Practice these steps, and you might just find that you start to find talents that were previously unrecognised. If you are looking for inspiration, consider Sternberg. As a child at elementary school, he flunked an IQ test and generally failed to impress academically.
Thanks to that support, he is now a professor at Cornell. In Depth Psychology. A five-step guide to not being stupid. Share using Email. By David Robson 23rd April Even the smartest people can be fools. David Robson explains how to avoid the most common traps of sloppy thinking. A new way to think The problem, says Robert Sternberg at Cornell University, is that our education system is not designed to teach us to think in a way that is useful for the rest of life.
Their insights could help all of us — whatever our intelligence — to be a little less stupid: 1. How much does the ball cost?
The vast majority of people respond quickly and confidently, insisting the ball costs ten cents. This answer is both obvious and wrong. The correct answer is five cents for the ball and a dollar and five cents for the bat.
For more than five decades, Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Laureate and professor of psychology at Princeton, has been asking questions like this and analyzing our answers. His disarmingly simple experiments have profoundly changed the way we think about thinking. Instead, their decisions depend on a long list of mental shortcuts, which often lead them to make foolish decisions.
Asked about the bat and the ball, we forget our arithmetic lessons and instead default to the answer that requires the least mental effort.
Although Kahneman is now widely recognized as one of the most influential psychologists of the twentieth century, his work was dismissed for years. That leaves us with early education, which, when done right—and for poor children, it rarely is—seems to largely overcome whatever cognitive and emotional deficits poverty and other environmental circumstances impart in the first years of life. As instantiated most famously by the Perry Preschool Project in Ypsilanti, Michigan, in the s; more recently by the Educare program in Chicago; and by dozens of experimental programs in between, early education done right means beginning at the age of 3 or earlier, with teachers who are well trained in the particular demands of early education.
These high-quality programs have been closely studied, some for decades. Unfortunately, Head Start and other public early-education programs rarely come close to this level of quality, and are nowhere near universal. In lieu of excellent early education, we have embraced a more familiar strategy for closing the intelligence gap. Some of the money pouring into educational reform might be diverted to creating more top-notch vocational-education programs today called career and technical education, or CTE.
Right now only one in 20 U. And these schools are increasingly oversubscribed. Although 2, students apply to the school annually, the CTE program has room for fewer than The applicant pool is winnowed down through a lottery, but academic test scores play a role, too. Worse, many CTE schools are increasingly emphasizing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, at risk of undercutting their ability to aid students who struggle academically—rather than those who want to burnish their already excellent college and career prospects.
It would be far better to maintain a focus on food management, office administration, health technology, and, sure, the classic trades—all updated to incorporate computerized tools. We must stop glorifying intelligence and treating our society as a playground for the smart minority.
We should instead begin shaping our economy, our schools, even our culture with an eye to the abilities and needs of the majority, and to the full range of human capacity. The research is sometimes complicated by the rising cultural desire to seem smart to impress others. No one ever answers a question with "I don't know. As Dunning notes, when test subjects explain their knowledge of totally concocted scientific principles, they are even more sure of the knowledge.
This is called Stupidity Squared. You claim knowledge and certainty about a preposterous illusion. In fact, the more well versed respondents considered themselves in a general topic, the more familiarity they claimed with the meaningless terms associated with it in the survey. Terrible chess players always believe they are pretty darn good.
They cannot. Those who fall in the bottom 10 percent of knowledge about everything from grammar to politics to nuclear physics always believe they are in the 60th percentile. They even think they know what "percentile" means, but they don't.
The research has profound effects on public policy.
0コメント