Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count

This book so impressed me that I bought it for the board members, all the principals, the superintendent, and the Curriculum Director. I read about it in two columns by Nicholas Kristof, who took up Darfur's cause a year ahead of everyone else. Gladwell's "Outliers" uses the research cited by Nisbett. Same for "Whatever it Takes", about Geoffrey Canada and his Harlem Childrens' Project. So this book is like the well from which much new water is flowing. It is so full of research as to be the most useful tool in any effort to reform public education. Most of the 'new' books are like sermons: someone comes up with a cool idea and then backs it up with lots of anecdotes (see "Whatever it Takes"). You won't be able to read this without changing your views about what public school can be... unless you go in of the same mindset. And this book provides the rock solid research, not opinions. Oops - there are opinions, but Dr. Nisbett tells you when that's the case.

Nisbett's book addresses two audiences with this book, in a manner that is generally fair-minded and hence persausive. First, he addresses an audience interested in how culture affects "intelligence", versus genetics. He presents evidence for why culture and other environmental influences have larger effects on intelligence than genetic factors. This discussion touches on some very "hot button" issues, such as differences across ethnic groups in achievement. Second, he addresses an audience interested in how schools can most effectively increase students' "intelligence" or academic achievement. He reviews evidence on the effectiveness of various academic interventions, such as high-quality preschool and child care, academic programs such as Reading Recovery, whole school reforms such as the KIPP program, and class size reduction. Particularly noteworthy and unusual are his discussions of some educational interventions promoted by social psychologists, such as efforts to persuade students that effort can significantly increase intellectual achievement. The tone is consistently even-handed. Nisbett frequently discusses arguments and evidence against his positions. With respect to Nisbett's discussion of the influence of culture on intelligence, I do not know the scientific literature sufficiently to judge the accuracy of his summary. However, based on my knowledge of the research on early childhood education and education, I believe Nisbett's summary of this research is generally accurate. He provides the reader with a good guide to some interesting findings in the education literature.

Did you read the 1996 book Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (A Free Press Paperbacks Book) and did it make you feel uneasy because you did not (want to) agree with its conclusions but did not exactly know how to refute them? Among its conclusions were (loosely formulated) 1) that intelligence is highly important in many areas of life, 2) that differences in intelligence are largely responsible for societal stratification, 3) that differences in intelligence are largely heritable, and 4) that intelligence gaps between (racial) groups are hard to close (if that is possible at all). If you felt (feel) uneasy about these conclusions read this book by psychologist Dick Nisbett. You will probably like this book because it will provide answers to your questions. Not in a vague way but in a very specific, well reasoned and research based way. Here are some conclusions from the book: 1) There is no fixed value for the heritability of intelligence. If the environment is very favorable to the growth of development of intelligence, the heritability of intelligence is fairly high (maybe up to 70%. If however the environment is highly variable -differing greatly between individual families- then the environment is going play the major role in differences in intelligences between individuals (as is the case with the poor). 2) Aside from the degree to which heritability is important for one group or another in the population, heritable places no limits whatsoever on modifiability -for anybody, 3) Intelligence is developable and schools can make children smarter, for instance by using computer-assisted teaching and certain types of cooperative learning. 3) Genes play no role at all in race differences in IQ, environment differences do. 4) Believing that intelligence is under your control is a great start of developing intelligence, 5) Certain habits and values in cultures can be highly beneficial for learning and developing intelligence, 6) Parents can do a lot to increase the intelligence and academic achievement of children (both biological and didactic factors matter. This book is great. [...]Let's hope it will inspire many parents, educators, policymakers and scientists. It just might ...

Nisbett's latest book serves several purposes. On one level, he is arguing with his fellow IQ researchers that "schools and culture matter" more than the field suspected (e.g. a 1987 survey by Stanley and Rothman found high estimates of individual heritability and plurality support for the view that both genetic differences and environment played a role in American IQ gaps). Nisbett marshals a persuasive case, and while his thesis is forcefully stated he is scrupulous in pointing out contrary arguments and evidence. Occasionally the main text seemed to overstate a point, but in the vast majority of such cases a turn to the notes section or appendices revealed that the complications had been mentioned there (with a few exceptions related to the views of hereditarians on dysgenics and the causes of low IQ in Africa), and the book could serve as a good introduction to the field for laypeople. Another major element of the book is a call for bringing scientific rigor to education. Rigorous controlled experiments, research that takes our knowledge of IQ into account, genetics-aware studies such as Eric Turkheimer's (which measure environmental effects on phenomena such as substance abuse using twins to control for genetic effects), and clear thinking have the potential to greatly improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of education and improve cognition. Fear of hereditarian views and associations with racism often hinder educational policymakers from taking our scientific knowledge of IQ into account, with negative effects on educational quality, and we may hope that this text will help to diminish that stigma and help to drive further improvements in cognitive ability. At a higher level, the book is in some ways an ode to the randomized experiment, taking a strong stand against regressions that are helpless to identify causality and easily manipulable by motivated researchers. A reader gets the sense of a smart and honest empirical scientist who is eager to have questions resolved by hard evidence, and ready to change his mind in accord with those experiments, even when he comes to the table with strongly held initial views on a controversial topic of policy importance. This is something we need to see more of in scientific and policy debates and I give this book my strong recommendation. If you enjoy this book, I would suggest a follow-up with James Flynn's "What is Intelligence?" and Arthur Jensen's "The G-factor." I will discuss the individual chapters below: Chapter 1 provides a brief introductory account of IQ, and its importance for life outcomes, while mentioning other important traits such as motivation and self-control. It is quite satisfactory and puts IQ in context, without diminishing its role or getting embroiled in terminological disputes over the description of other abilities or discussion of their measurement. Chapter 2 attempts to place the high heritability of IQ scores among middle class families (as much as 70-80% o

I really enjoyed this book, having previously been stimulated by the author's Geography of Thought. So much of the recent writing about intelligence has been marred by the sloppy use of research, especially in the area of the heritability of intelligence. Nisbett has good appendices explaining the relevant stats and also taking to task the somewhat infamous 'Bell Curve' that I still hear talked about by lay people to this field as gospel. I think he respects those he disagrees with such as Steven Pinker and pays them the respect of not misrepresenting them. Richard Nisbett's inventive cover says it all: DNA (inherited characteristics) as a ladder to build intelligence on and beyond, rather than as a cage to limit intelligence. With this end in mind, the book includes some marvellously balanced accounts of relevant research and is extremely helpful in overturning the more simplistic interpretations. Nisbett is course not arguing that intelligence is not significantly inherited, just that environmental factors are equally important and recently neglected in much research commentary and policy advocacy. And also environmental factors are what we can strongly influence. Advocates of the high heritability of intelligence are pessimists and the massive increase in intelligence of the last 50 years across most countries studied by Flynn et al. as Nisbett shows puts a major set of counter data in the way of their perspective. Nisbett is also adept at puncturing the racist use of differential IQ scores between white and black population. This differential is falling dramatically just as average scores also increase. Among the most interesting insights he provides are those into the identical twins reared apart data. He shows that at the nub of so much misinterpretation is neglect of the simple idea that if two variables determine something and one of the variables is kept roughly stable, then all of the variation is caused by one variable. So if data on identical twins reared apart show 80% of the variation in their intelligence is inherited, you do need to know how varied their backgrounds are. And the answer is probably not very varied. Indeed Nisbett goes on to indicate studies that show upper middle class children having perhaps 70% inherited intelligence, because how they are all raised in very driven, standardized ways, and the top schools are all doing similar things. While children in the lowest part of society have very low heritability of IQ because their environments are so massively varied. Nisbett has some interesting things to say about cross cultural issues in IQ. But I think his most interesting insight, is that so many Americans now believe that maths talent is inherited, whereas many Asian immigrants to America believe it is the result of damned hard work. This is one of those paradoxes that the most conservative of Americans have embraced inherited ability (Bell Curve etc.) as a way to fend off social engineering via education, wh