linguistic facility aren't stupid, just that they possess a requisite
intelligence associated with their skill. For instance, one can high
verbal ability but very poor fluid ability (and to some extent even
this will show itself in such a person's writing - don't ask me how, I
can just tell).
One has to invest g to get s (skill) dividends; the more g one has to
invest, the more one can invest in many areas at once. That's the
point of Spearman's Law of Diminishing Returns. Anyway, you most
certainly can improve your skills at any time - just invest what you
have.
argumzio
On May 22, 9:19 pm, whoisbambam <smath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> agreed.
>
> there has frequently been an association between language/writing
> ability and aptitude--it shouldnt be ignored.
>
> there frequently are exceptions to the bell curve, but as a rule......
>
> there are few dimwits that can write at the graduate level, and if one
> were to pool the IQs of both populations, a pattern emerges.
>
> instead, i think we should focus on IMPROVING what we have.
>
> :)
>
> something i am in dire need of myself.
>
> On May 22, 9:09 pm, ao <argum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > So you would argue that the literary work similar in form and content
> > to that produced by some of the greatest living (or dead) writers,
> > philosophers, critics, etc., can be matched today by someone of
> > average or slightly-above-average intelligence?
>
> > Ceteris paribus, I wouldn't. I can say with some confidence that the
> > capacity to more or less express oneself elegantly and clearly in
> > writing begins at the 2.5 sigma level (above the developed world
> > average, not the general world average).
>
> > From my experience, I wasn't taught in a schoolroom on how to write: I
> > learned to do so on my own through self-motivated "practice". I would
> > argue that someone of considerably above-average intelligence can do
> > the same with even a modest degree of eloquence - much more so than
> > someone of only average ability. Have you seen what people of average
> > ability _can_ do? Most college graduates are a standard deviation
> > above the norm as a bare minimum.
>
> > It makes very little sense to me that those who can't do so should be
> > placed above everyone else in your psychometric estimation. If someone
> > cannot express themselves effectively, I would argue only with tongue
> > in cheek that they are in some sense "intelligent".
>
> > Perhaps we see the ramifications of the three R's being emphasized
> > less and less these days...
>
> > argumzio, suffering the wise gladly
>
> > On May 22, 8:32 pm, milestones <wgweathe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > So, going back to the OP, the rule is: high quality communication
> > > > approximately measures high intelligence; absent high quality
> > > > communication output, an individual's intelligence is put into some
> > > > doubt (i.e., capacity to generate such output).
>
> > > Still, that becomes an entirely subjective assessment. I agree that,
> > > perhaps, subjective assessments are what matter in the real world, but
> > > the huge improvements that can be made in composition and written
> > > expression, indicate that this sort of communicative intelligence that
> > > you speak of is largely a matter of practice and education. Thus,
> > > based on my experience, to make prima facie assessments on one's
> > > intelligence based on written expression, is flawed.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-training@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-training+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
No comments:
Post a Comment