单项选择题

Intelligence used to be seen as a fixed entity, some faculty of the mind that we all possess and which determines in some ways the extent of our achievements. Since the Intelligence Quotient was relatively unaffected by bad teaching or a dull home environment, it remained constant. Its value, therefore, was a predictor of children’s future learning. If they differed markedly in their ability to learn complex tasks, then it was clearly necessary to educate them differently—and the need for different types of school and even different ability groups within schools was obvious.
Today, we are beginning to think differently. In the last few years, re search has thrown doubt on the view that innate intelligence can ever be measured and on the very nature of intelligence itself. Perhaps most important, there is considerable evidence now which shows the great influence of the environment both on achievement and intelligence. Children with poor home backgrounds not only do less well in their school work and in intelligence tests—a fact which could be explained on genetic grounds—but their performance tends to deteriorate gradually compared with that of their more fortunate classmates. Evidence like this lends support to the view that we have to distinguish between genetic intelligence and observed intelligence. Any deficiency in the appropriate genes will obviously restrict development, no matter how stimulating the environment. But we cannot observe or measure innate intelligence; whereas we can observe and measure the effects of the interaction of whatever is inherited with whatever stimulation has been received from the environment. Changes may occur in our observations or measurements, if the environment is changed. In other words, the Intelligence Quotient is not constant.
Researches over the past decade have been investigating what happens in this interaction. Work in this country has shown that parental interest and encouragement are more important than the material circumstances of the home.
Two major findings have emerged from these studies. Firstly, that the greater part of the development of observed intelligence occurs in the earliest years of life. 50 percent of measurable intelligence at age 17 is already predictable by the age of four. In other words, deprivation in the first four or five years of life can have greater consequences than any of the following twelve or so years.
Secondly, the most important factors in the environment are language and psychological aspects of the parent-child relationship. Much of the difference in measured intelligence between "privileged" and "disadvantaged" children may be due to the latter’s lack of appropriate verbal stimulation and the poverty of their perceptional experiences.
These research findings have led to a revision in our understanding of the nature of intelligence. Instead of it being some largely inherited fixed power of the mind, we now sec it as a set of developed skills with which a person copes with any environment. These skills have to be learned and, indeed, the fundamental one is learning how to learn.
The old view of intelligence would seem to justify ______.