4 ms·

Without references your comment is worthless.

by stiff 13y ago

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
oblique63 13y ago
No, worth can be drawn simply by applying the model I outlined above. References may add more worth if you're looking for verification (which I don't blame), but it's also a daunting task to compile such lists. Your comment on the other hand, could've just asked me for sources and that would've been productive, but instead you chose to just dismiss the entire argument cynically with a single statement; that literally doesn't add any value for anybody. I wish downvotes would be justified more deeply than this. However, since it is useful, here are some resources to begin learning about what intelligence and cognitive research have to say about the matter: http://www.amazon.com/The-Talent-Code-Greatness-Grown/dp/055380684X/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Talent-Code-Greatness-Grown/dp/055... http://www.amazon.com/The-Genius-All-Us-Insights/dp/0307387305 http://www.amazon.com/The-Genius-All-Us-Insights/dp/03073873... http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/26/motivation-not-iq-matters-most-for-learning-new-math-skills/ http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/26/motivation-not-iq-matt... http://www.cogmed.com/impact-working-memory-training-young-people-social-emotional-behavioral-difficulties http://www.cogmed.com/impact-working-memory-training-young-p... http://www.cogmed.com/working-memory-but-not-iq-predicts-subsequent-learning-in-children-with-learning-difficulties http://www.cogmed.com/working-memory-but-not-iq-predicts-sub... http://www.cogmed.com/working-memory-training-generalize-improve-offtask-behavior-children-attentiondeficithyperactivity-disorder http://www.cogmed.com/working-memory-training-generalize-imp... http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~antonvillado/courses/09a_psyc630001/Ackerman%20(1987)%20PB.pdf http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~antonvillado/courses/09a_psyc630... http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/ml2009/CMU-ML-09-102.pdf http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/ml2009/CMU-ML-09-... http://jabba.edb.utexas.edu/it/enhancingCognitiveSkill.pdf http://jabba.edb.utexas.edu/it/enhancingCognitiveSkill.pdf There are plenty more resources out there, and I'm sure there are much better ones too. But the implication of all this is that learning is a skill, and that you can learn how to learn better. We may not yet thoroughly understand how generalized learning takes place in the brain, but it does seem to be a function of working memory and motivation, which can be improved. Generalized learning is segmented more finely than how I described it originally, but it still functions the same way (e.g. learning to juggle may not help you learn a new language better, but learning to play a musical instrument may help you to learn the other two more easily, since it incorporates language skills through music, and motor skills through playing). Making an argument against this model would place the burden of proof on that side, because as I mentioned before, there is no known mechanism that would lead to the outcome outlined by the 'fair'/balanced model, and it would have to explain away phenomena like neuroplasticity that seem to directly oppose it.
- stiff 13y ago
  I just don't understand how you can state bold claims like this as facts without substantiating them in any way by references or any sort of logical deduction: If a person learned to become exceptionally 'talented' in one area, then he/she's more likely to replicate that same level success in a completely new area The only limiting factor on skill acquisition is choice/taste. Doesn't genetics also have some role here? The references you just included do nothing to provide any sort of evidence for those statements. To what extents cognitive skills are transferable is still much debated and science is far from having an unanimous answer. Good overview of the issue is here: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jlnietfe/EDP504_Notes_files/Are%20Cognitive%20Skills%20Context%20Bound.pdf http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jlnietfe/EDP504_Notes_files/Are%20Cogn...
  - oblique63 13y ago
    Genetics do play a surprisingly significant role, and my second reference (book) even mentions it in the title. IQ is strongly believed to be linked to genetics, but again, as I listed in one of the sources, even IQ doesn't necessarily factor into skill acquisition, only ease of skill acquisition; two distinct but important points. You can learn to learn better -- that is the main point. It doesn't matter where you start off (i.e. IQ via genetics), you can still get a skill snowball-effect going relative to where you started. It seems you missed the second part of my last comment where I mentioned it was more segmented and context based (like your citation states), but that the general trajectory is still the same. Learn a skill in one context, any subsequent skills in the same context become easier. The thing is that there are things that generalize to multiple contexts, and that some contexts are larger than they seem[1]. Now, it is certainly much harder for some people to acquire certain skills, and it may be near impossible to excel at them up to a certain level (e.g. physical athleticism). But skill level is again different from the skill itself, and it is the skills themselves that matter in skill acquisition. For example, if running ability is found to be genetically limited, then getting any better at it may be harder for you, but picking up a sport like football would probably still be much easier for you if you trained your running first regardless. IQ being genetically determined can impact other things like motivation; i.e. if you have a low IQ things will be harder for you, making you less likely to pursue skill acquisition in the future, and conversely, a high IQ may predispose you to acquiring more skills since they come so easily to you, but the point is that neither absolutely determine how many skills you can/will acquire. I made a 'bold' statement because it's just that practical of a perspective to take[2]. And science backs it up not only in terms of all the positive effects exercising brain plasticity brings[3], but also in the fact that IQ isn't an end-all be-all metric. It is significant, and highly correlated to other important things like life expectancy[4], but IQ itself is not the limit. A built-in limit to skill acquisition would have to come somewhere else down the line if there is one. I study this stuff on my free time because it interests me, I'm not an expert/scientist, so trying to discover a well-defined concrete limit to skill acquisition is beyond my domain, but stuff like epigenetics and plasticity is making it harder to believe there is one. [1] I believe the last cite in my previous comment shows an example of this. Also, I myself have a pretty average IQ of ~114 or something, but this view has allowed me to learn a surprising number of skills before I even knew any of the science around it, so of course I'm biased and wanted to share. [2] Well, that and the fact that most people simply don't bother to look at painfully constructed source lists anyway, making the endeavor of compiling them less worth it. [3] One example: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2003/september24/dementia.html http://news.stanford.edu/news/2003/september24/dementia.html [4] http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/AnnualReview09-10/SevenAges/Elderly/IQlinkbetween/index.htm http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/AnnualReview09-10/SevenAges/Elder...
stiff 13y ago
Wow. So you HN guys just accept statements like those on faith?
- chiph 13y ago
  People here at HN don't just know how use a search engine ... they write search engines.

Without references your comment is worthless.

by stiff 13y ago

Without references your comment is worthless.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

oblique63 13y ago

No, worth can be drawn simply by applying the model I outlined above. References may add more worth if you're looking for verification (which I don't blame), but it's also a daunting task to compile such lists. Your comment on the other hand, could've just asked me for sources and that would've been productive, but instead you chose to just dismiss the entire argument cynically with a single statement; that literally doesn't add any value for anybody. I wish downvotes would be justified more deeply than this. However, since it is useful, here are some resources to begin learning about what intelligence and cognitive research have to say about the matter: http://www.amazon.com/The-Talent-Code-Greatness-Grown/dp/055380684X/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Talent-Code-Greatness-Grown/dp/055... http://www.amazon.com/The-Genius-All-Us-Insights/dp/0307387305 http://www.amazon.com/The-Genius-All-Us-Insights/dp/03073873... http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/26/motivation-not-iq-matters-most-for-learning-new-math-skills/ http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/26/motivation-not-iq-matt... http://www.cogmed.com/impact-working-memory-training-young-people-social-emotional-behavioral-difficulties http://www.cogmed.com/impact-working-memory-training-young-p... http://www.cogmed.com/working-memory-but-not-iq-predicts-subsequent-learning-in-children-with-learning-difficulties http://www.cogmed.com/working-memory-but-not-iq-predicts-sub... http://www.cogmed.com/working-memory-training-generalize-improve-offtask-behavior-children-attentiondeficithyperactivity-disorder http://www.cogmed.com/working-memory-training-generalize-imp... http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~antonvillado/courses/09a_psyc630001/Ackerman%20(1987)%20PB.pdf http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~antonvillado/courses/09a_psyc630... http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/ml2009/CMU-ML-09-102.pdf http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/ml2009/CMU-ML-09-... http://jabba.edb.utexas.edu/it/enhancingCognitiveSkill.pdf http://jabba.edb.utexas.edu/it/enhancingCognitiveSkill.pdf There are plenty more resources out there, and I'm sure there are much better ones too. But the implication of all this is that learning is a skill, and that you can learn how to learn better. We may not yet thoroughly understand how generalized learning takes place in the brain, but it does seem to be a function of working memory and motivation, which can be improved. Generalized learning is segmented more finely than how I described it originally, but it still functions the same way (e.g. learning to juggle may not help you learn a new language better, but learning to play a musical instrument may help you to learn the other two more easily, since it incorporates language skills through music, and motor skills through playing). Making an argument against this model would place the burden of proof on that side, because as I mentioned before, there is no known mechanism that would lead to the outcome outlined by the 'fair'/balanced model, and it would have to explain away phenomena like neuroplasticity that seem to directly oppose it.

stiff 13y ago
I just don't understand how you can state bold claims like this as facts without substantiating them in any way by references or any sort of logical deduction: If a person learned to become exceptionally 'talented' in one area, then he/she's more likely to replicate that same level success in a completely new area The only limiting factor on skill acquisition is choice/taste. Doesn't genetics also have some role here? The references you just included do nothing to provide any sort of evidence for those statements. To what extents cognitive skills are transferable is still much debated and science is far from having an unanimous answer. Good overview of the issue is here: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jlnietfe/EDP504_Notes_files/Are%20Cognitive%20Skills%20Context%20Bound.pdf http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jlnietfe/EDP504_Notes_files/Are%20Cogn...
- oblique63 13y ago
  Genetics do play a surprisingly significant role, and my second reference (book) even mentions it in the title. IQ is strongly believed to be linked to genetics, but again, as I listed in one of the sources, even IQ doesn't necessarily factor into skill acquisition, only ease of skill acquisition; two distinct but important points. You can learn to learn better -- that is the main point. It doesn't matter where you start off (i.e. IQ via genetics), you can still get a skill snowball-effect going relative to where you started. It seems you missed the second part of my last comment where I mentioned it was more segmented and context based (like your citation states), but that the general trajectory is still the same. Learn a skill in one context, any subsequent skills in the same context become easier. The thing is that there are things that generalize to multiple contexts, and that some contexts are larger than they seem[1]. Now, it is certainly much harder for some people to acquire certain skills, and it may be near impossible to excel at them up to a certain level (e.g. physical athleticism). But skill level is again different from the skill itself, and it is the skills themselves that matter in skill acquisition. For example, if running ability is found to be genetically limited, then getting any better at it may be harder for you, but picking up a sport like football would probably still be much easier for you if you trained your running first regardless. IQ being genetically determined can impact other things like motivation; i.e. if you have a low IQ things will be harder for you, making you less likely to pursue skill acquisition in the future, and conversely, a high IQ may predispose you to acquiring more skills since they come so easily to you, but the point is that neither absolutely determine how many skills you can/will acquire. I made a 'bold' statement because it's just that practical of a perspective to take[2]. And science backs it up not only in terms of all the positive effects exercising brain plasticity brings[3], but also in the fact that IQ isn't an end-all be-all metric. It is significant, and highly correlated to other important things like life expectancy[4], but IQ itself is not the limit. A built-in limit to skill acquisition would have to come somewhere else down the line if there is one. I study this stuff on my free time because it interests me, I'm not an expert/scientist, so trying to discover a well-defined concrete limit to skill acquisition is beyond my domain, but stuff like epigenetics and plasticity is making it harder to believe there is one. [1] I believe the last cite in my previous comment shows an example of this. Also, I myself have a pretty average IQ of ~114 or something, but this view has allowed me to learn a surprising number of skills before I even knew any of the science around it, so of course I'm biased and wanted to share. [2] Well, that and the fact that most people simply don't bother to look at painfully constructed source lists anyway, making the endeavor of compiling them less worth it. [3] One example: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2003/september24/dementia.html http://news.stanford.edu/news/2003/september24/dementia.html [4] http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/AnnualReview09-10/SevenAges/Elderly/IQlinkbetween/index.htm http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/AnnualReview09-10/SevenAges/Elder...

stiff 13y ago

Wow. So you HN guys just accept statements like those on faith?

chiph 13y ago
People here at HN don't just know how use a search engine ... they write search engines.