u10d2 Culture, Intelligence, and Technology

Chet Bowers (1999), in his article, Why Culture Rather Than Data Should Be Understood As The Basis of Intelligence, argues that forms of technology (for example, computer-mediated thinking and communication) amplify and reduce certain aspects of an individual's cultural experience. For example, he says, "the telephone amplifies voice over great distances but reduces body language and other contextual cues that are part of a more complex and significant process of semiosis" (p. 38). According to Bowers, a similar phenomenon exists when we view (amplify) intelligence as (1) individualistic; (2) linear; and (3) separate from culture. What is unfortunately reduced is embodied, tacit, and intentional intelligence. Bowers faults cognitive theorists (for example, advocates of information processing and constructivism), artificial intelligence and technology experts, and capitalists as the creators and perpetuators of the "information equals intelligence" metaphor. One major problem he sees with this view of intelligence is that we "misrepresent both the culturally specific nature of intelligence and the need to assess its forms of expression in terms of moral criteria that take account of what constitutes a just and sustainable community and ecosystem relationship" (p. 31). Bowers continues: The emphasis on the "processes" of intelligence has led to awarding our highest degrees to people who too often devote their thinking skills to creating technologies that introduce toxins into the environment and to persuading the public to buy more consumer goods. Our current way of thinking about intelligence also has led to the empowerment of elite groups of technologists who are working to develop smarter and more complex computer systems that will further reduce the need for human workers (p. 31). The irony here is that we are valuing that which will eventually destroy us while ignoring that which will save us (for example, elders' wisdom, traditions, communities, and a healthy environment). What do you think of Browers' claims? How do you think his words compare with Sternberg's (2009) discussion of cultural context and intelligence (pp. 548553)? Please answer the discussion question by (1) referring to and integrating ideas presented in the text and any supplemental readings; (2) citing outside resources if necessary to make your point; and (3) following APA style guidelines for citations and references. You will be evaluated on how well you can demonstrate that you understand the ideas presented throughout the unit, including assigned readings, discussions, and independent investigations. You will also be evaluated on the quality of your workits academic rigor, how well it shows your ability to think critically, and how completely it covers the questions asked. Response Guidelines Respond to at least one other learner in a manner that advances the discussion in a meaningful way. Your response is expected to be substantive in nature and reference the assigned readings, as well as other theoretical, empirical or professional literature to support your views and writings. Reference your sources using standard APA guidelines.

Reference

Bowers, C. A. (1999). Why culture rather than data should be understood as the basis of intelligence. In J. Kane (Ed.). Education, information, and transformation: Essays on learning and thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.

Chet Bowers (1999) scathing indictment directed at neotechnocrats and cognitive theorists as narrow minded constructivists and misguided architects of the "information equals intelligence" corollary may appear pretentious to most conventional researchers. After all, it is commonly held among test designers, educators and psychologists today that indexing and measuring intelligence requires nomothetic operationalizations that seek to empirically eliminate item bias as a function of gender, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (WISC-IV, 2003). However, Sternberg (2003) vehemently argues in light of his theory of successful intelligence, that the conceptionization of intelligence should always be socioculturally relevant. Furthermore, he contends that an individuals conception of intelligence is more linked to real world success than todays ubiquitous information equals intelligence axiom. Likewise, Gardner (1983) proposed that, it is the culture that defines the stages and fixes the limits of individual achievement (as cited in Yang, S., & Sternberg, 1997). Culture is defined as "the set of attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors shared by a group of people, communicated from one generation to the next via language or some other means of communication (Sternberg, 2012). Kral et al. (2011) define culture asan historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic form by means of which [people] communicate, perpetuate and develop their knowledge about and attitudes towards life. To what degree does culture influence intelligence testing? It is noteworthy that some people perform better on intelligence testing on the tasks that correlate with an individuals cultural milieu (Sternberg & Sternberg, 2012). For example, in a study of Taiwanese conceptions of intelligence findings indicated that in addition to their inclusion of a cognitive component, they also included factors of interpersonal competence, intrapersonal competence, intellectual selfassertion, and intellectual self-effacement or humility (Yang, S., & Sternberg, 1997). Given that the developmental worldview of Taiwanese Chinese is embedded in the transcendent philosophies of Confucianism and Taoism, it is reasonable to assume that their conceptions of intelligence may differ from Western views based upon intrinsic historical and cultural differences. Bowers (1999) also claims that tacit knowledge is reduced as a result of the prevailing emphasis on information equals intelligence as the dominant theme in todays

conceptionalization of intelligence. Sternberg (2007) concurs and defines tacit knowledge as the knowledge to work effectively in an environment that is not explicitly taught. Culture can be unconscious and contextualized common sense (Kral et al., 2011). In testing measurements of tacit knowledge, an example of a typical tacit knowledge problem might be to read an account of an individuals problem and determine from a list of solutions which one represents the best solution and why. Surprisingly, research indicates that tacit knowledge testing scores not only correlate negatively with conventional intelligence test scores, but have been shown to exhibit equal or better predictive validity of job performance and leadership effectiveness than conventional psychometric intelligence testing (Sternberg, 2007). Its also important to note that not only do scores on a battery of tacit knowledge tests yield a general factor across tests, but it is also intriguing that these same scores show weak correlations with conventional intelligence tests. This seems to indicate what is referred to as the g factor as an estimate of overall intelligence in conventional intelligence testing may not be as general as predicted. Sternberg (2007) further posits that practical intelligence is essentially embodied in tacit knowledge. He defines practical intelligence as the practical use of ones intelligence, creativity and knowledge for a common good, to balance intrapersonal, interpersonal and extrapersonal interests, and to adapt to, shape and select sociocultural environments. Moreover, practical abilities represents one of three critical, interdependent metacomponents of Sternbergs triarchic theory of intelligence which consists of: 1) Creative abilities used to generate novel ideas, 2) Analytical abilities used to plan, monitor and evaluate problem solving and 3) Practical abilities used to implement ideas and convince others of their intrinsic value. Is it possible to design intelligence testing that is both idiothetic (culturally relevant) and nomothetic (general)? Can intelligence testing form a delicate balance on a dialectic tightrope of being domain general and domain specific in regards to culture? Sternberg (2012) acknowledges designing culturally relevant intelligent testing would require much creativity and effort, but it is not impossible. Perhaps such an assessment would draw upon complementary strengths of each perspective while balancing the capacity to use well established psychometrics (Diemer & Gore, 2009). Regardless of the approach, Sternberg suggests such efforts must begin with an expansion of the conventional conception of intelligence to include not only analytical abilities, but creative and practical abilities as well. In summary, how does one achieve successful intelligence? How successful an individual is depends on the individuals ability to plan, implement, monitor, and evaluate the confluence of analytical, creative and practical intelligences. Furthermore, an individual must not only use these intelligences to adapt to and shape ones sociocultural environment, but also be prepared at times to select a new environment better suited for ones skill set, inherent values and life goals.

Anthony Rhodes General Psychology PhD. References Bowers, C. A. (1999). Why culture rather than data should be understood as the basis of intelligence. In J. Kane (Ed.). Education, information, and transformation: Essays on learning and thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall. Diemer, M. A., & Gore,Paul A.,,Jr. (2009). Culture and assessment: Nomothetic and idiographic considerations. The Career Development Quarterly, 57(4), 342-347. http://search.proquest.com/docview/219404710?accountid=27965 Kral, M. J., Ramrez Garca, J.,I., Aber, M. S., Masood, N., Dutta, U., & Todd, N. R. (2011). Culture and community psychology: Toward a renewed and reimagined vision. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47(1-2), 46-57. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9367-0 Sternberg, R. J. (2003). A Broad View of Intelligence: The Theory of Successful Intelligence. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice And Research, 55(3), 139-154. doi:10.1037/10614087.55.3.139 Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2012). Cognitive psychology (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. ISBN 9781133313915. Wechsler, D. (2003). WISC-IV administration and storing manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation. Yang, S., & Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Taiwanese Chinese peoples conceptions of intelligence. Intelligence, 25, 2136.