4 years ago1,000+ Views
A study by researchers at Kings College of London says they can, but I'm not convinced. Basically, the researchers took over 4,000 pairs of twins (both fraternal and identical) and tested them at both 4 and 14. They were asked to draw, and then their drawings were ranked based on factors such as the number of body parts. They were also given verbal and nonverbal intelligence tests at both ages. As expected, there was a moderate correlation between the "ranking" of the drawing and the intelligence score. Additionally, it seemed that identical twins (who share much of the same DNA) scored more similarly to each other than fraternal twins. Again, expected results, but I don't know that we can take any big conclusions from this. How can you really "rank" any drawing to be representative of intelligence? Is it really the number of body parts that should be counted, or aren't there other factors that are different among drawings that could be a better representation? Educators and researches often seem desperate to link intelligence level to genes in some way, and while genes are of course a factor, I'm still strongly of the opinion that there are other (more important!) factors in determining creativity and intelligence.
@nehapatel @ryantadman @galinda Yeah, I can't believe it either. Sure, there are going to be some correlations but the number of exceptions and circumstances that are different is too high to be able to rely on those things.
We all develop at different speeds, in different ways. I can't see how intelligence can be accurately measured.
I've seen plenty of studies like this. For example, if you're 3 years old and drawing individual fingers or if you dont draw necks you're a different intelligence level. I don't believe it one bit.
I definitely agree with you! How can we even "measure" intelligence--that's a completely ridiculous concept I just don't agree with. Intelligence doesn't come in one form, and it differs no matter where you go.