|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
and of course 'g' is intelligence.
Beyond the tautology, 'g' is defined as the 'general capacity for inferring and
applying relationships drawn from experience'.(1)
There is now more than 100 years of dead trees documenting 'g' in excruciating,
mind-numbing detail. And I do mean excruciating. (On the other hand, for a
pleasanter view of intelligence and language see this week's 'Science', 27 April
2012.)
We know what intelligence is.
We may not like what the >distribution< of intelligence is, in any or
every population, but we know what it is, and can measure the actuality with
significant precision.
IQ is equally well defined.
It is the mathematical relationship of your intelligence against everybody
else's intelligence.
Sadly, I see and had had to deal with people of 'disparate cognitive ability'.
(and not the jokey 'politicians'.)
It is real.
It is not a 'cultural artifact', or 'different lifestyle'. It makes you want to
cry.
So no, most taxi drivers and most hairdressers could not 'beat' old Al on an IQ
test. (Further: if you define your test subjects as being individuals for whom
driving or hairdressing is their max-g activity, I am sorry, they are not even
going to come close.) (On the other hand, if your test subjects are recent (now
underemployed) post-docs, maybe they will test out in the same cognitive class.
But thats not the way to bet.
JG
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 05:38 PM EDT |
Actually, that's truer of humans than it is of monkeys.
Human babies have to learn much more, more quickly than monkey babies. They
therefore are programmed to learn much more by rote - it's quicker and more
effective.
It's the people who find it hard to learn by rote - often slow learners :-) -
who actually drive progress by finding new ways or dropping unnecessary steps.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|