I recall one study in which students who tested as “dumb” were placed into gifted classrooms, and students who tested as “smart” were placed into remedial classes; the teachers were none the wiser and had no resume to assume that something was afoot. After a year of teaching, “dumb” students tested “smart” and “smart” students tested “dumb”.
Anyone know whether this study actually exists? It sounds rather unethical; how did they get permission to do it? If it took place in the US I'm sure you'd have a pretty big lawsuit on your hands.
I read about at least one study (different description, illustrating the same principle) where they gave a set of teachers a list of students' names with numbers next to them. Apparently it was implied (or just not stated, which would be similar here) that the numbers were test scores or IQs. Sure enough, there was a strong correlation between the number by the student's name and how well s/he tested after a year.
The numbers were random, of course. Specifically, they were locker numbers.
Locker numbers aren't entirely randoom - while it seems unlikely there'd be a correlation, I'm surprised they didn't just use real random numbers to rule that out.
Maybe walking further between classes makes people more likely to be late and less prepared to pay attention?
Thanks for that. I find the idea of a small effect to be totally plausible. But the results of the supposed study as described, in which one year of being treated as smart was able to turn dumb kids smart, and vice versa, along with the questionable ethics of allowing anyone to perform such a study in the first place, leads me to dismiss it as an urban myth until proven otherwise.
Don't know the study, but it seems worth pointing out that it probably didn't show dumb kids becoming smart and vice versa - it showed kids who were previously perceived as dumb to become perceived as smart, and vice versa.
I don't actually understand why it should be unethical? This happens all the time, at least in my country: pupils are sorted into different schools according to their perceived smartness (higher education or "lower" education). That might well be unethical, and such studies seem to be a good way to find out about it.
I don't actually understand why it should be unethical?
Because you are deliberately taking children identified as smart, and putting them in a group which is taught slowly, intending to slow them enough to see if they show up as dumb.
Essentially, wasting a year of their lives / schooling.
It's only unethical if you have hard data showing that one group would be poorly served by that division. You can't really get a read on that without doing these sorts of studies.
"A healthy concept of self-esteem will allow you to switch between high-status and low-status roles as necessary; insecurity should not prevent you from taking on a high or low-status role, whether in the theater or real life. Well, according to the Bard, they’re the same thing."
I assume he's talking about Shakespeare? To what is he referring?
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages. "
Might it not be more correct to suggest that statues corresponds to some inate ability rather than believe in some probably unrealistic hypothesis that statues is merely acting? The latter seems to appeal more to such ideals as individuals have unlimited power, so much so that they can rise from a low statues to a high statues by no real effort to change the external world but merely their internal psychological perception.
It is very much ridiculous I suspect. Especially as he begins with a description of personality where he makes it very clear that the traits are not internal but rather respond to external circumstances. I suspect however even here that there are some innate traits which differentiate in some level ones response to a circumstance from another's.
I understand that the article seemed to be reviewing a book or a theatre play, but that seems to be only the springboard as the content focuses more on explaining some very complex phenomena. Needles to say, the article is merely opinions and as such should probably not have been written at all. We live in a scientific age. We all have opinions, but very little of us have facts or the willingness to synthesise facts into a meaningful whole.
Anyone know whether this study actually exists? It sounds rather unethical; how did they get permission to do it? If it took place in the US I'm sure you'd have a pretty big lawsuit on your hands.