Dear John Kulig
Thank you for your answer
Your point was very important for clarifying better some points.
You said you still do not understand the deficit part. I think you can change
the word "deficit" for "gifted" in any trait. In my view the central question is
really if we assume that humans differ in
traits or if the differ "organically", in a gestalt way. Psychometrics views
never point to a gestalt difference between individuals and so the differences
psychometrics point are transformed in deficits or gifts. And these are the main
figures we give attention. And so in a fenomenological view we can not identify
ourselves or our own experience with that view.
I hope my English had being understandable.
With my best cumpliments
Jose Ferreira-Alves
Department of Psychology
University of Minho
Campus de Gualtar
4700 Braga
Portugal
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.uminho.pt
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How I perceive psychometrics?
From: John W. Kulig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at Mensageiro
Date: 99/03/31 15:41
Ferreira Alves wrote:
> Dear Paul Brandon, Michael Silvester and all colleagues
>
> I am agree with Michael when he asserts that psycometrics assumes deficits
> instead differences.
>
> And for me this is a major issue in interpreting or when we give to someone
> information based on psychometrics. Even if the great majority of person who
> work within a psychometric view do not point deficits to individuals, the
social
> interpretation, the social consctruction of those data is mainly in that
sense
> of deficit. What is missing probably to most psychometricians is an awereness
> that when they do psychometrics they are doing and practising a particular
view
> of human being. This view could be summarized in this way: "personal,
> intelectual, or afective caracterisitcs of individuals exist in some
quantity;
> then some individuals are more able, others are more unable in certain
traits".
> This view could be not sensible to the views of most psychometricians. But I
> tend to believe that it is in this sense that it is constructed.
It's an interesting point, but I still do not understand the deficit part.
With IQ, we usually think of deficit only with you are below average. In the
case of very low IQs (e.g. Down's syndrome children) it is natural thinking of
deficit because their intellectual processes are not working in the usual
manner ("usual" = when all chromosomes are in place). But with IQs above 140,
as was the case with Terman's "termites", we view them as having extra
horsepower. We usually don't think of those in the "middle" (within a SD) as
being deficient.
--
* John W. Kulig, Department of Psychology ************************
* Plymouth State College Plymouth NH 03264 *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://oz.plymouth.edu/~kulig *
*******************************************************************
* "Eat bread and salt and speak the truth" Russian proverb *
*******************************************************************
