Re: the widely cited threshold claim, for which the research evidence is weak (nonexistent?), see the following article by Sackett and colleagues, especially p. 221:
http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hardyms/PS337-001_08/high_stakes_testing.pdf I believe that Sackett also has some data, perhaps still unpublished, examining relations between GRE scores and measures of real-world achievement in people between the exceedingly high 750 and 800 GRE range, and the relations are still linear. My understanding is that researchers in the abilities domain have looked and looked - and looked - for evidence of curvilinearity and have pretty consistently come up empty-handed. But if anyone knows of any replicated evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. I'm also inclined to think that Gladwell has been pretty explicit about the existence of this ostensible threshold effect, both in Outliers and elsewhere. In interviews, he has referred to a "threshold of preparation for greatness," and made clear (or as clear as one could, I believe) that above a given threshold, additional intellectual firepower doesn't really matter much when it comes to real-world achievement. For example, he has said in an interview that "We need to get away from this stratification of intelligence. You need to be smart enough to get into a good college, and you have to be honest and considerate and work hard. But you don't need to know more than that about your IQ." Again, this seems to me a pretty clear assertion of a threshold effect. I'd like to gently push Beth a bit and ask her why she believes that Gladwell's books help readers to think critically. I've read (well, more precisely listened to audio versions of) The Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers, and although I found all three books entertaining, I found them sorely wanting when it comes to scientific thinking, which to me is largely about trying to minimize confirmation bias, especially by eliminating rival explanations for phenomena. I've seen precious little of any of that in Gladwell's writings. To take merely one example, in Outliers, he talks at length about the intriguing 10,000 hour rule, but barely talks at all - or does he even discuss? - the question of why certain people, but not others, end up accumulating 10,000 hours or more of practice, never seeming to let readers know that the causal arrow between practice and talent might also run in the opposite direction (e.g., Was it sheer happenstance that the Beatles ended up playing 10,000+ hours in Hamburg? Did it have nothing to do with the fact that they were really, really good in the first place and kept getting called back to play gigs?). But I'd be certainly willing to persuaded otherwise about Gladwell. I find him to be an immensely talented writer and story teller, but not an especially clear or critical thinker. All I know is when I'm reading a book (or listening to one), and on virtually every other page, I mentally keep asking (or shouting out), "But what about this explanation?" or "What about that...?", I feel that the author hasn't done a good job of getting readers to think scientifically. Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. Professor Editor, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice Department of Psychology, Room 473 Psychology and Interdisciplinary Sciences (PAIS) Emory University 36 Eagle Row Atlanta, Georgia 30322 [email protected] (404) 727-1125 Psychology Today Blog: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-psychologist 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140513111X.html Scientific American Mind: Facts and Fictions in Mental Health Column: http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammind/ The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his intellectual passions. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him - he is always doing both. - Zen Buddhist text (slightly modified) From: Beth Benoit [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 10:57 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] From the "If You're So Smart How Come You Ain't Rich? Department" Contrary to some TIPSters, I am a fan of Malcolm Gladwell. He's not doing research on telomerase or other Nobel-inducing work, but I think he is making people think, and think critically. I think his books are fun. Mike Palij asked the following: "...wonder if they can confirm that Gladwell actually says that one doesn't get a benefit for having an IQ over 120." The answer is "yes" and "no." He does say something to that effect, but is quoting someone else - actually two others. And he's not saying it has "no benefit," but rather that it doesn't relate directly to how much money you'll make in your lifetime and other possible benefits. On p. 79, he writes: "In general, the higher your [IQ] score, the more education you'll get, the more money you're likely to make, and - believe it or not - the longer you'll live. "But there's a catch. The relationship between success and IQ works only up to a point. Once someone has reached an IQ of somewhere around 120, having additional IQ points doesn't seem to translate into any measurable real-world advantage.*" And his footnote is this: *The "IQ fundamentalist" Arthur Jensen put it thusly in his 1980 book Bias in Mental Testing (p. 113): "The four socially and personally most important threshold regions on the IQ scale are those that differentiate with high probability between persons who, because of their level of general mental ability, can or cannot attend a regular school (about IQ 50), can or cannot master the traditional subject matter of elementary school (about IQ 75), can or cannot succeed in the academic or college preparatory curriculum through high school (about IQ 105), can or cannot graduate from an accredited four-year college with grades that would quality for admission to a professional or graduate school (about IQ115). Beyond this, the IQ level becomes relatively unimportant in terms of ordinary occupational aspirations and criteria of success. That is not to say that there are not real differences between the intellectual capabilities represented by IQs of 115 and 150 or even between IQs of 150 and 180. But IQ differences in this upper part of the scale have far less personal implications than the thresholds just described and are generally of lesser importance for success in the popular sense than are certain traits of personality and character." Then on p. 80, Gladwell writes: "...the British psychologist Liam Hudson has written, 'and this holds true where the comparison is much closer - between IQs of, say, 100 and 130. But the relation seems to break down when one is making comparisons between two people both of whom have IQs which are relatively high...A mature scientist with an adult IQ of 130 is as likely to win a Nobel Prize as is one whose IQ is 180.' " Beth Benoit Granite State College Plymouth State University New Hampshire --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]) ________________________________ This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
