←back to thread

University of Cambridge Cognitive Ability Test

(planning.e-psychometrics.com)
101 points indigodaddy | 1 comments | 30 Aug 25 17:20 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hirvi74 ◴[30 Aug 25 19:12 UTC] No.45077200[source]▶
I still do not understand why we are wasting scientific resources trying to stack rank humans on arbitrarily defined concepts like cognitive ability or intelligence.

After over a century of psychometric research in cognitive abilities and intelligence, what do we have to show for it? Whose life has actually improved for the better? Have the benefits from such research, if any, outweighed the amount of harm that has already been caused?

replies(13): >>45077238 #>>45077239 #>>45077255 #>>45077278 #>>45077284 #>>45077312 #>>45077319 #>>45077343 #>>45077475 #>>45077495 #>>45077558 #>>45077983 #>>45078303 #
aerhardt ◴[30 Aug 25 19:29 UTC] No.45077319[source]▶
There are plenty of benefits to studying it, and plenty of downsides to not studying it. I recommend “The Neuroscience of Intelligence” by Richard Haier from Cambridge Fundamentals of Neuroscience in Psychology for a comprehensive, accessible, and modern review.
replies(1): >>45080017 #
1. hirvi74 ◴[31 Aug 25 03:06 UTC] No.45080017[source]▶
I think have read this before. Wasn’t he trying to find neuroscientific evidence to support IQ via neuron transmission rates and whatnot? Or was it grey matter volume?

Regardless, I am still skeptical of a lot of neuroscience research, as well.

I feel that neuroscience often suffers from the same issues that psychology does —- where correlation apparently equates to causation.