XVI.
The data produced from Phase III:
1.
The group results on the standardized tests.
2.
How subjects with similar conceptions organized to solve
problems.
-
for example, when I put a group together I’d say to them:
“Now, I want you to solve these problems. You organize how to
get it done.”
And then I would observe to see how they organized themselves
to solve the problems.
3.
How subjects with similar conceptions interacted with each other.
4.
How subjects with similar conceptions worked toward the solution
of the problems.
5.
How long, on average, did it take for each group to find answers.
6.
How many solutions did each group find.
(The
express self but not at the expense of others found more solutions than
all the others put together.)
7.
The quality of the answers found by the groups.
(All
the groups found good answers but differed on how they found the answers
and how many answers they found.)
8.
Average time the group took finding answers.
(I
had this kind of quantitative answers.)
I
took this data and I started to process it.
- - - - - - Now, try to put yourself in my position.
I
had given a number of psychometric tests. I had put the students in a
number of problem solving situations where they had been measured on a
large number of dimensions as you can see in 1 through 8 above.
Now
I took the scores of the four (4) original conception classifications
(two deny/sacrifice and two express self), determined the mean score for
all of them and then translated them into rank order.
For example: in Table 1 [page 7]
- - - -
in Cognitive Complexity - - - -
Dimension
Measured
|
-
SNFRL - {*4}
Sacrifice
Now
For
Reward
Later
|
- ESC -
{*5}
Express
Self
Calculatedly
|
- SNFAN - {*6}
Sacrifice
Now
For
Approval
Now
|
-
ESWCFO - {*7}
Express
Self
With
Concern
For
Others
|
Cognitive
Complexity
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
-
the deny/sacrifice self now for reward later had the lowest mean score.
-
the next highest mean score was express self calculatedly/rationally.
-
next highest mean score was deny/sacrifice for acceptance/approval now.
-
and express self with concern for others was the next one.
But look at the next one on Table 1. There was no essential
difference in intelligence ranking
among the people. Subsequent studies have indicated that those systems
that are
described in the Journal of Humanistic Psychology do not arise from
intelligence.
The
highest correlation that I - or anyone else who has been playing around
when I was conducting
this research . . . or now - - - - - no one has gotten above a .15
correlation.
Intelligence
is not a factor in determining movement through these systems.