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.
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.
The only reason we say this is that intelligence tests show that all the wrong kinds of people are intelligent. Thus the resort to "storytelling intelligence" and other nonsense. Intelligence is correlated with every kind of positive life outcome, while lack of intelligence is correlated with every kind of negative outcome. This unacceptable political outcome is why scientists say "heritability stops at the neck" bowing to the extreme social punishments for anyone who dares speak out.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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.
Or, I typed that on a smart phone. Being a genius doesn't mean we don't make typographical errors in informal writing. That's a completely different group of people.
You're assuming there is some singular RPGesque attribute called Intelligence which governs every decision a person makes. Physically, that would manifest itself as something like more robust connections between brain neurons... I just pulled that out of my ass, but if there's a better explanation for the mechanism that governs singular intelligence, I'd love to hear it.
The other view is that "intelligence" refers to aptitude for a particular task. To me, that model more accurately describes what we see. You see people who pass calculus with honors, but they can't determine what to say to potential dates. You see people who can balance the books of their company, but they fail to grasp the basic principles (rules and physics) of driving. You see people who can design and build houses, but they can't give you a geopolitical analysis of the wars in Afghanistan. Even when all these people have access to the same information.
There is no doubt that a person's DNA can affect their aptitudes for these various tasks. But when you say there is some singular variable that raises or lowers all these aptitudes simultaneously, that seems like a coarse simplification. Ignoring the nuances does a disservice to your understanding.