1 / 32

Practical Meaning of Human Cognitive Differences

Practical Meaning of Human Cognitive Differences. Linda S. Gottfredson School of Education University of Delaware, USA June 28, 2009 Cognitive Enhancement Symposium Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University. Point 1.

kaspar
Download Presentation

Practical Meaning of Human Cognitive Differences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Practical Meaning of Human Cognitive Differences Linda S. Gottfredson School of Education University of Delaware, USA June 28, 2009 Cognitive Enhancement Symposium Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University

  2. Point 1 There are many cognitive abilities, but they all tend to rise or fall together, because they all share the same core—g

  3. General intelligence (g) Individuals’ differences in g represent differences in: • Proficiency at learning, reasoning, thinking abstractly • Ability to spot problems, solve problems • Not knowledge, but their ability to accumulate and apply it g IQ≈ ≈ g General The domain-specific ability fluid The g core V Q S M Others Narrow V = verbal, Q = quantitative, S = visuospatial, M = memory

  4. Point 2 g level matters to some extent in virtually all life arenas, because all require continual learning and reasoning Examples…

  5. Important for planning, anticipating problems

  6. Important for dealing with the unexpected

  7. But practical value of g level differs by task complexity & life arena Standardized academic achievement .8 Job performance—complex jobs Years of education .6 Occupational level Job performance—middle-level jobs .4-.5 Income .3-.4 Delinquency -.25 Job performance—simple jobs .2 correlation with IQ g

  8. Typical life outcomes along the IQ continuum Odds of socioeconomic success increase

  9. Critical thresholds along the IQ continuum X X X 50/50 chance of: Mastering elementary Doing well enough in Doing well enough in college school curriculum HS to enter 4-yr college to enter grad/professional school Most critical Ability to function as threshold: independent adult

  10. IQs not raised, so IQ thresholds must fall, when higher % of population attends college X X X X X 50/50 chance of: Mastering elementary Doing well enough in Doing well enough in college school curriculum HS to enter 4-yr college to enter grad/professional school Most critical Ability to function as threshold: independent adult

  11. Point 3 Human diversity in g is far greater than most people realize Examples…

  12. Military requires minimum “trainability”Armed Forces Qualifying Test (a test of g) Military enlistment thresholds 10th 15th 30th X Most military jobs require at least 30th percentile Military policy forbids induction below 15th percentile US law forbids induction below 10th percentile

  13. Estimated levels of usual cognitive functioningU.S. Dept of Education 1993 survey of adult functional literacy (nationally representative sample, ages 16+, N=26,091) Routinely able to perform tasks only up to this level of difficulty

  14. Estimated levels of usual cognitive functioningU.S. Dept of Education 1993 survey of adult functional literacy (nationally representative sample, ages 16+, N=26,091) Difficulty based on “process complexity” • level of inference • abstractness of info • distracting information Not reading per se, but “problem solving”

  15. Item at NALS Level 1 * 22% of US adults 78% of adults do better • Literal match • One item • Little distracting info 80% probability of correctly answering items of this difficulty level *

  16. Item at NALS Level 2 27% of US adults 22% 51% X • Simple inference • Little distracting information

  17. Another item at NALS Level 2 27% of US adults 22% 51% • Match two pieces of info

  18. Item at NALS Level 3 31% of US adults 49% 20% • Cycle through complex table • Irrelevant info

  19. Item at NALS Level 4 17% of US adults 80% 3% Or, Solved • More elements to match • More inferences • More distracting information

  20. Item at NALS Level 5 3% of US adults 97% • Search through complex displays • Multiple distractors • Make high-level text-based inferences • Use specialized knowledge

  21. Estimated levels of usual cognitive functioningU.S. Dept of Education 1993 survey of adult functional literacy (nationally representative sample, ages 16+, N=26,091) US Dept of Education: People at levels 1-2 are below literacy level required to enjoy rights & fulfill responsibilities of citizenship Could teach these individual items, but not all such tasks in daily life

  22. So, NALS 2 represents another critical threshold NALS 1-2 Military enlistment thresholds 10th 15th 30th X

  23. Moreover, new technologies make life increasingly complex, which puts yet higher premium on g

  24. Point 4 The landscape of human cognitive diversity should inform debates over whose intelligence should be enhanced, how, and for what ends Examples…

  25. Nation-level implications of enhancement? Current standard Higher Higher & less equal (Mean 100/SD 15)(Mean 105) (Mean 105, SD 17) Innovators5%9.2%11.5% Dependents 5% 2.3% 3.9% > IQ 10050%62.9%61.6% < IQ 100 50% 37.1% 38.4% Potential debates about whom to target, and why—equality? productivity? Head wind Tail wind = = 1.0 = 4.0 = 2.9 But suppose we raise the whole IQ bell curve by some means… = = 1.0 = 1.7 = 1.6

  26. Nation-level implications: Carrying capacity Dependents Maintainers Innovators Head wind Tail wind

  27. Nation-level implications: Carrying capacity Dependents Maintainers Innovators Current standard (Mean 100/SD 15) Innovators5% Dependents 5% > IQ 10050% < IQ 100 50% Head wind Tail wind = = 1.0 = = 1.0

  28. Nation-level implications: 5-point rise Dependents Maintainers Innovators Current standard Higher (Mean 100/SD 15)(Mean 105) Innovators5%9.2% Dependents 5% 2.3% > IQ 10050%62.9% < IQ 100 50% 37.1% Head wind Tail wind = = 1.0 = 4.0 Quadruples the ratio = = 1.0 = 1.7 Almost doubles the ratio

  29. Nation-level implications: with rise & bigger SD Dependents Maintainers Innovators Current standard Higher Higher & less equal (Mean 100/SD 15)(Mean 105) (Mean 105, SD 17) Innovators5%9.2%11.5% Dependents 5% 2.3% 3.9% > IQ 10050%62.9%61.6% < IQ 100 50% 37.1% 38.4% Head wind Tail wind = = 1.0 = 4.0 = 2.9 Smaller but still huge effects = = 1.0 = 1.7 = 1.6

  30. International implications Estimated world average Head wind Tail wind Countries & ethnic groups currently differ greatly So, many competing goals

  31. References • Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24(1), 79-132. • Kirsch, I. S., Jungeblut, A., Jenkins, L., & Kolstad, A. (1993). Adult literacy in America: A first look at the result of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Research.

  32. Thank you. gottfred@udel.edu http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson

More Related