May 4, 2014
Intelligence is a much more interesting, democratic, and dynamic process than a lot of people realize.
There’s a dangerous but all too prevalent misconception that some people are born intellectually gifted (and the rest of us aren’t). From this perspective, traditional models of gifted education make good sense. All one has to do is figure out who has the extra dollop of intelligence, call them ‘gifted,’ and segregate them with each other in order to give them special educational experiences. Under this misconception about the nature of intelligence, the best way to ascertain whether a person belongs to the gifted category (or not) is to administer an intelligence test. The resulting score—an intelligence quotient or IQ—is then interpreted as being stable over the person’s lifetime.
The more that’s being learned about the brain, however, the more that cognitive scientists and neuropsychologists are emphasizing the dynamic nature of intelligence and the diversity of developmental pathways that lead to gifted levels of competence and achievement. Ability is spread much more broadly across the population than the demographic distribution of IQ scores would suggest, and is much more amenable to environmental influences like family life and day-to-day experiences.
read more »
March 23, 2013
Game-playing and mental health may appear to be mutually exclusive categories, but in this blog, Dr Tracy Dennis observes that mental health practitioners have a lot to learn from game developers.
read more »
December 16, 2012
Creativity is mysterious, but it’s a lot more accessible than most people realize. The hard part about it isn’t the magic, but rather the fact that it’s built on and emerges from a whole lot of hard work.
Mark Changizi is a theoretical neurobiologist, who describes himself as ‘struggling with creativity both as a scientist trying to remain creative, and as a scientist trying to understand creativity.’ He writes a delightful blog for The Creativity Post on all manner of creativity topics.
In his most recent post, ‘The Provably Non-Incremental Nature of Creativity,’ he writes about the slow, painful, messy slogging that’s required to get to the beautiful magical AHA! moment: ‘Discoveries can be dressed up well, but the way we go about finding our ideas is almost always an embarrassing display of buffoonery.’
His analysis is both discouraging–creative breakthroughs take a lot of work over a lot of time, and require a tedious painful detailed muddling-through process–and totally encouraging–creativity is accessible to anyone willing to put in the work. He writes, ‘There’s no recipe for discovery… I’ve been able to prove that for some discoveries it is intrinsically impossible to know how close one is to reaching the end. For these puzzles, sudden breakthroughs—aha moments—are in fact logically required rather than due to some quirk of human psychology.’
November 26, 2012
Neuroscience is one of the most exciting frontiers in our world today. Discoveries are being made that can transform our understandings of learning, teaching, resilience, and recovery from trauma. The concept of neural plasticity, for example, with discoveries of the extraordinary capacity of a brain to find work-arounds and continue developing across the lifespan–in spite of any previously diagnosed limitations of a person’s potential–supports optimism and continued efforts for parents and educators committed to the optimal development of all children.
But there’s a lot of opportunistic misinformation, toys, electronic games, and gimmicks for sale being dressed up in the guise of neuroscience. Daniel Willingham suggests care in buying into stuff and educational practices that proponents describe as supported by neuroscience–currently there’s a lot more junk than treasure out there being called ‘neuroscientific’: