Intelligence has been a controversial topic throughout psychology’s history. It’s one of the most talked topics of psychology. Intelligence involves some different mental abilities
Categories with similar structures, meaning they are supposed to be of one genetic origin, were compared in intelligence, so the mental differences between one class and another did not enable any conclusive judgment to be made regarding the influence of intelligence with both genetics and the environment.
In other words, it was not possible in such comparisons to isolate the environmental factor from the genetic factor. As a result, the goal which is to determine the role of the environmental factor in intelligence could not be achieved.
As for the comparison of different structural groups with different genetic origins, which aims to determine the role of the genetic factor in intelligence, it enables, to some degree, to isolate the genetic factor from the environmental factor. In any case, the correct scientific study must go beyond categorical boundaries, and distinguish differences within a category from the existing differences between one class and another. It is useful and possible both to enumerate the differences within the same category as a good evidence of the impact of the environmental factor, especially since the one category has a genetic origin that is supposed to be one.
The effect of social and economic status on intelligence
The results of all studies agree that intelligence is positively related to an individual’s social and economic standing. Socioeconomic standing is measured by a set of measures that include parents ’educational attainment and income. In order to uncover the role of social and economic status in intelligence, the intelligence parameters and their interconnectedness with the social and economic level of different ethnic groups were determined. The IQ coefficient was found to correlate with the socio-economic level of black pre-school children by 0.24 and to whites by 0.33, and the correlation coefficient between intelligence and the socio-economic level of American Indians did not exceed zero. Other studies were conducted with the aim of comparing the average intelligence parameters of whites and blacks of all social classes, and they reached to confirm the existence of differences between the intelligence factors of different classes. However, these differences were not very clear. In its entirety, the matter is similar to previous interdependence transactions, as these transactions indicate a tangible correlation between intelligence and the socio-economic level, but the correlation ratio did not exceed the square root of 0.35 and 0.30, meaning that this ratio ranged around fifty percent and did not exceed it. The reason for this appears to be the necessity of a certain amount of intelligence for economic success in society. This degree of intelligence is responsible for the correlation of the social and economic level with the IQ factor.
Racial differences in intelligence
In the late sixties, an attempt was made to clarify the differences between blacks and whites in intelligence, but that attempt was based on a biased hypothesis in favor of whites, so the blacks’ points were significantly lower than the average. Statistic supports his hypothesis, but the hypothesis has generated a great deal of controversy.
We have previously indicated the inability of the IQ factor to measure the genetic contributions to intelligence of different groups, and perhaps this is the basic error in Jensen’s discussion. Lonten wrote in this regard: “If two classes have a high hereditary degree with respect to a trait, and there is a mean difference between the two classes, is the difference genetic as a whole? There is a possibility that the two classes are genetically different due to a previous history of differential selection of a genotype evidencing the specific variation. Another possibility is that the two categories may differ qualitatively due to historical events due to the qualitative designation without differential selection. The third possibility is that the two groups are similar, but they live in environments that differ from each other by some specific critical factors. All of these situations occur in nature and may recur, and a prior possibility cannot be attached to it. (Lontaine, 1976, p.109).
The main argument in Jensen’s discussion is that the observed difference between whites and blacks trend reveals a profound qualitative difference. But Jensen’s postulate has nothing to justify it, even if it is confirmed that there are significant differences between blacks and whites in the chromosomes that affect the IQ. In addition, removing the peripheral differences does not mean simply narrowing the achievement gap between blacks and whites, but rather may easily lead to narrowing the gap in the other direction, so that blacks outperform whites on average. On the other hand, we find Jensen’s inscription wrong from the point of view of psychology. The researcher assumes that the IQ is an equally valid measure of the genetic differences of origin, whether between or within groups. However, the rewards, especially the ones Jensen used, measure the different traits between categories rather than within them. Piaget’s fortitude prizes, for example, provide a reasonable assessment of the cognitive development of children from similar backgrounds. But when children are seen from different backgrounds, any difference between the groups will reflect both growth and mean. In addition, it is necessary to recognize the similarity of the mean to identify differences within the categories. On this basis, the IQ coefficient can be considered a reasonable measure of the differences within the groups, in order to determine the effect of genetics and surroundings, when the stability and continuity of the medium can be recognized.
Susceptibility patterns in ethnic groups
Intelligence awards assess a wide range of skills and abilities, and as a result, they can draw diagnoses that illustrate an individual’s achievement on various measures. In the FxLar Children’s Score, for example, an individual’s practical achievement can be compared to his theoretical achievement, and the individual’s results in each sub-score can be compared with their counterpart in the rest of the prizes. Factor analysis is used to identify patterns of the capabilities of different groups and helps to test the hypothesis that claims that one of the groups of rewards is saturated with a single mental factor measured in different formulas. And the hypothesis extends to include all the rewards that the researcher believes is necessary. It is not uncommon for the researcher to assume a single factor or general intelligence that saturates all the tests that measure it in different formulas. In addition, the researcher can assume one or a number of factors that satisfy certain groups of rewards, such as sectarian and special abilities rewards.
Use factor analysis to test the stability of the global structure of intelligence in groups of disparate ethnic origin. One study showed that the mental structure is the same in children between five and nine, both white and black. The other studies did not deviate in their results from the general line that confirms the unity of the mental structure for all groups of people, although they found slight variation in the patterns of mental structures for groups of different ethnicities. The question that remains pending goes beyond the problem of similarity of factors in different groups, wondering about the emergence of this or that factor in this or that category. One of the researchers tried to answer this question. The respondents included first-year students from the Chinese, Jews, blacks and Puerto Ricans. The number of girls was equal to the number of boys in the study and the sample was balanced in the socio-economic origin of each ethnic group. The youngsters were given aptitude rewards that were modified to fit the past experiences of each group and to mitigate the effect of the children’s lack of experience with the prizes and the effect of compatibility between the examiner and the subject. As a result of the study, serious differences were found in the four capabilities, logical, linguistic, memory, and spatial, between the different groups, and a clear relationship was found between the social and economic levels and between the points of the different groups in the four capabilities. The results were confirmed in another study. Although some researchers have challenged the previous findings, we feel that the challenge and its implications are insignificant to the validity and methodological soundness of the original studies.
In another study, poor fourth-year children of Chinese, Italian, Black and Puerto Rican descent were compared. Children were asked to design cubes, to recognize and understand the parts of something, to copy geometric shapes, and were given letters of expression in fluency. The Chinese excelled in building cubes and recognizing parts, and Puerto Ricans excelled in language fluency. Comparative studies were conducted between blacks and whites in Raiz Fxler for children. Blacks were distinguished in verbal rewards and lagged behind in practical tests. As for whites to whom the prizes were originally assigned, their achievement was equal in both groups of prizes. The achievement of fourth black and white children in the Stanford Score varied between it. Blacks’ scores rose in the comprehension and memory levels, and the white points rose in the judgments and thinking awards. In another study of fourth children, whites and blacks were rose in six factors: linguistic comprehension, intellectual fluency, perceptual speed, formal thinking, extent of memory, and image memory. White children did not outperform blacks except in the ranks of linguistic comprehension. The aforementioned evidences indicate the similarity of the intellectual structure of children of different ethnic origins, and at the same time it indicates that the level of achievement varies from one group to another in this or that aspect. And it is not possible to rely on previous studies in knowing the reasons for superiority in the different mental capabilities, whether they are hereditary, that they result from purely cultural and social factors.
There is no doubt that there are great differences between boys and girls in pre-school, the reasons for which differ from one mental characteristic to another. These differences seem to be due to concurrent biological and social factors. As for the origin of the heterogeneity of personality traits, most of it is due to the social milieu.
Many believe that girls are better at performing verbal tasks than boys, who outperform them on tasks based on spatial awareness and mechanical understanding. McCoby and Jacqueline, who gathered huge facts in this area, confirm that there are huge differences in language development. Girls remain superior to boys until the third year of life, when boys join them and girls regain their superiority around the eleventh year. In another study, females showed, from an early age, clear superiority in language ability, and this superiority continued for life. The observations made on all children, whether in the ordinary, talented and weak-minded ones, showed that the incidence of speech disorders or delay in reading is much lower among girls than among boys. The girls showed continued superiority in the prizes for speed of reading, similar and contrasting expressions, and for completing and rearranging sentences.
There is no evidence to confirm the assumption that boys are superior to girls in the ability to perceive place, since judging the superiority of one of the sexes over the other collides with the inability to determine the capabilities of perceiving place and the means of measuring it. In general, when differences in performance emerge in the perceptions of place between the two sexes, boys outperform girls. Maccoby and Jacqueline emphasized that the superiority of boys over their female counterparts in spatial ability appears in adolescence and continues into adulthood, where it is established and settled. It has been observed, consistently, that males always excel in various aspects of mechanical ability. Males usually excel in the prizes for figure boards, puzzling boxes, mazes, solution and composition awards, and other types of prizes that are included in the components of practical intelligence measures. However, females showed clear superiority in tests of manual dexterity, agility and dexterity in using fingers (Anastasi, 1969, p. 604).
Finally, in their review of sexual differences in quantitative susceptibility, analytical thinking and reasoning, Maccoby and Jacqueline found no difference between males and females except in adolescence. Even in adolescence, most studies deny the existence of large sexual differences in the abilities mentioned. All that is said now is the assertion that pre-school gender differences in these abilities will be denied.
The differences between the sexes encompass. Many aspects of behaviour and reflect clear differences in the characteristics of the male and female characters. There is no doubt that the difference in personality traits between the sexes is linked to the social environment. Therefore, we will study, with the aim of uncovering the sexual differences in personality traits. The effect of those differences on the independence of perception, play and aggression.
The independence of the perceptual field is defined as the tendency to direct the individual to his immediate surroundings within the framework of indications stemming from within him. While the dependency of the perceptual field is defined by the tendency to use external indications to direct the immediate surroundings of the individual. A child who waits for the directions of his peers or adults to perform an act is dependent on perception. Unlike his peer who corrects the situation and does and decides what he deems appropriate, so he is independent of perception. Independence and dependency are two distinct features of the human personality that affect many types of individual behaviour.
Perceptual pattern prizes were originally developed for adults. But recent attempts have gone towards designing prizes to measure this trait in children, so Hidden Figures prizes were developed for preschool children. These trophies require the child to find a simple and frightening figure in a complex shape. The independence of the perceptual pattern is assumed by children less inclined to depend on the perceptual pattern to be disturbed by the task or to surrender themselves.To the perceptual delusion in the complex form. It was found, as a result of the Rose, that the fourth and fifth boys tend to be independent of the perceptual pattern of girls of that age. The aforementioned differences are due to the prevailing intellectual stereotypes that define the female role in society. The tendency of pre-school girls to dependency and boys’ independence indicates that the trait is the product of a type of reinforcement learning.
Erikson was the first to notice the differences between boys and girls in terms of play. Erikson confirmed the girls ‘tendency to play in the open inner courtyards, as they designed designs similar to the interior widths of the well-known Arab homes, while the boys’ buildings were castles and winding corridors. The boys feared their castles would be destroyed, while the girls were afraid of an invasion of the inner sanctity of their daughters. The sexual symbolism in the aforementioned activities appears very clear. As for the mysterious thing, it is the origin of that symbolism and the reason for the differences in it. In an attempt to answer this question and explain the existing differences between the sexes in the field of play, some researchers hypothesized that play in children is subject to reinforced social conditioning. It is not uncommon for girls to be given dolls and women’s things and encouraged to play with them, unlike boys who are provided with building materials, carts, cars, shovels and shovels and are encouraged to play with them. The aforementioned interpretation was not accepted by Grammer and Hogan, who presented a comprehensive response against the theory of learning proposed by Erikson to explain these differences, and emphasized that children’s play reflects basic themes related to the differences in the organic structures between the sexes. Perhaps there was some truth in each of the two explanations, as parents’ choice of their children’s games might be guided by their perception of the differences in their physical structures. Parents’ encouragement of their children to play with the appropriate things for their bodies is not a submission to the principle of physical difference awareness, but a submission that believes in reinforced social learning.
Other differences related to the differences in playing the sexes are the aggressiveness of both boys and girls. Gender differences in aggression appear early in the first year, and boys exhibit a tendency for aggression and discovery that is more intense than that of girls. These differences become clear and intensified in preschool, when the boy is interested in things, unlike the girl’s interest in people. Multiple studies indicate that boys spend twice as much of their time on aggression as the girls spent in it. If the girl disagrees with someone over a matter that tends to submit or verbal conflict and does not try to fight for what she calls her right to something, as for boys, fighting is their way to settle their disputes.
The difference in the characteristics of the male and female characters is also evident in the field of social interaction. In situations of confrontation with parents or anyone else, boys and girls behave very differently, girls appear to be frightened and hesitant and show facial movements that indicate apprehension, while boys do not display a noticeable fear in such situations and turn their heads and faces away from the scene of confrontation. The social interaction of both boys and girls is very different and complex. This difference is due to social conditioning and social intellectual stereotyping, and to the differences in the physical structure of the two sexes that may lead to the membership’s willingness to respond to one of the social formulas without the other.
Finally, the child’s awareness of his sexual role and of social intellectual stereotypes about sex grows very early. At the end of the third year, most boys and girls know the main features of tribal intellectual stereotypes regarding sexual behavior. Children under three can identify images of clothes, toys, and tools and distinguish what boys use from what girls use.
The patterns of interaction between the child and his parents take shape at the beginning of the preschool stage and have an important impact on the development of the personality of the youth. We will pay attention here, to the arrangement of the birth of the child and the intentions of the parent, due to their certain and profound impact on the child’s personality when he reaches adulthood.
There is very important evidence that the firstborn differs in a number of characteristics from the last child. The points of first and only in achievement and intelligence rewards are higher than the child’s last points. In this regard, we recall that all Americans who managed to reach the moon were the firstborn of their families. The cause of this phenomenon is still unknown, despite what was said in its explanation. In one of the studies, three samples were chosen from those who took National Aid Eligibility Scores. The first sample was drawn randomly from all those who took the scales, and it was called the standard sample. The second sample was chosen randomly from the outperformers in the scales. The third sample included everyone who took the same scales in one of the past years. Al-Razz covered five topics: use of language, arithmetic, sociology, naturalities, and vocabulary. The eldest child from the three samples from a small family got the highest points, while the last boy from a large family got the lowest points. The eldest son outperformed all the boys in mathematical skills.
In an attempt to explain the phenomenon of educational superiority among firstborn children, Schachter proposes the theory of social comparison. He sees that the virgin boy measures himself within the framework of his parents’ achievement, so he becomes a strong inclination towards school achievement due to the magnitude of the gap between him and his parents, which pushes him to bridge the gap and catch up with them. Other researchers argue that parents treat the virgin boy differently from the little one, and they put heavy pressure on the virgin and expect a lot from him. This is why the firstborn always seeks to collect. However, Schachter, with the confirmation of the academic excellence of the first-born children, revealed many of the characteristics of their dependent personality, and found that those attending the psychological clinics were most of the type of the first or only child and the least of them were the late children who prefer to solve their problems on their own, and that the children who are late in the order more There is a tendency to addiction to alcohol from the general population, and that the combat pilots of the first children are less than their ferocious combatants.
Finally, first-born girls who have younger sisters and first-born boys who have younger siblings show a lesser degree of the relentless pursuit of collection and dependency that characterizes firstborn sons. Perhaps any generalization regarding the firstborn and the late children in the Gregorian order should be modified to take into account the gender of the siblings in the family, the age differences between them, and other factors. At the same time when the majority of the first-born children show the abnormal structure formed from the constant pursuit of achievement and intense attachment, the rest of the brothers and sisters remain untouched by these traits and subject to many other influences.
The absence of the parent
He studied the absence of the father well, because he assumed that the presence of the father in the home was necessary for the normal development of children, especially boys. As mentioned earlier, the effect of the father’s absence from the home depends on the child’s age on the day his father leaves the home, whether the father’s absence is permanent or temporary, and whether his absence is due to divorce, death, financial stability of the family, or other reasons.
In examining some of these factors, it is interesting to review two comparative studies of seafaring families in Norway and Italy. In both studies, boys were given dolls to play with, to assess male or female behavior. Mothers were questioned for the same purpose. Children of Norwegian sailors, whose father was absent from home, compared to a control group, showed excessive behavior, compensatory patterns, and difficulties in adapting to their peers. Mothers reported that they were overprotective of children and that they had few concerns outside the home. The results obtained from the re-study of the children of the Italian sailors did not confirm their counterpart to the Norwegians, as the boys did not differ in their males from the control group. On the contrary, it seemed to the women whose husbands did not leave the house excessively protecting their children, unlike the women whose husbands were absent from the home. In both cases, the researchers attributed the boys’ behavior to the effect that the father’s absence left on the mother herself, and to the social context of the father’s absence, and not to the father’s absence in itself. The Genoese society gives women a great deal of independence and makes them responsible for family finances and management. In addition, the Genoese family has a more general family that reaches up to the third ancestor, and this is what broadens the range of social relations for that family and makes them open. As for the Norwegian women, they were less responsible, more dependent, and less willing than Italian women to work outside the home. The reason for this was that the Norwegian family did not have a more general family or friends as is the case in the Genoese family. It is reasonable, then, to conclude, that the effects of the absence of the father on the child can be mitigated by the mother. And it depends on the attitudes of the mother and her personality and behavior. In addition, the Genoese family has a more general family that reaches to the third ancestor, and this broadens the scope of the social relations of that family and makes them open. As for the Norwegian women, they were less responsible, more dependent, and less willing than Italian women to work outside the home. The reason for this was that the Norwegian family did not have a more general family nor friends as is the case in the Genoese family. It is reasonable, then, to conclude, that the effects of the absence of the father on the child can be mitigated by the mother. And it depends on the attitudes of the mother and her personality and behavior. In addition, the Genoese family has a more general family that reaches to the third ancestor, and this broadens the scope of the social relations of that family and makes them open. As for the Norwegian women, they were less responsible, more dependent, and less willing than Italian women to work outside the home. The reason for this was that the Norwegian family did not have a more general family nor friends as is the case in the Genoese family. It is reasonable, then, to conclude, that the effects of the absence of the father on the child can be mitigated by the mother. And it depends on the attitudes of the mother and her personality and behavior.
Social and cultural differences
School children are subject to a variety of social and cultural influences that play a large role in determining their thinking and behavior patterns. In this section we will deal with language, patterns of reinforcement, and methods of nurturing, although we do not have facts with deep empirical roots due to the generality of the cultural and social worlds.
Social class and language differences
A dispute arises among sociologists about the meanings of social class differences in language. First, there are those who claim that children of the lower class have different language skills than those of other classes. Bernstein believes that people of the lower class communicate with specific symbolic aid transmitted by non-linguistic signals, unlike the middle and upper classes who use advanced symbolism that enables all the contents of the dialogue to be transmitted in language. And Bernstein and I add to the linguistic differences that lead to divergent trends that encompass the rest of life, such as education, work, reciprocal relationships, and so on. In his opinion, language shapes and frames social interaction.
The researchers in the United States who followed Bernstein’s steps in Britain reached the same results. The mothers of the lower and middle classes were asked a number of questions such as “Let’s imagine that your son is about to enter school for the first time, so how do you think you should prepare him for that? From the answers:
I go first and inspect his school and I will talk about construction and then see the school, and tell him that he will meet new children who can be his friends, and that he can play and work with them. I will make it clear to him that the teacher will be his friend, will help and guide him in school and that he must obey the teacher who will be like his mother in her absence.
Well, I will tell him that he is going to school and that he should sit and watch the teacher and be a good boy, and I will show him how he behaves when they give him milk and how he is supposed to take a straw or put something on the floor when it finishes (Hesse, 1968, p.96).
It is clear that the second mother, who comes from the lower class, spoke within the framework of general orders, while the first mother, who came from the middle class, spoke within the framework of the explanatory instructions about school rules and the need to obey them. When mothers were asked to assign tasks to their children, such as sorting things according to their color, middle-class mothers tended to give their daughters full explanations, unlike lower-class mothers who tended to say very simply, “Put this here or this there” without any further explanation. The researcher concluded by saying:
… that the perceptual field of different social environments prepares to direct behavior by commands and not by paying attention to the individual characteristics of a particular situation, and it is a field in which behavior is not mediated by any linguistic indications that provide opportunities to use language as a tool for coding, classifying and arranging things, or to modify external stimuli. In addition, the cognitive milieu of underdeveloped social environments lacks an education that relates incidents to one another, and the present with the future. Deprivation in the social environment is manifested, or what is manifested, by deprivation of meanings and in the early cognitive relationships between mother and child (Hess 1968, p. 103).
The view of Bernstein and his supporters that class differences have a decisive effect on a child’s language development has met with strong opposition from some psychologists. These scholars believe that the language of both black and white members of the DNA class is not limited but rather different. On the other hand, black English speakers showed the same degree of wealth and linguistic diversity as their white counterparts. It is difficult for the researcher to generalize the results of some linguistic signs that show the superiority of the upper class in this area on the basis that the children of the lower class, blacks in particular, suffer behavioral frustration in the Rosy position. As for in the street, in comfortable situations, or with friends, the Sudi expresses a huge linguistic storehouse, and their linguistic structures and vocabulary differ from those of the middle class, but their language remains like the language of their peers, which is complicated in its structure and full of vocabulary.
Numerous studies support the position rejecting the viewpoint of Bernstein and his followers. As we noted before, many of the studies conducted on lower-class preschool children exposed to what Bernstein called cultural and linguistic deprivation were conducted in encouraging conditions, in which the youngsters were familiar with the examiner and the Rosy position in general, and it was found that the intelligence coefficient of these has improved over It was before. It is necessary, then, to take into account the Rosy position when evaluating the class differences in language for pre-school children.
Social and cultural differences in patterns of reinforcement
Contemporary psychologists assert that there are significant differences in the patterns of reinforcement and punishment practised by different social groups. Fischbach (1973, p. 107) and her assistants conducted a comprehensive study of this topic and asked a group of mothers from different social groups to teach their children to solve a series of puzzles. The reinforcement was measured by enumerating the positive and negative statements. That the mother gave during the explanation period without counting the neutral statements. The positive remarks included phrases such as: “This is right,” “yes,” and “good,” while the negative remarks included phrases such as: “not,” “this is wrong,” and “I don’t see that.”
The Fischbach and Associates study showed that white middle-class mothers used more phrases of positive reinforcement compared to their black middle-class mothers. Lower-class black and white mothers used the same amount of positive reinforcement phrases. Lower-class black mothers used the most negative reinforcement phrases of all groups. In order to verify the validity of the study results. Fischbach resorted to asking pre-school children to those mothers to teach a child younger than them, how to solve a simple puzzle, and the researcher obtained the same results.
Fischbach believes that because of their financial situation, families in the lower class suffer more from deprivation, disease and general stress than parents in the middle class. The people of the lower class who strive to secure a livelihood are subjected to daily pressures and demands that do not befall the middle class people. We expect that, under these conditions, parents in the lower class will be less tolerant and more critical of their children’s mistakes than others. The economic conditions that families in the lower class suffer from may push families to use more negative reinforcement, unlike middle and upper class families.