Creativity and Intelligence in Applied Educational Psychology - Reflection 6

Module 6 – Contemporary Views of Intelligence

1. Herrnstein & Murray – Bell Curve
2. Modular Perspectives: Ceci; Kargopoulos and Demetriou
3. Triarchic – Sternberg; Tripartite – Perkins; Multiple Intel – Gardner 

Though I was generally aware of the Bell Curve due to the media coverage portraying it as controversial, after learning that low IQ correlates to crime, risk for being on welfare, and even likelihood of worker disability, I understand why the book seemed threatening to some groups. So often, narratives based on academic study become the basis for propaganda with the wrong intentions. As a manager I have advocated for budgets that included near-constant increases in well-being costs based on neuroscientific data about the benefits of enabling work-life balance, providing physical space to relieve stress, and the virtuous cycle created by consistent “waffle Fridays” and “Tuesday Night Happy Hours” for my organization. Herrnstein’s and Murray’s evidence clearly advocates for some of their propositions, such as supporting top performers, but I did not understand how school choice was beneficial unless they intended it only for the gifted. All of that said, my first finding from this module – which absolutely shocked me – is the data that in 1993, 92.2% of federal education budget was directed toward the disadvantaged and less than one-tenth of one percent was allocated to gifted students. While it is difficult to compared based on the 2020 budget information available online, of the $64B, $30.7B of just discretionary funding has been clearly allocated for disadvantaged groups, to “support high-need students through essential formula grant programs.” (US Dept of Education, 2020) 

A second significant finding based on my plan to teach was the triarchic model of Sternberg. Intuitively, my understanding of intelligence is based on Analytic, Creative, and Practical components – closely aligned to his model. Having read his scholarly paper about the application of his triarchic model in the classroom, my understanding of Successful Intelligence seems complimentary to the Vygotsky model of scaffolding that enables the student with an emphasis on self-efficacy and appropriate support. While I agree that the cladistic view of the triarchic model presented in the lecture notes does not differentiate inductive and deductive reasoning, I strongly favor his triarchic model of intelligence. Further, based on the data presented in his paper that showed achievement benefit in both performance assessments and objective assessments, the theory will be useful when identifying how to structure a classroom activity or a test so that all of the students will have an opportunity to learn, and to apply their knowledge based on the component ability in which they are strongest.

Finally, the positive correlation between political engagement and intelligence was another finding. It gives me hope for a progressive future for this world to see that r = 0.45 for IQ and social liberalism, which is much higher than I would have guessed. For example, Ritchie’s data that shows higher-IQ correlates to increased interested in politics in general, being more likely to vote in elections. Furthermore, Ritchie’s information relating the physical aspects of the brain to intelligence corresponds well with the Anthropology class I’m taking as we focus our study to the Homo genus after several weeks of studying the endocranial capacities of species that are the bridge between apes and humans.