鹰爸的极限教育能让“裸跑弟”智商涨到218？

鹰爸的极限教育能让“裸跑弟”智商涨到218？ 0.6182012-02-09 13:15 让4岁的孩子在雪地里裸跑，是虐待儿童还是极限教育？鹰爸说这种方法让孩子从“可能痴呆”变成了“智商潜力218”。这种方法可行吗？为此，果壳网心事鉴定组采访了发展心理学家易莉博士。 从多年以前的哈佛女孩刘亦婷开始，神童的父母们就开始一个个踊跃地给其他在教育子女的道路上苦苦摸索的父母们支招。在这个“素质教育”下成长起来的一代已经成为孩奴的时代，回归传统的棍棒严厉教育又要重新被捡起来。虎妈的“圈养”和狼爸的“棍棒”还没来得及实践，又来了个“鹰爸”推销起了自己的“极限教育”。 他们认为自己的教育是成功的，因为孩子拿了大奖，进了名校，或者根本等不及孩子拿大奖、进名校，先来展示一下阶段性成果，从“可能痴呆”训练成了“智商潜力218”。那么，他们的聪明可以复制吗？为此，果壳网心事鉴定组采访了中山大学心理系发展心理学家易莉博士。 智力高低50%靠先天 虎妈狼爸和鹰爸向人们展示了在自己独特的教育方式下孩子取得了优异的成绩，却很少提及自己，但是一查便知，小虎、小狼和小鹰的背后都是老虎、老狼和老鹰。虎妈是耶鲁大学教授，狼爸是商人，俗话说“虎父无犬子”，心理学家根据双生子研究发现,智力的决定因素中先天因素占50%。易莉博士表示，先天因素决定着后天智力的大致范围。虎妈狼爸和鹰爸自身的高智商给了孩子较好的先天条件，加上他们后天更重视教育，有给孩子创造了更好的教育环境，这些都可能让孩子更聪明，而并不是他们教育方式的效果。所以，是先天因素还是后天培养造就了这些神童还无法判断。 不过，即便这些孩子是靠着他们父母的独特教养方式抚养“成才”，这种方式也不一定适合广到所有家庭，不是每个孩子都有如此坚强的心。 鹰爸认为人们长大以后都不记得自己4岁以前的经历，然而心理学家发现人们能够记得2、3岁时的经历（详见《 你最早的记忆是几岁？ 》）。且不说弗洛伊德把大多数精神问题归罪于童年经历，现在心理学、教育学研究也认为婴幼儿时期是儿童建立对世界信任的时候，他们和父母的关系直接影响着孩子的人格发展、人际关系，甚至恋爱模式（详见《 有人天生爱“出轨”？ 》）。 中国人的文化思维方式常常过于重视环境因素而忽视人本身的先天因素，虽然有研究证实相信智力、意志力后天可变有助于这些能力的提高，但是忽视先天因素盲目训练都是不切实际的。（详见 《非诚勿扰》中的安田，你缘何“被代表”? ） 小孩儿智商测不准 鹰爸的孩子多多4岁便测出具有218的“智商潜力”，让很多成年人在悔恨自己不能回到童年重新“修炼”智商的同时也不禁产生疑问：218的智商潜力是怎么测出来的？ 新闻中没有说明多多采用的是什么智力测试量表，一般来说，4岁儿童可以使用的量表有瑞文智力测试、韦氏幼儿智力测评（WPPSI）和斯坦福-比奈量表等。每一种测试的侧重点都有所不同，比如瑞文智力测试是通过已知图片来推理未知图片，考察的是推理能力；而韦氏量表和斯坦福-比奈量表中就有考察语言能力的部分。举一个极端的例子，如果一个不懂英语的人去做英文版的以上三种量表，可能在瑞文智力测试中是个天才，而在另外两项中则可能测出语言障碍。 根据易莉博士的经验，218的高智商可能是采用和斯坦福-比奈量表一样的算法：IQ=MA（心理年龄）/CA（实际年龄）×100。如果是这样的话，218就意味着多多通过了8岁的测试，心理年龄达到了8岁儿童的水平。这是否意味着多多非常早慧，已达到了超出自己年龄的智力吗？不是的。在4岁儿童的测试中，题目多以形象为主，而8岁则根据年龄特点加入了语言、抽象思维能力等测试，如果父母在孩子4岁时就提前教他阅读文字，那么他很可能在测试中表现优异，获得一个神童的分数。但这样做的代价是影响了儿童形象思维的发育，这和他的创造力、想象力有关。 4岁儿童的注意力很短暂，通常只有十几分钟，而一套智力测试题则通常需要做上1.5个小时，这些枯燥的题目对于孩子来说一点儿也不好玩儿。2011年4月，宾夕法尼亚大学心理学家安吉拉•李•达科沃斯（Angela Lee Duckworth）的团队在《美国国家科学院院刊》（PNAS）上发表 文章 称，智力测试分数的高低和测试人的动机有很大关系。在测试中取得高分的儿童不一定是最聪明的，但一定能够比其他孩子坐得住。从这一点，多多218的高分很可能与鹰爸的期望和教育分不开。 但这种优势将随着其他儿童语言能力、抽象思维能力和注意力的发展而不再明显。在孩子进入成年阶段之前，智商是很难稳定下来的。 制定韦氏量表的哈克特心理测评公司（Harcourt Assessment）研发团队的领头人戴安娜•科尔松曾经说过：“显而易见的是，5岁以下的孩子，智力估分都不准，因为孩子们的认知能力发展太快了。” 总之，父母不能强行在孩子身上留下自己的意志。 参考文献： David R. Shaffer，邹泓等译，《发展心理学》，中国轻工业出版社，2005 斯蒂芬•默多克，卢欣渝译，《智商测试：一段闪光的历史，一个失色的点子》，三联书店，2009 What Does IQ Really Measure? byMichael Balteron 25 April 2011, 3:02 PM| 0 Comments Email Print| HYPERLINK "http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php" HYPERLINK "http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php" HYPERLINK "http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php" HYPERLINK "http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php" More Previous Article HYPERLINK "http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/04/fire-ants-surf-floods-on-rafts.html"Next Article Enlarge Image Effort helps makes you smart?Kids who are more highly motivated on IQ tests achieve higher scores. Credit: iStockphoto Kids who score higher on IQ tests will, on average, go on to do better in conventional measures of success in life: academic achievement, economic success, even greater health, and longevity. Is that because they are more intelligent? Not necessarily. New research concludes that IQ scores are partly a measure of how motivated a child is to do well on the test. And harnessing that motivation might be as important to later success as so-called native intelligence. Researchers have long debated what IQ tests actually measure, and whether average differences in IQ scores--such as those between different ethnic groups--reflect differences in intelligence, social and economic factors, or both. The debate moved heavily into the public arena with the 1994 publication of The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, which suggested that the lower average IQ scores of some ethnic groups, such as African-Americans and Hispanics, were due in large part to genetic differences between them and Caucasian groups. That view has been challenged by many scientists. For example, in his 2009 book "Intelligence and How to Get It," Richard Nisbett, a psychologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, argued that differences in IQ scores largely disappear when researchers control for social and economic factors. New work, led by Angela Lee Duckworth, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, and reported online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences explores the effect of motivation on how well people perform on IQ tests. While subjects taking such tests are usually instructed to try as hard as they can, previous research has shown that not everyone makes the maximum effort. A number of studies have found that subjects who are promised monetary rewards for doing well on IQ and other cognitive tests score significantly higher. To further examine the role of motivation on both IQ test scores and the ability of IQ tests to predict life success, Duckworth and her team carried out two studies, both reported in today's paper. First, they conducted a "meta-analysis" that combined the results of 46 previous studies of the effect of monetary incentives on IQ scores, representing a total of more than 2000 test-taking subjects. The financial rewards ranged from less than $1 to $10 or more. The team calculated a statistical parameter called Hedge's g to indicate how big an effect the incentives had on IQ scores; g values of less than 0.2 are considered small, 0.5 are moderate, and 0.7 or higher are large. Duckworth's team found that the average effect was 0.64 (which is equivalent to nearly 10 points on the IQ scale of 100), and remained higher than 0.5 even when three studies with unusually high gvalues were thrown out. Moreover, the effect of financial rewards on IQ scores increased dramatically the higher the reward: Thus rewards higher than $10 produced gvalues of more than 1.6 (roughly equivalent to more than 20 IQ points), whereas rewards of less than $1 were only one-tenth as effective. In the second study, Duckworth and her colleagues analyzed data from an earlier study of more than 500 boys from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, whose IQs were tested in the late 1980s by a team from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. During the IQ test, the boys, whose average age was 12.5 years, were videotaped; then observers trained to detect signs of boredom and lack of motivation (such as yawning, laying their heads on the table, or looking often around the room) viewed the videos and assigned motivation scores. Breaking news, live video chats, and podcasts from the annual meeting Researchers followed the boys over time, and when the boys reached early adulthood (average age 24), 251 of them agreed to a series of interviews about their educational and job achievements (there were no differences in IQ or other key factors between those boys who participated and those who didn't.) Duckworth's team analyzed the results of these earlier studies to see what they said about the relationship between motivation, IQ scores, and life success. By constructing a series of computer models of the data, the team found that higher motivation accounted for a significant amount of the differences in IQ scores and also in how well IQ predicted later success in life. For example, differences in motivation levels accounted for up to 84% of the differences between the boys in how many years of school they had completed or whether they had been able to find a job. On the other hand, motivation differences accounted for about only 25% of the differences in how well they had done in school as teenagers. According to the researchers, that suggests that native intelligence does still play an important role in both IQ scores and academic achievement. Nevertheless, the Duckworth team concludes that IQ tests are measuring much more than just raw intelligence--they also measure how badly subjects want to succeed both on the test and later in life. Yet Duckworth and her colleagues caution that motivation isn't everything: The lower role for motivation in academic achievement, they write, suggests that "earning a high IQ score requires high intelligence in addition to high motivation." The study has important social policy implications, Duckworth says. "I hope that social scientists, educators, and policy makers turn a more critical eye to any kind of measure, intelligence or otherwise," she says, adding that how hard people try "could be as important to success in life as intellectual ability itself." Duckworth suggests that admissions to programs for "gifted and talented" children should not be based on IQ scores alone, but also on "who wants to do the work." Nisbett agrees that the study is "tremendously important in its implications." Motivation, along with self-discipline, "are crucial," Nisbett says. "A high IQ and a subway token will only get you into town." Lex Borghans, an economist at the Maastricht University in the Netherlands, who has also studied the relationship between intelligence tests and economic success, says the new report shows that "both intelligence and personality matter." Even if native intelligence cannot be increased, Borghans says, "there might be other routes to success."