A nice idea trashed in a most amusing way

Associate Professor Christopher J. Ferguson has written an article titled "Not Every Child Is Secretly a Genius". By Jove, what could you possibly mean by this professor? That the kiddies down the road who spend their school holidays getting busted for trying to shoplift chocolate bars might not have what it takes to get a PhD one day? Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences is nothing more than a socialist's fantasy, with no scientific basis? But so many school teachers appear to respect that idea. Perhaps they feel that they have to be seen to be supporting that idea? Perhaps we are no longer obliged to pay lip service to such nonsense anymore?

I know that the special skills of savants (generally autistic) have been cited as evidence supporting the theory of multiple intelligences, as savants have been characterized as having isolated cognitive areas of brilliance set against a background of abysmally low general cognitive ability. This is the tripe that I was taught many years ago as a first-year uni psych student (in fact, the "idiot savant" was the only mention of the entire autistic spectrum that I came across during my years studying psychology at what is regarded as an elite university). Because the special talent of a savant appeared to be one distinct area of much higher intelligence, this was taken as evidence that human intelligence could be broken down into separate modules. But there are many problems with the idea of the "idiot savant" and it's use to shore up the idea of multiple intelligences. Firstly, it is now known that standard intelligence tests do a poor job of measuring autistic intelligence, as much of the content of these tests require social and communication skills. So we can't be sure that those so-called idiot savants were really as idiotic as they have been described in the past. Another problem is the controversy about what is the basis of savant skills - are they the result of years of sharply focused interest and repetitive work, or are they mysterious, innate brain-based gifts? Are savant skills the result of extraordinary motivation or extraordinarily unusual brains, or a combination of both? In his radio interview and his article, Associate Professor Ferguson has claimed that "the theory of multiple intelligences fundamentally conflates intelligence and motivation". I would argue that just as some of Gardner's categories of intelligences are more the result of specific motivation than specialized cognitive gifts, savant skills could be as much the product of application and enthusiasm as freaky cognition. It's a pity Ferguson did not mention autism or savants in this piece, because I believe the autistic spectrum is an area that any theory about human intelligence needs to address, but it is still worth a read.

The article in The Chronicle Review Not Every Child Is Secretly a Genius
(If you have been reading Daniel Tammet's latest book about how everyone can learn to be a genius, you may wish like to read this article to get that saccharine taste out of your mouth)
http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i39/39ferguson.htm

Chris Ferguson interviewed on Counterpoint on ABC Radio National:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2618066.htm