Slashdot Mirror
Your Visual Skills Are Not Correlated To Your IQ (vanderbilt.edu)
Science_afficionado writes:
Psychologists at Vanderbilt University have conducted the first study of individual variation in visual ability. They have discovered that there is a broad range of differences in people's capability for recognizing and remembering novel objects and this ability is not associated with individuals' general intelligence, or IQ.
Or, as the article puts it, "Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn the visual skills needed to excel at tasks like matching fingerprints, interpreting medical X-rays, keeping track of aircraft on radar displays or forensic face matching."
Or, as the article puts it, "Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn the visual skills needed to excel at tasks like matching fingerprints, interpreting medical X-rays, keeping track of aircraft on radar displays or forensic face matching."
This is not new information. Millennials should be banned from science until they are at least 45. They 'discover' the already discovered with alarming regularity, and for some reason feel compelled to publish their 'findings'. Newsflash: science is not instagram. It'd be a freaking miracle if they read an old book or paper (formerly known as 'research') instead of conducting their endless science fair projects. Newsflash #2: refusing to acknowledge the work of others is not the same thing as independence, especially not independence of *thought*. If anything, it is the sheep mentality exemplified, and more important still, it doesn't work. Management, please reimburse the ten minutes I spent on this. Thank you.
What a surprise! Anybody who keeps informed has known for a long time that “IQ” was meaningless, and that IQ tests only evaluated the ability to succeed at IQ tests, nothing related to any kind of intelligence whatsoever.
handwriting skills...
memory skills...
As a pedophile I find this association to republicans offensive.
It's amazing that people bought into the meritocracy scam at all. Some older boomers* still do, but now people are waking up to the fact that class mobility has completely ossified.
You can be as intelligent, educated, and skilled as you like, but with the collapse of the middle class, your ability will get you nowhere.
*Their opinion soon won't matter because we're going to murder them all soon anyway.
IQ must not be allowed to correlate to any positive traits whatsoever. Whites have higher IQs than blacks and, because whites and blacks must not be allowed to be unequal in anything*, the stated result is a necessary conclusion.
* Unless the difference favors blacks. Then, and only then, must the difference be reiterated ad infinity in all forms of mainstream media. This is necessary to emphasize and underscore the striking equality of blacks and whites.
Of course.
>matching fingerprints, interpreting medical X-rays, keeping track of aircraft on radar displays or forensic face matching
These are jobs for simple machine AI, not human creative IQ.
Regardless of your intelligence, you can greatly enhance your visual skills by playing video games. Some games are better for this than others.
The most important thing to remember is that IQ tests are neither meaningless nor harbingers of all types of intelligence.
There are several 'recognized' intelligences, and arguably many more.
words (linguistic intelligence), numbers or logic (logical-mathematical intelligence), pictures (spatial intelligence), music (musical intelligence), self-reflection (intrapersonal intelligence), physical experience (bodily-kinesthetic intelligence), and social experience (interpersonal intelligence).
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
There's no reason to expect any correlation between intelligence and a skill - any skill. These people might be shocked to learn that there are quite a few very highly intelligent people who can't fly fish, either.
All of those visual reckognition task can be delegated to computers (after all, we've cracked the mystery of having computers identify pictures of cats, so all these other viz recks are basically solved). All Hail our nascent computer overlords!
Everyone knows that visual centers have no correlation with IQ. In fact, autistic people excel in certain tasks that no high IQ person can do. And obviously just because you are blind it does not mean you will have low IQ.
Intelligence is our primary survival tool. Other living things have claws, teeth, camouflage, speed, etc. Our secondary survival tools include our senses, including vision, and hands and various motor skills including the ability to run like hell.
To the extent that we survive and excel in our environment and achieve our goals, we can be said to be intelligent. I don't understand the TFS' association of visual memory with intelligence. Visual memory as described is probably a good thing, but even total blindness has nothing to do with intelligence.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Yeah. What a strange coincidence that exactly the tasks solvable with todays' mindless "AIs", are not related to intelligence. Color me surprised.
That would mean women are smarter than men, and we all know that's not true.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Who? If it was meant to be that they'd have called it WQ, wouldn't they?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Good thing then deep learning networks are exceedingly good at all these tasks so we dont need to be good at them. On the other hand a person that is smart and self motivated can learn to program AI to do all these tasks.
I know a few people who have 3 doctorate degrees and can't get a job, not because of just autism, they simply can't do simple visual tasks they can study and graduate like the best but beyond that they're not very useful for even simple jobs. (One actually works in Mcdonald's and is happy there, so what is a doctorate worth?)
"Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn the visual skills needed to excel at tasks like matching fingerprints, interpreting medical X-rays, keeping track of aircraft on radar displays or forensic face matching."
In other news:
Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn to run fast.
Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn to shoot accurately.
Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn to paint.
Just because someone is smart and well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn to play a music instrument.
---
The fact that a small percent of humans have no or very faint internal "visual imagery" (i.e when they close their eyes and "imagine" something, they do NOT "see" anything) but at the same time can be very successful scientist, say something about the importance (or lack) of "visual skills" in IQ. see https://www.newscientist.com/article/2083706-my-minds-eye-is-blind-so-whats-going-on-in-my-brain/
I'm pretty sure that not having very strong visual skill is compensated by stronger abstract reasoning, for example.
A developed, specific skill is not the same as general skills. Duh ! That is about like saying that a person who is a musical genius might not do well with foreign languages. There are all kinds of abilities and as the savants demonstrate one can be a super genius in one area and unable to walk to the corner store and return home without being totally lost. There are also some really challenging tests with the colored blocks that psychologists have used for decades. Being able to remember the colors and geometries of all six sides of a cubs and solve a complex puzzle quickly can be more strenuous than many test subjects can tolerate.
See subject: I think that WRITING (recording information for future generations) & READING (their ability to use what was recorded by forebears) is our GREATEST ASSET - I call it our self-created version of INSTINCT (racial memory).
E.G.-> IF anyone *thinks* that pictures of our cave-dwelling ancestors was "just art"? You've got another THINK coming - it was to teach young future potential hunters HOW it was done for both defense (vs. carnivores) & food acquisition (mammoths, bison, etc.) no doubt w/ the renderer(s) saying "IF Dad or Uncle doesn't come home, this is how to do these crucial things for our tribe to survive..."
APK
P.S.=> Yes, you're probably talking about "innate skills" we're born with BUT "intelligence" (ability to learn new things rather) is our great asset & READING/WRITING does the rest to feed it with skills passed down age after age, generation to generation... apk
But you can't make them smart.
I recently left an R&D group that gave its operation over to a megalomaniacal "Key Expert".
This guy insisted on reinventing the wheel badly every time, because he had never actually built anything himself, or done anything IRL.
He could quote any formula, but was sadly unaware of reality.
There's a lot of those in America, which is why foreigners who can easily take their jobs and do better at them.
And why the idiots are afraid of immigrants...
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
It has long been known that memory of the arbitrary is uncorrelated with IQ.
If you have perfect pitch hearing you might be good at tennis. But equally, you might be bad at it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
>Calculus students who can't speak to potential dates
Perhaps it's the date who can't speak at the Calculus student's level, rather than the other way around? The smart person can learn "game," it's not that hard to grasp the concept of asking other people about themselves and letting them fill a conversation with the sound of their own voice. But if the Calculus student gets back "Kardashian Kardashian Kardashian Kardashian," then the potential date may not offer "value." Far better to throw out some math talk and let it quickly weed out the unfit.
All of the other examples you gave are low to mid IQ tasks, which any high IQ person can learn if the task has "priority." If a high IQ person hasn't learned any given low to mid IQ skill, the first assumption should be that that particular skill has insufficient priority. For example, I could learn sky diving or water skiiing, but these skills are lower priority than the skills I need to do my job or maintain my home. I could take a professional driving course and learn how to drive really well, and I'm interested in that, but I work from home and rarely drive, so it's a low priority and I doubt I'll ever do it. If I did do it, it would mean time out of my week to maintain the skills. A high IQ person will realize they can't do everything at a high level, and limit themselves to a few things that have priority.
I mean to answer phones at a help desk role surely requires the right answer like do you own a shed with a drafting table and how quickly you can organize puzzle pieces questions in 3 mins.
http://saveie6.com/
Anyone who thinks identifying and remembering novel objects requires a significant IQ has never been around cattle, or for that matter, sheep.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
But the so called "alt-right" does not want to be known as alt-right but new-right.
The alt-right term is coined by people from left, and they do not want to use the word new-right in publications or TV news.