Text 1

Why Are You So Smart?

 Karen Wright

    Scientists have been trying to search for "smart" genes, which might govern intelligence. But will genes for intelligence be used to determine genetic IQ? To what extent do the genes you're born with have to do with IQ? The following passage tells us some latest studies on this issue.

    It is one of the most important predictors of financial and social success. It helps determine where you work, where you live, whom you marry, whether you divorce, whether you have children out of wedlock, whether you wind up in jail. It can be measured with great precision, and it changes very little over a lifetime. It is substantially influenced by your genes.

    Or is it?

    When the subject is human intelligence, you don't have to go far to find an argument. In the century since British psychologist Charles Spearman proposed that a single, general mental ability governs many aspects of cognitive performance, scientists and society have bickered long and often about intelligence: what it is, what it does, who has it, how to improve it, how to measure it, and how to best interpret and use those measurements.

    Most recently, the controversy incited by the 1994 book The Bell Curve has revived the nature-nurture debate: Is intelligence malleable or genetically programmed? Is a human mind born or made? After decades of research, most intelligence experts have come to decide that it's both, in roughly equal measure.

    So it was perhaps inevitable that someone somewhere would begin the search for "smart" genes. That someone is Robert Plomin, a 25-year veteran of intelligence research who is currently stationed at the Institute of Psychiatry in London. Last year, Plomin published the first evidence of a gene linked to high IQ. This year, he reported the locations of three more smart genes. And within the next several months, he expects to find at least two dozen of the most important genetic determinants of intelligence. Already, his work has provoked visions—and fears—of DNA doctors tinkering with the gears of cognition. "I knew that nobody else would be crazy enough to do it," he says.

    Plomin's quest is one of the most audacious in the field of behavioral genetics, a discipline dedicated to finding hereditary factors that influence human behavior. One type of study traces patterns of inheritance by comparing identical twins reared together and apart. Another method compares the traits of adopted children with those of their biological and adoptive parents and siblings. Done well, these studies determine the heritability of a trait: to what extent the differences among individuals are due to genes, rather than to environmental forces such as upbringing, nutrition, and schooling. Once a heredity pattern for a trait is established, researchers can home in on the genes responsible.

    But the search gets complicated when the genes in question are for smarts. On one hand, intelligence as measured by IQ tests is a reliable and stable component of human behavior. It doesn't change much over a lifetime, and different tests tend to produce the same results. Intelligence is also the most highly inheritable mental attribute known: Twin and adoption studies suggest that 30 to 70 percent of the differences among people's IQ scores can be attributed to genes. Many experts, including Plomin, think 50 percent is the most likely figure. (Physical attributes such as height and weight can be up to 90 percent heritable.)

    But intelligence is a complex phenomenon, governed by hundreds or even thousands of genes. So patterns of inheritance aren't obvious. Nor is the discovery of any one gene for intelligence likely to be earthshaking, Plomin concedes.

    "We don't know how many genes are involved for any complex trait in any plant or animal," he says. But any of the majority of smart genes probably accounts for less than 1 percent of the heritability of intelligence.

    Scientists link genes to traits by using DNA markers: stretches of DNA whose positions on chromosomes have been precisely plotted. The sequence of each marker can vary, just as the gene for blue eyes varies slightly from the gene for brown eyes. These different versions of each marker, called alleles, correspond to different versions of nearby genes. If people with a particular allele of a DNA marker possess a trait and people without the allele don't, then a gene for that trait is likely close to, or even the same as, the marker.

    Using this approach, Plomin compared two groups of children: 51 with an average IQ of 103, and 51 with an average IQ of 136. He used 37 markers on chromosome, which was chosen because it has already been implicated in reading disabilities. His tests revealed differences in one site located in a gene for a hormone receptor that may be active in learning and memory. Plomin thinks variations in this gene or another nearby could account for 1 to 2 percent of the variance in IQ scores.

    To detect even smaller genetic contributions across the entire human genome, Plomin would need a lot more people and a thousand times as many DNA markers. Such large-scale studies seemed impractical until Plomin's colleague Michael Owen suggested scrapping the laborious genetic profiling of individual subjects. Owen proposed pooling subjects' DNA instead and combing the pooled DNA from each study group just once with the markers. Although DNA pooling can't determine with precision the frequency of alleles in a study population, says Plomin, it can point to differences between the normal- and high-IQ groups.

    Plomin has already used DNA pooling to identify three more sites linked with high IQ, this time on chromosome 4. By year's end, he and his colleagues will have screened hundreds of volunteers with 3 000 markers. Based on his results so far, he expects to find 20 to 30 more genes.

    And then what? It's almost inevitable, he says, that the genes for intelligence will be used to determine people's genetic IQ. But such tests wouldn't turn up much new information. "By measuring the parents' IQ, we can already predict a kid's IQ tremendously better than we will ever be able to predict it with a DNA test," Plomin explains. "And if schools were going to select kids on the basis of ability, they'd still do better by administering IQ tests. I think the implications for science are much greater than the social implications."

    The scientific implications could include a better understanding of the neural pathways involved in global reasoning, learning, and memory. Identifying and tracing the products of smart genes could help researchers understand the origins of these abilities, with potentially far-reaching consequences.

    "If we knew more about the developmental aspects of [intelligence] genetics, we'd have a more realistic appraisal of what strands of development are modifiable, to what extent, and when," says Craig Ramey, a psychologist at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, who designs intervention programs to raise the IQs of disadvantaged infants and toddlers10. "We're now using more of a shotgun approach."

    Still, some people may be unable to resist the idea of a genetic fix.

    "What will rouse the imagination for most people is: Can we remediate low intelligence or enhance normal intelligence through genetic manipulation or intervention?" says Linda Gottfredson, a psychology researcher at the University of Delaware. "There's certainly a big push to develop drug-enhancement strategies. So why not genetic enhancement?"

    Although it's true that each smart gene has a small effect, Gottfredson says, even tiny boosts in IQ are significant. The first gene that Plomin found, for example, accounted for up to 2 percent of the variance in IQ scores. That translates into four IQ points—not a sizable gain for an individual. But tweaking just a few more genes of comparable effect could give a person a 15-point leg up on the smart scale. "And 15 IQ points is a considerable advantage," Gottfredson says. "That's the difference between doing OK in high school, but no more, and doing great in college. Fifteen points will get you a different kind of job, get you into a different kind of neighborhood, with different friends, a different kind of life. I'd take it."

    It's just this kind of scenario that fuels the controversy surrounding the search for smart genes. No method for genetically boosting IQ currently exists, of course, but strides in gene therapy might someday make it possible. Plomin says his intent is more modest. "It is definitely the basic science that drives me. And I had hoped that, after I did this quietly for a few years, people would be more accepting of genetic influence in the area of intelligence."

    If his latest project goes as planned, Plomin's years of quiet gene hunting may soon provoke another unquiet round in the intelligence debate.

(1 409 words) TOP

你为何如此聪明？

卡伦·赖特

    科学家们正在试图寻找可能管理着智力的“聪明”基因。但是智力基因能被用来测定遗传的智商吗？与生俱来的基因在多大程度上与智商有关系？下面的文章将告诉我们在这个问题上的最新研究。

    它是一个人经济和社会方面能否成功最为重要的预测者之一。它帮助决定你在哪儿工作，在哪儿生活，和谁结婚，是否会离婚，是否会未婚生子，是否会有牢狱之灾。它可以被非常精确地测算，一生中很少变化。它受你的基因的重大影响。



    真是如此吗？

    当讨论说的是人类智能时，你不必太费力就能够找到论据。自从英国心理学家查尔斯·斯皮尔曼提出一种特有的综合智力管理着认知行为的许多方面的主张，一个世纪以来，科学家们和社会已对智力进行了长期而不断的争论：它是什么，作用是什么，谁拥有它，如何改进它，如何测算它，以及如何最好地解释和利用测算方式。



    最近，由1994年出版的书《钟形曲线》所引发的争议，再次引起了人们对先天禀性和后天培育这个问题的争论：智力是可训练的还是遗传不变的？人类的思想是天生的还是创造出来的？经过几十年的研究，绝大多数智力科学家的结论是，两者兼而有之，分量大致均等。

    因此，某处某人会开始寻找“聪明”基因，也许是不可避免的。那个“某人”就是罗伯特·普洛明，一个从事智力研究已有25年之久的有经验的专家，他目前在伦敦的精神病学学院工作。去年，普洛明公开了基因与高智商相联系的第一个证据。今年，他又宣布发现了三个聪明基因的位置。在此后的几个月里，他期望发现至少两打最为重要的智力遗传决定因素。他的工作已经引起了和认知器管打交道的DNA医生的想象——以及不安。“我知道，没有别的人会发疯，以至来做这件事情，”他说。




    普洛明的探索，是行为遗传学领域中最为大胆的探索之一。行为遗传学是一门致力于发现影响人类行为的遗传因素的学科。其中一项研究是通过比较双胞胎儿一起喂养和分开喂养的情况，来发现影响人类行为的遗传因素。另外一个办法是比较收养孩子的特征与他们的生父母、养父母及亲兄妹和非亲兄妹的特征相比较。如果进行得顺利，这些研究能决定一种特征的遗传性：在多大程度上个人之间的差异是由于基因的关系，而不是教养、营养和教育这样的环境因素的作用。一旦一个特征的遗传模式建立起来，研究者们就可以确定有关的基因。





    但是当要寻找的基因是聪明基因时，研究就变得复杂起来。一方面，智商测试所测量出来的智力是人类行为中可靠而稳定的部分。一生中它变化甚微，不同的测量往往得出相同的结果。智力也是所知道的精神特征中最能够遗传的：双胞胎和收养儿的研究表明，人们之间30%－70%智商的差异可归因于基因。许多专家，包括普洛明，认为50%是最为可能的数字。（像身高和体重这样的特征的可遗传性能高达90%。）

    但智力是一个复杂的现象，它受到数百个甚至数千个基因的控制。因此遗传模式并不明显。任何一个单个智力基因的发现都不可能会有太大的影响，普洛明承认。


    “任何植物或动物中任何一个复杂的特征，我们都不知道它涉及了多少基因，”他说。但是大多数聪明基因中的任何一个都有可能占不到百分之一的智力遗传性。


    科学家们通过使用一条条在染色体上的位置已被精确地分配好了的DNA标记，把基因和特征联系起来。每一个标记的次序可以变化，正如蓝色眼睛的基因与棕色眼睛的基因稍稍有所不同。每个标记的这些不同形式称作对偶基因，与附近不同形式的基因相对应。如果带有一个DNA标记的特定对偶基因的人具有一种特征而不带有该对偶基因的人不具有此特征，那么此特征的基因就可能紧邻着那个标记，甚至与那个标记相同。



    运用这种办法，普洛明比较了两组孩子：一组51人，平均智商是103，另一组51人，平均智商是136。他使用了一个染色体上的37个标记，选择该染色体是因为它与阅读能力的丧失有关联。他的试验发现了激素受体基因内部在一个部位上的差异。这个激素受体可能在学习和记忆方面很活跃。普洛明认为，在这个基因或附近那个基因中的差异可能说明了智商分数百分之一到百分之二的变化。

    要在整个人类基因组中发现更小的基因成分，普洛明就需要更多的人和上千倍的DNA标记。直到后来普洛明的同事迈克尔·欧文建议省去费力的对个别实验对象的基因描绘之前，这样大规模的研究看起来是不切实际的。欧文提议把实验对象的DAN集中起来，用标记只对从每组研究对象集中起来的DNA进行一次梳理。普洛明说，尽管DNA汇集法无法精确确定一个被研究群体中对偶基因的频率，但它能够指明一般智商和高智商人群的差别。

  　



    普洛明已经利用DNA汇集法又确认了三个与高智商相连系的部位，这次是在染色体4上的。到年 底时，他和他的同事们将会完成对好几百个有3000个标记的志愿者进行的实验。基于目前的研究成果，他期望再找到20至30个基因。

    然后又怎么样呢？他说，智力基因将会被用来测定人们的遗传智商，这几乎是必然的，但这样的试验不会带来更多的新信息。“我们已能通过测量父母亲的智商，预知一个孩子的智商，这比我们通过DNA测试效果好得多，”普洛明解释说。“如果学校要根据能力来挑选学生，通过DNA测试它们将会做得更好。我认为它对科学的意义比其社会意义更大。”

    科学上的意义能够包括更好地认识涉及总体推理、学习和记忆的神经系统路径。找出和跟踪那些聪明基因的成果，能够帮助研究者们理解这些具有潜在的深远意义的能力的来源。

    “如果我们对［智力］遗传学发展诸方面有更多的了解，我们就能对发展的哪些方面可以改变，在多大程度上以及什么时候可以改变做出现实的估计，”伯明翰市阿拉巴马大学心理学家克雷格·雷米这样说。他在设计干预项目，以提高发育不良的婴儿和初学走路的孩子的智商。“我们现在用的方法更多地是应急之策。”

    虽然如此，有人还是无法放弃进行基因改良的想法。 

    “激发大多数人想象的是：我们能够通过遗传操纵或干预来补救低智力或增进一般智力吗？”特拉华大学的心理学研究者琳达·戈特弗莱森问道。“既然已有人大力提倡通过药物提高智力的研究，那么，为什么不推进通过遗传提高智力的研究呢？”

    确实每个聪明基因效果都较小，戈特弗莱森说，但是，即使智商有一点点的提高也是有重大意义的。例如，普洛明所发现的第一个基因，在智商分数的变化里有2%就是靠它得来的。它转化成了4分的智商——这对一个人来说不是一个太大的数字。但再多得几个产生相当效果的基因，就会使一个人在聪明的天平上高出15点来。“多15点的智商是个相当大的优势，”戈特弗莱森说。“那就是在中学里表现平平，而在大学里表现优异的差别所在。多15点的智商可以使你找到一个不同的工作，遇上不同的邻居，交上不同的朋友，过上不同的生活。我可想要这15点。”




    正是这样的描绘使得有关寻找聪明基因的争议变得更加沸沸扬扬。当然，目前还不存在从遗传上提高智商的办法，但是，基因疗法方面的大的进展有朝一日会使它变得可能。普洛明说，他的想法则较为简单。“正是基础科学在驱使着我。我曾希望，当我不声不响地从事几年这方面的研究后，人们就会对遗传在智能领域的影响较为接受了。”

    如果普洛明最近的项目按计划进展，那么他多年埋头寻找基因的工作很快会激起新一轮关于智力的争论。

返回

Text 2

The Different Ways of Being Smart

by Sara Gilbert

    Book smarts, art smarts, body smarts, street smarts, and people smarts: These labels describe the various forms of intelligence and their use. As you might imagine, psychologists and other researchers into the nature of intelligence have come up with more formal terms for the types that they have isolated. One set of labels in common use is: convergent, divergent, assimilating, and accommodating. The converger and assimilator are like our book-smart person; the diverger, like our art-smart; and the accommodator, like our street-smart and people-smart.

    Whatever categorization we use, we will find some overlap within any individual. In fact, there are probably as many answers to the question "What are the different ways of being smart?" as there are people in the universe, because each of us is unique. We can't be typecast; we each have a wide spectrum of special talents.

    Still, you probably know well at least one person whose talents generally fall into each of our categories. Keep those people in mind as you read through the detailed descriptions of them.

    At first it might seem that each of those types must call on very different sorts of abilities to be smart in his or her own ways. But in fact, each of the categories of intelligence on our list must use the same ingredients: learning ability, memory, speed, judgment, problem-solving skill, good use of language and other symbols, and creativity. Also, the thought processes that go on inside the heads of people with those varying kinds of smarts include the same steps: planning, perceiving, imaging, remembering, feeling, and acting.

    Intelligence expresses itself in different forms, in part because of the differing physical qualities born and built into each person's body and brain, and in part because of the values and motivations that each person has learned.

    However, the fact that each kind of smarts makes use of the same steps means that anyone can learn or develop skills in any or all of the categories. Let's take a closer look at the many ways of being smart.

    A book-smart person is one who tends to do well in school, to score high on tests, including　intelligence tests. He or she is likely to be well-organized, to go about solving problems in a logical, step-by-step fashion, and to have a highly developed language ability. Another label for a book-smart person is "intellectual," meaning someone who uses the mind more to know than to feel or to control, and a book-smart person is especially proud of having knowledge. That knowledge may range from literature through science to math, but it is probable that it is concentrated in one area. Research shows that different knowledge areas occupy different clusters in the brain, so that someone whose connections for complicated calculations are highly developed may have less development in the areas controlling speech and writing.

    Although as we've said, current research indicates that learning centers may be scattered throughout both hemispheres of the brain, the activities of the "logical" left side are probably most important in the lives of book-smart people. Book-smart people may also be creative: Many mathematical or scientific problems could not be solved, for instance, without creative insights, but the primary focus of a book-smart person is the increase of knowledge.

    Art-smart people, on the other hand, rely primarily on creativity. They create music, paintings, sculpture, plays, photographs, or other forms of art often without being able to explain why or how they chose a particular form or design. They are said to be "right-brained" people, because it appears that the control centers for such skills as touch perception and intuition—the formation of ideas without the use of words—lie in the right hemisphere. Artistic people tend to take in knowledge more often by seeing, hearing, and feeling than by conscientious reading and memorizing.

    An art-smart person may not do too well in school, not because he or she is not bright, but because of an approach to problem solving that does not fit in well with the formats usually used by teachers and tests. A book-smart person might approach a problem on a math test logically, working step-by-step toward the right answer, while an art- mart person may simply "know" the answer without being able to demonstrate the calculations involved. On a social studies exam, the book- mart person will carefully recount all the facts, while the more artistic one may weave stories and fantasies using the facts only as a base. In both cases, it's a good bet that the book-smart student will get the higher grade.

    People who are serious about becoming artists, of course, may need to absorb a great deal of "book knowledge" in order to develop a solid background for their skills. There are other overlaps as well: People with great musical ability, for instance, also tend to be skilled at mathematics, perhaps because of brain-cell interactions that are common to both processes. And in order to make use of any talent, art-smart people must have good body control as well.

    The people we're calling body-smart have a lot of that kind of body control. Most of them start out with bodies that are well put together for some kind of athletics—they may have inherited good muscular development for a sport like football, or loose and limber joints for gymnastic-style athletics. Or they may be people whose hands are naturally well coordinated for performing intricate tasks.

    But although the physical basis for their talent may come from their genes and from especially sensitive brain centers for motor control, to make use of their "natural" skills they must be able to observe accurately—to figure out how a move is made or an object is constructed—and they must think about how to do it themselves. This thinking involves a complex use of symbols that enables the brain to "tell" another part of itself what to do. In other situations, such as school, a body-smart person is probably best able to learn through some physical technique: In studying for an exam, for instance, he or she will retain information by saying it out loud, acting out the facts, or counting them off with finger taps. Although athletes or the manually talented are often teased as being "dumb" in schoolwork, that is not necessarily an accurate picture. To be good in using physical talents, a person must put in a lot of practice, be able to concentrate intently, and be stubbornly persistent in achieving a goal. And those qualities of will and self-control can also be put to good use in more "intellectual" achievements.

    Persistence is also an important quality of street-smart people. They are the ones who are able to see difficulties as challenges, to turn almost any situation to advantage for themselves. As young people, they are the ones who are able to make the most money doing odd jobs, or who can get free tickets to a concert that others believe is completely sold out. As adults, they are the business tycoons18, for instance, or the personalities who shoot to stardom no matter how much or little talent they have. A street-smart student may do well in the school subjects that he or she knows count for the most and will all but ignore the rest. When taking exams, street-smart people are likely to get better grades than their knowledge merits because they can "psych out" the test, and because, when facing a problem or question they cannot answer, they are skilled at putting on the paper something that looks good.

    To be street smart in these ways—to be able to achieve highly individualistic goals and to be able to get around obstacles that totally stump others—a person must draw upon a wide scope of mental powers. It takes excellent problem-solving ability, creative thought, good planning and goal setting, accurate perception, persistent effort, skill with language, quick thinking and a strong sense of intuition.

    Intuition plays a major role in people smart as well. This kind of intelligence allows a person to sense what others are thinking, feeling, wanting, and planning. Although we might tend to put this sort of skill down as basic "instinct," it actually relies on higher activities of the brain. People smarts rely on very accurate and quick perceptions of clues and relationships that escape the notice of many, and they include the ability to analyze the information taken in. A people-smart student can do well in school simply by dealing with individual teachers in the most productive way: Some can be charmed, some respond well to special requests for help, some reward hard work no matter what the results, and so forth. The people-smart student figures out easily what is the best approach to take. People with these talents also achieve well in other activities, of course—they become the leaders in clubs, and organizations, and they are able to win important individuals, like potential employers, over to their side. They would probably be typed as right-brained people, like artists, but their skill with language, both spoken and unspoken, is one that draws heavily on the left side.

    Have you been able to compare these types with people you know in your class, family, or neighborhood? Of course, no individual is actually a type: People with any one of the kind of smarts that we've described also have some of the others.

  TOP

课文二

聪明的不同形式

萨拉·吉尔伯特

    书本型聪明人、艺术型聪明人、身体型聪明人、街头型聪明人，以及人情型聪明人：这些标签描述了不同形式的智力及其作用。正如你会想象的那样，心理学家和其他研究智力本质的人，已经对他们区分出来的类型给出了更为正式的术语。通常使用的一套标签是：汇聚型、发散型、吸收型、容纳型。汇聚者和吸收者就像是书本型聪明的人；发散者就像艺术型聪明的人；容纳者就像街头型和人情型聪明的人。




    不管用什么样的分类，我们都会发现一些聪明形式在个人身上交叠出现。事实上，对于“什么是聪明的不同形式”这个问题的回答，多得可能像宇宙中的人一样数不清，因为我们每个人都是独特的。我们不会是定型的角色；我们每个人都有多方面的特殊才干。

    尽管如此，对于每一个类别，你也许都熟悉至少一个符合条件的人。在你阅读对不同类型之人的详细描述时，要记住这些人。

    起初，那些类型中每个人都必须具有不同的能力，以表现其特有的聪明。但事实上，我们所列出的智力分类中的每一个人，都必须利用同样的要素：学习能力、记忆、速度、判断力、解决问题的技巧、对语言和其它符号的熟练运用以及创造力。而且，不同类型聪明的人其思维过程包括相同的步骤：计划、理解、想象、记忆、感觉和行动。





    智力以不同的形式表现出来，部分是因为每个人的身体和大脑先天和后天所具有的不同素质，部分是由于每个人所学到的价值观和动机。

    然而，每种不同类型的聪明都使用相同的步骤，这一事实意味着，任何人都可以学习或发展任一个或所有类型的技能。下面我们来更仔细地看一看聪明的许多不同形式。

    书本型聪明人是一个在学校里表现好，在考试包括智力测试中能得高分的人。他（她）办事会极有条理，解决问题符合逻辑，按部就班，语言运用能力强。对书本型聪明人的另外一个标签是“知识分子”，即那种运用头脑更多地去了解，而不是感觉或控制的人，而且一个书本型聪明的人特别以拥有知识而自豪。知识的范围会从文学到科学到数学，但它很可能集中在某一领域。研究表明，不同的知识区域在大脑里占据不同的簇，因此一个在复杂计算方面高度发达的人，在控制讲话和写作的领域可能就不会那么发达。







    尽管我们说过，目前的研究表明学习的中心可能分散在大脑左右两半，但在书本型聪明的人的生活中，掌管逻辑活动的左脑可能是最重要的。书本型聪明的人也会富有创造性。比如，如果没有创造性的洞察力，许多数学的或科学的问题就不可能被解决。不过，一个书本型聪明的人首要关注的是知识的增加。

    另一方面，艺术型聪明的人主要依靠创造力。他们创造出音乐、绘画、雕塑、戏剧、摄影或其它形式的艺术，却说不出他们为什么或如何选择了某个特定的形式或设计。他们被称为“右脑型”的人，因为像触觉和直觉——不使用词语来形成观念——这样的能力，其控制中心似乎在右脑。从事艺术的人总是通过看、听和感觉，而不是通过认认真真地阅读和记忆来获得知识。

    艺术型聪明的人在学校可能会表现不是太好，这并不是因为他（她）不聪明，而是因为他解决问题的方式与老师和测试通常所用的方式不很适应。一个书本型聪明的人在数学考试中会按照逻辑来解题，一步步地算出结果；而一个艺术型聪明的人只是“知道”结果，却不能列出计算过程。在社会研究的考试中，书本型聪明的人会仔细地列举事实，而有艺术细胞的人却会把事实仅仅当作材料来编织故事。可以肯定，在这两种情况中，书本型聪明的人会得到更高的分数。 

    当然，想真正成为艺术家的人，可能需要吸收大量的“书本知识”，以便为他们的能力打下坚实的基础。也有其它的重叠情况。比如，有极高音乐能力的人，也会很擅长数学，可能是因为这两种过程大脑细胞的交互作用相同的缘故。而且，要想利用任何一样才能，艺术型聪明的人也必须得对身体有良好的控制。

    那些我们称作身体型聪明的人能够对身体大量进行那样的操纵。他们中绝大多数人一开始就具备适宜进行某种体育运动的身体——他们可能有遗传下来的发达的肌肉，适宜踢足球；或关节松而灵活，适宜体操运动。或者他们会是那种双手能自然地进行良好协调，来完成复杂动作的人。

    但是尽管他们能力的身体基础可能是来自于基因和特别敏感的大脑运动神经控制中心，要想利用他们的“自然”技能，他们必须能够精确地进行观察——判断出一个运动是如何做的或一个物体是怎样构成的——他们还必须考虑自己如何来做。这种思考涉及到那些能够使大脑“告诉”它自己另外一部分做什么的信号的复杂运用。在其它情况下，例如在学校，一个身体型聪明的人可能最善于通过某种身体技巧来学习：比方在复习备考时，他（她）会通过大声地念，用动作演示事实，或用手指轻叩报数来记住要记的东西。尽管运动员或双手灵巧的人在功课上被嘲笑为“笨”，这却不一定是准确的情况。要想在身体技能上做得好，一个人必须大量练习，能够集中注意力，并且在追求一个目标时坚持不懈。这些在意志和自我控制方面的素质也可以用来取得更显得是“智力上”的成就。

    坚持不懈也是街头型聪明的人一个重要的品质。他们是能够把困难当作挑战，把几乎任何情况都转变得对自己有利的人。作为年轻人，他们能够在打零工时挣最多的钱，或别人都以为音乐会票已售光时自己却搞到了免费票。作为成人，他们比方说可以是商业巨头，或是那种不管有多大或多小的才能都能一夜成名的人物。一个街头型聪明的学生会在他（她）知道最重要的学校课程上学得很好，而将其它的课程几乎置之脑后。参加考试时，交际型聪明的人得到的分数可能会超过以他们所掌握的知识应得的，因为他们能“猜透”考试，还因为，当遇到一个他们不会回答的问题时，他们善于在试卷上写些看上去不错的东西。

    在这些方面做到街头型聪明——能够达到高度个人主义的目标，能够克服使别人一筹莫展的障碍——一个人必须综合地利用智力。它需要出色的解决问题的能力、创造性思维、好的计划和目标的确定、精确的感知、坚持不懈的努力、快速的思维和很强的直觉。



    直觉在人情型聪明中也扮演着主要的角色。这种聪明能让一个人感觉出别人在想什么、心情如何、需要什么，以及在做什么打算。尽管我们会把这种能力当作基本的“本能”，它实际上依靠大脑更高层次上的活动。人情型聪明的人能够非常准确而迅速地觉察出别人注意不到的线索和关系。他们还能把得到的信息进行分析。一个人情型聪明的学生仅靠与单个的老师富有成效地交往就能取得好成绩：有的老师为其吸引，有的对他特殊的帮助请求有求必应，有的不管结果如何对于艰苦用功的学习都给予酬报，如此等等。人情聪明的学生能轻易地判断出什么是应该采取的最好方式。当然，具有这种能力的人在其它活动中也会取得好的成果——他们会成为俱乐部和团体的头头，他们还能把重要的人物，像潜在的老板，拉到他们这边来。他们可能会像艺术家那样被归入右脑型的一类人，但实际上他们语言的能力，不管是书面还是口头的，却是大大地利用了左脑 。







    你是否已经能将你在班上、家中，和邻里认识的人与这些类型进行比较？当然，没有一人实际上是个定型：具有其中任何一种我们所描述过的聪明的人也会有其它方面的聪明。

返回