep on the problem a bit longer!”

The Joys of Stress

Writers have the most stressful job in the world. Pardon? Oh, very well. Comedians and writers have the most stressful job in the world.

How so? Well, I’m very good at procrastination. I can always find an excuse to put off doing today what can be done tomorrow. The problem is that sometimes tomorrow can be forever.

Not unnaturally I suddenly find myself facing a deadline that was once several months away, surreptitiously sneak up behind me and pow!!!! The deadline jumps up in front of you, and it’s tomorrow.

“Yes sir, I know tomorrow’s the deadline. No extension? No problem. I will have it ready for you by tomorrow.” So I have this 100 page screenplay to finish by tomorrow. And I have only written the first 50 pages. So what do I do? Simple. I panic!

I do what I’ve always been doing since time immemorial. I waste more time. I’m a past master at this. I can make myself a cup of coffee, read the newspaper, surf the net and read all the bulletin boards, SMS friends, answer my e-mail, write my blog, and voila! I have wasted an entire morning.

Comes lunchtime. I still haven’t written anything. I panic again. Never mind. I’m hungry. I go to the hawker stall and order some Szechuan red chilli chicken, Hakka tofu, mixed vegetables and rice.

After lunch I go to the bookshop and buy a book on time management. Yes, there’s a chapter on how not to procrastinate, which will undoubtedly be most useful. Except I’ve already bought a book on the same subject last year.

The second cup of coffee fails to keep me awake. So I fall asleep sitting at the computer. Suddenly it is 4 pm. I still have 50 more pages to write. Damn!

I watch a bit of CNN and BBC news. Surely that must have something inspiring. Nope. nothing. I have a flash of inspiration: ”intelligence in the hands of the unintelligent degrades itself into stupidity.”

Okay. Dinner time already. It’s seafood. Some steamed fish, prawns, and healthy green vegetables.

Back to the computer. Shit! My brain remains constipated. I watch a bit of Discovery Channel. Back to work. Yes. I’m starting to write. After a while, I take a break. Have some unhealthy potato crisps. Back to the computer. I type some more.

Bloody hell. I’ve only written up to 66 pages. How on earth can I write another 34 pages?

Okay, I say to myself. Maybe I can use a larger sized font. Maybe double the spacing between each scene. Maybe narrow the margins of each page. Add a few more transition instructions, like “cut to”, “dissolve”, etc.

Well, that got me an extra 4 pages. So I’m up to page 70. Perhaps I could tell my producer that my writing was very compact and that my one page was equivalent to more than one minute of screen time. Much more. So perhaps if I handed in less pages, would it be all right?

You can see I’m really desperate now.

I cheat. I add in a prologue and epilogue. Not absolutely necessary, but it does buff it up a bit more. I insert 6 essential (= unnecessary) scenes. Great. I’m now up to page 73. I further reduce the margins of my script, and increase the font size even more. Yes, this is working. I’m now on page 75. Damn. What more can I do to pump up my script?

I get another call from my producer. I lie. “Yes, yes, yes, I’ve finished my script. Just tidying up the formatting. Yes, I shall e-mail it to you. When? As soon as I finish formatting. Now? Give me 5 minutes.” I write 5 more pages furiously.

Oh dear, only 80 pages. I just have to write some excuse why I couldn’t quite reach 100 pages. Hell and damnation. I shall just have to grit my teeth when I receive a phone call from my producer, pointing out the obvious shortcomings of my script.

Anyway, nothing I can do now. Too bad. The 80 pages are e-mailed. I must remind myself to buy a book on how to write good excuses.

I glance at this week’s Time Magazine. There’s an article on stress. It says “Not all stresses are created equal. A new study finds that some may even be good for you.”

Great! Thank goodness for that study! I can now be thankful for the joys of stress!

Intelligence

Our understanding of intelligence is somewhat limited. We know that it has something to do with mental functioning. It is presumed that the more intelligent a child, the more successful this child will be in school and in job performance later on in life. This may be generally true, but not necessarily so. Other factors such as diligence, motivation, interest, encouragement and opportunity also play a big part.

INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT

Sometimes we speak of intelligence and intelligence quotient (IQ) in the same breath as if they mean the same thing. They do not. IQ is a mathematical abstraction derived by dividing the child’s mental age by his chronological age and multiplying this by 100.

Through a test, a child’s mental age can be obtained. His score will be compared to the average score of children of the same age. Thus if a nine-year-old child performs like most other nine-year olds, his mental age and chronological age would both be nine and his IQ would be 100. We can say that a child with an IQ of 100 is of average intelligence compared to his peers.

However, if both a six-year old and a 10-year old have a similar IQ of say, 110, they are not equally intelligent. The older child will most certainly outperform the younger in many intellectual tasks.

INTELLIGENCE TESTS

An intelligence test can measure a child’s performance in a range of tasks such as arranging a series of pictures to tell a story, matching the signs, giving meanings of words and orally repeating an increasing sequence of numbers.

However sophisticated, an intelligence test merely samples a narrow range of a child’s abilities. Since the results depend on the child’s performance, it is important to have test conditions kept to an optimum. The type of test used in one country may be unsuitable for use in another. Needless to say, IQ tests should be conducted by qualified persons who are trained to administer them and to interpret the results.

Because of the inherent uncertainties of the testing conditions and other problems, ideally results should not be given as a single score but as a range, e.g. 105-115.

MAKING SENSE OF A GIVEN IQ

In a normal population, the IQ is expected to be distributed in a bell-shaped curve. It is found that 68% or slightly more than two-thirds of a population will have an IQ ranging from 85 and 115. Slightly more than 2% of the population will have an IQ of below 70 and another 2% above 130.

TYPES OF INTELLIGENCE

It may seem strange, but there is no common agreement of what intelligence really is. Some believe that there is a basic general capacity – a “g” factor – that certain people have more of than others. Such a view is not very helpful since we do not really know what this “g” factor is.

Others believe that there are seven or more distinct multiple intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, musical, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal.

Linguistic intelligence refers to special facility with language.

Those with superior logical-mathematical ability are good with numbers and logical thinking.

If you have no problems understanding architectural plans, have a memory for shapes and forms, or can find your way around a complicated shopping complex, you probably have a spatial intelligence which is above average.

People with high musical intelligence can carry a tune in their head long after they have heard it for the first time and can reproduce complex rhythms without much trouble. Others cannot carry a single line of melody without going off pitch.

Gymnasts and dancers are supposedly highly intelligent in the bodily kinesthetic sense. So are boxers, jugglers, surgeons and skateboarders.

If you find that you have a special way with people, that you make friends easily and seem to know the right things to say and do in any given social situation, you are probably more interpersonally intelligent than others who feel uncomfortable interacting with people.

People who can empathise with others and have deep spiritual feelings have good intrapersonal intelligence.

There is a great deal of overlap in these types of intelligence. They are areas of ability that are not easily measured, but can be of great importance in determining a person’s career path. Observe your child’s interests and provide opportunities for him to pursue them.

There are two other ways of looking at intelligence. One distinguishes between fluid intelligence and crystallised intelligence. Fluid intelligence is reflected in general reasoning ability, attention span, memory and problem solving. It is what an individual is born with. Crystallised intelligence is acquired through learning and experience, of which a person’s vocabulary and general knowledge are examples.

The second approach to intelligence considers the human brain as a very sophisticated computer which organises, stores and retrieves information. The more intelligent a person is, the more efficient these processes are.

INTELLIGENCE AND CREATIVITY

There is a difference between intelligence and creativity. What we normally refer to as intelligence and what is normally assessed in intelligence tests is convergent thinking – reasoning from the general to the specific.

Creativity is characterised by divergent thinking, that is, thinking that derives many plausible solutions from a given problem.

If you ask a creative child what he can do with a cup, he is not likely to just say that you could drink from it. This child may say that you could display it, break it and scratch somebody with it, cup a spider with it, stretch a balloon over its mouth to make a drum or step on it to gain extra height.

Notice that this child does not merely have many ideas, but each one of them is distinct from another. Moreover, some of these ideas are rather unusual. In creativity, we look for the number of ideas and the degree of originality.

Many people argue that in today’s complex world, it is not enough to be a convergent thinker. We need to think divergently. It is interesting to note that when children are encouraged to think divergently, their scores of creativity increase. This suggests that children can be encouraged to be more creative, given the right environment.

Unfortunately, because creative children may be more independent and non-conforming, they may be seen as more troublesome. Whether at home or in school, our insistence on the “correct” way to do things may unwittingly discourage creativity. Playfulness, humour and fantasy seem to be common characteristics of creative individuals. Parents and teachers should not be too quick to discourage such qualities.

HOW TO RAISE AN INTELLIGENT CHILD

Intelligence and creativity need the right emotional climate at home for their proper development. The child must feel emotionally secure in a mutually rewarding relationship with a caring and responsive adult.

Children are strongly encouraged by adults who show interest in and are willing to be involved in what they do. Parental interference is very discouraging to children.

By all means, communicate your expectations to your child, but avoid pressurising him. Fear, anxiety and stress generated by parental pressure will curtail exploration and interfere with the child’s learning. When learning ceases to be fun, a child is robbed of a precious ingredient of success in later life.

Encourage your child to develop a wide interest by talking to him and providing him with varied experiences, including the toys and books that you buy, the places you bring him to, the things that you do with him in and outside the house.

For example, there is much to be learnt and fun to be had by digging into a patch of earth, growing a plant, observing ants in their activities or attempting to repair a broken telephone.

Whenever possible, allow your child to explore with all his senses – to see, listen, touch, smell, taste. Children learn more by doing than through formal instruction.

Encourage your child to find answers to his questions; do not be too quick to give him the answers.

Some children like to finish whatever they are doing quickly so that they can go on to another activity. Encourage them to attend to details.

Persistence, absorption and intensity of effort are qualities of high achievers. You can encourage your child to develop such qualities through your own involvement, interest and example.

An intelligent child needs a chance to grow up and be treated normally. Sometimes, parents of intelligent children tend to have an unduly high expectation. Your child’s intelligence will not decrease if you treat him normally. The problem is applying too much pressure on the child which can make him over-anxious if he does not do well.

Parent-child conflicts such as a child resisting simple requests from parents, temper outbursts and, in severe cases, depression can result from undue pressure on intelligent children.

Value your child’s uniqueness and strengths, regardless of his intellectual abilities.

-(John Ang, Kenneth Lyen, Myint Myint Thein)

Rote, Rites and Rongs

In defence of memorization, Michael Beran argues that this is an important aspect of education that has too often been jettisoned in the name of creativity.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_3_defense_memorization.html

Memorization of words and poetry gives one the instruments of thought and imagination, and quite the opposite of suppressing imagination and creativity, can “unlock doors in the interior world of the soul… and give kids a language, at once subtle and copious, in which to articulate their own thoughts, perceptions, and inchoate feelings.” Beran says that memorization can “help awaken what was previously dormant, actualize what was before only potential, and so enable the young person to fulfill the injunction of Pindar: “Become what you are.”

The Chinese educational system, and the ancient civil service exam is well known for its emphasis on rote learning. Large chunks of texts are memorized and regurgitated for the exams. This ability helps select those who are best suited for the civil service, a largely administrative bureaucracy, superficially not requiring too much creative thinking. However, it could be argued that the success of the ancient Chinese administration is in fact due to the ability of its civil servants to be able to solve practical problems.

Because it is far easier to evaluate how much information you have memorized than to assess how original and imaginative you are, educationalists have tended to err on the side of constructing exams that measure rote learning rather than creativity. This perpetuates the old system.

Indeed the system of rote learning persists in Singapore. School children here memorize gigabytes of data only to disgorge them at exams, leaving their minds empty again, and thereby freeing them for refilling with yet more facts and figures. The system obviously works because Singapore scores quite highly on international comparative assessments of educational achievement, and Singapore students consistently gain top honours at universities throughout the world.

Michael Beran and generations of educationalists do have a valid point. Rote learning is an important aspect of education. One has to be careful not to throw out the rote learning baby with the apparently filthy bath water alleged to drown creativity and imagination. The problem is trying to achieve the right balance of memorization and cultivating problem-solving and inventive thinking activities.

In the past, educationalists have solved the problem by dividing a subject into two halves. For example we studied English Literature and memorized Shakespeare and other literary works. Then we went to another class to study English Language, where we wrote essays and other imaginative compositions. Sometimes we do not understand what we have memorized. However, the meaning slowly sinks in, and then at a later date, we have that sudden flash of insight. Hence it may not be so bad that we may not always immediately grasp the deeper meaning of stuff we memorize. So why fix a system that has not yet broken down, and has served us so well over the centuries?

Yes, I am deliberately being provocative!

Mistyping Personality

I hate being typecast.

Woody Allen caught my sentiment best in a quote from his film Annie Hall: “I love being reduced to a cultural stereotype,” which of course means the exact opposite.

However, most of us enjoy playing games and sorting our friends into different personality pigeonholes. She’s an ogre, he’s a coward, she’s warmhearted, and so on. It is even more enjoyable when the person being typecast is someone like George Bush.

All would be well were it not for a fact that so many people take personality typing too dead seriously, and use it to determine future careers, marriages, and even potential travel destinations. Indeed some 15 million people are tested on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) each year in the USA alone. Furthermore, 89 companies in the Fortune 100 use the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to ascertain which job applicants would be most suitable for employment.

With such profligate use (or misuse) of personality assessments, it is not surprising that these tests are coming under intense fire. Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) once said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”

Are personality tests the genuine article with some basic integrity, albeit flawed? Or are they one grand hoax fooling millions of unsuspecting suckers worldwide, worse than any corporate scam ever perpetrated?

Let us look at the criticisms leveled against these tests. One such attack is made by Walter Mischel (1930- ). He found that the results of personality tests, such as the MBTI, are not consistent. Up to 47% of testers end up with a different personality type when retested. He argued that if there is reasonable stability in personality traits, then the wild fluctuations in typing must be due to a flawed test.

Defenders of the MBTI test claim that people with more emotional personality traits, like aggression, are naturally prone to considerable fluctuations, depending upon the circumstances. There is nothing wrong with the test. Indeed it is great that it is sensitive enough to reflect a person’s changes in personality. After all, we behave differently when we are at school, in our office, in a party, with our parents, or at home, don’t we? The problem is not in the test, but that people get bored with repeated tests, that they become rather capricious with such tests, and some may even sabotage them. Conscious and unconscious factors which can affect the expression of different aspects of personality, especially during testing, are not taken into account with these studies.

The second attack leveled against personality testing is that personality is like a huge metaphorical elephant. We do not fully understand the nature of the beast. And the current state of the art in testing is still in its infancy. Thus each test conducted is rather like a blind person feeling a different part of this proboscidean. People are too readily labeled as “individualist” or “challenger” or ESFJ or INTP, or something else. But we do not really know what the labels mean. Nor can we or should we use the labels to predict future behavior. Until we gain a much better understanding of personality, it would be too presumptious to use these tests to determine someone’s entire future livelihood or marriage. I think this is a fair statement.

A further problem is referred to as The Barnum Effect. The term is used in psychology to describe the tendency for people to be rather gullible, and accept vague descriptions of themselves as accurate. This is best seen in astrology, graphology (handwriting analysis), palm reading, psychometric tests, as well as personality profiles. It is named after PT Barnum, a circus showman in the 19th century who had the talent of making others believe whatever he said, whether true or not. The problem with personality profiles is that people are placed into broad categories that overlap considerably. Most of us will fit into several of these pigeon holes. As there are no independent means of assessing the veracity of personality tests, reliance upon one’s own assessment is fraught with hazards of mistyping, due in part to an inherent self-deception.

Hippocrates (460-377 BC) suggested that human personality consisted of the blending of four humors or temperaments, namely sanguine (courage), phlegmatic (unemotional), choleric (bad-tempered), and melancholic (despondent). This roughly corresponds with the four characters in Frank Baum’s (1856-1919) Wizard of Oz: the lion who lacked courage, the tinman who was unemotional, Dorothy who was upset because she had lost her way home, and the scarecrow who was sad that he thought he was witless and worthless.

Modern day theory has not moved very much further. Today we talk about the Five-Factor Model, which comprises the following personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.

Personality testing will always remain popular because we are thirsting to know the answer to such questions as “Who am I?” “What am I good at doing?” “With whom will I get along best?”

I detest being typecast because I do not consider myself a one-dimensional person. Perhaps it’s true that I have multiple personalities. I mold my personality to match the person I’m with at that moment of time. As for career advice, I certainly do not wish to be told that the best job for me is to become a garbage collector. Not that I have anything against this profession. Better that than to be a starving author! But still, I like to be given the freedom to make my own mistakes, thank you.

In the final analysis, until there is better validation of their results, personality tests should remain in the domain of party games, and not be used for any serious and less-than-trivial pursuits. Their interpretations must be taken with a ton of salt!