4 ms·
I'm surprised the author doesn't ponder the following: Perhaps higher IQ means a person has more ability to solve these sorts of problems, if they take the time
by erdevs 12y ago
I'm surprised the author doesn't ponder the following:
Perhaps higher IQ means a person has more ability to solve these sorts of problems, if they take the time to exert the effort. That ability doesn't guarantee success in these sorts of questions without applied effort, however.
That would mean IQ is still very, very important. But that it is not the only importans factor in solving problems well (eg rationally).
To me, that seems quite plausible. Not sure why the author takes a rather anti-IQ slant as opposed for promoting supplemental measures.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- aetherson 12y agoI'd like to split the difference and say that sure, IQ means that a person does have more ability to solve these sorts of problems -- but the fact that it doesn't actually prompt you to apply it is a serious deficit for IQ, and an under-recognized problem. Smart people get lots of things badly wrong lots of the time. The fact that they're smart can make others (and perhaps themselves, too) assume that they won't be badly wrong, and thus broaden the error.
- raverbashing 12y agoThis It's one thing to solve an informal problem in a magazine, another one to sit and think about a certain problem, especially when you have hints about weather your guess is right or wrong or previous knowledge (the viral disease test is basically Bayes' Theorem)
- jquery 12y agoExactly. It's rational to look at these "trick" questions, give the obvious answer, and quickly move on. What do you gain by sweating over them? It's not like they came up on the LSAT and correctly determining the answer determines your future. Flexing your IQ uses a lot of energy... literally.