SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
IQ is rising in many parts of the world. What's behind the change and does it really mean people are cleverer than their grandparents?
It is not unusual for parents to comment that their children are brainier than they are. In doing so, they hide a boastful remark about their offspring behind a self-deprecating one about themselves. But a new study, published in the journal Intelligence, provides fresh evidence that in many cases this may actually be true.
The researchers - Peera Wongupparaj, Veena Kumari and Robin Morris at Kings College London - did not themselves ask anyone to sit an IQ test, but they analysed data from 405 previous studies. Altogether, they harvested IQ test data from more than 200,000 participants, captured over 64 years and from 48 countries.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Snotnose on Thursday March 05 2015, @05:06AM
I've found that those considered the smartest people I've run across in the last 50+ years mostly had phenomenal memories. As in, can quote lines from movies, remember exact dates when they attended concerts, can quote dates in history, atomic numbers of elements, specific facts from a test run 2 months ago, individual lines in a balance sheet, etc.
Me? My memory sucks. I'm good at concepts. I always struggled in history (fred did something in 1362), but excelled in math (learn 1 concept a day, do 20 problems). This extrapolates out to I can read requirements and crank out better code than (I like to think) 90% of my co-workers.
I've found that the average person considers those with great memories "smarter" than those of us who can't remember shit, but can solve problems. Are they smarter? eliphino.jpg (I've got the pic if you want it :)
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @06:19AM
A good memory helps synthesis - kind of like a large cache on a cpu. The CPU can be blazing fast but if it has to constantly idle waiting on memory reads - or worse yet paging in from disk - then it gets nothing done. The larger the "working set" the more patterns and inter-relationships you can put together in a reasonable amount of time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:34AM
A poor CPU with high storage (ala. SAN) are those people who are walking encyclopedias but can't think themselves out of a paper bag.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @05:25PM
I don't think comparing brains to CPUs or making such analogies is very meaningful. Intelligence is far more complex than that, to the point where we can't even really define it in an objective way. There are various ways around the memory problem, such as storing the data elsewhere. Most rote memorization 'geniuses' I've encountered were only good at memorizing information and doing nothing else; they could not innovate.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:28AM
I am like this, high power with low storage. There is an advantage to be leveraged in novel thinking as that is what we end up doing most of the time to make up for low recall ability. It isn't as efficient at tasks that repeat or are similar, so I find that my abilities are appreciated more when the problems are so broad or unexplored in nature that memory isn't viable. Dive in the deep end, go off the map and fight the cognitive dragons, that is what we are good for.
(Score: 1) by brocksampson on Thursday March 05 2015, @10:11AM
What you are describing is the difference between declarative and procedural memory (or, probably more accurately, the ease of recall of declarative or procedural memories). If you read something once and remember it, you probably have a good declarative memory and are considered smart. If you do something once and remember it, you probably have a good procedural memory and are considered talented. (And if you can do both, then you're smart and talented!) Whereas many/most standard tests (aptitude, licensing, etc.) skew towards declarative memory, what IQ tests are supposed to get at is "reasoning" or "problem solving" or "thinking" or whatever you want to call it. But there are strange sub-populations of people who score very high or very low, yet seem cognitively normal otherwise, so to some extent and IQ test just measures how good you are at taking IQ tests.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @05:30PM
so to some extent and IQ test just measures how good you are at taking IQ tests.
Since we haven't been able to define intelligence concretely as of yet, I would say that's entirely what they do. IQ tests are arbitrary, and people who think they measure intelligence believe so without good scientific evidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:01PM
Intelligence is defined by the ability to solve general problems. So yes, memory improves your ability to do so, but it's not the only aspect of it. For the mathematically we could say that reasoning = f(memory, natural_aptitude, skill, ...).
Assuming it's not crippling, you can make up for poor memory to an extent, but, if hypothetically you have the exact same reasoning ability as me and better memory, then you are smarter because you can solve arbitrary problems better than me. That said, not even perfect memory will make you solve problems you are simply incapable of comprehending, so reasoning is the absolute limit since there are methods to compensate for lacking memory (eg notes) but there is very little you can do to improve your raw brainpower.
tl;dr When it comes to intelligence, memory is important but reasoning is essential.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @05:22PM
Intelligence is defined by the ability to solve general problems.
There is no concrete, objective definition of intelligence.
then you are smarter because you can solve arbitrary problems better than me.
Define "arbitrary problems." How exactly does solving arbitrary problems mean you're smarter? Are you using the Pythagorean theorem to solve the same types of problems again and again? That's just tedious nonsense, and I would say it isn't a measure of intelligence (which itself doesn't have an objective definition). So it all depends on what you mean by "arbitrary problems."