[Ok]

If I recall, Sternberg (not the most popular researcher in certain circles) believed that the notable difference between smart and genius and perhaps also as the basis for moderate relationships between varying levels of measured intelligence was met!acognition. Although distinctions were most apparent at higher levels of recorded intelligence. Sternberg believed this component to be the conscious actualisation of non-conscious processing. A type of introspective analysis of how one is utilising information and conducting problem solving, 'thinking about thinking'.

IQ is just one of those areas where a lot of reliable research supports general assumptions about genetics and inherent potential. While a number of limited though still reliable findings suggest that the picture remains incomplete for the aforesaid assumptions, methods of testing or score analysis to be understood as reliably definitive.

It is just too simple (and I would say too preciptuous) to wholly assume that a derived number represents the sum potential of an individual. Although it is fair to say that present measures certainly have a useful application for practical purposes. Nonetheless certain 'anomalies' remain and continue to be identified over time. For instance another recent study has shown that memory exercises can significantly assist with problem solving tasks. Maybe this sounds like common sense, but the implications for the validity of intelligence testing are (or should be !) significant.

The importance of these exceptions is that they critically undermine the necessary consequences required from prevailing views about intelligence. If 'intelligence' cannot remain stable then important elements to the issue are yet to be adequately understood.

Ultimately I would not take present complications to realistically entail that intelligence is better conceptualised as free floating. But rather that our present assumptions need to be reserved, intelligence can still be shown too fluctuate too much for current views to accurately represent individual prowess. Until all disparate elements can be sufficiently integrated into a non-contradictory whole the difference between general assumptions and definite knowledge is not only critical but suggestive and also rather interesting.

Personally speaking, besides those with related debilitations, I have never met a truly dumb person. Irrational is another matter.

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Read a lot of books.

[VTJas81]

Originally Posted by Ok

If I recall, Sternberg (not the most popular researcher in certain circles) believed that the notable difference between smart and genius and perhaps also as the basis for moderate relationships between varying levels of measured intelligence was met!acognition. Although distinctions were most apparent at higher levels of recorded intelligence. Sternberg believed this component to be the conscious actualisation of non-conscious processing. A type of introspective analysis of how one is utilising information and conducting problem solving, 'thinking about thinking'.

IQ is just one of those areas where a lot of reliable research supports general assumptions about genetics and inherent potential. While a number of limited though still reliable findings suggest that the picture remains incomplete for the aforesaid assumptions, methods of testing or score analysis to be understood as reliably definitive.

It is just too simple (and I would say too preciptuous) to wholly assume that a derived number represents the sum potential of an individual. Although it is fair to say that present measures certainly have a useful application for practical purposes. Nonetheless certain 'anomalies' remain and continue to be identified over time. For instance another recent study has shown that memory exercises can significantly assist with problem solving tasks. Maybe this sounds like common sense, but the implications for the validity of intelligence testing are (or should be !) significant.

The importance of these exceptions is that they critically undermine the necessary consequences required from prevailing views about intelligence. If 'intelligence' cannot remain stable then important elements to the issue are yet to be adequately understood.

Ultimately I would not take present complications to realistically entail that intelligence is better conceptualised as free floating. But rather that our present assumptions need to be reserved, intelligence can still be shown too fluctuate too much for current views to accurately represent individual prowess. Until all disparate elements can be sufficiently integrated into a non-contradictory whole the difference between general assumptions and definite knowledge is not only critical but suggestive and also rather interesting.

Personally speaking, besides those with related debilitations, I have never met a truly dumb person. Irrational is another matter.

That explaination is rather deep. Now how to put it to practice is another thing. Have you saw the recent news about working memory improving IQ? I thought this was interesting. I'll provide a link. I'm not paying 2 grand( I believe) to use the program though.


Gibson's new study examines effectiveness of working memory training for ADHD // News and Stories // About Arts and Letters // College of Arts and Letters // University of Notre Dame

Forget Brain Age: Researchers Develop Software That Makes You Smarter

[AdamG]

I listened to an audio book on the subject. It's called, "Mozart's Brain and the Fighter Pilot" and is about boosting your cognitive capacity. Good stuff, the guy give you exercises and everything. I have yet to finish it, and layout all of the homeworks, but it seems pretty intuitive.