6 ms·

Just to clarify, are you making the claim that everyone has the same mental capacity for thinking/deduction/memory/etc, it's just our perception of that based o

by Jedi72 8y ago

Just to clarify, are you making the claim that everyone has the same mental capacity for thinking/deduction/memory/etc, it's just our perception of that based on various external cues which makes us think these levels exist? Because I would disagree with that statement. Even if I had 50 years of study I would not think on the level of say Terrance Tao.

objektif 8y ago
Think about what? Think about poems with Terrence or music or movies or stochastic calculus?
kibwen 8y ago
Rather I'd say that "intelligence" in practice is an enormous grab-bag of different skills and qualities, some broad, some specific, some learnable, some inherent. A brilliant mathematician like Terence Tao may still very well consider themselves a dullard when faced with, say, the musical intuition of a piano virtuoso, or the effortless foresight of a chess grandmaster, or the rapt attention commanded by master storyteller, or the social intelligence of a smooth-talking Jobsian entrepreneur. For these kinds of intelligence, the IQ test is ill-suited, which is fine as long as we don't conflate IQ with the be-all end-all of intelligence (which has arguably happened in the popular imagination).
- zorga 8y ago
  > A brilliant mathematician like Terence Tao may still very well consider themselves a dullard when faced with, say, the musical intuition of a piano virtuoso, or the effortless foresight of a chess grandmaster, or the rapt attention commanded by master storyteller, or the social intelligence of a smooth-talking Jobsian entrepreneur. I'd bet all of those people would score high in IQ. > For these kinds of intelligence, the IQ test is ill-suited That's not what the science tells us. > which is fine as long as we don't conflate IQ with the be-all end-all of intelligence There is only one G. There's little to no evidence in support of the theory of multiple intelligence's; it's not really science, IQ is actual science with lots of evidence to support it.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    > IQ is actual science with lots of evidence to support it. ...did you read the submission? Don't worship science blindly; it's not nearly as black/white as you're framing it to be. IQ can have evidence to support it and still be deeply flawed/incomplete/entirely wrong.
    - feanaro 8y ago
      Incomplete, certainly. But entirely wrong? The results still need explaining and the IQ model will surely be at least related to any new, better model, given its ability to produce at least some reliable results.
      - mike00632 8y ago
        Astronomy was replaced astrology but many people still use astrology to inform their beliefs. I doubt that the existence of better science would stop people from using IQ.
        feanaro 8y ago
        That may very well be, but IQ is still the best we have right now and, more importantly, is much more coherent and reliable than astrology is. The possibility of its use being continued in a lay manner even after we have a better model shouldn't stop us from using it right now. In fact, you could use the same argument to argue against any other current scientific knowledge.
        mike00632 8y ago
        >IQ is still the best we have right now... Is it? Then why don't we use it instead of other tests and metrics? I'm going to echo what other people have said in this thread and say that I've never encountered an IQ test in my academic or professional life among the numerous aptitude measurements. >In fact, you could use the same argument to argue against any other current scientific knowledge. The same argument is indeed used against eugenics, human experimentation, and various other sciences which are tangent to ethically challenged practices. For example, gene editing of humans is a scientific practice that could have clear benefit but the potential for misuse (which we've already seen in the recent Chinese gene hacking case) must be considered.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  There are two interpretations of this, one of which is irrelevant to IQ and psychometrics and the other of which has no evidence despite several people spending most of their career looking for it. Math, music, chess, story telling and social intelligence are all skills, all of which can be improved from a low base. In all of them higher g will be helpful because there’s very little where higher g isn’t helpful. If you want to learn about the science of skill building it’s better known as the study of expertise. K. Anders Ericsson founder the field. He wrote a popular book, Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise https://www.amazon.com/Peak-Secrets-New-Science-Expertise/dp/1531864880 https://www.amazon.com/Peak-Secrets-New-Science-Expertise/dp... If you want the academic treatment there’s a Cambridge Handbook of Expeetise and Expert Performance. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cambridge-Expertise-Performance-Handbooks-Psychology/dp/0521600812 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cambridge-Expertise-Performance-Han... If you want to read about how multiple intelligence theory á la Gardner has no empirical support start here. http://www.faculty.mun.ca/cmattatall/Multiple_Intelligences_.pdf http://www.faculty.mun.ca/cmattatall/Multiple_Intelligences_... > Multiple Intelligences, the Mozart Effect, and Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review > This article reviews evidence for multiple intelligences theory, the Mozart effect theory, and emotional intelligence theory and argues that despite their wide currency in education these theories lack adequate empirical support and should not be the basis for educational practice. Each theory is compared to theory counterparts in cognitive psychology and cognitive neuro- science that have better empirical support. The article considers possible reasons for the appeal of these 3 theories and concludes with a brief rationale for examining theories of cognition in the light of cognitive neuroscience research findings. If you want attempts at something that kind of looks like multiple intelligence from people who actually know psychometrics look up the work of Robert J. Sternberg. Criticism below http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2003dissecting.pdf http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2003dissectin... > Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence > Sternberg et al. [Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J. A., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., Snook, S. A., Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press] review the theoretical and empirical supports for their bold claim that there exists a general factor of practical intelligence that is distinct from ‘‘academic intelligence’’ ( g) and which predicts future success as well as g, if not better. The evidence collapses, however, upon close examination. Their two key theoretical propositions are made plausible only by ignoring the considerable evidence contradicting them. Their six key empirical claims rest primarily on the illusion of evidence, which is enhanced by the selective reporting of results. Their small set of usually poorly documented studies on the correlates of tacit knowledge (the ‘‘important aspect of practical intel- ligence’’) in five occupations cannot, whatever the results, do what the work is said to have done— dethroned g as the only highly general mental ability or intelligence.
diminoten 8y ago
I'm making no assertion, I'm saying it's not beyond believable that the current "common knowledge" understanding of intelligence is completely wrong. > Even if I had 50 years of study I would not think on the level of say Terrance Tao. Yeah you would. Don't deify anyone.
geezerjay 8y ago
> Even if I had 50 years of study I would not think on the level of say Terrance Tao. The whole point of that argument is that someone who thinks on the level of Terrance Tao would not be perceived as being as intelligent as Terrance Tao if he had zero years of study, while at the same time someone with 50 years of study who was less gifted would place ahead.

by Jedi72 8y ago

objektif 8y ago

Think about what? Think about poems with Terrence or music or movies or stochastic calculus?

kibwen 8y ago

Rather I'd say that "intelligence" in practice is an enormous grab-bag of different skills and qualities, some broad, some specific, some learnable, some inherent. A brilliant mathematician like Terence Tao may still very well consider themselves a dullard when faced with, say, the musical intuition of a piano virtuoso, or the effortless foresight of a chess grandmaster, or the rapt attention commanded by master storyteller, or the social intelligence of a smooth-talking Jobsian entrepreneur. For these kinds of intelligence, the IQ test is ill-suited, which is fine as long as we don't conflate IQ with the be-all end-all of intelligence (which has arguably happened in the popular imagination).

zorga 8y ago
> A brilliant mathematician like Terence Tao may still very well consider themselves a dullard when faced with, say, the musical intuition of a piano virtuoso, or the effortless foresight of a chess grandmaster, or the rapt attention commanded by master storyteller, or the social intelligence of a smooth-talking Jobsian entrepreneur. I'd bet all of those people would score high in IQ. > For these kinds of intelligence, the IQ test is ill-suited That's not what the science tells us. > which is fine as long as we don't conflate IQ with the be-all end-all of intelligence There is only one G. There's little to no evidence in support of the theory of multiple intelligence's; it's not really science, IQ is actual science with lots of evidence to support it.
- diminoten 8y ago
  > IQ is actual science with lots of evidence to support it. ...did you read the submission? Don't worship science blindly; it's not nearly as black/white as you're framing it to be. IQ can have evidence to support it and still be deeply flawed/incomplete/entirely wrong.
  - feanaro 8y ago
    Incomplete, certainly. But entirely wrong? The results still need explaining and the IQ model will surely be at least related to any new, better model, given its ability to produce at least some reliable results.
    - mike00632 8y ago
      Astronomy was replaced astrology but many people still use astrology to inform their beliefs. I doubt that the existence of better science would stop people from using IQ.
      - feanaro 8y ago
        That may very well be, but IQ is still the best we have right now and, more importantly, is much more coherent and reliable than astrology is. The possibility of its use being continued in a lay manner even after we have a better model shouldn't stop us from using it right now. In fact, you could use the same argument to argue against any other current scientific knowledge.
        mike00632 8y ago
        >IQ is still the best we have right now... Is it? Then why don't we use it instead of other tests and metrics? I'm going to echo what other people have said in this thread and say that I've never encountered an IQ test in my academic or professional life among the numerous aptitude measurements. >In fact, you could use the same argument to argue against any other current scientific knowledge. The same argument is indeed used against eugenics, human experimentation, and various other sciences which are tangent to ethically challenged practices. For example, gene editing of humans is a scientific practice that could have clear benefit but the potential for misuse (which we've already seen in the recent Chinese gene hacking case) must be considered.
barry-cotter 8y ago
There are two interpretations of this, one of which is irrelevant to IQ and psychometrics and the other of which has no evidence despite several people spending most of their career looking for it. Math, music, chess, story telling and social intelligence are all skills, all of which can be improved from a low base. In all of them higher g will be helpful because there’s very little where higher g isn’t helpful. If you want to learn about the science of skill building it’s better known as the study of expertise. K. Anders Ericsson founder the field. He wrote a popular book, Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise https://www.amazon.com/Peak-Secrets-New-Science-Expertise/dp/1531864880 https://www.amazon.com/Peak-Secrets-New-Science-Expertise/dp... If you want the academic treatment there’s a Cambridge Handbook of Expeetise and Expert Performance. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cambridge-Expertise-Performance-Handbooks-Psychology/dp/0521600812 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cambridge-Expertise-Performance-Han... If you want to read about how multiple intelligence theory á la Gardner has no empirical support start here. http://www.faculty.mun.ca/cmattatall/Multiple_Intelligences_.pdf http://www.faculty.mun.ca/cmattatall/Multiple_Intelligences_... > Multiple Intelligences, the Mozart Effect, and Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review > This article reviews evidence for multiple intelligences theory, the Mozart effect theory, and emotional intelligence theory and argues that despite their wide currency in education these theories lack adequate empirical support and should not be the basis for educational practice. Each theory is compared to theory counterparts in cognitive psychology and cognitive neuro- science that have better empirical support. The article considers possible reasons for the appeal of these 3 theories and concludes with a brief rationale for examining theories of cognition in the light of cognitive neuroscience research findings. If you want attempts at something that kind of looks like multiple intelligence from people who actually know psychometrics look up the work of Robert J. Sternberg. Criticism below http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2003dissecting.pdf http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2003dissectin... > Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence > Sternberg et al. [Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J. A., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., Snook, S. A., Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press] review the theoretical and empirical supports for their bold claim that there exists a general factor of practical intelligence that is distinct from ‘‘academic intelligence’’ ( g) and which predicts future success as well as g, if not better. The evidence collapses, however, upon close examination. Their two key theoretical propositions are made plausible only by ignoring the considerable evidence contradicting them. Their six key empirical claims rest primarily on the illusion of evidence, which is enhanced by the selective reporting of results. Their small set of usually poorly documented studies on the correlates of tacit knowledge (the ‘‘important aspect of practical intel- ligence’’) in five occupations cannot, whatever the results, do what the work is said to have done— dethroned g as the only highly general mental ability or intelligence.

diminoten 8y ago

I'm making no assertion, I'm saying it's not beyond believable that the current "common knowledge" understanding of intelligence is completely wrong. > Even if I had 50 years of study I would not think on the level of say Terrance Tao. Yeah you would. Don't deify anyone.

geezerjay 8y ago

> Even if I had 50 years of study I would not think on the level of say Terrance Tao. The whole point of that argument is that someone who thinks on the level of Terrance Tao would not be perceived as being as intelligent as Terrance Tao if he had zero years of study, while at the same time someone with 50 years of study who was less gifted would place ahead.