←back to thread

University of Cambridge Cognitive Ability Test

(planning.e-psychometrics.com)
101 points indigodaddy | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
hirvi74 ◴[] 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 #
alphazard ◴[] No.45077558[source]
> Whose life has actually improved for the better?

High-IQ children in low income families. In so far as they are targeted by social programs that give them better educational opportunities.

replies(1): >>45078204 #
hirvi74 ◴[] No.45078204[source]
So, without IQ it would be impossible for social programs to give better educational opportunities to exist? And on that same note, and this a genuine question, how much evidence supports that better educational opportunities truly manifests into the outcomes we socially desire?

I'd be leery of anyone that claims that the only reason they were able to become a doctor, lawyer, etc. was because of being in a gifted program or something similar.

As far as I am concerned, I firmly believe the truly talented will create their own environment within reason. Take Von Neumann, for example. He was god-like in abilities. I am certain someone of his caliber did not need better educational opportunities in order to be exceptional. The man was, by all accounts, born exceptional.

Also, I am not certain that giving better educational opportunities to the bright is better than giving better educational opportunities to the disadvantaged, but I will admit I am likely too ignorant on this topic to have an informed opinion.

replies(2): >>45079242 #>>45079480 #
alphazard ◴[] No.45079480[source]
> So, without IQ it would be impossible for social programs to give better educational opportunities to exist?

It wouldn't be impossible. The extra resources might not go as far, which makes the program more likely to look like a waste.

> how much evidence supports that better educational opportunities truly manifests into the outcomes we socially desire?

The rate of technological progress we can make as a species is largely dictated by the area under the +2 sigma -> infinity region of the IQ curve. Further adjusted by the amount of those people that we can find and motivate to participate in the economy. As for evidence, the US poaches high IQ people from around the world. You can chalk that up to coincidence if you want.

replies(1): >>45080163 #
1. hirvi74 ◴[] No.45080163[source]
> The rate of technological progress we can make as a species is largely dictated by the area under the +2 sigma -> infinity region of the IQ curve

That was precisely my point. If little Johnny or Sally need a special education program to properly challenge and educate them, then I hate to break the news to their families, but whatever "it" is, those children don't have "it."

I also find it interesting how "gifted" programs and the like are predominately a Western intervention. To my knowledge, countries like Japan and China do not have "gifted" programs. I am not saying there are not academic and social discrepancies between highly intelligent and the normies, but Western culture does tend to be less community driven than cultures of the two countries I previously mentioned.

> You can chalk that up to coincidence if you want.

I cannot comment about modern times, but I know a certain group of people that I am half descendant from were commonly denied entry into the US during the 1920s - 1950s. However, those same people allegedly had the highest IQ scores on average. At least, historically.

replies(1): >>45081609 #
2. ◴[] No.45081609[source]