Ricardo's argument: If Samantha learns her intelligence quotient (IQ), she might decide she is so smart that she doesn't need to work, thereby ensuring that she won't do well. Or, Samantha might be afraid to work because if she does try and doesn't get all "A"s, she might believe the score is "wrong." The idea here is that it's vitally important to convey the message that the key to any achievement in life lies in working hard (as the saying goes, "Genius is 99 percent perspiration and 1 percent inspiration"). Finally, telling Samantha she is a genius may make her feel that she is superior to the other kids, potentially wreaking havoc on her personality and/or social relationships.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

(1) Proponents of "g" believe that the standard intelligence test taps into an all-encompassing (genetic) "intelligence" that applies to every life domain. Sternberg feels that these tests do damage because if you label someone as average or below average, you treat them as if they are "not so good," and their IQ really does decline. He also argues that intelligence tests are too narrow, only measuring analytic intelligence, not creativity or practical intelligence, and each of these intelligences are separate, important, and weigh heavily in being "successful in life." Gardner, in contrast, believes there are eight or nine separate "intelligences." (2) The problem is that these alternate ideas about intelligence are arbitrary, and they don't offer better information than standard tests about that all-important childhood criterion for being intelligent: school. (3) This is up to the students. Their answers will vary, but look for a cogent argument!