💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 3074.gmi captured on 2021-12-05 at 23:47:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-03)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
sciencehabit writes "Kids who score higher on IQ tests will, on average, go on
to do better in conventional measures of success in life: academic achievement,
economic success, even greater health, and longevity. Is that because they are
more intelligent? Not necessarily. New research concludes that IQ scores are
partly a measure of how motivated a child is to do well on the test. And
harnessing that motivation might be as important to later success as so-called
native intelligence."
>Lemme be an iconoclast here for a moment.
So IQ doesn't measure intelligence. So what? If IQ score is, as claimed, highly
correlated with success in life, and if it's measuring motivation and
determination rather than intelligence, and if it's motivation that determines
success in life, doesn't that make the IQ test pretty damned useful?
Who even knows what "native intelligence" means, anyway? If I've got a test
that tells me whether someone understands problems, can find solutions to them,
and is motivated enough to carry through, isn't that as useful a definition of
"intelligence" as any?
Or to put it bluntly: of what use to anyone is a brilliant mind who doesn't
give a shit?
>>>If you couple this with the research that shows a high correlation between
self-control and success (much higher correlation than IQ), then an inescapable
conclusion results. It is not the brilliant mind that is destined for success,
but rather the motivated well-disciplined mind. So how does one achieve such a
mind? The research suggests that having parents who provide routine and
discipline, a stable environment, and have a loving relationship. This is why
social problems are so difficult to resolve; the child needs certain things
from the parents, but the parents cannot provide. Consequently, the child grows
into a poor parent and the cycle repeats. This cycle is very hard to break
(even with the state system designed for this purpose, schooling). On a related
note; the increasing gap between rich and poor globally is of grave concern.
Increased financial pressures lead to an increase in the number of problem home
environments, and the problems take such a long time to resolve. Here is where
you end up with different philosophical views. Social conservatives will
suggest that we must focus on unchanging structured social environments (e.g.
No gay marriage, a support community via religious involvement, if religious
etc). Socialists and left leaning will suggest a government provided support
network is essential. The politically right will focus more on options to
enable individuals to break free of the cycle. Personally, I think we as a
society in the west have lost our way. Reducing economic stress was key to
relieving a primary cause of social problems, however economic growth is only
one component. As we now place economic growth as higher importance than
societal health, we neglect that which is fundamental to the health and success
of our societies. We risk letting greed destroy us, I can't put it more plainly
than that.