3 ms·
I feel like the Tetris study[0] in section 3.2 kind of goes against what you're saying here, but that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about, a
by SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
I feel like the Tetris study[0] in section 3.2 kind of goes against what you're saying here, but that's not really what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about, all else equal, good learners and good leaders can "tap into" passion at will, either in themselves or in others, to gain an advantage in practice consistency, which leads to improved fluency in the task. A learner's IQ ends up being a wash; if they have this skill, they can learn better than someone with their same IQ (or higher) without this skill (and I do suspect it to be a skill, as people modulate over their ability at learning over their lifetimes).
[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1617405/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1617405/
- barking_biscuit 4y agoHmm I don't see how you can at all conclude that. Meh.
- SpeedilyDamage 4y agoHow so?
- barking_biscuit 4y agoThe Neuroscience of Intelligence is a comprehensive overview of the state of the art understanding of the field of intelligence research. The paper you linked is, as I understand it, not research on intelligence but rather expertise and/or skill acquisition. I say this because The Neuroscience of Expertise talks about results of exactly this nature in Chapter 1. The rest of what you say is too poorly defined to be a well reasoned model of how reality works at a fundamental level.
- SpeedilyDamage 4y agoI got that paper from The Neuroscience of Intelligence, it's the study cited in section 3.2, so if you don't think its relevant, Dr. Richard J. Haier seems to disagree. And if you can't be specific about what I'm saying that's wrong, I might start to suspect you don't know what you're trying to say.