Nature Vs. Nurture: The Flynn Effect
What is the Flynn Effect, and how does it relate to the nature vs nurture intelligence debate? The Flynn Effect was named after James Flynn discovered the effect. It describes how every decade IQ points go up by 3 points and how the average IQ has risen one deviation all over the world since World War II (Niesser 1977). This relates in the nature vs. nurture intelligence debate because people are trying to figure out why humans seem to be getting smarter and whether it’s because we are a product of our environment or genetically becoming more capable. Although, there are studies, such as the one conducted at the University of Virginia, that state we are both a product of nature and nurture. It’s been found that the Flynn effect correlate
…show more content…
with more nurture factors than nature. A study suggests that the Flynn effect could be a cause of people seeking higher education, technological advances in society, parent’s having more interest in their children’s cognitive development and better nutrition (Neisser, 1977). While some consider that fact that our genetics might actually be evolving based on human advances stating that, “we must have some genetic base for intelligence in order to develop and manipulate the ever changing advances in technology (Neisser 1977) ”. Meaning that in order to survive in the world we live in today our genetics have evolved causing our IQs to raise with each generation and leading to an overall smarter population and species. Although, the reasoning support nurture, many have already concluded, as I previously mentioned that in some cases the traits we have acquired are because of both nurture and nature not just on or the other. But, it’s comforting to know that regardless of what happens in politics, media or pop culture that society is still advancing with each generation having more talent and intelligence to offer to the next.
Using the overjustification effect, how do you predict each group of children will play with the pens when the prizes are removed a week later?
Wikipedia describes the overjustification effect as, “when an expected external incentive such as money or prizes decreases a person's intrinsic motivation to perform a task. The overall effect of offering a reward for a previously unrewarded activity is a shift to extrinsic motivation and the undermining of pre-existing intrinsic motivation. Once rewards are no longer offered, interest in the activity is lost; prior intrinsic motivation does not return, and extrinsic rewards must be continuously offered as motivation to sustain the activity.” Basically, this is stating that when you do enjoy an activity just for the sheer pleasure of it you have created motivation for yourself to do it. However, when you get a reward for that activity you are less motivate than before when you were doing it out of sheer pleasure. Based on this principle the children in the first group who enjoyed the pens and then were later rewarded for doing so, will enjoy the pens less and might be less motivated to play with the felt pens. But, the children who play with the felt pens and were not rewarded will feel equally as motivated and either enjoy the pens the same way the previously did or even more than they previously did. The self perception theory believes that this is because the person has convinced themselves that they only enjoy the task (such as playing with a pen) because they are being rewarded (Aronson, 2006). This switches their motivation from being intrinsic (doing it for the joy of it) to extrinsic (doing it to get their reward) (Aronson, 2006). This however, can be contradicted by the simple idea that reinforcement promotes enjoyable behavior and some scientist claim the results of the overjustification effect only occur “in a specific, restricted set of conditions that could be easily avoided” (Eisenberg, 1996). But, this point can be argued by the idea of behaviorism. Behaviorist found and agreed that it’s not simply an argument of intrinsic motivation or extrinsic motivation but, a consistency of behavior. There are countless situations that show it’s a simple fact that awarded behavior or previously - awarded behaviors tend to become less frequent (Bylan, 2015). After considering both ideas however, I still believe the children who were rewarded will enjoy the pens less than those who weren’t rewarded but still gained happiness from the felt pen.
We know all living creatures learn by cause and effect (behaviorism), but can you find an example of social learning in animals? What species engaged in the learning, and what did they learn? There are may experiments involving behaviorism and social learning in animals. However, I’d like to focus on a specific on involving opportunity providing and rats, black rats (Alsner, 1992). Opportunity providing can be described as a social learning mechanism in which the experienced individual puts the observer in a situation that facilitates the acquisition of knowledge or a new skill (Hoppit, 2013). In simple terms, it’s when an organism is placed in a situation that requires it to learn a new skill. This tactic was used by Joseph Turkel at Tel Aviv University (Alsner, 1992). Researchers decided to conduct this study after seeing black rats in Israel opening up pinecones and nuts as if they were squirrels (Alsner, 1992). Curious about how the rats learned this behavior, the researchers did the experiment to see if this was attributed to learning or genetics. The first one they conducted had black rats who were not from the environment and presented them with a pinecone. Those rats didn’t seem to understand and tried to eat the pine cone itself, they continued and next decided to show that rats a black rat opening the pinecone. The black rats seem to understand the concept but, were unable to do the task. However, if the rats were given a half opened pinecone they were able to complete the task. (Terkel, 1996). Eventually, many black rats could open the pinecones and understood to eat what was inside if the pinecone itself was shaved (Terkel, 1996). This is just one of many incredible instances that shows the even though human are evolved, they are not alone in their social behaviors and learning. Black rats, orangutans and even guppies have all been able to be observed and were found to participate in social learning conducted through experiments.
After looking at the work of Loftus and Palmer, should eyewitness testimony be admissible in court? Why or why not?
Loftus and Palmer’s work on eyewitness testimony done in 1974 has shown how eyewitnesses can be manipulated by words and may have a critical effect on the outcome of trials that rely on their testimonies.
The study consisted of the researchers showing 45 subjects a video of a car accident and using different words when asking the questions to different groups. The first question was “about how fast were the cars going when they _____ into each other?” They used words such as collided, bumped, hit and contacted. The participants gave answers that seem to accelerate the speed depending on the severity of the word (Loftus & Palmer, 1974). For instance, when the word contacted was used the group assumed the speed was an average of about 31.8; however, when the word smashed was used the group assumed the speed was an average of about 40.5 (Loftus & Palmer, 1974). In addition to this, in a later experiment when the subject were asked if they saw any broken glass the subjects who received more severe words (like smashed) said yes while the ones who were asked with a less harsh word ( like contacted) said no (Loftus & Palmer, 1974). The reality was there wasn’t any broken glass at all. While, eye - witness testimonies are necessary for many cases this shows how anyone including a lawyers, policemen or even a judge can purposely manipulate someone’s mind in order to convey a story that might illustrate the story in their favor. However, it’s a bit unrealistic to prohibit …show more content…
eyewitness testimony from all cases. Instead, officials involved in the case should be asked to use words that are impartial or unbiased and that would not subject the case to manipulation. The reality is that our brains make associations with words and their is no way to make sure that an eyewitness’s memory is accurate or that the words aren’t affecting them. However, it should be monitored to make sure that lawyers and other official aren’t using the finding in Loftus and Palmer’s case to their advantage.
What is the Flynn Effect, and how does it relate to the nature vs nurture intelligence debate? The Flynn Effect was named after James Flynn discovered the effect.
It describes how every decade IQ points go up by 3 points and how the average IQ has risen one deviation all over the world since World War II (Niesser 1977). This relates in the nature vs. nurture intelligence debate because people are trying to figure out why humans seem to be getting smarter and whether it’s because we are a product of our environment or genetically becoming more capable. Although, there are studies, such as the one conducted at the University of Virginia, that state we are both a product of nature and nurture. It’s been found that the Flynn effect correlate with more nurture factors than nature. A study suggests that the Flynn effect could be a cause of people seeking higher education, technological advances in society, parent’s having more interest in their children’s cognitive development and better nutrition (Neisser, 1977). While some consider that fact that our genetics might actually be evolving based on human advances stating that, “we must have some genetic base for intelligence in order to develop and manipulate the ever changing advances in technology (Neisser 1977) ”. Meaning that in order to survive in the world we live in today our genetics have evolved causing our IQs to raise with each generation and leading to an overall smarter population and species. Although, the reasoning support nurture, many have already concluded, as I previously mentioned that in some cases
the traits we have acquired are because of both nurture and nature not just on or the other. But, it’s comforting to know that regardless of what happens in politics, media or pop culture that society is still advancing with each generation having more talent and intelligence to offer to the next.
with more nurture factors than nature. A study suggests that the Flynn effect could be a cause of people seeking higher education, technological advances in society, parent’s having more interest in their children’s cognitive development and better nutrition (Neisser, 1977). While some consider that fact that our genetics might actually be evolving based on human advances stating that, “we must have some genetic base for intelligence in order to develop and manipulate the ever changing advances in technology (Neisser 1977) ”. Meaning that in order to survive in the world we live in today our genetics have evolved causing our IQs to raise with each generation and leading to an overall smarter population and species. Although, the reasoning support nurture, many have already concluded, as I previously mentioned that in some cases the traits we have acquired are because of both nurture and nature not just on or the other. But, it’s comforting to know that regardless of what happens in politics, media or pop culture that society is still advancing with each generation having more talent and intelligence to offer to the next.
Using the overjustification effect, how do you predict each group of children will play with the pens when the prizes are removed a week later?
Wikipedia describes the overjustification effect as, “when an expected external incentive such as money or prizes decreases a person's intrinsic motivation to perform a task. The overall effect of offering a reward for a previously unrewarded activity is a shift to extrinsic motivation and the undermining of pre-existing intrinsic motivation. Once rewards are no longer offered, interest in the activity is lost; prior intrinsic motivation does not return, and extrinsic rewards must be continuously offered as motivation to sustain the activity.” Basically, this is stating that when you do enjoy an activity just for the sheer pleasure of it you have created motivation for yourself to do it. However, when you get a reward for that activity you are less motivate than before when you were doing it out of sheer pleasure. Based on this principle the children in the first group who enjoyed the pens and then were later rewarded for doing so, will enjoy the pens less and might be less motivated to play with the felt pens. But, the children who play with the felt pens and were not rewarded will feel equally as motivated and either enjoy the pens the same way the previously did or even more than they previously did. The self perception theory believes that this is because the person has convinced themselves that they only enjoy the task (such as playing with a pen) because they are being rewarded (Aronson, 2006). This switches their motivation from being intrinsic (doing it for the joy of it) to extrinsic (doing it to get their reward) (Aronson, 2006). This however, can be contradicted by the simple idea that reinforcement promotes enjoyable behavior and some scientist claim the results of the overjustification effect only occur “in a specific, restricted set of conditions that could be easily avoided” (Eisenberg, 1996). But, this point can be argued by the idea of behaviorism. Behaviorist found and agreed that it’s not simply an argument of intrinsic motivation or extrinsic motivation but, a consistency of behavior. There are countless situations that show it’s a simple fact that awarded behavior or previously - awarded behaviors tend to become less frequent (Bylan, 2015). After considering both ideas however, I still believe the children who were rewarded will enjoy the pens less than those who weren’t rewarded but still gained happiness from the felt pen.
We know all living creatures learn by cause and effect (behaviorism), but can you find an example of social learning in animals? What species engaged in the learning, and what did they learn? There are may experiments involving behaviorism and social learning in animals. However, I’d like to focus on a specific on involving opportunity providing and rats, black rats (Alsner, 1992). Opportunity providing can be described as a social learning mechanism in which the experienced individual puts the observer in a situation that facilitates the acquisition of knowledge or a new skill (Hoppit, 2013). In simple terms, it’s when an organism is placed in a situation that requires it to learn a new skill. This tactic was used by Joseph Turkel at Tel Aviv University (Alsner, 1992). Researchers decided to conduct this study after seeing black rats in Israel opening up pinecones and nuts as if they were squirrels (Alsner, 1992). Curious about how the rats learned this behavior, the researchers did the experiment to see if this was attributed to learning or genetics. The first one they conducted had black rats who were not from the environment and presented them with a pinecone. Those rats didn’t seem to understand and tried to eat the pine cone itself, they continued and next decided to show that rats a black rat opening the pinecone. The black rats seem to understand the concept but, were unable to do the task. However, if the rats were given a half opened pinecone they were able to complete the task. (Terkel, 1996). Eventually, many black rats could open the pinecones and understood to eat what was inside if the pinecone itself was shaved (Terkel, 1996). This is just one of many incredible instances that shows the even though human are evolved, they are not alone in their social behaviors and learning. Black rats, orangutans and even guppies have all been able to be observed and were found to participate in social learning conducted through experiments.
After looking at the work of Loftus and Palmer, should eyewitness testimony be admissible in court? Why or why not?
Loftus and Palmer’s work on eyewitness testimony done in 1974 has shown how eyewitnesses can be manipulated by words and may have a critical effect on the outcome of trials that rely on their testimonies.
The study consisted of the researchers showing 45 subjects a video of a car accident and using different words when asking the questions to different groups. The first question was “about how fast were the cars going when they _____ into each other?” They used words such as collided, bumped, hit and contacted. The participants gave answers that seem to accelerate the speed depending on the severity of the word (Loftus & Palmer, 1974). For instance, when the word contacted was used the group assumed the speed was an average of about 31.8; however, when the word smashed was used the group assumed the speed was an average of about 40.5 (Loftus & Palmer, 1974). In addition to this, in a later experiment when the subject were asked if they saw any broken glass the subjects who received more severe words (like smashed) said yes while the ones who were asked with a less harsh word ( like contacted) said no (Loftus & Palmer, 1974). The reality was there wasn’t any broken glass at all. While, eye - witness testimonies are necessary for many cases this shows how anyone including a lawyers, policemen or even a judge can purposely manipulate someone’s mind in order to convey a story that might illustrate the story in their favor. However, it’s a bit unrealistic to prohibit …show more content…
eyewitness testimony from all cases. Instead, officials involved in the case should be asked to use words that are impartial or unbiased and that would not subject the case to manipulation. The reality is that our brains make associations with words and their is no way to make sure that an eyewitness’s memory is accurate or that the words aren’t affecting them. However, it should be monitored to make sure that lawyers and other official aren’t using the finding in Loftus and Palmer’s case to their advantage.
What is the Flynn Effect, and how does it relate to the nature vs nurture intelligence debate? The Flynn Effect was named after James Flynn discovered the effect.
It describes how every decade IQ points go up by 3 points and how the average IQ has risen one deviation all over the world since World War II (Niesser 1977). This relates in the nature vs. nurture intelligence debate because people are trying to figure out why humans seem to be getting smarter and whether it’s because we are a product of our environment or genetically becoming more capable. Although, there are studies, such as the one conducted at the University of Virginia, that state we are both a product of nature and nurture. It’s been found that the Flynn effect correlate with more nurture factors than nature. A study suggests that the Flynn effect could be a cause of people seeking higher education, technological advances in society, parent’s having more interest in their children’s cognitive development and better nutrition (Neisser, 1977). While some consider that fact that our genetics might actually be evolving based on human advances stating that, “we must have some genetic base for intelligence in order to develop and manipulate the ever changing advances in technology (Neisser 1977) ”. Meaning that in order to survive in the world we live in today our genetics have evolved causing our IQs to raise with each generation and leading to an overall smarter population and species. Although, the reasoning support nurture, many have already concluded, as I previously mentioned that in some cases
the traits we have acquired are because of both nurture and nature not just on or the other. But, it’s comforting to know that regardless of what happens in politics, media or pop culture that society is still advancing with each generation having more talent and intelligence to offer to the next.