Naïve Theories of Intelligence

This class has taught me so much about not only child development but also human cognitive development in general. There are so many topics that I want to write about in this last blog, but the topics that stood out to me was the Naïve Theories of Intelligence. Incremental theorists say that intelligence is flexible and is context dependent and is acquired through in experience and hard work. Entity theorists say that intelligence is fixed or stable, resulting on a person either having it or not. I believe it’s a combination of both. I’ve struggled watching some of my friends party the night before an exam while I stay in and study, only to watch them get higher scores than me. So in my case, I would agree with the Incremental theorists simply because the theory of intelligence from the entity theorists perspective would pretty much assume I will never succeed. I have always been the type of person that goes above and beyond with studying but still gets average grades.
I believe my inability to go through school with ease comes from the way I was brought up. We have learned so much about how important family interaction is with a child’s learning and it made me realize the lack of it that came from my family. It just shows how different cultures are when it comes to values and raising a child. I was born in the Philippines and don’t recall ever doing things with my parents such as play games and regular housework with them. My parents were always so busy with work that I ended up spending most my time playing and interacting with my brothers. Then at age six my family moved to Oregon and my transition was a little difficult because my parents didn’t know English very well. So it was hard to go to school ad learn so much but not have what I learned exercised at home.
I think the entity theory of intelligence is somewhat similar to the administration and results of tests in classes. You either do well or you don’t. What it doesn’t account for is how much effort you put into your work. The idea of tests also reminds me of basic computer tutors that say “you right” or “your wrong.” Lepper’s article says that even if a computer could accurately diagnose the student’s affective state and respond to that state there is still a plausibility problem. The plausibility (acceptability) problem is, if the same actions and the same statements that human tutors use will have the same effect if delivered by a computer. The emotional response is taken away if a computer replaces a human and this could cause issues when trying to tutor a child.