Hello again,
For those of you that have been assigned the Mendoza-Denton article, you will soon find out, if you haven't already, that it is not in the reader. Instead, you will find it in the dropbox, ready to be downloaded.
Hey Jeremiah, I was wondering if I could do a response to this Mendoza-Denton article as a makeup for my blog response last week? I didn't know which article to cover, so I chose one that we hadn't covered yet and just discussed my issues with the article. Thanks, Ruby
James Watson remarks how he is “inherently gloomy about the prospects of Africa” in an interview with the Times (London). Mendoza-Denton takes this to mean that inherent intelligence is unequal between the races, but I think he is reading into Watson’s statement. The language of the selected passage is vague: “intelligence” and “testing” can take on different meanings in this context, and they are not clearly defined. I think it is fair to say that Europeans and Americans are generally more intelligent because of our societal structure and social conditioning, but that does not to me imply that this intelligence is inherent because of their race. I think that Mendoza-Denton should include more textual evidence from Watson’s article in order for Watson’s comments to be better understood and to grasp the full meaning of his sentiments. Assuming that he meant that one race is inherently inferior to the other, I found it very interesting the way that the approach to testing defied this idea. Just reminding students of the stereotypes surrounding them caused them to do better or worse on a test. Mendoza-Denton’s conclusion, however, is that by teaching students that academic ability is malleable, all students will benefit. He cites an example earlier, however, in which positive stereotypes about inherent intelligence actually boost test scores above where they would have been had the students not been reminded of this stereotype. When Asian women were reminded of the stereotype that Asians were inherently better at math, their test scores improved. So I don’t think it’s fair to say that stereotypes of innate intelligence are all negative. I do strongly agree that relationships are an integral part of reducing prejudice and therefore making students feel like they belong at the school they attend. I don’t think the connection between intellectual abilities and prejudice is very strong, as I think most people believe that prejudice is something socially conditioned. I think that breaking down prejudices can help break down “achievement gaps,” but I don’t think this makes that case for intelligence being malleable because prejudices also are.
Hey Jeremiah,
ReplyDeleteI was wondering if I could do a response to this Mendoza-Denton article as a makeup for my blog response last week? I didn't know which article to cover, so I chose one that we hadn't covered yet and just discussed my issues with the article.
Thanks,
Ruby
James Watson remarks how he is “inherently gloomy about the prospects of Africa” in an interview with the Times (London). Mendoza-Denton takes this to mean that inherent intelligence is unequal between the races, but I think he is reading into Watson’s statement. The language of the selected passage is vague: “intelligence” and “testing” can take on different meanings in this context, and they are not clearly defined. I think it is fair to say that Europeans and Americans are generally more intelligent because of our societal structure and social conditioning, but that does not to me imply that this intelligence is inherent because of their race. I think that Mendoza-Denton should include more textual evidence from Watson’s article in order for Watson’s comments to be better understood and to grasp the full meaning of his sentiments. Assuming that he meant that one race is inherently inferior to the other, I found it very interesting the way that the approach to testing defied this idea. Just reminding students of the stereotypes surrounding them caused them to do better or worse on a test. Mendoza-Denton’s conclusion, however, is that by teaching students that academic ability is malleable, all students will benefit. He cites an example earlier, however, in which positive stereotypes about inherent intelligence actually boost test scores above where they would have been had the students not been reminded of this stereotype. When Asian women were reminded of the stereotype that Asians were inherently better at math, their test scores improved. So I don’t think it’s fair to say that stereotypes of innate intelligence are all negative. I do strongly agree that relationships are an integral part of reducing prejudice and therefore making students feel like they belong at the school they attend. I don’t think the connection between intellectual abilities and prejudice is very strong, as I think most people believe that prejudice is something socially conditioned. I think that breaking down prejudices can help break down “achievement gaps,” but I don’t think this makes that case for intelligence being malleable because prejudices also are.