Brak wkładu własnego
Wpis zamieszczony (lub przeniesiony) do grupy "Brak wkładu własnego" oznacza, że autor wpisu nie zadał sobie trudu samemu spróbować poradzić sobie z zadaniem lub prośba o tłumaczenie została przepuszczona przez Google Translator. Jeśli ktoś z użytkowników forum ma czas i ochotę może odpisać na taki wpis ale jeśli takiej odpowiedzi nie będzie - nie ma co się denerwować - po prostu nikomu nie chce się odrabiać zadań za kogoś ;-)
Dlatego zachęcamy do własnych prób - szansa na odpowiedź jest znacznie większa.
Dobry wieczór, bardzo proszę o pomoc w streszczeniu.
Read the text. How did Sternberg first became interested in IQ tests? Where did his
triarchic theory intelligence arise from?
“The Triarchic Mind” : Yale Psychologist Defines Three Types of Intelligence
Remember sitting in class and noticing how Alice up front always raised her hand, always knew the right answer? Remember thinking that in some undefined way you were better than she was: maybe more human, maybe more street-smart, or at least better at knock hockey?
You may have been right, says Robert S. Sternberg, a Yale University psychologist whose recent book, “The Triarchic Mind: A New Theory of Human Intelligence” explains why. The book defines and analyzes three kinds of intelligence – internal (such as Alice’s), the crea- tive experiential type and the street-smart contextual variety – saying that Alice’s kind is only part of the story and doesn’t mean a lot for her future success.
Sternberg’s field is cognitive science, a discipline made up of researchers in psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, anthropology, linguistics and the neurosciences. These people, he says, “are trying to figure out what goes on in our heads when we bring our intelligence to bear on a problem.” Sternberg has been fascinated by intelligence tests since his childhood, when he did terribly on them.
IQ Tests Criticized
Since the 1960s people have criticized IQ tests as being too bound by white Western culture and as neglecting certain kinds of achievement. But that wasn’t enough for Stern- berg, who seems to revel in turning experience into an analyzed quantity.
Sternberg’s early frustration with intelligence tests led him to a seventh-grade science project on intelligence testing. In graduate school in the 1970s, he wrote a Barron’s guide, “How To Prepare for the Miller Analogy Test,” which kept him thinking about the steps people go through in using their minds.
Analogy tests ask for the answer to problems such as “stubborn is to mule as fickle is to: (a) chameleon (b) salamander (c) tadpole (d) frog.” Whether you answer the question quickly or slowly, the way you answer it is complex.
First, you translate the problem into a mental representation: Stubbornness is a quality; a mule and the reptiles and amphibians listed are animals with various characteristics. Then you think about the relationship between the first term and the second – mules are often considered stubborn, so much so that they are metaphors for stubbornness.
You relate the two halves of the analogy: If mules are metaphors for stubbornness, what is a metaphor for fickleness? Finally, you must apply the relationships and give an answer: Fickleness is constant change. Tadpoles change into frogs, but both “tadpoles” and “frogs” are answers, so they can’t be right; anyway, a tadpole changes only once. But chameleons change color all the time. And you probably know that they have been used as a meta- phor for fickleness. There’s the answer.