Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: IQ .PS - The "Beyond IQ" Movement

Expand Messages
  • Mike Tintner
    ALan, What has emerged for me from your Kevin McGrew slideshow is that one can talk of - (and *are* people talking of?) - the beyond IQ movement. I invite
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 27 5:20 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      ALan,
       
      What has emerged for me from your Kevin McGrew slideshow is that one can talk of - (and *are* people talking of?) -
      the "beyond IQ movement." I invite people to google "beyond iq" - it's much used by not just McGrew, but Sternberg AND James Flynn and has been by many others for years. - with some 16,000 references.
       
      IOW there are a host of attempts to form a richer model of intelligence - incl. emotional & social intelligence, academic self-concept, and learning styles - all sharing a common recognition of the utter poverty of the IQ model, (& one really can't be too abusive here!) - even if they don't yet have a shared, fully acknowledged identity.
       
      Any comments and further info. here v.,welcome.
       
      P.S. Maybe you should suggest to McGrew to link up with all the other guys under a common banner. They don't yet have an adequate new model  - it's a complex task that will take a lot of work - but identifying and publicising a "Beyond IQ" stage of development towards a model, would have great value.
    • Alan
      ... The best new model might be Wilber-esque/Gravesian Spiral Dynamics; see links at bottom here:
      Message 2 of 2 , Aug 31 11:33 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Tintner"
        <tintner@...> wrote:
        >
        > ALan,
        >
        > What has emerged for me from your Kevin McGrew slideshow is
        > that one can talk of - (and *are* people talking of?) -
        > the "beyond IQ movement." I invite people to google "beyond
        > iq" - it's much used by not just McGrew, but Sternberg AND
        > James Flynn and has been by many others for years. - with
        > some 16,000 references.
        >
        > IOW there are a host of attempts to form a richer model
        > of intelligence - incl. emotional & social intelligence,
        > academic self-concept, and learning styles - all sharing a
        > common recognition of the utter poverty of the IQ model,
        > (& one really can't be too abusive here!) - even if they
        > don't yet have a shared, fully acknowledged identity.
        >
        > Any comments and further info. here v.,welcome.
        >
        > P.S. Maybe you should suggest to McGrew to link up with all
        > the other guys under a common banner. They don't yet have
        > an adequate new model - it's a complex task that will take
        > a lot of work - but identifying and publicising a "Beyond IQ"
        > stage of development towards a model, would have great value.

        The best new model might be Wilber-esque/Gravesian
        Spiral Dynamics; see links at bottom here:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/message/70700

        That, and/or Michael Lamport Commons' developmental model
        (of which he speaks on this list, occasionally), which is
        similar to the above.

        In Spiral Dynamics terms, I.Q. is permissive, and necessary,
        for higher development, but does not of itself constitute
        higher development. Necessary, but not sufficient. I.Q.
        is a measure of the mental faculty most relevant to the nature
        and scope of the orange vmeme -- the predominant vmeme of
        the developed world at present. I.Q. comes close to being
        sufficient for the industrial/technical development of
        orange. But past orange -- onward to green and yellow --
        I.Q. is not enough anymore.

        It was obvious to me from the start that intelligence
        could not possibly be unitary and represented by one number.
        The psychometricians glommed-on to the age-old term/idea of
        "intelligence" -- about which people far wiser than they
        had waxed for millennia -- and defined it in a way that
        excludes everything outside their little metric thingie. It
        is hard to believe that anyone takes them seriously.

        One reason that we see a clinging to the I.Q. hegemony
        is that the I.Q. story is so serviceable for defending
        reactionary turf. With I.Q. numbers you can (appear to)
        PROVE that blacks and browns are genetically inferior to
        whites. The I.Q. thing is very useful, for that purpose,
        and for all that follows from it (the assault on the
        social safety net, etc., etc.).

        Alan
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.