Jump to content

Intelligence and How to Get It

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Backendgaming (talk | contribs) at 06:58, 26 September 2017 (removed Category:Race and intelligence controversy; added Category:Books about The Bell Curve using HotCat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Intelligence and How to Get It
AuthorRichard Nisbett
SubjectIntelligence
GenreNonfiction
PublisherW. W. Norton & Company
Publication date
2009
Pages304
ISBN0393071413
Preceded byThe Geography of Thought (2003) 

Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count is a 2009 book about human intelligence by Richard Nisbett, a professor of social psychology at the University of Michigan. The book challenges the hereditarians' argument that IQ is entirely or almost entirely heritable, and argues that nonhereditary factors play a more significant role than hereditarians assert.[1][2] It also recommends how to tutor children so as to maximize their intelligence.[3] The book also argues that IQ scores are a reliable, though imperfect, indicator of general intelligence, while criticizing some of the assertions made about such scores in the 1994 book the Bell Curve. The book's appendix argues that racial differences in IQ are entirely due to environmental factors.[4]

Reviews

Writing for the New York Times, Jim Holt described the book as "a meticulous and eye-opening critique of hereditarianism."[1] The book was criticized by prominent hereditarians J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen in a 2010 article. In the article, Rushton and Jensen concluded that racial differences in IQ and other life history traits exist, and that "The group differences are between 50 and 80% heritable."[5] Another unfavorable review of the book was written by psychologist James J. Lee, who concluded that "Nisbett’s arguments are consistently overstated or unsound."[6] Earl B. Hunt reviewed the book in the journal Intelligence, writing that "Nisbett is writing for a general audience. He does so very well" and that "Nisbett is a very good writer, but he is a combative writer." He also criticized Nisbett for repeatedly citing unnamed "experts".[7]

References