From IQ tests to entrance exams, we’ve always mistaken marks for merit. True intelligence lives outside the answer sheet, but we have struggled to formally identify it.
This is cool and all but it heavily mischaracterizes several things. First off it never mentions the fact that all components of cognition are positively correlated through the g factor. Second of all, the predictive validity of Sternbergs test, when actually looking at the correlations, comes from simply measuring g pretty well, which is also done by well made IQ tests. The only reason creative performed so well was because it was simply very g loaded.( https://moscow.sci-hub.ru/1753/1bc3f5cfbc73821aa25839756ca5a4ed/brody2003.pdf#navpanes=0&view=FitH) You also mischaracterized Flynn effect pretty bad. First off, the heritability of intelligence remains extremely high, and it was mainly changed because of average increases in nutritional quality, but more g loaded tasks didn't increase much, with Arithmetic, General Knowledge, and Vocabulary going up about 3 points in 40 years. Substantial evidence points to the Flynn effect not being on g(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000226), and even if it was, it is primarily an early childhood effect that does nothing to combat the incredible stability of intelligence in adulthood, with instability throughout childhood and teenage years being due to effects shifting from environmental to becoming more genetic through what is called the Wilson effect.
Thanks for your insights. I must admit I haven't researched to the extent that you have. From what I have read, non-verbal reasoning has improved much more than numerical reasoning over the decades. Some markers of intelligence which are not covered in IQ, like navigation, have even deteriorated. But I'm not qualified enough to critique these research studies yet.
But broadly, based on my own experiences and observations, I tend to agree with most of what I've understood about both Flynn's and Sternberg's findings, especially the points that they convey at large.
Oh, by the way, something you might find interesting is the Cattell-Horn-Carroll(CHC) model of cognitive abilities. It should align with your observations somewhat well.
I agree that there are somewhat distinct factors, but the biggest observations are most likely from vocational interests making people present their skills in one area much more strongly. I encourage you to read more on the topic as its a really interesting one with a lot of room for debate and conversation. It's always nice to have more people interested in the field.
This is cool and all but it heavily mischaracterizes several things. First off it never mentions the fact that all components of cognition are positively correlated through the g factor. Second of all, the predictive validity of Sternbergs test, when actually looking at the correlations, comes from simply measuring g pretty well, which is also done by well made IQ tests. The only reason creative performed so well was because it was simply very g loaded.( https://moscow.sci-hub.ru/1753/1bc3f5cfbc73821aa25839756ca5a4ed/brody2003.pdf#navpanes=0&view=FitH) You also mischaracterized Flynn effect pretty bad. First off, the heritability of intelligence remains extremely high, and it was mainly changed because of average increases in nutritional quality, but more g loaded tasks didn't increase much, with Arithmetic, General Knowledge, and Vocabulary going up about 3 points in 40 years. Substantial evidence points to the Flynn effect not being on g(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000226), and even if it was, it is primarily an early childhood effect that does nothing to combat the incredible stability of intelligence in adulthood, with instability throughout childhood and teenage years being due to effects shifting from environmental to becoming more genetic through what is called the Wilson effect.
Thanks for your insights. I must admit I haven't researched to the extent that you have. From what I have read, non-verbal reasoning has improved much more than numerical reasoning over the decades. Some markers of intelligence which are not covered in IQ, like navigation, have even deteriorated. But I'm not qualified enough to critique these research studies yet.
But broadly, based on my own experiences and observations, I tend to agree with most of what I've understood about both Flynn's and Sternberg's findings, especially the points that they convey at large.
Oh, by the way, something you might find interesting is the Cattell-Horn-Carroll(CHC) model of cognitive abilities. It should align with your observations somewhat well.
I agree that there are somewhat distinct factors, but the biggest observations are most likely from vocational interests making people present their skills in one area much more strongly. I encourage you to read more on the topic as its a really interesting one with a lot of room for debate and conversation. It's always nice to have more people interested in the field.
Thank you so much. Will surely look into your suggestions :)