I wrote about this before, but that was from personal experience and analysis. I knew of this piece when I wrote this (I had read about it before) but I couldn’t locate it. Well, here it is. But first some background.

In 1994 “The Bell Curve” came out and made a number of extraordinary claims about intelligence. They basically said it was the end-all/be-all of attributes, and that it defined whether or not you would succeed in life or fail–statistically, anyway.

The hot topics were race and poverty. They said that certain races were smarter, on average, than others, and that this was the main reason for their respective achievements as groups.

So, the media jumped all over it. Tons of “experts” came out and refuted the book, saying it was 100% crap. As it turns out, however, much of it was quite accurate (yet some of the research methods were shown to be flawed). What follows is the official academic response to the book, i.e. a public-oriented statement from the foremost academics in the field of intelligence regarding what was accepted as true by science.

Here are the basic findings (my summary):

1. I.Q. is real, and I.Q. tests are good at testing it.
2. It reliably predicts “success” and “failure” across large numbers of people, i.e. not necessarily for individuals.
3. I.Q. tests are not generally culturally biased.
4. The main races do have significantly different I.Q.s. Whites are the “average”, with 100, Blacks average 85, and Hispanics score about halfway in between. Asians and Jews score a bit higher than Whites. The reason for this, according to the consensus, is: “The reasons that blacks differ among themselves in intelligence appear to be basically the same as those for why whites (or Asians or Hispanics) differ among themselves. Both environment and genetic heredity are involved.”
5. Although science knows I.Q. and intelligence is real (as shown by the data on various life metrics), they don’t really know how or why. Understanding of the brain was still an admitted weakness, in other words.
6. Genetics is considered to be more important than environment for intelligence, but the degree to which this is true is still debated. Environment is still considered to be a major factor.
7. And most importantly: “The research findings neither dictate nor preclude any particular social policy, because they can never determine our goals. They can, however, help us estimate the likely success and side-effects of pursuing those goals via different means.”

This is a critical paper. I believe people completely underestimate the importance of intelligence, and that their doing so causes great harm to society. Most do so because they feel the whole concept of intelligence is baseless or weak as a scientific truth.

It’s not.

Check out the list of people who signed that statement. It’s astounding. And that’s not a random list of people; it’s the result of the academic community responding as a group to the Bell Curve. It’s a formal statement of “truth”, as agreed upon by known science at the time. My guess is that this has not changed much at all in the intervening time, and even that it’s been solidified even more.

But we live in a different time now. There’s very little chance of this many academics putting their names on a document like this right now. Not with all this talk of race in it–and in an arguably negative light no less.

Anyway, the point here isn’t race. The only reason that was so heavy in the document is because it was a response to the Bell Curve book, which received most of its scrutiny due to that issue. My point here is that intelligence is real, and that it’s measurable, and that it is crucial to a modern, healthy and happy society.

I think far more emphasis should be placed on studying intelligence in order to engineer methods of increasing it. I think increasing intelligence, more than any other measurable human attribute, will help improve the quality of decisions made throughout the world, and that this should be a major focus of modern educational systems.:

[ Edit: By the way, if any of you know of any modern version of this type of consensus, whether it agrees or disagrees with this one, I'd very much like to see it. ]

Links

[ Mainstream Science on Intelligence | psychpage.com ]

A stellar introduction to the real science of intelligence. I read the whole thing today. Highly recommended for those who are having trouble figuring out what’s real and what’s not about the concept of mental ability, and our ability to measure it.

Links

[ INTELLIGENCE: A Very Short Introduction | amazon.com ]

http://iqcomparisonsite.com/

It frustrates me that our major institutions, e.g. public education, the common business environment, etc. do not embrace proven methods of improving performance.

I wonder, for example, how much overall efficiency could be gained by experimenting with two simple programs:

1. Allowing workers to take a 20-30 minute nap in the afternoon
2. Doing a program to increase to improve fluid memory (and therefore I.Q.)

Does it seem extremely odd to anyone else that these things — especially the I.Q. raise — require very little time and the ability to improve worker performance in almost every area, yet nobody is even taking notice?

I.Q. points are platinum. Intelligent people (assuming they have good methodologies) are better problem solvers. Having one or two smart guys on an engineering team is possibly better than having ten average ones — even if they’re experienced.

So how can any manager dismiss the possibility of instantly upgrading their team in a way that no training class, degree, or certification could ever hope to do?

It seems the business world would rather just keep grinding along at their own mediocre pace than take a risk of losing valuable “grind time” doing some crazy progressive crap. Hell, I might as well be talking about taking time off to meditate, or to sacrifice a flower to the God of photosynthesis (It doesn’t work, by the way).

So, I for one am going to actually evaluate this memory/I.Q.-improvement program. And if I like it, i.e. it seems to actually work, I’m going to propose to my manager that we give it a shot. It supposedly only takes like 20-30 minutes a day to do, and results in a major study showed that it significantly boosted the I.Q.s of those who used it.

Am I loopy here, or does this not make sense?

As for the napping, I’m just doing that on my own as part of my lunch break. That’s an even harder sell.:

An interesting study has come out of the National Science Foundation (NSF) that found that fluid memory (a type of short-term memory) is key to I.Q., and that training this type of memory can significantly improve I.Q. scores.

Chalk one up for nurture.

Links

[ Fluid Memory Training Improves I.Q. | nsf.gov ]

I try and preface entries with this as little as possible, but this link I’m about to share is a “must see.” It’s a talk given by Malcolm Gladwell for New Yorker Magazine about how people are vetted to determine how they will perform in various roles such as professional sports, teachers, lawyers, etc.

Malcolm Gladwell is one of my favorite thinkers. If he’s not already one of yours he may very well be after this. Set aside 20 minutes and watch this as soon as possible; you will love me for making you.

[ The Combine Doesn't Work | Malcolm Gladwell ]

One final thing: Gladwell is an economist, but with him you have to stop thinking about this term as purely financial. Between Gladwell and Scott Adams I’ve come to a new appreciation and understanding for the discipline. My new understanding of the word is, “The study of causes and effects.”

This new type of economist attempts to figure out, quite simply, the inputs that go into an outcome. And quite often they end up shattering the ideas we’ve long held about why things happen the way they do. Case in point: Roe vs. Wade lowered the crime rate in the 90’s.

Which one are you? The article and the little cartoons are excellent, but the table at the bottom is gold. A must.

[ High Achiever, Gifted Learner, Creative Thinker ]

People raised as geniuses and people raised as religious conservatives have something in common. A significant portion of their identity rests upon a faulty belief system.

For those raised as super-geniuses, i.e. those who are told that they’re so smart they don’t really have to try, the faulty belief is that they will succeed without having to put forth any effort. For many raised as religious conservatives, i.e. those who believe they are automatically moral because of their religion, the problem is that they don’t feel compelled to behave morally during their day to day lives.

In both cases the problem is the same: the parent imbued a sense of accomplishment (and the associated pride) into the child at an early age. The religious parents made their child moral, and the genius’s parents made their child successful — all without any work on the child’s part.

In short, these children are raised to believe their worth comes from what they are rather than what they do.

What’s the expected outcome? Geniuses who aren’t successful and religious conservatives who aren’t moral, along with negative personalities forged in cognitive dissonance.:

It seems things are getting more intense on the genetics front, specifically with the implications of being able to clearly identify precisely which groups we fall into. They’ve just found the genes that make white people white, for example, and that keep Asians from sweating as much as other groups. According to this New York Times article many scientists are getting worried about how their work will be interpreted.

I’m worried about this as well. On one hand I think it’d be beneficial to understand our respective talents and limitations. In general I think the more information we have the better. But at the same time I see some very negative reactions to this entire line of exploration.

For one, I see bumper stickers with genetic information on them.

99JC6.2A and proud of it.

I can’t help it if you’re 5621.k.

I have one basic response to the concept of showing off one’s superior genes. What have you done? It’s like a Mensa meeting — a room full of unfulfilled people who’s only peacock feather is being part of that particular group. Great, you’re smart, now take a shower and get a job.

Still, I find it repulsive to actively deny what seems to be right in front of us, i.e. the fact that there obviously are differences between us. I think any time we deny uncomfortable truths we do ourselves a disservice and impede progress. But the question remains, is there ever a time when we shouldn’t talk about something?

From the New York Times article:

Regardless of any such genetic variation, it is our moral duty to treat all as equal before God and before the law,” Perry Clark, 44, wrote on a New York Times blog. It is not necessary, argued Dr. Clark, a retired neonatologist in Leawood, Kan., who is white, to maintain the pretense that inborn racial differences do not exist.

“When was the last time a nonblack sprinter won the Olympic 100 meters?” he asked.

To say that such differences aren’t real,” Dr. Clark later said in an interview, “is to stick your head in the sand and go blah blah blah blah blah until the band marches by.

Indeed. But I don’t think this is going to be an issue for long. I think almost as soon as we figure out exactly what our differences are we’re going to be able to build ourselves as desired.

Take this from here, that from there, add this new enhanced functionality, include a Google interface for the brain and some nanobots for a super-immune system and…bam! Superhuman.

I’ve got a demeaning future-name for people who are born naturally, i.e. non-augmented: defaulters.:

Many define intelligence at least partly as the ability to learn from one’s experiences. If I make a mistake and I’m intelligent I should be able to see what I did wrong, adjust, and avoid the problem in the future. That’s fine, but I have a better definition.

I think what’s even more important is the ability to learn from other peoples’ experiences.

You are only one person making mistakes. It would take forever to gather enough experience from just your own life. The true power comes from being able to actively grow by absorbing the experiences of others — even fictional characters — while watching T.V., movies, reading books, and observing the lives of those you meet.

Become that person and make the mistakes they make. See where it gets them and incorporate that knowledge into your collective experience as if it were your own. This gives you the wisdom of many.:

This is some of the best content on the Internet:

[ TED: Ideas Worth Sharing ]