The big problem with how we measure “intelligence”

The big problem with how we measure “intelligence” | Mary Helen Immordino-Yang

Рет қаралды 6,264

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 45

@snakeeyes6061 5 ай бұрын

That's right, some people think faster, read faster, memorize better, and come up with ideas faster....all of these which are just a few but very relevant specifically in certain situations....!

@adrianriebelbrummer5792 5 ай бұрын

Am I getting it wrong, or does she talk only about the moral issues of measuring intelligence? She does not say that the g factor is not a real thing, does she?

@Suavementenietze 3 ай бұрын

The insight this woman is offering us is brilliant enough to render the background music totally unnecessary

@moderncontemplative 5 ай бұрын

According to how we traditionally gauge intelligence, I was considered a troubled child with learning disabilities. However, I found out as young adult that, I am among millions of people with hyperactive, highly intelligent, very dynamic brains. ADHD is a description Of this type of brain when it is not optimized or harnessed through meditation and mindfulness. Only LLMs are able to jump from topic to topic seamlessly the way I and others can do. This is an insight I had recently when conversing with GPT 4o. I noticed that I could keep up with the way it was switching topics and making disparate connections. It apologized for spontaneously switching topics but I was able to follow along quite easily. When highly intelligent children are not challenged adequately, they might behave as if they don't understand a topic or are bored when in reality they are just not interested and want something more dynamic to learn.

@IDMYM8 5 ай бұрын

I undertand very well what she is talking about. It's the fact that limited extent of test cannot cover all the aspects of the intelligence we need to measure. It's a limited test of not all of the intellectual capabilities. The fact that one thing can be learned by many different ways suggests that different strength of our brains can come to same understanding. Like for example, if someone says they learn from "pictures" better, and someone else days they learn by "hearing it from others". Both of these persons would, ultimately, be able to understand what was needed. Though, they will score less in those test which will measure their weakness and that would lead to an inaccurate diagnosis of any problem.

@Robinson8491 4 ай бұрын

research has shown there is no such thing as 'picture learning' or 'text learning'. Smart ones are better at both of them

@IDMYM8 4 ай бұрын

@@Robinson8491 I'm trying to suggest that someone may not get the "good" scores on IQ test for that specific test which measures very specific ability of ours to gather information or process it. Because of the face that one thing is not super subjective to "one mode of learning", it's STILL possible to understand the same concept/info. Let's say someone of somewhat average IQ hear lectures and are able to understand it the same as, let's say in 95 percentile, but they fail to understand with the same ease on reading books. This is very exaggerated example, but trying to show the contrast. Now, the test may suggest one person is better than the other at recognising pattern of textual format, but weighs it too much. On the other hand the capabilities of the high IQ persona and the average might appear same when understanding them by lectures. Maybe the test even go to show that the average somehow scores slightly better at test which kinda test the ability to learn by lectures. At the end, both of them were capable at "understanding" the topic/concept and they did. This rendered the the IQ deviation pretty useless. The reasearch you are talking about is taking the extremes into account. Like someone with 190 IQ has the probability of scoring higher on both of my hypothetical test scenarios compared to the everage, but both of the group of people come to the same understanding at the end, where does the IQ even suggests that someone has "more" than the other? As far as IQ tests are concerned, they are not really showing the whole picture because on many scenarios the average IQ person is showing the same or very same results/performance of the actual tasks. Where is the "intelligence" limitations creates any distinct practical limitation? Is the real question. The things I am able to infer is perspective/philosophical? But those are still far influenced by cultural and media influence than distinction in IQ test score. So what's the factor of limitations?

@Robinson8491 4 ай бұрын

@@IDMYM8 i am just trying to prevent certain kids from becoming suicidally bored in classrooms, being sussed to silence by adults that are teachers and developing learned helplessness in the best of among us, which happens a lot I'm afraid. I scored first in a cohort of 200.000 kids at an aptitude test aged twelve in my country, which corresponds to 165+ iq. I can tell you my needs were not met, especially my emotional ones, being shut out from classes because I was too disruptive talking to my friends/classmates, my bench and seat literally being lifted and put in the hallway, because I didn't need the study anyway as I knew it already and would bother the others (it was economics and I already learned it at math class, this specifically). I can tell you, that is some emotional damage done when all the other students get to see that done to you every class for weeks. I was not an asshole, the teacher just didn't want to bother to my needs as it wasn't the average need for the class. Yes, I was complaingin, but how many partial derivative classes do you need in a lifetime? I followed every class available, maxing out my timetable and even skipping physics classes taking half of them to follow Latin and economics and biology, and it wasn't enough for me. I don't want to exaggerate, but I'm lucky I didn't kill myself at the time. That is the severity of the situation we are talking about. It isnt about sixties flowerpower happines buttons. Lives are at stake. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you will never understand

@thehumansmustbecrazy 5 ай бұрын

It's more important to achieve a minimum viable intelligence then it is to worry about maximum intelligence. Humans can be quite irrational. We can encourage a minimum amount of intelligence to prevent excess irrationality from causing damage to the foundations of our civilization. We do need to measure intelligence. But only as it is useful for maintaining and furthering civilization.

@Sci-lives 4 ай бұрын

The world could use some of that “minimum viable intelligence” love it

@dakota-sessions 5 ай бұрын

"It doesn't tell you anything about potential" IQ is literally the best predictor of income ever devised. "It undermines agency" The idea of free will literally breaks the laws of physics. Understanding science does not force someone to want less for others. On the contrary, the more we study and know things the better we get at helping people.

@Machiavelrous 5 ай бұрын

Erm, no. Free will does NOT break the laws of Physics. It is part of Physics. Being able to choose does not defy its laws.

@dakota-sessions 5 ай бұрын

@@Machiavelrousgood luck with that one

@TickleMeTimbers 5 ай бұрын

thinking of agency at the level of free will philosophically ignores very obvious interpretations that have to do with the psychological role of self-determination. this is barely even a sophisticated position. free will doesn't "break the law of physics" if you have more than a few brain cells to exert their will and see that for yourself.

@Sci-lives 4 ай бұрын

Robert Sapolsky would disagree with us even having free will 😑🤔🤯

@TickleMeTimbers 4 ай бұрын

@@Sci-lives Robert Sapolski is just one guy and isn't right about everything. stop getting your education off youtube. also the argument that we have no free will is about absolute free will. it's an uninteresting easy problem of semantics that only idiots concern themselves with.

@TheRealTomWendel 5 ай бұрын

There’s qualitative assessment and quantitative assessment. You certainly need to assess outcomes of interest, but it’s important to use quantitative as well as quantitative measurement.

@htogr26 5 ай бұрын

This is a perfectly valid statement.

@mikegarrigan5182 5 ай бұрын

Being in nature is a great teacher, the evolutionary experience has taught as well.

@Robinson8491 5 ай бұрын

It's good to have smarter kids not have to wait hours of the day for the slower ones, which is truly excruciating. Also in school territory it is very easy for the kids to pick out the smart ones: when they can draw better and are faster in class you bet you got yourself a winner. And everybody knows it

@cleopatrabeyblade 5 ай бұрын

you are the problem

@ShaheenGhiassy 5 ай бұрын

⁠I agree with @@cleopatrabeyblade

@Robinson8491 5 ай бұрын

@@cleopatrabeyblade denying the quick learners a suitable environment is as harmful as denying mental patients their medicine. It is unethical

@pete_shand 5 ай бұрын

How about creating an environment where the quick learners are able to help the slow learners?

@Robinson8491 4 ай бұрын

@@pete_shand school is not a job. Why do the quick learners, that work hard to learn quick, have to work a job? I hate this mentality, really. And then the slow learners have an easy life, and become the quick learners bosses in the future because they had a more laidback childhood

@donadfull8887 5 ай бұрын

Let’s not measure competency and merit. Let’s consider a wholistic shmorgasboard of nebulous attributes. Sounds like the mission statement of the Secret Service.