4 ms·
There is a well known fact in the field of psychometrics: human general intelligence g can be modeled as two relatively independent sub-factors: verbal intellig
by sinenomine 6y ago
There is a well known fact in the field of psychometrics: human general intelligence g can be modeled as two relatively independent sub-factors: verbal intelligence and spatial intelligence. Other sub-factors, if any, are way more speculative.
As a human being, it is quite possible to have verbal intelligence higher than spatial intelligence, and indeed I know some people with verbal tilt and some other people with spatial tilt. These people tend to think & approach problems differently, while having different strengths and weaknesses. Naturally, similar people cluster together, and some professions (e.g. lawyers, journalists, writers, programmers) are more amenable to verbally tilted persons, while other professions (mechanical engineering, airplane piloting, architecture) are amenable to spatially tilted persons.
Looking around via this lens, discerning cognitive styles inherent in design of the human experience is enlightening. One can see that our physical and social, educational environments and governing institutions are designed with one cognitive style in mind at the expense of the other: and this privilege goes to verbal cognitive style.
Let me offer a different perspective: to a person with higher spatial and weaker verbal cognition, this environment looks physically simplistic, tasteless, sometimes outright boring, often suffocatingly so. Utilitarian safety & simplicity prevailing over beauty and shape-being, denying the inhabitants possibilities of space meaningful by itself. Letters, words, strings of words are everywhere, starting with high-school where the recent historical trend of increasing verbalization of curriculum continues, and on to adult life where verbally intensive professions pay more and command significantly more power (note how in the aforementioned occupation list the second one contains less status-worthy & more specialized occupations). Limitless possibilities of rendered worlds on megapixel screens collapse into a flat-designed abstract hellscape of recursively composed words and menus. The brain of the child - a pinnacle of neuroplasticity - adapts, as relentless march of critical developmental periods continues, unnecessary white matter pathways wither away, while economically useful ones are potentiated and strengthened for the forthcoming endless competition with similar human beings, similarly shaped. The best and brightest in this game of words become lawyers and career politicians, movers and shakers of our world; but are they truly our best, and do they truly imagine the referents of their symbols ? Are we led by seeing or blind ?
Much could be said about benefits of verbal thinking, endless composability (to some, vacuous, denying interesting constrained structure) of syntax & grammar & semantics, and rightly so. Yet one wonders, which avenues of thought, of being, both alone and together as a people, were not taken. How a civlization of prevailing gestalt could look like ? Confronted with this state of affairs, one wonders, if "Always betting on text", pedal-to-the-metal, more-of-the-same is really going to bring us somewhere at all ?
If you, dear reader, have some latent spatial/geometrical imagination which was pushed away by economically profitable word manipulation engines that grew through you, maybe you too wonder about this question.
- jimbokun 6y ago> The best and brightest in this game of words become lawyers and career politicians, movers and shakers of our world; but are they truly our best, and do they truly imagine the referents of their symbols ? What would a high spacial intelligence, low verbal intelligence individual thrive as a President, CEO, or other type of leader? Those jobs revolve around effective communication, and I believe that will always favor high verbal intelligence individuals.
- sinenomine 6y agoThese are not jobs but positions of power; the assumption that success in securing them is indication of merit in the sense of producing best outcomes for society at large, or even this specific firm or department in isolation, amounts to just world fallacy borne out of common market delusions. In truth, communication-first leaders are only as good as the team under their command, that really understands the managed domain, is. And since this team is largely replenished by people of the same stock, vying for the same position of power, they are not very good. What results from this process of distributed re-interpretation of vaguely-worded, likely not very coherent, buzzwordy policies is a strangely incoherent and characteristically apathetic environment. For an extreme example of this pattern, see a typical UN press release and its vanishingly small influence on the state of things. If we ask a hypothetical about the possible outcome of, say, very high spatial intelligence nation-state leader, we enter wild speculation territory. I could try: "An object of harmonious art, but in political, life-shaping domain. Some precisely specified spacetime volume of greatness you'd want to be a part of once you saw a glimpse of it, even if you cannot quite put it into words", i.e. "A place of participation in a great multi-scale-harmonious vision".
- fuzzfactor 6y agoAt the very top, real leaders can sometimes do very well using a spokesperson instead of direct communication.