Special talents and defects : $b Their significance for educationHollingworth, Leta Stetter
Science
Special talents and defects : $b Their significance for education
Hollingworth, Leta Stetter
Educational psychology; Educational tests and measurements; Exceptional children
The net result, for our purposes, of studies so far made of mental decay
is not very helpful, because (1) the original status of the subjects is
never known, (2) the psychoses have been mixed in experiment, without
preliminary test-knowledge of the characteristics of each, if any, and
(3) the method of correlation, which has been used, is not suited to
show selective enfeeblement of mental functions. Every study made has
suffered from one or more of these hindrances to interpretation. The
information gleaned from them is much the same as that already gleaned
from studies of the undeteriorated, namely, that among people (whether
sane or insane) those who hold a certain rank within a group in one
function tend also to hold a similar rank within that group in other
functions. The question of _selective_ enfeeblement of a function within
a group of the insane remains unanswered. The investigators of the
demented have, however, made a particular contribution in pointing the
way to a new source of light. For the study of mental decay, when
carried on by adequate methods, extremely difficult of attainment, is
sure to throw light on the relationships among mental functions. From it
we shall learn whether some functions remain intact, with impairment of
other functions.
V. IS INTELLECT INHERITED AS A UNIT?
There are still other approaches to the study of the constitution of
intellect. One is through the investigation of heredity. The question is
whether intellect is inherited as a unit, or whether some different
formula is indicated. If intellect is a unit character, subject to but
one determiner in the germ-plasm, then it should act as an “all or none”
capacity in its appearance among offspring of given matings. Children
should be separable into distinct groups, each having a different median
with respect to intellect, _i.e._ those who have intellect and those who
lack it.
The methods of mental measurement teach us plainly that intellect is not
inherited in this way. Instead of a broken curve, indicating a division
of children into those who inherit and those who fail to inherit a unit
character, we obtain the curve already demonstrated, which is continuous
and symmetrical. There is but one diversified group of children, with
respect to intellect—not distinct groups.
The inheritance of intellect does not, therefore, follow the simple
formula of unit characters, as does the shape of peas, the color of
rabbits’ coats, or eye-color in man. The trait we measure and name as
general intelligence is a complex, resulting from the incidence of a
great number of functions, acting together in a great number of ways,
yet cohering in respect to amounts found in given individuals.
Possibly each of the indefinitely numerous functions, which thus appear
to act together as man’s intellect, may be a unit character, inherited
according to Mendel’s formula. Such a possibility is at present purely
speculative.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account