IQ paradox... If enviornment did afffect IQ..

[Kriminal99]

Suppose that enviornment heavily affected IQ, as some people believe. It has been shown that a person with a higher IQ can extract the meaning of words from contexts they are used in more quickly, thus gathering a higher vocabulary over time. In fact this is sort of the definition of IQ and identifies it as a type of complex reaction time.

 

If a person started with a lower IQ, and we wanted to raise it through "nurture", there is an important challenge that we would face.

 

The person cannot easily understand any reason why they need more intelligence. There would be a subset of the world they currently understand, and things they do not understand - things they consider useless because of this lack of understanding. When and if they learned something new, it would not alert them to a need for more cognitive ability. Rather they would once again feel as though they were adequately equipped to function in the world they were currently aware of.

 

We are not trying to raise their amount of knowledge - rather we are trying to raise their rate of knowledge gain. Even if it were possible to cause them to do so through conditioning, how would you go about it?

 

One answer that comes to mind would be to constantly cause them to feel unable to understand their immediate surroundings. However it is important to note that most people's reaction to this, at least initially, would be hostile. If the situation persisted however, and they reached a point of acceptance, than in our theoretical model the person might then feel a need for more intelligence.

 

So my point is, even if enviornment is capable of raising intelligence, it would be very difficult to actually do so. It would require persistent exposure to cognitive tasks that the person in question was currently unable to perform.

 

It is interesting then, that the only situation recognized to provide a statistically significant increase in intelligence is when a lower IQ child is adopted by a higher IQ parent.

[CraigD]

It has been shown that a person with a higher IQ can extract the meaning of words from contexts they are used in more quickly, thus gathering a higher vocabulary over time. In fact this is sort of the definition of IQ and identifies it as a type of complex reaction time.

:( Source? Where can we read about this definition of IQ, and how the correlation between how quickly one can extract meaning of words from context and intelligence?

The person cannot easily understand any reason why they need more intelligence.

This is an interesting take on learning, and one I think resonates withmost people with much experience as teachers: “smart” students seem to feel they are never smart enough, while “less smart” (a PC synonym for “stupid”) ones seem to feel they are – or, irritatingly, that people smarter than they are “too smart”. I’ve personally felt many times an intuitive sense that if I could just convince low achievers – especially ones circumstances – parents, environment, opportunity, etc – suggest should be high achievers – that it’s fun to be a high achiever, they would undergo a profound epiphany and be suddenly transformed.

 

My personal experience is that, though a good and charismatic argument can appear to trigger such a transformation, it doesn’t last. The “desire to be smart” involves, I think, many complicated underlying psychological factors - self worth, a sense of being loved, of having a duty to be of service, etc. “Nature” the underlying neuroanatomy and physiology of cognition – seems to me necessary for high achievement, as measured by IQ tests, but not sufficient, as without the correct “nurture” – meeting various complicated developmental needs – even physically healthy offspring of high achievers provided with excellent educational opportunities may not perform well on IQ tests, at school, professionally, etc.

We are not trying to raise their amount of knowledge - rather we are trying to raise their rate of knowledge gain. Even if it were possible to cause them to do so through conditioning, how would you go about it?

It’s hard to discuss this in such general terms, but I think the answer is: I would go about it by actually raising the amount of knowledge, but of a special kind of knowledge: metaknowledge. A very rough example: rather than encourage a geography student to memorize the names of the continents, countries, states and territories, capital cities, etc, I would encourage them to study the information hierarchy that organize these names, reassuring them that they would never be subjected to a “closed book test” in which they’d be denied access to reference materials. Further, I’d emphasize common features and differences in the information hierarchies of all subjects, encouraging students to study and invent meta-meta-knowledge, etc.

 

I’d also attempt to make them all my research slaves, writing agent-based simulation programs promoting my own selfish, extropian, goals – but I begin to wander off-topic, and worse, reveal my sinister ulterior motives. :lol:

 

Speaking seriously, I also think it’s essential for people interested in intelligence to have a firm, factual understanding of the history, terminology, and practice, of its testing. It’s important, I think, to understand that, in a scientifically objective, quantifiable sense, testing and test results are all that exists concerning intelligence. The underlying things it measures (g factor, zanshin, etc.) are at best “soft”, metaphysical, and abstract.

 

As a start, pop-quiz style, everybody should be able to questions such as: “in the Stanford-Binet IQ, what quantity is used for the ‘Q’?”.

 

Reading widely on the subject’s important, too – personally, I’m more than a quarter century behind in this regard, not having read, for example Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man.

[Michaelangelica]

The person cannot easily understand any reason why they need more intelligence

Irrelevant.

Especially for for babies etc. you just (?) provide an enriched, stimulating, loving environment.

So my point is, even if enviornment is capable or raising intelligence, it would be very difficult to actually do so.

No, not really, we know a lot about how to do this.

For example, telling a teacher that a kid in his/her class is "very bright' or a"late bloomer" can increase his IQ score from the beginning to the end of a year by as much as 5-(+?)%

It has been shown that a person with a higher IQ can extract the meaning of words from contexts they are used in more quickly

Has it? Verbal intelligence is only one aspect of intelligence.

Aboriginal kids in Australia often produce low IQ scores on pen and paper IQ tests, because of language and literacy problems.

However, I would prefer to be lost in the bush/outback with an tribal-educated Aboriginal kid, than any designer of IQ tests.

 

High IQ test scores do not necessarily mean high functioning intelligence.

The concept of IQ is probably the most misunderstood thing.

Even with professionals like teachers who should have a firm grasp of it.

IMHO opinion IQ tests should ONLY be used for medical clinical reasons and even here with modern brain scans- the need is doubtful. It is a psychological test that has outlived its -dubious- usefulness.

[Kriminal99]

:QuestionM Source? Where can we read about this definition of IQ, and how the correlation between how quickly one can extract meaning of words from context and intelligence?

 

This is an interesting take on learning, and one I think resonates withmost people with much experience as teachers: “smart” students seem to feel they are never smart enough, while “less smart” (a PC synonym for “stupid”) ones seem to feel they are – or, irritatingly, that people smarter than they are “too smart”. I’ve personally felt many times an intuitive sense that if I could just convince low achievers – especially ones circumstances – parents, environment, opportunity, etc – suggest should be high achievers – that it’s fun to be a high achiever, they would undergo a profound epiphany and be suddenly transformed.

 

My personal experience is that, though a good and charismatic argument can appear to trigger such a transformation, it doesn’t last. The “desire to be smart” involves, I think, many complicated underlying psychological factors - self worth, a sense of being loved, of having a duty to be of service, etc. “Nature” the underlying neuroanatomy and physiology of cognition – seems to me necessary for high achievement, as measured by IQ tests, but not sufficient, as without the correct “nurture” – meeting various complicated developmental needs – even physically healthy offspring of high achievers provided with excellent educational opportunities may not perform well on IQ tests, at school, professionally, etc.

 

It’s hard to discuss this in such general terms, but I think the answer is: I would go about it by actually raising the amount of knowledge, but of a special kind of knowledge: metaknowledge. A very rough example: rather than encourage a geography student to memorize the names of the continents, countries, states and territories, capital cities, etc, I would encourage them to study the information hierarchy that organize these names, reassuring them that they would never be subjected to a “closed book test” in which they’d be denied access to reference materials. Further, I’d emphasize common features and differences in the information hierarchies of all subjects, encouraging students to study and invent meta-meta-knowledge, etc.

 

I’d also attempt to make them all my research slaves, writing agent-based simulation programs promoting my own selfish, extropian, goals – but I begin to wander off-topic, and worse, reveal my sinister ulterior motives. ;)

 

Speaking seriously, I also think it’s essential for people interested in intelligence to have a firm, factual understanding of the history, terminology, and practice, of its testing. It’s important, I think, to understand that, in a scientifically objective, quantifiable sense, testing and test results are all that exists concerning intelligence. The underlying things it measures (g factor, zanshin, etc.) are at best “soft”, metaphysical, and abstract.

 

As a start, pop-quiz style, everybody should be able to questions such as: “in the Stanford-Binet IQ, what quantity is used for the ‘Q’?”.

 

Reading widely on the subject’s important, too – personally, I’m more than a quarter century behind in this regard, not having read, for example Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man.

 

THE PROMETHEUS SOCIETY

 

This is a description and statistical analysis of a use of a sort of complex reaction time test as an iq test. It's just done by one of those high iq societies considering the test as an entrance qualifier. Here complex reaction time test is defined differently than a "choice reaction" time test in that the person must do slightly more complex processing than what is contained in a choice test. They found that there was a strong correlation between iq and users of the test, at least as strong as any other IQ test. They also look at potential problems with their argument. The idea that simpler choice reaction time tests are somewhat correlated with IQ. The idea that vocabulary is correlated with IQ is widely known. I assume you just wanted reference for the above claim?

 

Regarding your perception of influencing people to "be smarter"... One thing I have recognized about this is that in order to have any hope of significantly influencing someone in this manner (something you cannot gauge the results of easily unless they have nothing to lose by being honest with you) you need to somehow understand their thinking and address it directly. This might mean you have to be better at wording their point of view than they are, which means you deduce what they might be thinking by what they say and how they act.

 

Simply stating an argument that makes sense to you about it, or one that consists heavily of metaphors (perhaps relying on your social station to do the majority of the convincing) is not likely to accomplish anything. They will simply retain some counter reasoning that they will not express and believe you to be incorrect (perhaps even correctly so, due to some unique experiences they have that you do not).

 

If you are able to completely address their reasoning, they will be forced to seriously consider your argument even if they are hostile towards you. But by their nature, such capable arguments are not presumptuously judgmental or hostile.

 

In these tasks, I have found my understanding of philosophy and morality extremely useful... particularly with people that have had negative past experiences. I have met many supposed "problem people" (some with low IQ's) who frustrated many people that tried to influence them in a positive manner unsuccessfully. I was able to persuade them to accept many of the arguments that were pushed upon them that were actually true and being used to ID them as "problem people", simply by separating them from the hypocritical and selfish behaviors (that were yet "socially acceptable) or even just nonobjective arguments of the people trying to persuade them.

 

But even then communicating enough of these arguments to have a significant overall effect takes time, which is why I recognize that large amounts of interaction with the person would be required to have any hope of achieving a significant impact.

 

g is a well defined phenomenon... the statistical correlation of a person's scores on one type of intelligence test with their score on others. Iq's correlation with reaction time, even just "choice" reaction time, seems to identify the cause of this correlation.

 

Regarding naming conventions - Any argument that a person does not understand a subject if he does not know the labels is simply false as can be proven with this simple counterexample: The conventional names in one language are different than another, thus a person could be an expert in a field without knowing any English conventional terms. This reasoning can be simply extended to the idea that an individual or group can explore a field using their own terminology and reach some greater understanding than any other group. In fact they may be approaching the problem from a different perspective (hence the unique terminology) which could create such an increased understanding. Additionally, I believe that a person particularly proficient in the discipline of knowledge itself is likely to seek out many different perspectives on each subject, thus being exposed to many different naming conventions. Such a person would become proficient at translating between any such conventions by identifying the connections between ideas and thus come to consider naming conventions all but irrelevant.

 

When you consider the small amount of time required to translate from one set of labels to another in the same belief set, I find it difficult to understand why people are so concerned with naming conventions

[Kriminal99]

Irrelevant.

Especially for for babies etc. you just (?) provide an enriched, stimulating, loving environment.

 

No, not really, we know a lot about how to do this.

For example, telling a teacher that a kid in his/her class is "very bright' or a"late bloomer" can increase his IQ score from the beginning to the end of a year by as much as 5-(+?)%

 

Has it? Verbal intelligence is only one aspect of intelligence.

Aboriginal kids in Australia often produce low IQ scores on pen and paper IQ tests, because of language and literacy problems.

However, I would prefer to be lost in the bush/outback with an tribal-educated Aboriginal kid, than any designer of IQ tests.

 

High IQ test scores do not necessarily mean high functioning intelligence.

The concept of IQ is probably the most misunderstood thing.

Even with professionals like teachers who should have a firm grasp of it.

IMHO opinion IQ tests should ONLY be used for medical clinical reasons and even here with modern brain scans- the need is doubtful. It is a psychological test that has outlived its -dubious- usefulness.

 

The first statement has nothing to do with what I am talking about. The idea is, say you have someone, who perhaps grew up without an education. How do you convince this person that 2+2 = 4 is an important thing to know? Even if you come across a situation where it is useful to know this and convince them of that, you have just convinced them that they only needed one additional piece of knowledge. It seems for them to understand that they needed a greater ability to learn, they would have to CONSTANTLY be exposed to such situations such that they felt unable to cope with all the information they needed to process. Conditioning someone in this manner would be difficult.

 

Even if such a thing has been observed, it would be interpreted as error in the testing and not as an increase in the student's actual IQ. In that case, it would be claimed the student actually had a higher level of cognitive ability all along and was simply more motivated to use that ability by someone believing in them.

 

Multiple intelligence theory has never been supported by any kind of evidence. You are talking about rather simplistic accumulated knowledge. It doesn't take a rocket scientists for a tribe of people to identify a few snakes and animals that should be avoided or that are safe to eat...

 

IQ is extremely useful and is directly defined as someone's ability to extract information from their surroundings over time. The fact that a person has a large vocabulary is immediately useful, and it is what many IQ tests directly measure.

 

I definitely agree that from there people make different uses of their intelligence... some forming formal networks of concepts, others using their intelligence to persuade and manipulate others, and everything in between. But this is compared to lower IQ people who go less far in either direction...

[Michaelangelica]

O dear, where do i start

The first statement has nothing to do with what I am talking about. The idea is, say you have someone, who perhaps grew up without an education. How do you convince this person that 2+2 = 4 is an important thing to know? Even if you come across a situation where it is useful to know this and convince them of that, you have just convinced them that they only needed one additional piece of knowledge. It seems for them to understand that they needed a greater ability to learn, they would have to CONSTANTLY be exposed to such situations such that they felt unable to cope with all the information they needed to process. Conditioning someone in this manner would be difficult.

No, it would not be difficult.

Relationships is where people learn, a skilled teacher could do this easily.

I feel that there is a great need or even drive to "learn' among humans; when it is not killed by education systems.

But how does knowing 2+2=4, = Intelligence? It dosn't.

 

Even if such a thing has been observed, it would be interpreted as error in the testing and not as an increase in the student's actual IQ. In that case, it would be claimed the student actually had a higher level of cognitive ability all along and was simply more motivated to use that ability by someone believing in them.

What thing? i don't understand.

 

Multiple intelligence theory has never been supported by any kind of evidence.

i don't understand what is MIT?

You are talking about rather simplistic accumulated knowledge. It doesn't take a rocket scientists for a tribe of people to identify a few snakes and animals that should be avoided or that are safe to eat...

Your intellectual arrogance, and ignorance of the depth of knowledge in tribal societies is showing. ;)

IQ is extremely useful and is directly defined as someone's ability to extract information from their surroundings over time. The fact that a person has a large vocabulary is immediately useful, and it is what many IQ tests directly measure.

A verbal skills test maybe, but that's all. That is NOT an IQ test.

It could also, just show, that you subscribe to the Reader's Digest and do the Word Power game each month. :)

 

IQ tests , test, what IQ tests test. That's all. Few psychologists would say more than this.

I don't know where you get your definition of IQ.

 

I definitely agree that from there people make different uses of their intelligence... some forming formal networks of concepts, others using their intelligence to persuade and manipulate others, and everything in between. But this is compared to lower IQ people who go less far in either direction...

From where?:(

You need some practice in communicating verbally otherwise your IQ score may be lowered :) This dosn't make sense.

 

Again, QED, IQ tests the most misunderstood thing.