Cognitive Abilities are the over all determinant of success...

[heretic888]

man
sometimes i feel scientists BS us man
one day the come up with a conclusion
next day they negate it!

Yes, it's called self-correction. Its a fundamental tenet of the scientific method.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

In Dr. James Fetzer's book, The Evolution of Intelligence, he gives an argument that states that minds are not computational systems, but are semiotic systems instead. Knowing this, he discusses "g" as the ability to manipulate signs in our daily life. This explanation of the mind and intelligence is appealing because I think it smooths out a lot of the difficulties regarding varied cognitive abilities. If all information we percieve is a semiotic, then a greater ability to manipulate these symbols neatly corresponds to intelligence.

 

[heretic888]

Here is some more stuff on the General Intelligence Factor, or g. If this was the measure of the cognitive abilities, then it would seem as if many more factors were looked at then just IQ.

Well, as I said, there is only a partial correlation between g and IQ scores.

However, that doesn't change the validity of the three criticisms I proposed in my previous post. Much of the propositions underlying g have their bases in biases intrinsic to Western culture (individualism, materialistic "flatland", and logico-mathematics as being the definition of "intelligence").

Also, I think its reasonable to assume that a portion of g is genotypical. How much is the million dollar question is this debate. Research in the book indicated that 60% was a conservative estimate for the genetic contribution and that it might be as high as 80%. How much of g is environmentally dependent?

As I stated before, I read nothing in the aforementioned links that indicated a separation of ethnicity from values, culture, and upbringing. Unless that authors conducted studies that controlled for these variables (and I honestly have no clue how they could even begin to go about doing that, outside of testing identical twins versus normal twins), then I remains very skeptical.

That being said, the textbook in my introductory psychology class several years ago (I was still in high school at the time) left me with the impression that genetics had a closer to 50% impact on "intelligence". However, I find myself in sympathy with the epigenetic perspective and feel the entire idea of separating "genetics" from "environment" is deeply misguided. It's a two-way system.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

In Dr. James Fetzer's book, The Evolution of Intelligence, he gives an argument that states that minds are not computational systems, but are semiotic systems instead. Knowing this, he discusses "g" as the ability to manipulate signs in our daily life. This explanation of the mind and intelligence is appealing because I think it smooths out a lot of the difficulties regarding varied cognitive abilities. If all information we percieve is a semiotic, then a greater ability to manipulate these symbols neatly corresponds to intelligence.

Unfortunately, as I demonstrated with the example of the college majors in my first post on this thread, this "ability to manipulate signs" does not carry over to domains that an individual is unfamiliar (i.e., untrained) with.

The idea that our minds can operate upon symbols and signs is not new, of course. This is the basic idea behind Jean Piaget's representational thought structure, which is typical of the later pre-operational and early concrete-operational cognitive stages of development.

However, as before, representational thought emerges at different rates in different domains. And, in some cases, representational thought may not emerge at all in certain domains.

Laterz.

 

[sgtmac_46]

So, to surmise the argument being presented, either the inherent median IQ is lower in some ethnic groups, or the ethnic cultural mechanics are creating the problem?

I had long assumed the problem was cultural myself.

As for the argument about success being impossible to define, I suppose it is if we impose an absolutist requirement on it. However, we can certainly define relative success and failure. In other words, we can define MORE successful in any given subject, compared, to say, something else.

For example, those who maintain a loving and functional family life are MORE successful than those who get themselves thrown in prison, we can all agree on that.

 

[heretic888]

So, to surmise the argument being presented, either the inherent median IQ is lower in some ethnic groups, or the ethnic cultural mechanics are creating the problem?

I would argue that any attempt to dichotomize "genetics" and "environment" is intrinsically mistaken, especially in regards to a phenomenon as complex and multifaceted as human cognition.

I think we should review the excerpt from Dr. Gardner that I quoted earlier:

"I do not believe that there is a single general talent, whether it be called intelligence, creativity or 'g'. I do not locate talents completely within the human skull, preferring to construe all accomplishments as an interaction between cognitive potentials on the one hand, and the resources and opportunities provided by the surrounding culture on the other....All intellectual and creative work takes place within some kind of social discipline, craft, or organized activity, termed a domain. Accordingly, there is no sense in which one can speak about a person as being intelligent, or creative, in general."

The bold emphases are mine.

Laterz.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I would argue that any attempt to dichotomize "genetics" and "environment" is intrinsically mistaken, especially in regards to a phenomenon as complex and multifaceted as human cognition.

I think we should review the excerpt from Dr. Gardner that I quoted earlier:

"I do not believe that there is a single general talent, whether it be called intelligence, creativity or 'g'. I do not locate talents completely within the human skull, preferring to construe all accomplishments as an interaction between cognitive potentials on the one hand, and the resources and opportunities provided by the surrounding culture on the other....All intellectual and creative work takes place within some kind of social discipline, craft, or organized activity, termed a domain. Accordingly, there is no sense in which one can speak about a person as being intelligent, or creative, in general."

The bold emphases are mine.

Laterz.

So, the argument is intelligence doesn't exist? Or that there is no way of defining it?

I always get the impression that someone is pulling a fast one when they start telling me that there is no way of defining a thing that is being disputed. It always feels like a subtle debate ploy designed to end the argument. Of course, that could just be my subtle paranoia.

As to your statement that accomplishment is an interaction between cognitive potential and environmental and cultural resources, I don't think anyone has disputed that at all. That seems rather obvious. The problem we run in to, however, is WHICH cognitive abilities allow one individual in a given environment to achieve greater accomplishment than another in the same environment. Far from refuting the impact of intelligence, all that does is create a bit of a smoke screen by stating the obvious.

No where has anyone claimed what we are generally referring to as intelligence exists in a vaccuum. Of course environmental factors and cultural factors apply. Intelligence, as generally defined, is a rough estimate of the overall range of generally potential ability. The extent to which that intelligence is deployed is subject to environmental and cultural factors. The actual application of that potential will fall anyone along a LONG range of potential applications, based on environmental factors.

However, if you lack the potential from the onset, then no number of environmental and cultural factors will INCREASE your range. I think that is the point Upnorthkyosa was trying to make. The potential is a prerequisite, not a guarantee. I don't think anyone has said anything that refutes that assertion.

 

[heretic888]

So, the argument is intelligence doesn't exist?

Correct. A cross-domain, universal "intelligence" does not exist.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

Correct. A cross-domain, universal "intelligence" does not exist.

Laterz.

How exactly is this defined? Are Gardner's catagories part of this?

 

[sgtmac_46]

How exactly is this defined? Are Gardner's catagories part of this?

It's a tap-dance, upnorth, a bit of a dodge. The reality is that creativity and intelligence, whatever we define them as, have a direct effect on success in a given environment, even if we intentionally muddy the waters so as to make the very discussion meaningless (which IS a debate ploy).

Put simply, it is the interaction of intelligence, and it's many different definitions, with the environment (including cultural factors) that create relative success and achievement.

For example, Einstein's theories were a result of Einstein's intelligence (whatever you want to define it as) WITH the environmental and cultural factors. Meaning, Einstein was a product of intellect PLUS his environment. Had Einstein lived in 1st century Europe, he would not have developed the theory of relatively.

Likewise, however, had Einstein been a cat, or had the intellect of an average human, the cultural and environmental factors would not have allowed him to produce the theory of relativity.

The initial criteria is the intellect, through which the other factors are then filtered to produce an outcome. In an environment that prizes creative and abstract thought, and rewards those abilities, below average intelligence will lead to below average success, no matter what environmental factors that person is exposed to.

 

[arnisador]

The theory on semiotic systems, with which I am not familiar, reminds me of the "all learning/reasoning is by analogy" (analogic reaasoning) theory.

As to g, we are used to categorizing ourselves and others on a stupid-->smart scale, one-dimensionally. Is it that simple? There seems to be lots of evidence for domains of competence. We forget how much we focus on academic/technical competence these days. I would love to believe in such a simple model as g--but I don't think it's adequately supported by evidence. Yet, I also don't know how well high competence in area A is correlated with competence in area B--which would "look like" g (if such correlations were typical).

 

[Makalakumu]

The theory on semiotic systems, with which I am not familiar, reminds me of the "all learning/reasoning is by analogy" (analogic reaasoning) theory.

As to g, we are used to categorizing ourselves and others on a stupid-->smart scale, one-dimensionally. Is it that simple? There seems to be lots of evidence for domains of competence. We forget how much we focus on academic/technical competence these days. I would love to believe in such a simple model as g--but I don't think it's adequately supported by evidence. Yet, I also don't know how well high competence in area A is correlated with competence in area B--which would "look like" g (if such correlations were typical).

I guess to put it simply, there are individuals who have high "scores" in all fields. Some people are talented in ALL of Gardner's nine intelligences. The cumulative "score" if a test existed for all fields, could be considered g. I'm not sure if the work I cited goes that far in trying to test intelligence, though.

 

[Makalakumu]

It's a tap-dance, upnorth, a bit of a dodge. The reality is that creativity and intelligence, whatever we define them as, have a direct effect on success in a given environment, even if we intentionally muddy the waters so as to make the very discussion meaningless (which IS a debate ploy).

Put simply, it is the interaction of intelligence, and it's many different definitions, with the environment (including cultural factors) that create relative success and achievement.

For example, Einstein's theories were a result of Einstein's intelligence (whatever you want to define it as) WITH the environmental and cultural factors. Meaning, Einstein was a product of intellect PLUS his environment. Had Einstein lived in 1st century Europe, he would not have developed the theory of relatively.

Likewise, however, had Einstein been a cat, or had the intellect of an average human, the cultural and environmental factors would not have allowed him to produce the theory of relativity.

The initial criteria is the intellect, through which the other factors are then filtered to produce an outcome. In an environment that prizes creative and abstract thought, and rewards those abilities, below average intelligence will lead to below average success, no matter what environmental factors that person is exposed to.

There is a lot of ideologic pressure in the US to show that "all men are created equal." This is a founding principle of our country. My point in this debate is this...what if all men are not created equal? Sure, that thought may be wholley unamerican, but what if its true? Working with the people that I work with on a daily basis, I think about this alot. I wonder how, after all of the good intentioned effort of others, people still manage to fail.

This argument doesn't have to be about race and actual differences. We could just as easily talk about humans as a whole. What reasons do we have to believe that "intelligence" is not something that is normally distributed on the bell curve?

 

[FearlessFreep]

Reminds me of Harrison Bergeron

"All men are not created equal. It is the purpose of the Government to make them so."

A pretty good movie that I enjoyed, and worth checking out

The problem is that "All Men Are Created Equal" is really only suppose to apply to human rights, liberty, freedom, justice in terms of everbody desearving to be treated the same; equal before the law. It does not mean that all people are created equally in terms of mental and physcial cabability or opportunity.

As Martial Artists we talk about this all the time. There are many arts and what "art" works for you is partially dependent on physical things you can't control, like your height, weight, and muscle/bone structure. Granted, with a lot of hard work and drive an time training and self-discipline, almost anyone can be good at almost any art, but every time someone asks "what's the best art for me to learn" the answer is given as "it depends on you" and there seems to be an implicit admission in that answer that not everyone is created equal, physically. If the intelligence is really just a matter of the physical wiring of the brain, then physical differences equal mental differences as well.

 

[sgtmac_46]

There is a lot of ideologic pressure in the US to show that "all men are created equal." This is a founding principle of our country. My point in this debate is this...what if all men are not created equal? Sure, that thought may be wholley unamerican, but what if its true? Working with the people that I work with on a daily basis, I think about this alot. I wonder how, after all of the good intentioned effort of others, people still manage to fail.

This argument doesn't have to be about race and actual differences. We could just as easily talk about humans as a whole. What reasons do we have to believe that "intelligence" is not something that is normally distributed on the bell curve?

Well, actually, when the Declaration said "All men are created equal" it is important to read the next couple lines "and are endowed by their creator with certainly inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'

It was never meant to say that all men are born with the same faculties and abilities, far from it. In fact, because men are born with disparities in natural abilities, it is important to guarantee certain inalienable rights.

However, nowhere did it say that all men have the right to the same level of success, merely that all men should have their basic rights respected. Also, there is no guarantee of success..the 'pursuit of happiness', not a guarantee of it's aquisition.

Again, it has been clear from the beginning of time that some men are MORE equal than others. That some people are born with more talent, natural ability, whatever you want to call it, is clear.

That it may be that all races aren't exactly and proportionally equal, may be true as well, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Makalakumu]

That it may be that all races aren't exactly and proportionally equal, may be true as well, we'll just have to wait and see.

Good points about the Declaration. I often think it gets misread.

Regarding the question of race and intelligences, I suspect that if we were to test all of Gardners intelligences and form a cumulative score, the differences in race would disappear. Since tests for all of these catagories don't exist (to my knowledge), actual evidence for this will have to come in the future.

Anecdotally, though, it often seems as if some races are generally better at certain things. Yes, I know this is depending on stereotypes, but still, it seems that way. For example, african american families often have great interpersonal skills and they form strong webs of relations. And then their is the dancing, which would indicate a higher musical intelligence.

FWIW

upnorthkyosa

PS - How many of Gardner's intelligences are actually testable?

 

[Marginal]

There is a lot of ideologic pressure in the US to show that "all men are created equal." This is a founding principle of our country. My point in this debate is this...what if all men are not created equal?

They're not. Regardless of race, some people are always going to be dense, some are going to be smarter. It's never been a question of who worked hardest for that brass ring. That's just pie-in-the-sky talk.

 

[heretic888]

Regarding the differences between Whites and Blacks pertaining to intelligence testing:

"A particularly interesting line of adoption research concerns Black children who have been adopted by White parents. One of the most bitter controversies surrounding intelligence tests concerns the racial differences in IQ (Fraser, 1995; Gould, 1981). African Americans and Latinos generally score lower than Whites on the most widely used IQ tests (Anastasi, 1988), from childhood through adulthood. However, scholars disagree vehemently over the souce of this group difference. Some assert that the difference is due to ethnic/racial differences in intelligence (e.g., Herrnstein & Murray, 1995). Others assert that the differences simply reflect the fact that IQ tests concern knowledge obtained in the majority culture, which Whites are more likely than minorities to have up in (e.g., Brody, 1992; Fraser, 1995; Gould, 1981). Interracial adoption represents an extraordinary natural experiment, in that it involves raising African American children in the White-dominated majority culture.

And what do these studies find? In general, they indicate that when Black children are raised in adoptive White families, their IQs are as high or higher than the average IQ for Whites (Weinberg, Scarr, & Waldman, 1992). Their IQ scores decline somewhat in adolescence but nevertheless remain relatively high. This indicates that the overall differences in IQ between Whites and African Americans are due to cultural and social class differences rather than to genetics."

- Jeffrey Jensen Arnett. Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood: A Cultural Approach, Second Edition. pp. 90-92.

Concerning the proposed universalism of cognitive abilities across competency domains:

"But neither lack of intelligence nor lack of formal education is a problem for most college students. Instead, they have difficulty with tests of formal operations when they lack expertise in a domain of knowledge. Piaget (1972) himself suggested that adults are likely to use formal operations in a field of expertise but to use concrete operations in less familiar areas. This is precisely what seems to happen. For example, Richard De Lisi and Joanne Staudt (1980) gave three kinds of formal operational tasaks --- the pendulum problem, a political problem, and a literary criticism problem --- to college students majoring in physics, political science, and English. As Figure 7.5 illustrates, each group of students did very well on the problem relevant to that group's major field of expertise [90%, 80%, and 90% displayed formal thought in their domains, respectively]. On problems outside their fields, however, about half the students failed [only 60% and 40% of physics majors, 50% and 40% of political science majors, and 40% and 40% of English majors displayed formal thought in other domains]. Very possibly, then, many adolescents and adults fail to use formal reasoning on Piaget's scientitic problems simply because these problems are unfamiliar to them and they lack expertise.

As Kurt Fischer (1980; Fischer, Kenny, & Pipp, 1990) maintains each person may have an optimal level of cognitive performance that will show itself in familiar and well-trained content domains. However, performance is likely to be highly inconsistent across content areas unless the person has had a chance to build knowledge and skills in all these domains. More often, adults may use and strengthen formal modes of thinking only in their areas of expertise. By adopting a contextual perspective on cognitive development, we can appreciate that the individual's experience and the nature of the tasks he or she is asked to perform influence cognitive performance across the life span (Salthouse, 1990)."

- Carol K. Sigelman & Elizabeth A. Rider. Life-Span Human Development, Fourth Edition. p. 180.

Upnorthkyosa did seem to hit it right on the money, though: a general intelligence factor does exist as a statistical construction (as a mean of one's intelligence scores). However, it's a far cry to claim it as an actual cognitive ability in human beings.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

Others assert that the differences simply reflect the fact that IQ tests concern knowledge obtained in the majority culture, which Whites are more likely than minorities to have up in (e.g., Brody, 1992; Fraser, 1995; Gould, 1981).

The biggest problems with this theory are when certain minority groups score above the majority culture. Asians and certain groups of jews score far above whites when it comes to intelligence testing. Does their minority status prevent them from obtaining memes in the majority culture, or is there something inherent in these groups that cause them to score above the majority culture?

And what do these studies find? In general, they indicate that when Black children are raised in adoptive White families, their IQs are as high or higher than the average IQ for Whites (Weinberg, Scarr, & Waldman, 1992).

Adoption is in no way a random process. Children that are chosen for adoption are chosen by the parents for various reasons. The fact that black children raised in white families score high or higher then average on IQ is probably more of a result of the selection process.

More often, adults may use and strengthen formal modes of thinking only in their areas of expertise.

Ability testing need not only focus on adults where domains have solidified. Children can also be tested...in fact, children are mostly tested in studies that compare groups because a young age can control for a variety of cultural influences.

Upnorthkyosa did seem to hit it right on the money, though: a general intelligence factor does exist as a statistical construction (as a mean of one's intelligence scores). However, it's a far cry to claim it as an actual cognitive ability in human beings.

Why can't one use these instruments kind of like a mental dipstick? It may not be totally accurate, but aren't they are good enough? Schools are already using these tests to make certain predictions regarding student success. The majority of these predictions, IMO, are right on.

 

[heretic888]

The biggest problems with this theory are when certain minority groups score above the majority culture. Asians and certain groups of jews score far above whites when it comes to intelligence testing.

This is a problem with the aforementioned theory only when you take what Arnett wrote out of its proper context, which was explicitly a comparison of the intelligence scores between Whites and Blacks.

The theory, if I may, maintains that different cultures (and subcultures) value certain qualities and abilities more highly than others. That other cultures (or subcultures) may value some of these same abilities even more highly than the majority culture in no way denigrates from the validity of this explanation. Rather, this criticism only looks at one-half of the data and then argues that the theory proposes something that it, in fact, does not.

Adoption is in no way a random process. Children that are chosen for adoption are chosen by the parents for various reasons. The fact that black children raised in white families score high or higher then average on IQ is probably more of a result of the selection process.

Perhaps, but you have absolutely no data to support this conjecture. It is simply an assumption on your part, one apparently motivated by an intellectual commitment to your aforementioned position on the subject.

As it currently stands, this data is a powerful repudiation against the claim that there are overtly "ethnic" or "racial" differences in intelligence testing. When sociocultural variables are controlled for, as I argued in an earlier post, we see very slim differences when it comes to racial differences in so-called "intelligence". This interracial adoption research helps to do that.

I must say I find your conjecture intriguing, though. For it to actually have any kind of meaningful validity, several hypotheses must first be validated. Do you also maintain that White children that are adopted by White families will also score significantly above the adopted Black children?? Do you further maintain that there is no significant difference in testing between Black children adopted by Black families and Black children adopted by White families?? What about White children adopted by Black families compared to White children adopted by White families??

Considering the number of premises needed to validate this criticism, Occam's Razor tells me this isn't a very powerful argument.

Ability testing need not only focus on adults where domains have solidified.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the data on adolescents and young adults is still there. Although, I'm quite curious as to what age you believe these cognitive domains are supposed to have "solidified", as well as any data supporting this proposition.

Children can also be tested...

I would be interested in hearing your definition of "children" in this context.

in fact, children are mostly tested in studies that compare groups because a young age can control for a variety of cultural influences.

Are you suggesting that all young children display roughly equivalent capability in, say, mathematical reasoning and artistic ability?? I find that hard to believe.

I am also curious as to the souce of you're claim that a variety of cultural influences can be controlled for at an early age. The research I've read, particularly concerning the development of particular linguistic abilities, seems to contradict such an assertion.

Why can't one use these instruments kind of like a mental dipstick? It may not be totally accurate, but aren't they are good enough?

No. They're not.

In fact, even a cursory understanding of statistics will demonstrate that a statistical mean is only valid if the variance in one's sample is within an appropriately small range. Extreme scores on either end of the variance will skew the data. In this context, this means that a child that scores average on items 1 through 4, but scores well above average on item 5 will have a resulting "general intelligence" that registers as slightly above average.

Schools are already using these tests to make certain predictions regarding student success. The majority of these predictions, IMO, are right on.

You're correct. They are "right on" in schools that emphasize a limited subset of cognitive abilities (namely, mathematical and linguistic logic).

Ergo, these "predictions" have a certain hint of self-fulfilling prophecies to them: in schools that evaluate success on the basis of competency in math, science, and English, then of course the students that score high in tests of math, science, and English will "succeed". Thus, the prophecy is fulfilled.

Laterz.