“Figure 2 provides a basis for anticipating the unique value spatial ability might
contribute to understanding intellectually talented youth. In the late 1970s,
because of his interest in identifying and developing scientific talent—and knowing
that by utilizing exclusively a general ability measure, Terman assessed and
missed two Nobel Laurates (viz., Luis Alvarez and William Shockley, see Shurkin,
1992) Stanley gave a group of 563 SMPY participants tests of spatial ability
designed for high school seniors.”
“Clearly, the creative outcomes under analysis are supported by different configurations of intellectual talent. For example, among participants who secure patents, their spatial ability is commensurate with those who publish in STEM, but the latter are more impressive in mathematical and verbal reasoning. Participants who publish in Art–Humanities–Law–Social Sciences are the lowest in spatial ability of all four groups. This graph is psychologically informative, depicting the intellectual design space of creative thought.”
I think this really hits at the main purpose of what I wrote—that by over-emphasizing general intelligence, we may be missing opportunities to find more domain-specific talent indicators. Of course more general ability matters. But more specific ability applied to the right field probably matters even more.
So you point was that we don’t make the mistake of evaluating or thinking basketball skills are all a direct relationship with a simple metric as height but that’s what everyone is doing with IQ?
“Figure 2 provides a basis for anticipating the unique value spatial ability might contribute to understanding intellectually talented youth. In the late 1970s, because of his interest in identifying and developing scientific talent—and knowing that by utilizing exclusively a general ability measure, Terman assessed and missed two Nobel Laurates (viz., Luis Alvarez and William Shockley, see Shurkin, 1992) Stanley gave a group of 563 SMPY participants tests of spatial ability designed for high school seniors.”
“Clearly, the creative outcomes under analysis are supported by different configurations of intellectual talent. For example, among participants who secure patents, their spatial ability is commensurate with those who publish in STEM, but the latter are more impressive in mathematical and verbal reasoning. Participants who publish in Art–Humanities–Law–Social Sciences are the lowest in spatial ability of all four groups. This graph is psychologically informative, depicting the intellectual design space of creative thought.”
I think this really hits at the main purpose of what I wrote—that by over-emphasizing general intelligence, we may be missing opportunities to find more domain-specific talent indicators. Of course more general ability matters. But more specific ability applied to the right field probably matters even more.
So you point was that we don’t make the mistake of evaluating or thinking basketball skills are all a direct relationship with a simple metric as height but that’s what everyone is doing with IQ?