The height of intelligence | Dean Burnett | Science Tall people are smarter. This is a phenomenon with scientific research to back it up. It's a small effect, it's not an absolute; I'm not saying Andre the Giant was the intellectual superior of Robert Hooke, you'll still find plenty of smarter-than-average shorter people, and many tall people who clearly … aren't. But the effect does appear to be persistent. There are numerous explanations for this. Are the genes that determine height and intelligence associated? Or perhaps people who were both taller and smarter get more mating opportunities, making it an evolved tendency? But claims like this again bring up the question of what intelligence is. How do we even measure intelligence? Still, IQ tests are often used, and inform a lot of what we know (or think we know) about intelligence. How many scientists does it take to change a light bulb? Intelligence also has a strong cultural context. There's also a well-known example of Cole et al and their dealings with the remote Kpelle tribe.
As We May Think - Vannevar Bush As Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, Dr. Vannevar Bush has coordinated the activities of some six thousand leading American scientists in the application of science to warfare. In this significant article he holds up an incentive for scientists when the fighting has ceased. He urges that men of science should then turn to the massive task of making more accessible our bewildering store of knowledge. For years inventions have extended man's physical powers rather than the powers of his mind. Trip hammers that multiply the fists, microscopes that sharpen the eye, and engines of destruction and detection are new results, but not the end results, of modern science. This has not been a scientist's war; it has been a war in which all have had a part. For the biologists, and particularly for the medical scientists, there can be little indecision, for their war has hardly required them to leave the old paths. There is a growing mountain of research.
Why We Need to Redefine Intelligence - HBR IdeaCast An interview with Scott Barry Kaufman adjunct assistant professor of psychology at New York University and author of Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined. Download this podcast SARAH GREEN: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I’m Sarah Green. SCOTT BARRY KAUFMAN: Thank you. SARAH GREEN: So I thought we would just start with why redefine intelligence? SCOTT BARRY KAUFMAN: Yeah, it’s a great question. But what I’ve done in trying to look at all different kinds of minds and ways that we can achieve success in the real world once we get out of school, and the importance of things such as inspiration, and motivation, and engagement in something that personally interests you– what I started to notice was a repeating pattern over and over again. It’s almost like there’s a lot of intellectual capacity hidden in a lot of people. SCOTT BARRY KAUFMAN: I absolutely will. So they may be adding another intelligence. What I argue for is the shift to the personal developmental level.
Douglas Engelbart’s Unfinished Revolution Doug Engelbart knew that his obituaries would laud him as “Inventor of the Mouse.” I can see him smiling wistfully, ironically, at the thought. The mouse was such a small part of what Engelbart invented. We now live in a world where people edit text on screens, command computers by pointing and clicking, communicate via audio-video and screen-sharing, and use hyperlinks to navigate through knowledge—all ideas that Engelbart’s Augmentation Research Center at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) invented in the 1960s. But Engelbart never got support for the larger part of what he wanted to build, even decades later when he finally got recognition for his achievements. To Engelbart, computers, interfaces, and networks were means to a more important end—amplifying human intelligence to help us survive in the world we’ve created. That inspired Engelbart, a young electrical engineer, to come up with the idea of people using screens and computers to collaboratively solve problems.
The Future of Intelligence Cadell Last, Adam Ford By Cadell Last Human intelligence, like everything related to biological systems, is an evolving phenomenon. It has not been static in the past, and will not persist in its current form into the future. The human-version of intelligence has made our species the most powerful agent of change ever produced by the earth's biosphere. Therefore, understanding its evolutionary past should be a primary concern for evolutionary theorists. Clearly the human ability to engage in these novel behaviours is dependent on the human brain. a comparatively short period of evolutionary time, hominid brain size exploded. Before the emergence of our genus, apes had existed for approximately 18 million years. Recent studies, like those conducted on the 2.5 million-year-old Australopithecus africanus skull known as Taung Child suggest that human-like brain growth had already started in the precursor species to Homo. The Explosion Global Brain A) how energy-intensive they are
A few words on Doug Engelbart Bret Victor / July 3, 2013 Doug Engelbart died today. His work has always been very difficult for writers to interpret and explain. Technology writers, in particular, tend to miss the point miserably, because they see everything as a technology problem. Here's the most facile interpretation of Engelbart, splendidly exhibited by this New York Times headline: Douglas C. This is as if you found the person who invented writing, and credited them for inventing the pencil. Then there's the shopping list interpretation: His system, called NLS, showed actual instances of, or precursors to, hypertext, shared screen collaboration, multiple windows, on-screen video teleconferencing, and the mouse as an input device. These are not true statements. Engelbart had an intent, a goal, a mission. The problem with saying that Engelbart "invented hypertext", or "invented video conferencing", is that you are attempting to make sense of the past using references to the present. Here's an example. "Ah!" "Ah!" No.
Mind Wandering: A New Personal Intelligence Perspective | Beautiful Minds Some recent studies (Baird et al., 2011, 2012; Smallwood et al., 2011b; Immordino-Yang etal., 2012) have provided glimpses of how mind wandering or “constructive, internal reflection” (Immordino-Yangetal.,2012) might benefit the individual, but we are just beginning to scratch the surface. To gain a fuller understanding of the benefits of positive constructive daydreaming we need to apply tools and metrics (as in Klinger et al., 1980; Hoelscher et al., 1981; Nikles et al., 1998; Cox and Klinger, 2011; Klinger and Cox, 2011) that enable us identify the personally meaningful goals, aspirations, and dreams of individuals and determine how mind wandering supports or undermines those goals. Given the highly personal nature of mind wandering, we need a new focus and new metrics. Intelligence theories provide an interesting parallel. Executive Attention Network To help correct this imbalance in the literature, I recently proposed the Theory of Personal Intelligence. Default Mode Network
The Psychology of Collaboration - Dr Irene Greif for Technology Review As part of their series on collaboration, Jodi from Technology Review interviewed Irene Greif at IBM about the psychology of collaboration. The focus of the interview was about the non-technology aspects of collaboration, and they discussed: - Too much automation leads to process breakdowns. The system can't see what people can see. - More informal interaction in the office is now online, meaning that combining informal and formal things may be more possible. - Knowledge management failed; social software does knowledge management as part of work. - Dogear gave better search results on the IBM intranet than intranet search. - Why collaboration requires the sharing of pre-finished thinking and artifacts. The most interesting comment to me from Irene was this: "Jodi: What qualities will make or break the next big thing in collaboration? My Comments 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
RÉFLEXIONS SUR L’INTELLIGENCE STRATÉGIQUE Par Clark G. KHADIGE, dba, desg Wikipédia nous propose la définition suivante du mot stratégie : « Le mot stratégie est dérivé du grec stratos qui signifie « armée » et ageîn qui signifie « conduire », et par suite de l'italien strategia. Ce terme, qui est toujours lié à l'habilité à diriger et à coordonner des actions afin d'atteindre un objectif, possède une connotation tellement positive qu'il est souvent utilisé avec un peu de grandiloquence (ou d'exagération) dans des domaines où en fait les termes politique, idée, concept, plan ou tactique seraient à la fois plus exacts et plus honnêtes. Initialement, il s'agit de coordonner l'action de l'ensemble des forces de la nation (politiques, militaires, économiques, financières et morales) pour conduire une guerre, gérer une crise ou préserver la paix. Le dictionnaire en ligne, rejoint cette définition en nous proposant la suivante : « art de combiner et de coordonner diverses actions pour atteindre un but ». Ø Etc. La Veille Stratégique :
The Psychology of Collaboration In the 1980s, long before the rise of online social networks, Irene Greif helped found the field of computer-supported coöperative work (CSCW), which explores how technology helps people collaborate. Today Greif is an IBM fellow, the company’s highest technical honor, and director of collaborative user experience in IBM Research. Jodi Slater, who worked with Greif at Lotus Development after it was bought by IBM in the 1990s and later cofounded the business consultancy MarketspaceNext, recently spoke with Greif for Technology Review about why some of the hardest collaboration problems have nothing to do with technology. TR: How are today’s technologies that help employees collaborate different from those that existed before, such as Lotus Notes? Greif: What got researchers interested in starting this field [CSCW] was that anthropologists went into offices and started seeing the kinds of things that break when you automate too much. How has this played out in IBM?