|
0 members (),
398
guests, and
14
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 |
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/science/gauging-the-intelligence-of-infants.htmlGauging the Intelligence of Infants by KENNETH CHANG New York Times April 7, 2014 The claim about babies was startling: A test administered to infants as young as 6 months could predict their score on an intelligence test years later, when they started school.
“Why not test infants and find out which of them could take more in terms of stimulation?” Joseph F. Fagan III, the psychologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland who developed the test, was quoted as saying in an article by Gina Kolata on April 4, 1989. “It’s not going to hurt anybody, that’s for sure.”
In the test, the infant looks at a series of photographs — first a pair of identical faces, then the same face paired with one the baby hasn’t seen. The researchers measure how long the baby looks at the new face.
“On the surface, it tests novelty preference,” said Douglas K. Detterman, a colleague of Dr. Fagan’s at Case Western.
For reasons not quite understood, babies of below-average intelligence do not exhibit the same attraction to novelty.
Dr. Fagan suggested that the test could be used to identify children with above-average intelligence in poorer families so they could be exposed to enrichment programs more readily available to wealthier families.
But his primary motivation, said Cynthia R. Holland, his wife and longtime collaborator, was to look for babies at the other end of the intelligence curve, those who would fall behind as they grew up.
“His hope was always was to identify early on, in the first year of life, kids who were at risk, cognitively, so we could focus our resources on them and help them out,” said Dr. Holland, a professor of psychology at Cuyahoga Community College.
25 YEARS LATER For the most part, the validity of the Fagan test holds up. Indeed, Dr. Fagan (who died last August) and Dr. Holland revisited infants they had tested in the 1980s, and found that the Fagan scores were predictive of the I.Q. and academic achievement two decades later when these babies turned 21.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,245 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,245 Likes: 1 |
Also of interest in this article: For the last decade of his life, Dr. Fagan was unexpectedly drawn into the “genes versus environment” debate over intelligence after he found that babies from widely different cultural backgrounds performed equally well on his test. That, he argued, undercut the argument for a biological basis for the stark “achievement gap” between white and black children, or rich and poor.
In a chapter in “The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence”, co-edited by Dr. Kaufman and published in 2011, Dr. Fagan wrote, “A parsimonious explanation for the findings is that later differences in I.Q. between different racial-ethnic groups may spring from differences in cultural exposure to information past infancy, not from group differences in the basic ability to process information.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,453
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,453 |
This Dr. Fagan (who died last August) and Dr. Holland revisited infants they had tested in the 1980s, and found that the Fagan scores were predictive of the I.Q. and academic achievement two decades later when these babies turned 21. Seems to be at odds with this Dr. Fagan wrote, “A parsimonious explanation for the findings is that later differences in I.Q. between different racial-ethnic groups may spring from differences in cultural exposure to information past infancy, not from group differences in the basic ability to process information.” Unless all of the neonates that scored well and then went on to have high IQs and achievements 2 decades later all had the good luck to be raised in high SES and privileged environments. Am I missing something here?
Last edited by madeinuk; 04/11/14 06:11 PM.
Become what you are
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035 |
In most cases providing an enriched environment for an infant is not dependant on income (the exceptions being work and poor childcare due to finances and medical/housing problems resulting in too much stress/depression and actual food povery). Babies need to be talked to, interacted with, loved and fed. They don't need expensive classes butthey do need a mother willing and able to mother (or someone else), and preferably a safe place to explore. My oldest didn't learn to roll until 6 months - I had post natal depression, it was winter and the floor was too cold to lie on and we had a rat problem. He learnt shortly after i returned to work and he went to home based care full time. Ds4 learned to roll at 12 weeks or less - i had not post natal depression, the house was warm and sunny with carpet on the floors and no rats. But i always talked to them and cuddled and played with them.
The oldest has a higher IQ.
Last edited by puffin; 04/11/14 08:39 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 |
“Why not test infants and find out which of them could take more in terms of stimulation?” This line made me laugh. From my limited experience with DS, a child who can take more stimulation might just outright demand it. In DS' case, vociferously. He literally screamed for 5 hours straight or longer at night when we tried to settle him. Most nights, I was up until 2 or 3am with a 3 or 4 month old who insisted on books. At 5 months, when he said, "read book", we clued in that he wanted to be read to the whole time instead of sleeping, and everything fell into place nicely (including sleep). No test needed. We eventually found an alternate settling routine: running through the house carrying DS, naming everything in sight in rapid fire speech, usually for 20-30 mins. So, while DS may not be a typical case, he's an example of the lengths a highly motivated child will go to to secure sufficient stimulation!
Last edited by aquinas; 04/11/14 08:05 PM.
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Whoahhhhh-- my daughter, on the other hand, responded SO strongly to over-stimulation that she could not be soothed as a newborn, and was incredibly upset for hours over too much holding, too much visual input, too much light, too much sound, too-much of pretty much anything. Sitting in a cool, quiet, dim room was the only way to shut it off once she got going.
Sensory OE, much? OH YEAH. Evident from birth. Everything was (and has always been) very much on her terms.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,245 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,245 Likes: 1 |
This Dr. Fagan (who died last August) and Dr. Holland revisited infants they had tested in the 1980s, and found that the Fagan scores were predictive of the I.Q. and academic achievement two decades later when these babies turned 21. Seems to be at odds with this Dr. Fagan wrote, “A parsimonious explanation for the findings is that later differences in I.Q. between different racial-ethnic groups may spring from differences in cultural exposure to information past infancy, not from group differences in the basic ability to process information.” ... Am I missing something here? In reading the full article, the results are described as being predictive in aggregate, not at an individual level. The article was a 25-year retrospective on a 2-part test: 1- test of novelty for babies 2- follow-up IQ test at age 21 The results were: 1- The article described that " babies from widely different cultural backgrounds performed equally well on his test." 2- The results of the follow-up IQ test at age 21 describes that results were consistent in aggregate, not at an individual level. His thoughts penned in 2011 seemed to contemplate why the follow-up test was predictive in aggregate and not at an individual level. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 517
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 517 |
Whoahhhhh-- my daughter, on the other hand, responded SO strongly to over-stimulation that she could not be soothed as a newborn, and was incredibly upset for hours over too much holding, too much visual input, too much light, too much sound, too-much of pretty much anything. Sitting in a cool, quiet, dim room was the only way to shut it off once she got going.
Sensory OE, much? OH YEAH. Evident from birth. Everything was (and has always been) very much on her terms. I couldn't believe it when DS could only be settled in the first few months by lying him on the hard cold floor - I thought he hated me!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 299
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 299 |
My DS7 was a quivering ball of rage as an infant. I once saw him (I kid you not) put another 12 month old in a headlock when he wanted a toy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 71
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 71 |
My daughter was two weeks old and forcefully lifting her head to look around. I was told by a doctor that babies that young aren't supposed to be able to do that. Where there's a will, there's a way!
|
|
|
|
|
