3 ms·
An unfortunate yet unsurprising report to those familiar with the literature on cognitive ability. I too donated to similar programs. I hope better computer ski
by diziet 10mo ago
An unfortunate yet unsurprising report to those familiar with the literature on cognitive ability. I too donated to similar programs. I hope better computer skills make some sort of earning impact, though the prevalence of smart phones probably makes a bigger difference.
- texasthistle 10mo ago[flagged]
- mmooss 10mo ago> Cognitive ability is largely biological/genetic and can't be "trained up" so to speak Would you share evidence? How are you defining 'cognitive ability'? The idea that cognitive ability doesn't benefit from education is unbelievable - the opposite of experience and of what I understand.
- literalAardvark 10mo agoEducation helps channel cognitive ability into useful pathways, but you either have something to channel or don't. Though I'd go with innate over genetic: leaves more room for nurture and epigenetics and doesn't make one sound like a white supremacist.
- mmooss 10mo ago> you either have something to channel or don't Again, any evidence? What exactly is 'cognitive ability'? A hallmark of the lack of substantive argument is vague terms that can mean anything the speaker likes, and by not defining the term they prevent any substantive critique - nobody really knows what they're talking about (and usually, not the speaker either). I highly doubt it's all or nothing. While there are likely variations in anything, they can be quite insignificant. For example, everyone, with tiny exceptions, can learn to speak & understand language, and write & read - highly sophisticated cognitive abilities. And they can improve those abilities through education. These baseless generalities don't show much 'cognitive ability'.
- literalAardvark 10mo agoThere's plenty of evidence for those who want to learn instead of split hairs. I'd start with a search on "general intelligence factor".
- zapzupnz 10mo agoAre you really lmgtfy-ing on Hacker News?
- mmooss 10mo agoSo you've got nothing to offer?
- literalAardvark 10mo agoI answered your question clearly and in good faith. The rest of your diatribe is US styled epistemic theatre I don't feel the need to engage with, so I didn't. What exactly did your posts contribute?
- mmooss 10mo agoYou provided nothing but unsupported claims. Nobody else is doing your research for you.
- foxglacier 10mo agoIt's the scientific consensus not somebody's pet theory. So you don't need to get answers from here, you can get them from Google.
- tptacek 10mo agoIt's the consensus among g-theorists. "The scientific consensus" on cogntive function is Not A Thing.
- paulryanrogers 10mo ago
- danparsonson 10mo ago> Though I'd go with innate over genetic.... doesn't make one sound like a white supremacist. Lucky you dodged that bullet, eh? I suppose 'white supremacist-adjacent' is an improvement.
- literalAardvark 10mo agoThat'd be very amusing, since I'm not white. But no, it just happens to be fairly well documented that some people run faster hardware than others for a wide variety of nature and nurture reasons. They also run better or worse neural networks on that hardware, which can be educated, but there's no replacement for displacement.
- mmooss 10mo agoPlenty of white supremecists and their supporters are not white. Plenty are, and say they aren't. > it just happens to be fairly well documented that some people run faster hardware than others for a wide variety of nature and nurture reasons. Vague statements like that are unfalsifiable. Of course there are variations in performance - that's absolutely undeniable; mostly likely I type faster or slower than you do. The questions are, how big are those variations and how much are they dependent on what the person is conceived with biologically. If you want to claim anything, you need to be much more specific about those issues.
- danparsonson 10mo agoThe point was not about your skin colour but your ideology - "some people are just better because nature". To put your example in different terms - I don't have the physique of an olympic athlete, so I'll never be that fast or strong, but going to the gym absolutely improves on what I have already. I don't have to just live with whatever nature handed to me.
- literalAardvark 10mo agoThat's a false equivalence and you know it. The fact that you can somewhat improve your muscles doesn't change that some people need to put much less effort in or can recover fast enough to be able to put more effort in. Same for brains. Except we don't know a way to improve a healthy brain's performance (*in a general way, ergo a way that transfers to other tasks).
- foxglacier 10mo agoGood on you for admitting it, but this popular way of being intentionally wrong just because some baddies have stuck their flag in the hill of truth is anti-scientific. Everyone's trying to protect their personal image at the expense of honesty. I'm constantly encountering people who have wrong beliefs about this stuff because the scientific conclusions are so well hidden from mainstream writing on the topic. Even the person replying to you seems shocked to hear that intelligence is innate. Blank-slatism and everybody's-a-winner has infected popular understanding of intelligence.
- zozbot234 10mo agoExcept that raw unadjusted IQ scores for even the "hardest" and supposedly most culturally unbiased test (Raven's Progressive Matrices) have consistently shown a secular gain of about one standard deviation over 30-to-40 years, due to the so-called Flynn Effect; with much of it concentrated at the low end. The whole notion that these tests simply measure some kind of purely "innate" ability is highly implausible to say the least; even more so when you compare across different cultural subgroups and even totally different countries.
- raddan 10mo agoNot to mention that any test of “innate” ability should not be affected by training or practice, but all known tests of supposed innate ability are. Even Binet (yes, the guy who intended the IQ test) found substantial practice effects; these effects were replicated by Gibson (1969).
- foxglacier 10mo agoIt's obviously both genetic and environmental. You can limit people with a detrimental environment (extreme example - inflicting brain damage) but cant improve them beyond their their natural ceiling. And yes, tests don't purely measure that innate ceiling.
- littlestymaar 10mo ago> It's obviously both genetic and environmental. You can limit people with a detrimental environment (extreme example - inflicting brain damage) but cant improve them beyond their their natural ceiling. The question besides the obvious is how close to their ceiling the average human is (or even the 90th percentile). Because the entire discourse about “ceiling” implies that people are somewhat limited by their ceiling. But if 90% of the people are plateauing at 30% of their ceiling because of environmental factors, it makes little sense to talk about the ceiling at all.
- tbrownaw 10mo agoThis disagreement sounds like what I've heard about fluid intelligence vs crystallized intelligence.
- mmooss 10mo agoWould you share it ...? :)
- lurk2 10mo ago> An unfortunate yet unsurprising report to those familiar with the literature on cognitive ability. The conclusion of that literature being…?
- torginus 10mo agoI'm surprised about how popular these racist explanations about why the program failed, and not exploring the fact that the hardware, software and training for teachers might have been lacking If they were good at what they set out to do, the program would've been successful and desired in Western countries (perhaps with upgraded models). But it wasn't. I'd say the lack of ability to self-reflect on the shortcomings of the HW/SW/Infra and the willingness of the program's creators to embrace such explanations is much more telling about the probable cause of failure. I'm sure most of these supposedly cognitively inferior Peruvian kids are on their laptops right now, playing League or Overwatch, with most of them having smartphones. In broader strokes, and with the benefit of hindsight, I think the story of Africa is worth exploring, after a century of Western selfless efforts of trying to civilize and develop the continent, very little progress has been made. Then the Chinese moved in with far less noble intentions and a profit motive, and succeeded beyond imagination at civilization-building.
- nchmy 10mo agoAre there any links you can share about the unimaginable civilization building in western Africa?