But working memory capacity made a statistically significant contribution as well (about 7 percent, a medium-size effect).
In the absence of experimental manipulation, are we to assume causation. And who declared 7% to be a medium sized effect? Sounds pretty piddling to me....It might be medium sized to those who wish to be impressed, to others, not so much. Isn't is possible that both factors matter deeply? Why is there controversy? If you don't make any effort, a high IQ is not going to bring rewards to you just because you possess it. You have to apply it. Right? Sitting on your high-IQ "rump" isn't going to get you anywhere. And of course, when you are smart, and others detect it, they praise it. All of us do more of what brings us rewards. Most of us, at any rate. Also, a question about the study: was there any way to find the people with the high IQs who didn't make anything of themselves? The researchers looked in: universities, research institutions, places where you find those people? A study of talented youth, most of whom hail from affluent backgrounds? This reminds me of the "children of divorce are miserable adults" research based on the presence of adults whose parents divorced on therapists' case load. What about the non-miserable adults whose parents divorced who never went to therapy? Smart people who don't work hard don't get to top-flight positions in these places. Also I am not sure why this argument is continually framed in terms of minimizing the role of one or the other factor. Most of what goes on in our lives represents a nexus of what we come to the table with genetically and how that interacts with the environment/how we use it. The problem is that there are ideological forces on both sides invested in having it be substantially more of one or the other. It's probably better not to take either one (gene or environment) at face value. Nancy Melucci Long Beach City College Long Beach CA -----Original Message----- From: Christopher D. Green <[email protected]> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Nov 20, 2011 8:10 am Subject: [tips] Sorry, Strivers - Talent Matters - NYTimes.com In recent years, it has been widely reported that it's 10,000 hours of practice that makes perfect. The idea of inborn talent has been on the decline. But here's another view. Is good old IQ making a comeback? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/sorry-strivers-talent-matters.html?_r=1 Snippet: "compared with the participants who were 'only' in the 99.1 percentile for intellectual ability at age 12, those who were in the 99.9 percentile — the profoundly gifted — were between three and five times more likely to go on to earn a doctorate, secure a patent, publish an article in a scientific journal or publish a literary work." Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [email protected] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================== --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=12993.aba36cc3760e0b1c6a655f019a68b878&n=T&l=tips&o=14294 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-14294-12993.aba36cc3760e0b1c6a655f019a68b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=14295 or send a blank email to leave-14295-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
