Heather Jackson

Psych 150

HS2

Brain Dominance

I chose the brain dominance activity because the spinning dancer on Mr. Wolf’s web page caught my attention and looked interesting. In this activity, at brain.web-us.com (1995-2005), I had to answer eighteen questions to see which hemisphere of my brain is dominant. They ask questions having to do with where you sit in a movie theater or classroom and would you rather write a story or draw a picture. Then you are told which types of information processing you are best at and how to improve the other half of your brain.

After answering the questions I was a little unclear as to what they were telling me. Of the eighteen questions, I answered nine as a left brained individual and nine as a right brained person. I was a little happy and a little confused. The happiness came from thinking that I was pretty balanced and the confusion set in as I wondered how they labeled me one way when the results were equal. So being the kind of person I am, I decided to try another web site to confirm or deny what the first said. I found another free brain type test at testcafe.com (2002-3), and after answering all of their questions, I had my confirmation.

According to both tests, I am left-brained. I am reality-based, better at linear and sequential processing, and do well with words and symbols. This means that I am generally proficient at math, spelling, and most things that have rules or processes that you must follow to arrive at the correct answer. Jobs held by people of my type include scientists, librarians, and even skating judges (testcafe.com, 2002-3).

I believe that this activity is pretty valid. I usually do well in structured classes. I seem to "file away" pertinent information and pull it out whenever I need it. This activity told me why it is easier to receive good grades in classes where I know exactly what is expected of me. If I have a deadline and guidelines to follow, I know what to do and I plan my steps in order to accomplish it. Therefore, to me at least, the brain dominance activity was also very reliable.

I would definitely recommend this activity to anyone who wants to better understand themselves. One of the websites in particular, brain.web-us.com (1995-2005), was particularly helpful. Right-brained thinkers have a tendency to struggle in school because it’s usually geared more toward the logical side of your brain. But this website told each type of person how to exercise their weaker side. It suggested things like reading through a chapter before the lecture so the "big picture," or right-brained, thinkers wouldn’t get lost in the details and be overwhelmed (brain.web-us.com, 1995-2005).

However, there are still things for which we need our right-brain, even in academics. As I am writing this paper, my left-brain checks for spelling and grammar, but my right tells me if it "feels" like it’s supposed to. It lets me know that I am being coherent and that my words get the point across.

So I have learned something new about myself and even those around me. The long and short of it is this: the more balanced your brain work is, the more you can achieve. After all, a mind, or even half a mind, is such a terrible thing to waste.

References

BookRags, Inc. (2002-3). The Brain Type Test. Retrieved September 9, 2008, from http://www.testcafe.com/lbrb/lbrbfree.cgi.

Intelegen, Inc. (1995-2005). Left Vs. Right- Which Side Are You On? Retrieved September 6, 2008, from http://brain.web-us.com/brain/LRBrain.html.

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************

Heather Jackson

Psych 150

HS2

Personality

For my second activity, I decided to take a personality test. I found one, for free, at humanmetrics.com (Tim Flynn, nd). I was asked around thirty questions and responded with either yes (indicating that I agreed or felt that particular way), or no (as in "that’s not me at all.") Then I was given a Jung Typology type that was only four letters long, based on my answers.

The only thing that it told me was I am ENFJ, which stands for Extraverted Intuitive Feeling Judging (humanmetrics, nd) and the percentage strength of those preferences. Great! So what exactly does that mean? After further digging, I found out that basically I am a teacher (Keirsey.com Inc., nd), and share my type with about 30 famous and one fictitious character in a sit-com (Joe Hackett from Wings.) (Butt, 2005) Needless to say, I didn’t think that this was enough information for my web activity.

My second try led me to a more understandable website. Again, I answered all the questions to the best of my ability and received my results. They were much clearer and broke my personality down into 16 different factors. Some of these I had already learned about myself, such as my high levels of perfectionism, dutifulness, and social assertiveness, but I was very surprised by some of the others. According to similarminds.com (Tim Flynn, 2008), I am very tense, not very emotionally stable, and my liveliness level is almost non-existent.

I was a little skeptical about some of these claims; after all, that was me it was dissecting, and some of these aspects of my personality were insulting and even scary. I thought I may have to go to yet another website and try again. Then my husband asked me how it was going and I handed him my papers. His eyes skimmed over it and took in all the percentages. Then he looked at me and pretty much told me it was absolutely correct. He said something like, "Well, they’ve got you all figured out, huh?" So of course I had to be mad at him. I mean, me? Aggressive? Then I realized I was about ready to strangle him and thought that maybe there was some truth to this thing, after all.

So, if you want confirmation of a few self-theories and maybe an eye-opener or two, I would recommend that you take a personality test. Most of it was reliable, and even accounting for the weird randomness of some of the questions, it was pretty accurate. What you do with the results, however, is entirely up to you.

For me, I agree with most of it, but it’s been somewhat of a process. And I’m pretty sure that’s the point. Look at the positive things that make you who you are, and keep in mind some of the others so you can pull them out and work on them. We all have a few qualities that we aren’t too thrilled about.

I know that the next time I get irritable or entertain thoughts of homicide (not literally of course) I will remember this test and think better of it. Maybe a few deep, cleansing breaths. Meditation or something. We’ll see.

References

Butt, Joe. (2005). Extraverted iNtuitive Feeling Judging. Retrieved September 21, 2008, from http://typelogic.com/enfj.html.

Flynn, Tom (nd). Cattell 16 Factor Test Results.

Retrieved September 21, 2008, from

http://similarminds.com/cgi- bin/16sm.pl..

Humanmetrics. (nd). Jung Typology Test. Retrieved September 6, 2008, from http://humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes3.asp.

Keirsey.com Inc. (nd). About 4 Temperaments. Idealist Portrait of the Teacher (ENFJ). Retrieved September 21, 2008, from http://keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=keirsey&f=fourtemps&tab=3&c=teacher

***********************************************************************************************************************************************************

Heather Jackson

Psych 150

HS2

Intelligence

I took an Intelligence Quotient, or IQ, test about three years ago that placed me either at or around what is considered the "genius" level. I have since had one-and-a-half semesters of college and read countless books. Therefore, I was a little curious as to what an IQ test would say about me now.

The first test I took for this activity (at highiqsociety.org) (International High IQ Society. (nd).) was unlike any IQ test I’ve ever seen. I had to respond to every question within a certain time limit, or points would be deducted from my final score. Some of the spatial relationship questions had a six second time frame in which I had to memorize an entire screen of randomly colored squares. Then that screen would vanish and I was required to choose the answer that completely reproduced what I had seen, while racing against the clock. Needless to say, it was very intense.

My IQ was 114. I was not sure if this score was accurate or due to this being a particularly difficult version of the test. My anxiety level could also have contributed to this result. So I did what I always do when I am not sure. I went to another website to see what it would say.

My score from quizrocket.com (Quiz Rocket, 2008) was even more bizarre. According to that website, my IQ is 178, which is higher than Einstein had. His IQ was reputed to be around 160 (Understanding & Interpreting IQ [Intelligence Quotient], 2004.) Although this was a very flattering thought, I was pretty sure that it wasn’t entirely correct either. The data that I had thus far was separated by fifty points! So, of course, I had to have yet another opinion.

The third and final website I visited was at IQTest.com (Autumn Group, 2003-2008). I answered all the questions and was rewarded with a more believable result of 129. I would have been happier if it were closer to either one or the other previous results, but it was at least within the range the first two indicated. I decided to leave it at that and give my overworked brain a rest. The average of the three scores is 140, which is the generally accepted benchmark of genius IQ, although some individuals have scored more than 200. (Understanding & Interpreting IQ (Intelligence Quotient), 2004).

After these experiences, I believe that the Intelligence Quotient Test, in general, is pretty valid. However, because the questions are obviously not the same, and sometimes not even of the same type, I wouldn’t put too much faith in one particular test. If you continue to take different IQ tests and they all say the same thing, I think it would be safe to say that your personal score is somewhere very close to that number.

I would recommend this activity to someone who is self-confident and innately curious about themselves. You just need to remember a couple of things: 1) one score does not make you any more or any less intelligent than you actually are, and 2) ambition, determination, and work ethic are just a few individual qualities that are never factored into the equation. This number does not define you. It can neither guarantee your success nor predict your failure. It’s what you do with what you have been given that makes all the difference.

References

Autumn Group. (2003 -2008). Free IQ Test PhD. Certified. Retrieved September 20, 2008 from http://www.iqtest.com

International High IQ Society. (nd). Professional IQ Tests. Retrieved September 19, 2008 from http://www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/testresults_fail.php

Quiz Rocket. (2008). I.Q. Test. Retrieved September 19, 2008 from http://www.quizrocket.com/free-iq-test

Understanding & Interpreting IQ (Intelligence Quotient). (2004). What Different IQ Scores Mean. Retrieved September 19, 2008 from http://wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html

************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Correlation Essay:

Childhood Music Lessons,

Intelligence Quotient (IQ)

And

Academic Achievement

Heather Jackson

Psych 150

HS2

Fall, 2008

Exposure to a form of music lessons, whether it be for an instrument or one’s own voice, has been linked to higher IQ scores and elevated academic achievement in a variety of individuals. Family income, length of lessons, even the amount of time that has elapsed since the lessons were discontinued seems to make no discernible difference. These persons have been shown to not only score higher in arts-oriented sections of the test, but also in the nonmusical areas like language and mathematics as well as small but widespread increases in achievement.

Childhood Music Lessons, Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and Academic Achievement

It has long been heard that music may actually make you smarter. But there are far too many other factors involved for this to be such a cut-and-dried equation. Music lessons, intelligence and academic achievement have been shown, however, to be related to one another in a pretty definite and predicable way.

IQ, which is defined by dictionary.com as "the ratio of tested mental age to chronological age" (nd), has been proven to depend, at least in part, on genetics. It may also be affected by cultural background and socioeconomic status. It is calculated by a test that is age-specific and administered by an individual or organization that is trained to accurately read the results. The standard test for childhood intelligence is the WISC-III. (R. Johnson, 2006)

Achievement is a similar, but different, thing. A person can have a high IQ but not necessarily be an achiever. It depends on how much effort they are willing to put into what they are trying to do. And because academic achievement is different, it has its own test: the K-TEA. (R. Johnson, 2006.)

A study conducted by E. Glenn Schellenberg in 2004 was very instrumental in discovering the relationship between the three. Before this study, the correlation of music lessons, IQ, and achievement in academics already had evidence to support it. But it was not clear whether the first was actually linked to the others in a meaningful way, or just coincidence.

For example, the families that can afford music lessons for their children are usually affluent members of their communities, with good jobs. Job salary is related to education, which is in turn related to IQ. So the same parents that pay for the lessons could have just directly given their children their intelligence and that relationship, not music lessons to IQ, could have been the one documented. Also, it may have happened another way: children with high IQ already tend to

get more satisfaction and enjoyment out of music lessons, and thus, stick with it longer. (Schellenberg, 2004.)

In order to clear up the confusion, Schellenberg devised a study that eliminates most of these variables. He ran an ad in a newspaper for free arts lessons given to six year old children on a weekly basis. The children came from different backgrounds and their parents had different levels of education. The kids were measured both before and after the lessons were given. (Schellenberg, 2004.)

After all the lessons were completed, he found that all four of the groups (keyboard lessons, voice lessons, drama lessons, and no lessons) had an increase in IQ which was probably due to the participants getting older and entering grade school. But the keyboard and voice lessons groups increased in IQ an average of seven points and the two control groups averaged 4.3 points higher than their previous (before lessons) score. Academic achievement was also slightly higher. (Schellenberg, 2004.)

Schellenberg was not completely finished with this issue. Now that he had shown a correlation between music lessons, IQ, and, to a smaller extent, academic achievement, he wanted to know if the length of the lessons and the amount of time elapsed between the lessons and the testing made any difference. He devised another experiment to find out.

After this second study he and the other researchers found that there is a "dose-response association." (Schellenberg, 2006, as cited in Munsey, 2006, p. 1) They found that for every month of lessons received by 6 to 11 year olds, IQ increased 0.17, or one-sixth, of a point. (Schellenberg, 2006, as cited in Munsey, 2006) Given this information, you could calculate that someone who took lessons for twelve years would have an increase of 15 points, a substantial number.

He then turned his attention to college students. In this group he found that six years of playing music as children and adolescents was associated with a two point difference between those college freshmen who had music lessons and those who hadn’t. (Schellenberg, 2006, as cited in Munsey, 2006) So, that could be estimated as four points difference for the twelve years of playing that we used earlier in the younger group. Given these two numbers, we could reasonably say that playing an instrument or taking voice lessons as children would yield us higher IQ than non-musicians, and better school grades. Also, this extra boost would not immediately disappear. This is not, however, an absolute cause-and-effect phenomenon; it’s merely a relationship between the three.

Even though E. Glenn Schellenberg is the leading researcher on this topic, he is not the only one interested in it nor is this the only effect that has been measured and recorded. There is also an occurrence known as the "Mozart Effect" which happens like this: a person listens to a piece of music composed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart before taking an IQ test and subsequently scores higher than they would have scored had they not listened to the music. This deals with short-term, specific memory as opposed to the long-term "transfer effect" of Schellenberg’s research which has to do with extended periods of learning music, not just listening to it. (L. Johnson, 2005)

According to Gottfried Schlaug, a Harvard neurologist, as cited by Leslie K. Johnson in 2005, "Preliminary results indicate that children who study music have more overall gray matter than children who don’t." (p. 271) These results come from studies of young children’s brains- their blood flow and oxygen saturation specifically. The studies were conducted in collaboration with Ellen Winner of Harvard‘s Project Zero. (L. Johnson, 2005)

Finally, we turn to the Music Educators National Conference (MENC) , which is now known as the National Association for Music Education (NAME). They compiled a list of the benefits of music education which included "Success in school and learning," and "Success in developing intelligence." (MENC-The National Association for Music Education, 2007, p. 4-7) In this compilation, there was a very surprising fact: almost every winner of the Siemens Westinghouse Competition in Math, Science and Technology play some sort of musical instrument(s). (The Midland Chemist [American Chemical Society], 2005, as cited in MENC-The National Association for Music Education, 2007) Also, students that were tested after playing music for one year received higher scores in areas "such as literacy, verbal memory, Visio-spatial processing, mathematics, and IQ." (Dr. Laurel Trainor, 2006, as cited in MENC-The National Association for Music Education, 2007, p. 7)

Many researchers and psychologists have discovered and documented the positive, if weak, relationship between childhood music lessons, IQ scores, and academic achievement. A few naysayers still remain that refuse to believe this really happens, but the overwhelming majority vote is that it can, and does, happen frequently. I believe after reading this evidence that childhood music lessons not only give you enjoyment and the satisfaction of learning something new, they may also improve your life in unexpected ways.

References

Johnson, L. (2005, December). Research Review. Teaching Artist Journal, 3(4), 270-277. Retrieved October 13, 2008, doi:10.1207/s1541180xtaj0304_10

Johnson, R. (2006, October). What's New in Pedagogy Research?. American Music Teacher, 56(2), 58-59. Retrieved October 13, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

MENC-The National Association for Music Education, (2007, Summer). Why Music Education? Retrieved October 12, 2008, from MENC website:

http://www.menc.org/resources/view/why-music-education-2007.

Munsey, C. (2006, June). Music Lessons May Boost IQ and Grades. Monitor on Psychology, 37(6). Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun06/iq.html.

Schellenberg, E. (2004, August). Music Lessons Enhance IQ. Psychological Science, 15(8), 511- 514. Retrieved October 13, 2008, doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00711.x