PGCC Being Smart Is Factual in Different Cultures Discussion

Description Reply: Do you agree with the analysis presented? Why? Do you have some additional thoughts on the topic? Share them. When providing your feedback present the logic behind it. Topic 1 Is intelligence fluid and is the concept of “being smart” defined by cultures differently? Expand on your answer and Provide at least one example. Overall, the concept of ‘’being smart’’ is defined by cultures differently. However, the most common thought of intelligence is that it is all cultures attempt at defining the cognitive skills one has achieved in their given cultural context (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004). Therefore, in my opinion intelligence is not fluid. For instance, someone from a culture that is mostly solving problems in there day to day life but struggle with academics may be still seen as intelligent due to the way they apply certain strategies to solving those issues that they encounter. To further expand on this, think of a person who has bills to pay every month, however they have a limited income and they come up with a strategy to keep the lights, gas, food in the refrigerator, and the roof over their head, however in school they struggled with mathematics to the point where they dropped the class. This alone shows how they can clearly be intelligent in the aspect of application, but not academically. Another example would be someone who is extremely good at academics however, if they had to apply what they knew academically to real world day to day living, they struggle. This person is still intelligent in the eyes of an academic context however they are not in the aspect of application. Thus, why I feel that the theory of successful intelligence is a very great way of thinking of intelligent. The theory of intelligence is the ability of someone to achieve success in life in terms of their own personal standards, which are normally in a socio-cultural context (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004). Another opinion I have is that I think that having academic intelligence is amazing, however if one does not know how to apply that knowledge to the world that they live in, what is the point. References: Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2004). Intelligence and culture: how culture shapes what intelligence means, and the implications for a science of well-being. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 359(1449), 1427–1434. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1514 Topic 2 “Being smart” to one culture can differ from what what being smart means to another culture just as different cultures have different values. Being smart will typically align with the goals and values of a culture, and those who can efficiently and consistently reach those goals will be seen more favorably. Even tests designed to be cross-culturally appropriate/relevant may be made to test skills present in multiple cultures, but may generate varying levels of interest from participants due to their own cultural differences in importance placed on these skills (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004). Areas such as perception, sensation, and cognition have been cross-culturally tested and found to be similar across cultures, especially when class is a controlled factor. These areas develop differently based on agreed upon terms and communication styles within cultures, but these translate as different styles of perceiving rather than levels to one specific way of perceiving or sensing. Ethnocentric views tend to lean towards a model that works the opposite, with the home culture being the highest level of intelligence, and other cultures falling along a scale below at varying levels, with the more similar cultures rating closer to the home culture, and cultures that have less in common rating low (Kagitcabasi, 2000).  Intelligence is fluid for humans, and crystallizes with age to hold fast to certain concepts taught through experience. An example of how this can be true is the difference in color vision/perception across cultures. Regional areas having specific color-naming systems that differ form others was found through a study to be due to environmental and semantic developments. Certain areas that had more exposure to ultraviolet light tended to process colors differently than others, and language developed to communicate what was seen in these areas, which differed from other areas with less ultraviolet light exposure (Bornstein, 1973). Essentially, the reason for different color naming systems did not develop because one group was better at seeing colors than another, but rather groups of people have lived in environments that cast different hues than others, and have experience communicating what is seen. Reference Bornstein, M. H. (1973). Color vision and color naming: a psychophysiological hypothesis of cultural difference. Psychological Bulletin, 80(4), 257–285. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.1037/h0034837 Kagitcabasi, C. (2000). (cross) cultural psychology. In K. Pawlik, & M. Rosenzweig The international handbook of psychology (pp. 328-346). SAGE Publications Ltd, https://www-doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.4135/9781848608399.n18 Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2004). Intelligence and culture: how culture shapes what intelligence means, and the implications for a science of well-being. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 359(1449), 1427–1434. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1514