Cognitive Profiling

[Makalakumu]

I'm reading the book "The Bell Curve" and I'm absolutely fascinated and astounded at some of the research that has gone into this book and by some of its findings. One of the things that gives really makes me think is the concept of cognitive profiling.

Unofficially, this is how our society works today. Cognitive partitioning begins with education and continues with occupation. High cognitive ability individuals are siphoned off to various colleges that each require some form of "intelligence test" ie the ACT, SAT, GRE, MCAT etc...

Ultimately, this has led to a cognitively stratified society where cognitive abilities determine the course of our lives over all other factors.

My question is this, what if this process came out and became more open? What if ability tests were used in schools in order to aid this process? Should laws exist like the 1971 Federal Law that bans the use of IQ tests for employment purposes? Should be actively cognitively profile people in this country?

upnorthkyosa

 

[MartialIntent]

We may indeed be born equal [in terms of intelligence] but it's naive to think that's how it stays. No two folk are equal, to which the IQ bell curve attests. For me, it's a stain left by the liberalization of society in general to suggest otherwise and to suggest we should regard each other on those terms. The ban on use of IQ tests is a kowtow to this rampant liberalization.

However, I'd qualify that by saying that cognitive profiling seldom presents an adequate picture of anyone. And stating for example that IQ correlates to "intelligence" is way off the mark and from my experience, it's something that profiles are apt to do [and congratulate themselves for the validity of their assertions].

Good thread idea...

Respects!

 

[Bigshadow]

I'm reading the book "The Bell Curve" and I'm absolutely fascinated and astounded at some of the research that has gone into this book and by some of its findings. One of the things that gives really makes me think is the concept of cognitive profiling.

Unofficially, this is how our society works today. Cognitive partitioning begins with education and continues with occupation. High cognitive ability individuals are siphoned off to various colleges that each require some form of "intelligence test" ie the ACT, SAT, GRE, MCAT etc...

Ultimately, this has led to a cognitively stratified society where cognitive abilities determine the course of our lives over all other factors.

My question is this, what if this process came out and became more open? What if ability tests were used in schools in order to aid this process? Should laws exist like the 1971 Federal Law that bans the use of IQ tests for employment purposes? Should be actively cognitively profile people in this country?

upnorthkyosa

The Bell Curve is an excellent book!

 

[shesulsa]

This is what standardized testing is all about, Upnorth. The Every Child Left Behind Act has mandated that everyone not necessarily be able to perform the operation efficiently and correctly, but talk/write about their reasons for doing so, why it makes sense, and use exacting language.

What a mistake.

The likes of Albert Einstein (who never did well in school anyway) would never have graduated from high school because he didn't explain things in writing very well.

Here in Washington State, all students - EVEN SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS - must pass the WASL - The Washington Assessment of Student Learning. If they do not pass the WASL they do not receive a diploma nor certificate of achievement.

Cognitive profiling could be considered one more step to divide the classes once again.

 

[Makalakumu]

However, I'd qualify that by saying that cognitive profiling seldom presents an adequate picture of anyone.

Actually, a childhood IQ test is an excellent predictor of whether or not someone will be successful in school, in their occupation, and even how much money that individual makes. The statistics presented in "The Bell Curve" extensively show this relationship to a very high corallalitive degree. I was surprised at just how strong the relationship actually was.

And stating for example that IQ correlates to "intelligence" is way off the mark and from my experience, it's something that profiles are apt to do [and congratulate themselves for the validity of their assertions]

Whether IQ correlates to "intelligence" is a valid debate. It is also a very loaded question in our society given the prejudice against this kind of testing. The authors position in "The Bell Curve" is whether "IQ" is intelligence or not, it strongly correlates to all of the things I listed above and is an important yard stick.

I tend to think of IQ as a conglomeration of three of Gardner's intelligence domains. These are the ones that are used most often in schools and are valued mostly by our society.

 

[Makalakumu]

Cognitive profiling could be considered one more step to divide the classes once again.

I'm inclined to agree with everything that you are saying. However, a really difficult question that pops up in my mind is whether or not our society is already cognitively partitioned? I think the data shows that the answer is yes. So, now what?

 

[Bigshadow]

We may indeed be born equal [in terms of intelligence]

Respects!

I don't think we are all born of equal intelligence. I think the term equal is often confused with the Declaration of Independence where it states...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Outside of that, humans are not equal in capacity of intelligence or physical abilities. Contrary to popular political correctness, we are not all equal. This has been known to the science community for a very long time. For instance the size cranial cavity relative to body size indicates a certain capacity of intelligence. This can be seen all over the animal world. Additionally, if our physical abilities vary so much then why couldn't our intelligence capacity.

To further provide evidence, we can look at the varied complexities of civilizations in ancient history. Some built amazing feats of engineering, others didn't. Some had the desire to explore, others didn't. Everyone is different.

I also read a study that contrary to mom's old saying "You can be anything you want to be, if you try", we cannot. The study indicated that children are "wired" for what they are capable of doing in life by the age of 5 or 6. This is a very young age, just as children are going from kindergarten to first grade. At that point they are already wired. I will try to find the article.

I will take software engineering for instance to demonstrate this further (since I work in the field)... There are people who have the "knack" to do this and they can goof off and barely try and be VERY GOOD at their job! Then there are those who want to be a software engineer and go and get degrees, lots of training, work their butts off to be as good as the former, but they struggle to just maintain their skills. Yes, they are doing it, but it really is not what they are WIRED to do. They would probably be better at another profession.

Anyway, I apologize for the long windness of this post, but my point we are simply not all equal and I think the Bell curve book demonstrates this.

 

[shesulsa]

I'm inclined to agree with everything that you are saying. However, a really difficult question that pops up in my mind is whether or not our society is already cognitively partitioned? I think the data shows that the answer is yes. So, now what?

The one and only way to change this is to make noise about it and get involved with those that you feel would qualify in the category as being "less than." It has to be a massive social movement before politics and law move that way.

I want to post more on this, but I have to leave - will formulate a more concise statement later in the day. Good thread, upnorth.

 

[MartialIntent]

I tend to think of IQ as a conglomeration of three of Gardner's intelligence domains. These are the ones that are used most often in schools and are valued mostly by our society.

True, the Gardner Intelligences are a better indicator of general intelligence than pure IQ testing [logic, shape etc.] But I still feel profiling is seriously flawed in it's interpretation of results and to a greater extent in subsequent categorization following those results.

I welcome categorization - I don't think it's a necessary evil, I think it's just necessary [nothing evil about it]. Categorization in schools helps those children who need more help whilst encouraging those at the higher percentiles. To attempt to remove categorization and to assimilate all kids into "general" education streams is perhaps foolhardy thinking.

Respects!

 

[Brother John]

HECK NO...
Profiling is a crude form of prognosticating based on elements that may or may not lead to success. If you took many "Successful" people and had given them such tests (which Really aren't all that "Scientific") prior to the period in which they met with the greatest success in their life.... many would ahve failed. IF then we base opportunity on such stifling benchmarks...we'd limit who does and does not have such opportunity and resources....and there's already enough of that in our society!!!

Those tests, like the ACT/SAT....etc.... do not accurately predict potential at all. Their extrememly limited and over-generalized. There's TONS of people with high scores....who are now homeless or worse, and there's just as many who had (or would have had) low scores....yet have met with resounding success in their personal life and their professional vocation.

Just my .02

Your Brother
John

 

[Bigshadow]

If you took many "Successful" people and had given them such tests (which Really aren't all that "Scientific") prior to the period in which they met with the greatest success in their life.... many would ahve failed.

There's TONS of people with high scores....who are now homeless or worse, and there's just as many who had (or would have had) low scores....yet have met with resounding success in their personal life and their professional vocation.

Brother John (with respect), do you have any links to resources that show specifically these things?

For instance success as most people see it (financial), happens alot by chance. Success, is at the apex of opportunity and prepardness. The same people upon finding success, hire people to make sound financial decisions FOR them (people who have the "knack" for doing that)!

As for the other point of lots being homeless or worse, I seriously doubt this. I have seen alot of homeless people around my neck of the woods and I tell you now, most if not all have some sort of mental disability that impairs their judgment, these are not your bright intelligent people.

I am sorry brother, I don't buy it, I would have to see some reports with numbers before I would believe otherwise.

 

[Makalakumu]

One of the good things about cognitive stratification is that it allows people to rise as high as they can regardless of many other factors. Pre-1920 most people who were really bright were scattered all over society and success was mostly like determined by how connected one was. Now, as education has become more accessible, we actually have a chance to approach the ideal of a meritocracy. Now, I'm not saying that cronyism and plutocracy are absent from our society, but I think that cognitive stratification/partitioning may be a way to combat it.

 

[Brother John]

UpNorth

Yeah, but then using this kind of thing (if it is to be used) should really be seen as a tool, not something that you rely on a great deal to determine things or to lean on in many decisions. Test taking is something that a lot of people are realy Very poor at. I see the application of this stratification as on a continuum....you can use it Lightly, which I think is appropriate, in order to find peoples probable strengths and detect probable weaknesses...but even then it's an overgeneralization and I'd give more weight by a persons experience in what they can produce. I'd rather see a persons track record than their test scores. BUT: then again...a 'track record' requires that that person has had the opportune circumstances to show their potential strengths and produce. For instance, I was born and raised right here in Central Kansas..... who knows if I'd have made a good surfer. I certainly don't. So it's an unknown. See what I'm saying? So tests could give a general idea toward predisposed strengths....but little more. The other end of the continuum is sort of what is being done in many socialist countries where students (lets say medical students) are given a test ONE time....and their score on that one test determines the quality of school they go on to study medicine at or if they go on at all. In my own opinion this wastes a good many people. What if they had a horrible day? What if they had a migraine that day? Imagine if Einstein had been administered such a test... he "tested" very poorly.....but he sure could produce. Same for Tesla. Someone once told Mr. Ford that he had no "business sense", good thing he was stubborn. At best such tests show predisposed trends and general strengths/weaknesses...but the ability to succeed at a thing cannot be detected through a test...unless you are testing them to see how well they do at tests.

BIG shadow-
Don't worry man, I can tell you aren't being rude...just want an honest debate over our difference of opinion....I appreciate that.

do you have any links to resources that show specifically these things?

No, not really. Maybe I could find them if I were motivated, but this comes from part of my own training and then part of my own "track record". I double majored in college... Psychology & Social Work...((some of my opinion on this....ie; the validity and efficacy of 'psychological' tests like the standard IQ test, personality tests and other things like aptitudes... I know how very flawed those tests often are and how little they can REALLY tell you about a person)). After college I was a psychiatric casemanager for homeless people in a city of over 500K (Not what I do anymore, but it was a good 2 years)...as were two of my three roomates. I can't site any studies on the Intelligence Quotient for the homeless, but I can tell you that there are people sleeping under-bridges who have multiple college degrees (several higher than just a B.S./B.A.) or who could quite coherently score Very well on almost any test you could give them, psychosis or no. You see, unless these tests are the MMPI, they're not going to really do squat in the way of telling you if this person has a decent grasp of or even on a first name basis with reality. Having a psychological problem (and you are VERY correct the commonly accepted stats say that over 70% of all homeless in the USA ARE mentally/emotionally disturbed....though I call any 'stat' on the homeless "questionable" due to the inherent difficulty of tracking and 'counting' the homeless) does NOT preclude a person from scoring well on tests! I rendered service to several homeless people who could talk the socks off of and impress most college entrence exam boards.... over the phone or on paper. In person....the "problems" would be very apparent. So really, I can't site anything or reference anything but my own experience and those of my friends....whom still do that work.

Your Brother
John

 

[Bigshadow]

No, not really. Maybe I could find them if I were motivated, but this comes from part of my own training and then part of my own "track record".

Thanks for the details! Definitely alot to think about!

 

[Makalakumu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Test

An intelligence quotient or IQ is a score derived from a set of standardized tests developed to measure a person's cognitive abilities ("intelligence") in relation to their age group. An IQ test does not measure intelligence the way a ruler measures height (absolutely), but rather the way a race measures speed (relatively).

For people living in the prevailing conditions of the developed world, IQ is highly heritable, and by adulthood the influence of family environment on IQ is undetectable. IQ test scores are correlated with measures of brain structure and function, as well as performance on simple tasks that anyone can complete within a few seconds.

IQ is correlated with academic success; it can also predict important life outcomes such as job performance, socioeconomic advancement, and "social pathologies". Recent work has demonstrated links between IQ and health, longevity, and functional literacy.

 

[Makalakumu]

This is interesting. It looks like the legal system cognitively profiles people at the lower end of the bell curve.

The Supreme Court of the United States has also validated the use of IQ results during the sentencing phase of some criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court case of Atkins v. Virginia, decided June 20, 2002, [18] held that executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. In Atkins the court stated that
"…t appears that even among those States that regularly execute offenders and that have no prohibition with regard to the mentally retarded, only five have executed offenders possessing a known IQ less than 70 since we decided Penry. The practice, therefore, has become truly unusual, and it is fair to say that a national consensus has developed against it." In overturning the Virginia Supreme Court's holding, the Atkins opinion stated that petitioner's IQ result of 59 was a factor making the imposition of capital punishment a violation of his eighth amendment rights. In the opinion's notes the court provided some of the facts relied upon when reaching their decision
"At the sentencing phase, Dr. Nelson testified: "Atkins' full scale IQ is 59. Compared to the population at large, that means less than one percentile…. Mental retardation is a relatively rare thing. It's about one percent of the population." App. 274. According to Dr. Nelson, Atkins' IQ score "would automatically qualify for Social Security disability income." Id., at 280. Dr. Nelson also indicated that of the over 40 capital defendants that he had evaluated, Atkins was only the second individual who met the criteria for mental retardation. Id., at 310. He testified that, in his opinion, Atkins' limited intellect had been a consistent feature throughout his life, and that his IQ score of 59 is not an "aberration, malingered result, or invalid test score." Id., at 308."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Test#Use_of_IQ_in_the_United_States_legal_system

 

[Kacey]

Let me say before I start that my information and opinions come from my educational and experiential background - I am a special education teacher, have a BA in Psychology, an MA in Counseling, and am working on certification as a school psychologist.

IQ tests, historically, were developed for several reasons, primarily to determine which students should be sent to secondary school (that is, past 6th grade). Another use to which IQ tests were historically put was to determine (back when there were plenty of volunteers) was to screen applicants to the armed forces so that the best could be chosen from those who volunteered. A third frequent use was to screen potential immigrants to the US. These latter two uses were prejudicial - especially since early IQ tests leaned heavily on acquired knowledge, which could only occur through formal education (or, in rare cases, extensive self-education) and the ability to manipulate the English language - therefore, people who did not have access to education or books, and who were not native speakers of English, were placed at a severe disadvantage. In addition, much of the information assessed had a social context that was not necessarily the same as that of the applicant - most tests were normed (standardized) to a middle class or higher socioeconomic stratum, and those from lower strata were at a disadvantage. This is still the case when assessing students from other countries and from minority populations (by parental educational level, by economic status, by cultural group, etc.).

While certain IQ tests now have tasks that assess ability based on non-verbal tasks (completing puzzles, copying non-alphanumeric symbols, etc.) most rely on the student having a well-enough developed English language capacity to understand and correctly follow the assessor's directions. For students who are not from the cultural/economic mainstream of the society in which the assessment norms are determined, they are at a disadvantage both because they are less-likely to be familiar with "appropriate" developmental tasks and abilities, and because their cultural norms are generally not included in the assessment manual, which makes interpreting their results problematic. Even for those assessments available in this country in other languages, the assessment norms are based on socioeconomic norms which may not apply to the student - one of the most popular, for example, is available in Spanish, but was normed on American students of Hispanic descent who grew up in Spanish-speaking homes in America - much different from Spanish-speaking students who come from Mexico City, and again from those from rural Mexico, again from those from Brazil, again from those from Spain, and so on.

In addition to these concerns, two people who have identical IQ scores can have widely different abilities based on personal experience, educational and experiential background, gender, and numerous other factors - both may have strength in hands-on activities, for example, but one may have demonstrate that facility through carpentry, and another may demonstrate it through art, even though both look the same in terms of their achieved scores on IQ tests.

Because of the many factors that can affect IQ scores, they should be taken with a very large grain of salt - while IQ scores are highly correlated with success in school, they are not as correlated with success in life; certainly, people who do well in school are more likely to do well in life, but other factors can affect that as well - motivation being a key factor. A highly motivated person with an average IQ may excel in both school and life, while a minimally motivated person with an above average or even gifted IQ may drift through school and then life.

In addition, there are many types of intelligence that are not assessed by commonly used intelligence tests; there are also many people who have the intelligence but don't test well.

Having an IQ that tests high is not a guarantee of success; likewise, having an IQ that tests low is not a guarantee of failure. Human beings are complex, and no one descriptor can be taken as the answer to what causes success and failure; rather, a person must be considered as a sum of his/her experiences, abilities, motivations, and desires, and not shunted into a slot because of a number on an assessment which is culturally, linguistically, and economically biased, and which contains sections for which the interpretation is rather subjective.

Remember, too, that the only measure of success that means anything is your personal one. I have a TKD student who is 43 years old and has Downs Syndrome. He is, in his own opinion, very successful - he has held the same job for over 10 years (grocery sacker), lives independently, has earned a yellow belt in TKD, and has a wide range of friends - and for his achievements, he has earned the respect of everyone who knows him. His IQ is, relative to the norm of the culture, low - but his motivation has always been high, and he is, in his own opinion, the most successful person he knows, and one of the most content adults I have ever met.

 

[Makalakumu]

This is a very common critique of intelligence testing and I think that it has merit. In response, one of the things that psychometricians respond with is..."whatever IQ tests (be it intelligence or something else) it still correlates with success in education and with success in life."

How does one define success? Here is a chart that helps one understand the concept from a psychometricians POV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Test#Practical_validity

People with low IQ are obviously more likely to make mistakes or end up in situations that decrease their social productivity. As one can clearly see, IQ is showing something about our society that determines whether or not someone is successful.

 

[Cryozombie]

You know why I would disagree with this?

I have worked for my fair share of absolute morons... successful, wealthy buisness owners, who couldn't find their... butts... with both hands.

 

[Makalakumu]

You know why I would disagree with this?

I have worked for my fair share of absolute morons... successful, wealthy buisness owners, who couldn't find their... butts... with both hands.

People with high intelligence can have lower social skills and still be very successful. This is where Gardner's theory of intelligence comes in handy.