Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

rumpleforeskins t1_j20x803 wrote

Reply to comment by Victra_au_Julii in Schooling substantially improves intelligence, but neither lessens nor widens the impacts of socioeconomics and genetics by i_have_thick_loads

Because you can learn techniques to improve these very things. Eg a computer science class will teach you how to think generally about problems and assess time/space complexity, and will show you how to break down big problems into small ones, which is a generally applicable skill, not just for writing code.

Reading courses can teach you techniques to broaden your reading width and anchor on word segments rather than whole words. It can teach you to read the first and last sentence of a paragraph first and then summarize what you just read after each paragraph so you improve retention and concept abstraction, both of which are generally useful skills.

SAT prep course can teach you how to use process of elimination to invalidate potential answers and reduce the set possible solutions. That is a generalizable skill that helps with executive problem solving more broadly.

If you're looking for citations im afraid I can't provide those off the top of my head (like I said I don't study intelligence). But intuitively I'd venture that many of the things we attribute to intelligence are just skills like the ones I mention above that have been practiced or happen to be specific talents of individuals, and are in many cases ones that can be practiced and improved.

−1

imagine_that t1_j21bhp4 wrote

Right, those specific skills can be improved. And yet, even in the application of those 'meta skills' onto *new* problem sets, between people, you can kinda still see differences in speed, totality of application of the meta skill onto the new problem set and fine tune adjustment of differing implications.

Sometimes it just takes less for some people to wield meta skills more robustly compared to others.

10

rumpleforeskins t1_j21xbbx wrote

Good point. I guess that's a good way to point out "intelligence"--given that two people learn the same meta skills, one may still outperform the other when applying those new skills in a new test. Perhaps they're exhibiting greater general intelligence. ¯\_(:|)_/¯

I'm definitely speaking from intuition, so I hope I've made that clear enough.

3

nowyouseemenowyoudo2 t1_j21h1t9 wrote

You’d be wrong though. As a psychologist who has administered the WAIS and WISC, there’s no way to ‘practice’ to improve fluid intelligence.

The test-retest validity is extremely high because it has to be, any IQ test you can train for is not a real IQ test. Also, any IQ test which you can take without a qualified administrator is not a real IQ test.

I had to study for years to become qualified to administer them, and only then was I able to access the materials and be supervised in their use.

The things you are talking about are not fluid intelligence. Your intuition about this is wrong.

9

WillCode4Cats t1_j21nswx wrote

What are your opinions on the subject of IQ?

My main gripe with the tests (I took a WAIS-IV) is that there are potentially many variables that are not accounted for when taking the test, thus I feel that anyone’s result is just a snapshot of that person’s “intelligence” at that point in time, but the value is not static except for perhaps in the best of conditions where many of the variables have the same values.

What I mean is, what if someone stayed up for 48 hours and took a test? Do you believe this would impact one’s score? How about longer than 48 hours? What if they did not eat properly, are extremely stressed, etc.?

It’s why I have a hard time when psychologist try to warp qualitative data into quantitative results. Take height, for example. In any of the variables I listed above, a full grown adult’s height would remain static. That is because it is a quantitative result — unlike IQ.

I understand how much research has been conducted on IQ and it’s validity, but I would like to see more data and research from neurology than the soft sciences.

5

rumpleforeskins t1_j21xpx5 wrote

I see! Good to know. I'm glad I issued the disclaimer that I don't actually know what I'm talking about.

It's an interesting subject.

4