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.
Is that what you took away from that?
Interesting, and a bit ironic given the subject matter.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I take it then that you didn't like your score.
IQ tests aren't meaningless, they're just not the solution to every question about intelligence. They're mainly useful in measuring things relevant to formal education before all the new changes.
I have a high IQ and I can tell you that it's not meaningless, it's just not what people think it is. I can push far more data than anybody else I've met before going crosseyed and I can count cards with the best of them using my own system.
As for visual skills the tests don't really focus on anything too intensive which is probably why there's so little correlation. I can't visualize at all, but I'm roughly 3 stdevs out.
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
"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.
---
Find me someone with downs syndrome with a score above 120, and a physicist with a score below 100.
It's measuring something, and can be used objectively to make scientific predictions.
Your attempt to redefine intelligence does not invalidate the test.
Indeed, and your score can easily be improved with practice which means it can't be a measure of raw intelligence unless practicing IQ tests is also the most effective way to boost your innate intelligence.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
What, for ever? Does that mean there are people who start out being literally cretins who practice for ten years and score over 200?
It couldn't possibly be that there is some penalty from being unfamiliar & inexperienced and it gets eroded with practice, could it?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Sure, but success is not the same thing as intelligence. And success is strongly correlated with wealth and access to good schooling (although there are plenty of exceptions), which suggests that IQ is not measuring some kind of innate ability or mental processing limit.
Your lack of a background in science is showing again. Success is strongly correlated with wealth, and also strongly correlated with IQ. IOW, look up what "controlled study" means. For IQ, especially, it's easy to control for socioeconomic effects, hence the "IQ is strongly correlated with success" assertion.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
You keep saying IQ is correlated with various things... But not intelligence.
That's what I started with - "IQ is strongly correlated with success".
IQ tests don't measure "intelligence" because that word, for many people, depends on context. IQ tests measure problem solving ability. This is probably why it correlates so strongly to success: a strong ability to solve problems probably results in a large measure of success anyway.
IQ tests are like BMI - mostly accurate, for most of the population, in the ways that actually matter. If I were to bet on a random high-IQ person successfully performing an unfamiliar task while you bet on the low-IQ person successfully performing an unfamiliar task, after a few iterations you'd lose your money and I would not.
IQ is a great indicator of a person's problem-solving abilities. Many people do not consider problem-solving ability to be 'intelligence'.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
We agree. They should remove the I from IQ.
I said 'many people don't consider problem-solving to be a sign of intelligence'. I did not say 'most'. The overwhelming majority do, and llike BMI, for most people, in most contexts, it's mostly accurate for what most people consider to be intelligence.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
So what are you claiming it actually measures?
Within 20 points of the mean (80 to 120), IQ scores are strongly correlated with income and financial success. Outside that range, the correlation breaks down. If you have an IQ of 140, you are unlikely to earn much more than someone with an IQ of 120. Likewise, someone with an IQ of 60 won't earn much less than someone with an IQ of 80.
IQ is strongly and negatively correlated with incarceration. People in prison tend to be dumb. This could mean that dumb people commit more crimes, or that they are more likely to get caught and be convicted. Mostly likely it is a bit of both.
IQ is not correlated with happiness.
After a lot of tutoring, my son recently graduated to moron. We still don't let him play with the neighborhood children because those kids are idiots.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain