Fixed or Malleable Debate

After debating on whether intelligence is fixed or malleable on Thursday my perspective has changed. When Alyssa and I prepared for the debate we focused mostly on theories supporting malleable intelligence in the developmental field. This included evidence from the Flynn effect, The and early intervention programs such as Carolina Abecedarian Project, Barnett and Head Start, and Skeels and Dye. When looking at this research I made up my mind that intelligence is mostly malleable when it is more fluid than crystallized. Younger people have more fluid intelligence than crystallized intelligence. Research also shows that these early intervention projects can increase IQ scores into adulthood. So after doing research I had different ideas about fixed and malleable intelligence and fluid and crystallized intelligence. I was sure that intelligence was malleable but I did consider it to be more determined by nurture than nature.

When arguing that intelligence was fixed our debate opponents focused mostly on intelligence having a fixed threshold and a genetic basis. I felt like their arguments were strong even if they weren't at all what I expected. The research they used included twin testing and intelligence testing with college aged students. While we were arguing that intelligence can be changed at youth through early intervention programs they were arguing that adults can't change their intelligence.

While we seemed to agree on the same argument the debate changed my perspective and added to my understanding. I feel that between the two groups debating we can agree that intelligence is malleable at birth and youth, making early stimulation and intervention important. However, in adulthood intelligence is less able to be changed.