From the video itself, I don't see a conflict between Sternberg, Gardner and Kaufman's models of intelligence. Kaufman just sees that we are having to slow down with making narrow assessments that leave out gifted people, folks more conservative methods actually don't know exist. Rather than avoid comparisons, we are having to broaden giftedness scope to make sure that gifted people are not being missed. Kaufman was clearly gifted but the infrastructure that existed saw him as ungifted, because they didn't know he was being deprived.
Domain specific abilities, such as writing, mathematical problem solving, free sketching, and ect, are not necessarily direct indicators of intelligence; they indicate the possibility of intelligence, but indicate just as much some amount of deliberate practice.
I can relate to this. I do agree with you. I personally feel that I focused more on my creative side then the other. I do believe they are two sides of the same coin.
Yeah very creative in the intellectual capacity I would say to you such inventions as taking glass on solar panel and having a large capacity of electricity storage up here that's creative idea where you could have the sun hit the glass at a higher altitude or on a rooftop for example and the solar panel would be underneath the sun would hit it and they would absorb it because you would use a different type of glass and then you'll be able to distribute that electricity or even yet more interesting Lee would be a solar panel glass
All Scott you are awesome and yes I am the victim of being labeled my whole life as well unfortunately I'm way up in age I'm like 50 something now still not that old but yet it's been a very long hard road trying to work with their label if you will
IQ rests on a terrible theory . Mental model theory works better as it allows for our ability to select ideas in very large systems. IQ asks, 4, 8, 12, 16, X what comes next? But a smart person is just someone who is better at bringing those numbers together in the first place - not necessarily someone who is the best at inducing what comes next. COME ON, I HAD THIS OBJECTION SINCE I WAS 12 - SOMEONE PSYCHOLOGY HAS TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHERE THERE TESTS GO WRONG!!!!
Ni *** R Please Productions If one can't induce what's next one certainly isn't figuring out how to bring them together, unless of course they're a savant of some sort-(autistic, or other).
Joshua L my point is that you don't have to be the best in inducing what's next, if you are good at bringing things together in ways other people can't. And the opposite is also true...It doesn't mean IQ isn't an important, but it underrates the novelty in selecting items. In higher cognition (complex fields like math, physics, or anywhere else), having a access to many variables in deep computation, is important. There are factors besdies IQ that effect our performance....glial density, long-term working memory, associative memory. (not to mention things like motivation, attention).
+Ni *** R Please Productions Bringing things together is dependent first and foremost on one's ability to receive and differentiate information which is what IQ is trying to determine, pattern recognition roughly, that's not to say that it's the only important factor, but it is important; though, I would say all the assecory factors that you've described can be summed up in expertise. To return however to your initial statement, "one doesn't have to best at inducing what's next" I say that very well maybe, but if one wants to be a physicist or mathematician-(a seminal one) then one had better be at the very least, very good at deducing what's next, or the domain of knowledge will act as a barrier itself to one's entry into the feild. No one does not need to be perfoundly gifted, but one needs to at least be average, above average, and bright which is where most physical scientist test on IQ batteries if not higher. Now one's novelty in selecting items is dependent on one's levels of expertise. An individual can not create anything novel and useful without a deep understanding of a specified feild of knowledge. IQ is important, I agree in kind that so is Expertise, and I would say expertise takes account for the factors of long term working memory, glial density, and associative memory, for those items are largely plastic and the components of what Anders Ericson terms mental representations where the expert has the greatest volume and quality of mental representations.
Thanks for sharing so many great insights...👍
From the video itself, I don't see a conflict between Sternberg, Gardner and Kaufman's models of intelligence. Kaufman just sees that we are having to slow down with making narrow assessments that leave out gifted people, folks more conservative methods actually don't know exist.
Rather than avoid comparisons, we are having to broaden giftedness scope to make sure that gifted people are not being missed.
Kaufman was clearly gifted but the infrastructure that existed saw him as ungifted, because they didn't know he was being deprived.
Domain specific abilities, such as writing, mathematical problem solving, free sketching, and ect, are not necessarily direct indicators of intelligence; they indicate the possibility of intelligence, but indicate just as much some amount of deliberate practice.
I can relate to this. I do agree with you. I personally feel that I focused more on my creative side then the other. I do believe they are two sides of the same coin.
Yeah very creative in the intellectual capacity I would say to you such inventions as taking glass on solar panel and having a large capacity of electricity storage up here that's creative idea where you could have the sun hit the glass at a higher altitude or on a rooftop for example and the solar panel would be underneath the sun would hit it and they would absorb it because you would use a different type of glass and then you'll be able to distribute that electricity or even yet more interesting Lee would be a solar panel glass
All Scott you are awesome and yes I am the victim of being labeled my whole life as well unfortunately I'm way up in age I'm like 50 something now still not that old but yet it's been a very long hard road trying to work with their label if you will
IQ rests on a terrible theory . Mental model theory works better as it allows for our ability to select ideas in very large systems. IQ asks, 4, 8, 12, 16, X what comes next? But a smart person is just someone who is better at bringing those numbers together in the first place - not necessarily someone who is the best at inducing what comes next. COME ON, I HAD THIS OBJECTION SINCE I WAS 12 - SOMEONE PSYCHOLOGY HAS TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHERE THERE TESTS GO WRONG!!!!
Ni *** R Please Productions If one can't induce what's next one certainly isn't figuring out how to bring them together, unless of course they're a savant of some sort-(autistic, or other).
Joshua L my point is that you don't have to be the best in inducing what's next, if you are good at bringing things together in ways other people can't. And the opposite is also true...It doesn't mean IQ isn't an important, but it underrates the novelty in selecting items. In higher cognition (complex fields like math, physics, or anywhere else), having a access to many variables in deep computation, is important. There are factors besdies IQ that effect our performance....glial density, long-term working memory, associative memory. (not to mention things like motivation, attention).
+Ni *** R Please Productions Bringing things together is dependent first and foremost on one's ability to receive and differentiate information which is what IQ is trying to determine, pattern recognition roughly, that's not to say that it's the only important factor, but it is important; though, I would say all the assecory factors that you've described can be summed up in expertise. To return however to your initial statement, "one doesn't have to best at inducing what's next" I say that very well maybe, but if one wants to be a physicist or mathematician-(a seminal one) then one had better be at the very least, very good at deducing what's next, or the domain of knowledge will act as a barrier itself to one's entry into the feild. No one does not need to be perfoundly gifted, but one needs to at least be average, above average, and bright which is where most physical scientist test on IQ batteries if not higher.
Now one's novelty in selecting items is dependent on one's levels of expertise. An individual can not create anything novel and useful without a deep understanding of a specified feild of knowledge. IQ is important, I agree in kind that so is Expertise, and I would say expertise takes account for the factors of long term working memory, glial density, and associative memory, for those items are largely plastic and the components of what Anders Ericson terms mental representations where the expert has the greatest volume and quality of mental representations.
Yes I agree..... Intelligence and creative genius r two very different things.... Creative geniuses r similar to savants....