I caught that nuance the last time, and I agree with you both times. I’m sure the idea fits into this conversation somehow - raising the question of whether there is something innate (and/or socially conditioned into some individuals but not others, even within a family) that makes that passion or interest something they pursue rather than others.

I had a fascinating conversation with someone once that was along the same lines. Sure, doing a standing backflip was “easy for him” in discussion an Olympic gymnast, and yes, if he and I were standing next to each other and you told us both to do it, it WOULD be “easy for him” and impossible for me, but that leaves out the years of practice that made responding in the moment possible.

Not sure how that fits with the IQ question, but I think it fits into the neighborhood somewhere.

I got into an argument with someone else here at Pandagon (I’m sure they remember who they are, but I don’t, sorry) when we were talking about “innate” abilities like art and music, and I do have a slightly more nuanced view than was coming across. Basically, in theory every person could learn to draw really well, but not a lot of people enjoy it enough to spend the huge amounts of time that it takes to learn to draw really well. Same with music — when I say that someone is more “naturally gifted,” that means that it’s someone for whom (a) the initial parts come fairly easily to them AND (b) it’s interesting enough to them that they persist even when the run into the parts that aren’t so easy.

By that measure, it’s turning out that I’m a “naturally” gifted knitter after finally learning how to do it less than a year ago. It’s not that I picked up the needles and yarn and magically made a sweater on my first try, it’s that I find it interesting enough that I really work at it and am always seeking out new challenges. And yet I know people who’ve been knitting longer than I have who have never moved beyond making garter stitch scarves, because it just doesn’t interest them as much as it does me.

and, of course, Static Age. I didn’t want to sound biased, but he did. if what he said sounds confusing, I’d encourage people to read his comment again.

Correcting people is a pet peeve of mine.

1) Lord Saletan should certainly go “soak his head” in something.

2) I was one of those dudes who test on the standardized tests real real well, both the Stanford-Binet (as it existed in the 1970s anyway) and later on SATs and the like. Despite the nightmare that studying for the GREs in the late 1990s was, I pretty well aced that thing too.

People still tell me I present as a “smart” person. As a child I identified with Charlie Brown; as Lucy once asked him, after a several-panel discourse on the theory and practice of kite-flying in which they were following the downed kite string: “You certainly do know a lot about kites, Charlie Brown…” He says “Well, yes, I suppose I can say that I do.” “Then why is your kite down the sewer?”

As someone who was able to significantly raise my math SATs, enough to make a big difference in my prospects for admission to Caltech, just by studying the test (and not really changing my level of understanding or proficiency in math at all); as someone who remembers how damned irrelevant a lot of the questions on the Stanford-Binet are to any sort of mental processesing and how entirely dependent they are to one’s having a certained stereotyped knowledge base (Can everyone here name the capital of Greece? I trust most of us can–but of what practical value is that to those of us not involved in diplomatic or NATO operations? Why should a bright person be assumed to know that, in the modern world?)–I have been calling bullshit on these tests for decades now.

Amanda, I think it lends far too much credence to the claims of the testers to be measuring something “innate” to credit actually rising cognitive ability for the “Flynn Effect.” If video games and the like are actually excercising and stimulating some of our abilities, well and good, though it seems just as likely to me that at least some of the curmudgeonly charges that mass media actually turn one’s brain to cottage cheese are also well-founded. I suspect that overall it’s a wash.

But what is definitely changing in the mass-media world is general access to information, and especially exposure to the conventional mentalities that these tests really measure. I suspect part of the general improvement is because people get hip to the tests’ agendas and are getting more and more training in general in how to beat tests in general. And the rest is mostly due to the buzzwords, catchphrases, and shibboleths being in more and more general circulation. Whether one buys the mentality behind them or not, it is at least possible to fake it if one knows what one is supposed to think.

All of which merely underscores the basic point that the claims of IQ testers to have data about innate racial and gender differences in ability are so much tripe and always have been.

Without the desire and ability to set a goal and stick to it, it’s hard to get anywhere at all. AND there’s very little done to help kids, even the ones with high potential, to understand and follow up on goal-setting. I’m 38 and I still have troubles finding ambition.

I’m a reasonably smart guy and perfectly capable of hard work, but without her around I wouldn’t be working as hard as I am. My abilities aren’t worth a lot without the drive to use them.