Cognitive Abilities are the over all determinant of success...

[Makalakumu]

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

The Bell Curve is a controversial, best-selling 1994 book by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray exploring the role of intelligence in American life. The authors became notorious for the book's discussion of race and intelligence in Chapters 13 and 14.

Named for the bell-shaped normal distribution of IQ scores, the book cites the rise of a "cognitive elite" having a significantly higher than average chance of succeeding in life.

What do you think about this idea? The concept of the existence of a "cognitive elite" would certainly put a few people in a tizzy...

 

[Makalakumu]

I think my own life is a pretty good peice of anecdotal evidence for this concept. I was grew up about as poor as one can get in this country...even to the point of being homeless for a time as child...and yet, because of my higher cognitive abilities (MENSA), I was able to get educated and become successful.

 

[Makalakumu]

If cognitive abilities are a determining factor when it comes to success in our society, would racial differences in these abilities explain much of the inequality that we see today?



The data that generated this graph would indicate that there is a large spread in the means of the various curves of cognitive ability for various races. If one looks at the percentage generated by dividing the number people in poverty by the total amount of people in the population and subtracts the percentage of difference between these means, one gets very close to the national percentage of people in poverty.

This may indicate that a huge reason behind the inequality of the races in this country is due to racial differences in cognitive abilities.

60% to 80% of cognitive ability is genetic in origin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Within_societies

 

[Makalakumu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think it should be rather obvious at this point that cognitive abilities are a pre-requisite for success. More important, even, than many environmental factors. Far more important than other factors, such as race and ethnicity.

You'd be hard pressed to find a truly successful man in history who wasn't at least above average in cognitive ability.

Of course, what does any of this tell us? Should we restrict the success of the 'cognitive elite' to make it fair for those who are 'cognitively challenged'?

 

[sgtmac_46]

If cognitive abilities are a determining factor when it comes to success in our society, would racial differences in these abilities explain much of the inequality that we see today?



The data that generated this graph would indicate that there is a large spread in the means of the various curves of cognitive ability for various races. If one looks at the percentage generated by dividing the number people in poverty by the total amount of people in the population and subtracts the percentage of difference between these means, one gets very close to the national percentage of people in poverty.

This may indicate that a huge reason behind the inequality of the races in this country is due to racial differences in cognitive abilities.

60% to 80% of cognitive ability is genetic in origin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Within_societies

Those very statements are considered racist by a great many people. Whether or not it is true is not even considered an issue, the mere suggestion is enough to have you labelled a racist in many conversations.

 

[Makalakumu]

Those very statements are considered racist by a great many people. Whether or not it is true is not even considered an issue, the mere suggestion is enough to have you labelled a racist in many conversations.

Which is exactly what happened to the people who wrote the Bell Curve. However, what if there is something to this? What does it mean for our society?

 

[mantis]

that IS racist!
unless u mean effort or mentality more than cognitive ability!
sgtmac_46 i always see u in posts defending racism hahaha
(just joking)

 

[sgtmac_46]

that IS racist!
unless u mean effort or mentality more than cognitive ability!
sgtmac_46 i always see u in posts defending racism hahaha
(just joking)

Quote me as defending or advancing anything having to do with this post and race. I was just predicting your response. Glad to see you haven't disappointed me.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Which is exactly what happened to the people who wrote the Bell Curve. However, what if there is something to this? What does it mean for our society?

The fact that it may be true, is all the more reason to label it racist. If this were true, it might mean that it isn't 'whitie' keeping people down. I do not propose that it is or is not true, i'm merely making a commentary on the nature of discourse. The very suggestion is blasted as racist at the barrel.

As for what this means for our society if it is true, it may mean that all our investments in trying to bring black America as a whole up to a level playing field may be futile, if, it is indeed true.

Keep in mind, even if this is true, it doesn't mean all blacks are below average in intelligent, or that all whites are above average (I can guarantee that's not true). It may mean, however, that more blacks are below average, and hence, end up below the curve in competing in society.

In that case, all the affirmative action programs in the world isn't going to level the playing field, as the problem is internal, not external. What's more, if the problem in cognitive ability is inborn, then all the educational opportunities in the world isn't going to make up for it a great deal.

Much more research needs to be done before we can even remotely assume any of this research reflects anything in the real world. I hope that there is an explaination for this phenomenon that is environmental. If not, we'll have to fundamentally reevaluate a great many things.

 

[Makalakumu]

These graphs the authers drew are coming from 156 different studies with literally millions of subjects. I did some checking into this stuff and the weight behind it is astounding. So it has been studied...quietly. And that is one of the problems. This topic is taboo in academia. I would be very careful about approaching a professor to look at anything related to this. So much for academic freedom...

Yet, I think research like this is important certain minority groups and important for society in general. As you correctly illustrate, if this is true, then programs like affirmative action are not going to be successful because they don't really tackle the problem. They only serve as a bandaid. The differences in cognitive abilities in groups are still within the range that can be affected externally (60% of cognitive abilities are genetic and 40% is environmental). This indicates to me that if one is serious about evening out cognitive differences in groups and thereby "leveling the playing field" one must invest in education.

Would you ditch affirmative action in order to spend more on educating our youth?

 

[Makalakumu]

This research also has an impact on education that goes far beyond race. It shows that the "factory model" in which we have designed our schools is flawed. In our country, a school is designed as a factory and kids are taught peices of knowledge like putting parts on an engine. Everything builds on everything and everybody is expected to have a certain level of understanding. This understanding is then measured with high stakes tests.

For kids in the middle ranges of cognitive abilities, this works alright. But for the 34% outside of that range, it leads to frustration and boredom. This research tells us that certain kids, will not be able to learn certain subjects. Which is something we've known for a long time, but most have been unwilling to accept because we want to think that our kids can rise to any level and learn anything they want to. The truth is that kids in the middle cannot learn the things that kids at the top learn. And kids at the bottom cannot learn what kids in the middle learn. And kids at the top, they are bored off their asses with the stuff that the middle learns.

The obvious solution is smaller schools that focus on cognitive differences between people. Instead of high stakes tests, we need cognitive tests that help teachers understand how best to serve certain individuals. A curriculum needs to be designed that takes into account a students cognitive abilities and teaches them what they are able to learn.

With kids at the lower end of the spectrum, this is especially important. These children don't need to learn the details regarding the Krebs Cycle or the subtlety of Shakespere. They need to learn how to come to work on time and how to be consistent. They need to learn how to hold down a job and how to properly speak to people. They need to learn how to do some math, write a paragraph competently, and above all, they need to become good readers.

NCLB attempts to set standards that will help kids with lower cognitive abilities (although it wasn't actually designed with that in mind). Yet, this approach, when applied to every child, is not the right approach. Certain kids can learn the details in Krebs, the subtleties of Shakespere, and Calculus. Why hold them to a standard so far beneath their ability. For them, the bar is so low, that its a joke. NCLB would be a better peice of legislation if it had different standards tailored for different cognitive abilities groups and if the legislation carried the funds it would take to construct a new school model that would focus on teaching smaller more cognitively similar groups.

Just my thoughts...

upnorthkyosa

 

[heretic888]

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



What do you think about this idea? The concept of the existence of a "cognitive elite" would certainly put a few people in a tizzy...

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble here, but things like "cognition" and "intelligence" are domain-specific in nature. Certain individuals may be the "elite" within their own particular domains, but can be absolute dimwits in domains they are poorly developed in.

As one general example (the same example that was provided in my developmental psyche textbook some years back), we can test undergraduate college students in, say, three different areas of intellectual competence: 1) a pendulum test involving some form of mathematical prediction, 2) an English test involving some level of language comprehension and composition, and 3) a test involving evaluation of a sociopolitical dilemma. We are testing for formal-operational cognitive capacity here, the ability to accurately formulate hypothetical third-person thinking.

And, what we will find, is that the physics major demonstrates formop capacities in the pendulum test more than 90% of the time. Likewise with the literature major in the English test and the political science major with the sociopolitical test. However, in the tests outside of their domain major, there is only about a 10% to 30% chance that they will demonstrate formop capacities --- which doesn't even mean that they're "right", but that they can demonstrate the ability think in a valid if/then third-person perspective.

So, you'll have to excuse my skepticism at the proposal of a monopolar "cognitive elite", but ideas like this are not supported at all by the developmental research out there. Intelligence is domain-specific, a fact that even Piaget began to acknowledge in his later works. Hell, all development is domain-specific, whether we're talking about "cognition" or not.

The simple truth is that IQ tests are really, really, really outdated. I mean, we're talking friggin' archaic stuff here, going back to before the 1920's. This was before Piaget's research even, and well before the idea of domain-specificity and multiple-intelligences became well-etablished. That there have been both racial and cultural biases in such tests is also well-established.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

60% to 80% of cognitive ability is genetic in origin.

Sure, if you are in the psuedoscientific habit of collapsing causation with correlation.

I found nothing in the aforementioned data that clearly differentiated ethnicity from variables such as economic class, social upbringing, or cultural values. It shouldn't go without saying that there is a considerable overlap between certain ethnic groups and cultural standards.

I've been to Japan. Failure is a huge no-no there. This carries into their educational standards, too. Can we clearly distinguish between ethnicity and cultural values here??

I don't believe we can.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

Most of this work is based on the concept of "g" which is more then IQ. What do you know about this?

 

[heretic888]

Most of this work is based on the concept of "g" which is more then IQ. What do you know about this?

Well, John, that's a tricky one....

"G" stands for "general intelligence" and is thought to be a general cognitive quality that crosses across virtually all intellectual domains. This notion dates back to Charles Spearman in the early 1900's. Concomitant with this position is the concept of "s", which stands for specific abilities that individuals exhibit within individual tasks.

My problems with this notion are three-fold.

Firstly, there seems to be a rather weak distinction between "g" and "s" in the first place, between general cognitive ability and domain-specific competencies. From where I'm standing, it seems that both "g" and "IQ" tend to favor a type of logico-mathematical competence, qualities that are highly valued in Western society (this is also what Piaget seemed mostly interested in testing). This is where the criticism of ethnic and cultural bias has its origin.

I find myself in agreement with Howard Gardner on this:

"I do not believe that there is a single general talent, whether it be called intelligence, creativity or 'g'. I do not locate talents completely within the human skull, preferring to construe all accomplishments as an interaction between cognitive potentials on the one hand, and the resources and opportunities provided by the surrounding culture on the other....All intellectual and creative work takes place within some kind of social discipline, craft, or organized activity, termed a domain. Accordingly, there is no sense in which one can speak about a person as being intelligent, or creative, in general."

Secondly, as Dr. Gardner mentioned in the above quoted excerpt, all intellectual competencies take place within the domain of a given sociocultural paradigm. Ergo, this attempt to attribute intelligence and cognitive ability solely from internal qualities is, in my opinion, extremely short-sighted. Rather, we must value the importance that culture and social upbringing has on what particular domain-specific tasks.

For example, in the spirit of this thread topic, one may question whether traditional African and Hispanic cultures value logico-mathematical ability to the same degree that Cacausian and Asian cultures do. Based on my understanding of these things, I do not see the same degree of intellectual value in the former cultures as I see in the latter. Likewise, there are certain competencies that are more highly valued in African and Hispanic cultures that may be overlooked in Asian and Caucaisn socities.

Thirdly, there seems to be a poor understanding of the hierarchical nature of cognitive development across domains. Intelligence is less like a thermometer, where one simply notes superiority on a simple numerical scale, with no significant qualitative differences from number to number. Rather, intelligence within any given domain seems to be more akin to biology's taxonomical scale, where there are qualitative differences from one "level" to another "level", not just numerical differences on the same scale. This is where the research of individuals like James Mark Baldwin, Jean Piaget, and Jane Loevinger is of use to us. From their studies, we realize that development occurs across the span of qualitative "stages" --- Piaget's sensorimotor, preop, conop, and formop being the most familiar.

So, in summation, my major contentions with "g" are as follows:
1) It does not strongly delineate between itself and domain-specific competencies.
2) It ignores the role that sociocultural upbringing and training has on development, with the accompanying biases that we should expect from an overemphasis on Western individualism.
3) It does not take into account the existence of different levels of cognitive ability within the same domain.

That being said, I would argue that "g" is not necessarily wrong as opposed to merely being a partial view of the subject. I also feel that "intelligence" is much more complex than many researchers would like to acknowledge. It is easier to fit everything under one easy variable, but easier does not mean more accurate.

However, you are correct in that there is only a partial correlation between IQ and g scores.

Laterz.

 

[mantis]

man
sometimes i feel scientists BS us man
one day the come up with a conclusion
next day they negate it!
im happy with the bell curve btw, im asian!
lol

 

[Flatlander]

There are other noteworthy difficulties associated with attributing lack of "success" in general with any type of intelligence. To begin with, there is no standard or comprehensively accepted notion of "success" now, is there? For some, a loving family is success. For others, simply staying out of prison is success. Yet others feel a need to be exceptionally wealthy. The notion of success is quite subjective, and therefore, a significant barrier to even formulating any type of standard upon which to base any type of meaningful study of the issue.

Along the same lines, what about the idea of growth or evolution of one's individual value system? I may define success as "a" today, and "y" five years from now. So the notion of "success" is not only subjective, it is dynamic.

Furthermore, irrespective of what any expert in this field claims, I am adamant, and will remain so, that not all folks are afforded the same opportunities in life. In the way that I define success, opportunity can be a significant factor in catalysing one's efforts to generate "successful" results. So, until we are able to have a homogenous sample group for study that recognizes and accounts for such seemingly unquantifiables as opportunity, any postulation necessarily linking intelligence with success will, for me, remain quite arguably unreliable.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here is some more stuff on the General Intelligence Factor, or g. If this was the measure of the cognitive abilities, then it would seem as if many more factors were looked at then just IQ.

Also, I think its reasonable to assume that a portion of g is genotypical. How much is the million dollar question is this debate. Research in the book indicated that 60% was a conservative estimate for the genetic contribution and that it might be as high as 80%. How much of g is environmentally dependent?

 

[FearlessFreep]

Still think we are quite aways from the "Seldon Plan"