discuss
Dana Centre events
Next Topic >Start new topic | Post Reply| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Posted: 17 April 2007 at 4:49pm For hundreds of years great minds have been arguing over intelligence. But are there different types of intelligence that go beyond IQ? Watch the BBC Horizon programme 'Battle of the Brains' and continue the discussion on what it takes to be a genius. |
|
Posted: 17 April 2007 at 10:19pm On the programme it was stated that genetics makes up half of ones "IQ" potential, and this was apparently linked to the work of Robert Plomin. I am interested in where this figure comes from and what research has been donne in this area my Plomin or others. |
|
Posted: 17 April 2007 at 10:30pm My own intelligence is something that has always confused me and possibly one of my biggest problems in life.People often comment on my diversity of skills, and "is there nothing you cannot do" when the truth is I have real problems (which I don't communicate because of the environment within I work mainly). I am good and often better than recognised people at many tasks, however I am only good at tasks which interest me, hold my attention and spark my imagination; if the task in hand does not meet these criteria I find it almost impossible to complete the task especially if learning is involved. For example I struggled with attention at GCSE and scored higher grades at a level. I am great at programming and algebra but don't know my times tables. I am great at solving problem with innovation or revolution in my job but struggled if I have to build based upon existing rules... Aside from this subjective attention I am torn slightly in two directions, on the one hand I know I have the capability to excel is I were to chose and dedicate myself to one discipline but on the other hand I do not want to spend my life achieving greatness solving problems another could have solved while I enjoy my life on entertaining flights of fancy (which are unlikely to yield material gain). It's a difficult one, achieve or live in the knowledge that one could always have done better (better and is measure is also questionable). Is intelligence sometime your own worst enemy? It all depends upon motivation I suppose. For me its cars, dreaming and freedom (and possibly practical problem solving). Interesting programme.... |
|
Posted: 17 April 2007 at 10:45pm (1) I was somewhat surprised there was no mention of Thurstone's work at the beginning of the 20th century on different aspects of intelligence especially as Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences was presented as something new, rather then a revisiting/re-working of Thurstone's ideas.(2) The Scottish work at the end of the programme was interesting for the fact that IQs generally increased with age (less so for smokers). But the explanation was flawed. Surely the more inteligent were still alive to be re-tested because they had better education, better jobs, better pay and better life chances. They didn't work in the pits or the shipyards (or smoke!) as their lower IQ scoring peers had. __________________ martin |
|
Posted: 17 April 2007 at 10:59pm mjm1 wrote:"(1) I was somewhat .................................................. better pay and better life chances. They didn't work in the pits or the shipyards (or smoke!) as their lower IQ scoring peers had." Being intelegent gives you advantages and opportunities that are key to the evolution of your genes.. and the genes of your children and would probably make you more likely to create a better (healthier) environment for your children and your genes... |
|
Posted: 17 April 2007 at 11:03pm on the point of selective genetic engineering to improve intelligence levels in the future. would this not pre-suppose that intelligence is purely a genetic trait? and wasn't the point of the programme to illustrate that it could be measured (accurately or not) in many ways ,on many different criteria.even supposing that genetics plays a large part in iq, without motivation or interest in a given field or area surely it is all for nought. |
|
Posted: 17 April 2007 at 11:22pm I found the program immensely stimulating. As a cyberneticist I have always enquired what intelligence is and every time it eludes classification. I agree that the IQ tests as they are only measure how good one is at passing IQ tests. I also agree that there are many types of intelligence which at different times in our evolution have served a main purpose. Word manipulation is a recent skill, but for thousands of years before that another type of inteligence was needed. I am somewhat skeptical about the genes' hypothesis. One could be really bright with average parents and viceversa.I really enjoyed the efforts of some schools to embrace all types of intelligence in learning. This would be wonderful if it could be applied to all learning as some kids learn better if the material is presented to them in a way which fits their best mental ability. I have recognised multiple "minds" in myself and they seem to be mutually exclusive: some tasks require me to be methodical and rational, other artistic and chaotic..and they do not mix: I get irritated if I am dragged from one to the other. __________________ Enea |
|
Posted: 17 April 2007 at 11:22pm Hey All,I sent this question to the panel and would be interested if anyone had any ideas? One of the things I find most frustrating and am working hardest to 'fix' is that all sorts of knowledge in the workplace gets lost - from the piece of code which fixes a system to the name of the person who can stop a colleague dying from anaphylactic shock. How do you think new IQ(etc.) type tests could help in retaining 'live' knowledge? Background - I have a BEng/ MSc and work as an IT Systems Architect BUT... I also think that (life) drawing and creative works are a fantastic way of coming up with out of the box solutions . Art (???) is a way of thinking through problems that few of us allow ourselves to experience. __________________ pathlost |
|
Posted: 17 April 2007 at 11:22pm Marvellous programme - the discussion skirtedaround the issue of the function of intelligence with respect to evolutionary theory, and the definition of intelligence in this context. Were we able to quantify and / or model the complex interaction of genetic structure within the global environment then perhaps we truly would have discovered the Meaning Of Life. But then, that is what 'we' (as in, all organisms) are already doing right now. I would really have appreciated the presence of an evolutionary geneticist on the panel, as I imagine their contribution would really have rounded the discussion out. Congratulations to the producers on their film, and the panellists for illuminating their own facets of the subject. |
|
Posted: 17 April 2007 at 11:25pm badger wrote:"on the point of selective genetic engineering to I very much believe that nurture has to be brought into effect. Every moment from birth must count? Even the ability to play has to be taught. __________________ pathlost |
The views represented here do not represent those of the Dana Centre or the Science Museum. Please report any inappropriate posts.