#432 in Health, fitness & dieting books
Reddit mentions of Intelligence: All That Matters
Sentiment score: 4
Reddit mentions: 9
We found 9 Reddit mentions of Intelligence: All That Matters. Here are the top ones.
or
- Teach Yourself
Features:
Specs:
| Height | 7 Inches |
| Length | 5 Inches |
| Number of items | 1 |
| Release date | April 2016 |
| Weight | 0.3527396192 Pounds |
| Width | 0.5 Inches |
A recent summary I read on the current state of IQ science argued that most of it is genetics (depending on the age), something that people have opposed strongly over the last years, yet it somehow turned out to be the truth.
Therefor I will not agree with you here, I think you are on the wrong side this time.
Here the book:
https://www.amazon.ca/Intelligence-That-Matters-Stuart-Ritchie/dp/1444791877
No; this is precisely the opposite of the truth.
I read this book and it taught me a lot about the basics of intelligence. Essentially, longitudinal studies have demonstrated that IQ is stable throughout one's lifetime.
Here's how I think about it. Intelligence, as indicated by g, represents a set possibility for how deep you can go into complex topics. This does not account for other personality details, or enjoyment of a topic, which I think can matter tremendously in what you end up doing with the skills and knowledge you obtain.
The intelligence you have is likely to be set at whatever point it's at now. But it seems like you care about improving your mind and are curious about the world, and honestly I think that will lead you to things which improve your reasoning over time. My only advice is to be kind to yourself. I have to remind myself to do that daily.
As you can probably tell by reading the comments, virtually everyone has a strong point of view on this topic, which makes it difficult to discover the truth.
This 2011 summary by Linda Gottfredson (U. of Delaware) for New Scientist is an easily digestible overview:
Gottfredson won ISIR's lifetime achievement award:
James Thompson, lecturer at UCL, is a prolific blogger and has a lot to say on the topic:
For an easy book-length treatment for the general reader, Stuart Ritchie's book has had a good response:
This one's pretty good, although a little out of date ... although The Bell Curve is even more out of date! There's been tons of research on intelligence in the last 25 years. Here's a good recent scientific book on it.
> I would argue that both genetics and the environment have an effect on intellect
Of course. Nobody with any sense who has looked at the research denies that, everybody on the herediterian side of the argument acknowledges that. Don't set up a strawman.
Anyway, I pretty much agree with what you write: yes, IQ can be seen as a ceiling, and you still need a nurturing environment to actually reach that ceiling.
We most likely just differ where I believe the plot of IQ-vs-nurturing-factor on the Y vs X axis is very steep, i.e. one runs into diminishing returns very quickly, while you seem to believe it is a much more gradual slope.
Also, I believe the evidence so far points in the direction of there being population group differences, which you probably don't. I wish there wasn't, but that's what it looks like, although the question has certainly not been settled.
Other than that, let me just add that there are solid critiques out there of both the interpretation of the Flynn effect as a real increase of fluid intelligence (i.e. Spearman's g-factor), and that Eyferth study. I would advice you to look them up and make your mind up from what the data says, and not just your prior beliefs and wishes for how the world ideally should be.
(On a side note, that one Eyferth study is not only the strongest study on the side of nurture being the most important, but pretty much the only such study. And it has significant weaknesses. The number of studies -- mostly with better methodology than the Eyferth study -- coming down on the side of "IQ is mostly heritable" is at least in the hundreds.)
As for more information about the herediterian arguments, I've heard that "Intelligence: All That Matters" by Stuart Ritchie is a great primer, and it's recent.
No, psychologists of intelligence generally. And I did specify, studying intelligence, which is only a modestly sized sub-field of psychology, and one often misrepresented and misunderstood even by other psychologists. Stuart Ritchie's Intelligence: All That Matters is a great source on why IQ is still a big deal and a useful measurement.
Genetic fallacy handler om at afvise noget pga. dets ophav (genesis), fx hvem der har opfundet en test (irrelevant).
Der er ikke noget evidens for at testene måler forskellige ting i forskellige grupper. Der er omvendt set masser af evidens for at de måler omtrent det samme. Dette ses fx ved at se på rank order correlation for item sværhedsgraderne (bedre ville være at være en IRT analyse, men item data er svære at finde). Der er lavet mange sådanne sammenligninger, og de finder cirka det samme. Se fx Rushton's 2002 studie fra Sydafrika. Gennemsnit r = .90.
Dit indlæg er uklart, så det er ikke nemt at vide hvad du gerne vil have svar på. Måske du hellere skulle læse en introduktion til emnet snarere end at stille mig 100 spørgsmål. Stuart Ritchie og Richard Haier er begge førende forskere og har begge indenfor de seneste år udgivet introduktionsbøger om emnet.
http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-That-Matters-Stuart-Ritchie/dp/1444791877
https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Intelligence-Cambridge-Fundamentals-Psychology/dp/1107089778
(Jeg har læst begge.)
The data on iq being valid, largely heritable, and predictor of a variety of vactors, and that there are differences in average iqs between population has proven Murray right.
The only thing that’s being debated is whether this differences in average iqs is 100% environmental or less than 100%.
And this is not settled and I don’t think it will be until more is discovered about intelligence and genome sequences
It’s incredibly unfair to paint his as pettling nazi science just because you disagree with him on that one question or you dislike his policy recommendations. The data has shown him more right than wrong.
If you want a good, easy to read, a summary on current iq science, this is a good read.