Quote:
Originally Posted by loramin
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
As a result the idea of a single "g" intelligence has more or less been debunked, which in turn debunks the idea that you can measure such a "g" intelligence. In other words, there are no "smart" people, just people who are smart about different things, and any given person might have any combination of "smarts" because the different kinds mostly don't correlate. Now that's not to say that intelligence tests don't measure something, because they clearly do, but whatever they measure it's a certain subset of the many different intelligences, and which ones are included and to what degree depend largely on the person writing test.
|
In fact, they do mostly correlate. That's where the g factor comes from. The g factor is the underlying variable you get when you do a factor analysis on a wide range of cognitive tasks (similar to those other IQ types as you mentioned). A person who has a strong working memory is more likely to process information quicker, learn quicker, etc. Yes, sometimes you have idiot savant types, but generally there is a strong correlation, hence how the g factor is synthesized statistically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JurisDictum
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
IQ is overrated. People with ultra-high IQ often prove worse at making decisions then people with just slightly high IQ. High IQ is mostly useful for IQ tests. That, and for stuff like picking the right investment, gambling, manipulation. These are the things IQ helps you with.
You can be dumb as a rock to be an honest and dutiful businessman.
|
IQ remains a strong predictor (the best predictor iirc?) of future success in life. Maybe your observation of ultra-high IQ making bad decisions is selection bias from your own life experiences?