Intelligence And The Kid Next Door

A friend on Twitter (a Fritter?) linked to this article on the topic of defining and categorizing intelligence. "Not Every Child Is Secretly a Genius" is, indeed, an interesting read, and since the friend indicated that he was "[c]urious to see what others think" about it, I thought that I might oblige him.

I don't have the technical background to challenge or support the article writer's stance (which is essentially that intelligence is "an innate cognitive ability that powers learning" and not something that should be diluted or distorted by suggesting that we can all be geniuses in our own way). He's probably right, and even if he's not, I'm not going to be the one to make the compelling argument to prove it. (Hey, I'm no genius!)

But I've long held a belief, somewhat related to this subject, that my Math tutoring experience has been allowing me to put to the test. It's simply this: most individuals who aren't doing well in school could probably do much better if they had the right kind of instruction. That's nothing Earth-shattering, to be sure. And yet I often get the impression that parents will "write off" their kids' chances at academic success by simply saying, "Oh, little Suzy or Bobby just isn't any good at _____" based on marks that come home. (This is basically a corollary to the situation mentioned in the article whereby parents fixate on dance, or a sport, as a way to say that Bobby or Suzy is actually a genius, just not at the stuff that happens to be in the school curriculum.)

Part of it, I think, comes down to the ways in which people learn. The article writer describes learning as something that's an innate ability, and there's probably something to that. Which is to say: some people are naturally talented at learning. They can pick something up by reading a book, hearing a presentation, watching someone else do it, trying it themselves, or even just by thinking about it logically. In other words, they're natural learners, and that probably is a mark of high intelligence.

But, as someone who just experienced first hand a scenario where a Grade 7 student raised his Math mark by ~15% simply by virtue of having someone spend a few hours each week going over the material with him, one-on-one, I find it hard to believe that the student had been receiving the optimal opportunity to learn, prior to that. (And that's not a dig at the public education system, as there's no way a teacher with 25 students can deal with each one on an individual basis.) Had this particular student been more of a "natural learner," my services probably wouldn't have been required. But on the other hand, had I not been brought in to help, then it's quite possible (perhaps even likely) that he would have continued down the path of "I'm no good at Math" for the rest of his scholastic career, and ended up being pigeon-holed into that subset of career options that don't require much Math expertise. Which would be a shame, regardless of what field he actually ends up in. More choice is always better, after all.

My bottom line, I guess, is that we can define intelligence any way we want (eight different types, or as one single "g" measure). Those are all nice intellectual diversions that probably even have some important real-world applications. But what we shouldn't do is assume that people (especially children) can't learn, before every possible avenue for them to do so has been exhausted. That's simply a cop-out, and it can make a world of difference (not in a good way) that lasts a lifetime.