The Red Marks

A news story I wrote for a graduate class was returned to me covered in red marks. I had a choice of one of two reactions: I could have said to myself, "Well, I can't do this." I could have thrown up my hands, given up, and moved on to something else. The assumption being that either I could write well or I couldn't write well, and once I put my talents on display, we would know which one was true.

But there is another way to react: I could decide to adjust, change my strategy, and learn from the professor's feedback. This attitude assumes that learning is not about fixed intelligence, but rather a matter of persistence. This pathway requires the student to humble themselves, ask questions, and struggle.

This process is especially difficult to accept if your ego is riding on whether you can perform new tasks effortlessly from the start. The alternative is to see yourself as a person of value and worth, regardless of performance. Of course, if God declares you to be of value simply because you are you, who are you to argue?

Stephen Goforth

Fluid & Crystallized Intelligence

British psychologist Raymond Cattell in the early 1940s introduced the concepts of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Cattell defined fluid intelligence as the ability to reason, analyze, and solve novel problems. Innovators typically have an abundance of fluid intelligence. It is highest relatively early in adulthood and diminishes starting in one’s 30s and 40s. Crystallized intelligence, in contrast, is the ability to use knowledge gained in the past. Think of it as possessing a vast library and understanding how to use it. It is the essence of wisdom. Because crystallized intelligence relies on an accumulating stock of knowledge, it tends to increase through one’s 40s, and does not diminish until very late in life. Careers that rely primarily on fluid intelligence tend to peak early, while those that use more crystallized intelligence peak later. 

Arthur C. Brooks writing in The Atlantic

Measuring Intelligence

People have been measuring what they believe is intelligence without having a really firm understanding of what it is that they are measuring. Many theorists in psychology believe that conventional tests of intelligence measures only a relatively narrow aspect of intelligence. The result is that what we may take as a difference between two people in their levels of intelligence may reflect only a difference in a fairly small portions of their levels of intelligence.

Robert Sternberg, Thinking Styles

This is more important than IQ when it comes to success

Some students aim at performance goals, while others strive toward learning goals. In the first case, you're working to validate your ability. In the second, you're working to acquire new knowledge or skills. People with performance goals unconsciously limit their potential. If your focus is on validating or showing off your ability, you pick challenges you're confident you can meet. You want to look smart, so you do the same stunt over and over again. But if your goal is to increase your ability, you pick ever-increasing challenges, and you interpret setbacks as useful information helps you to sharpen your focus, get more creative and work hard.

More than IQ, it's discipline, grit, and a growth mindset that imbue a person with a sense of possibility and the creativity and persistence needed for higher learning and success. Study skills and learning skills are inert until they're powered by an active ingredient the active ingredient is the simple but nonetheless profound realization the power to increase your abilities lies largely within your own control.

Peter C. Brown and Henry L. Roediger III, Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning

15 Data Science Articles from Jan 2023

Exploring data science use cases with the GPT-3 API using Python

ChatGPT and the goal of eliminating some of the rote work involved in writing code

Bayesian statistics and machine learning: How do they differ?

An integrated approach of remote sensing and geospatial analysis for the impacts of climate change

Can ChatGPT provide answers to data science questions to the same standard of humans?

A fresh look at data science from the author of a new textbook on the subject

The “bounty” of geospatial data is outstripping the ability to process it. The answer says the NGA is artificial intelligence

23 Generative AI tools to create text/image/video

A few key trends that are likely to shape the development of AI in the coming year

Starlink’s performance in Ukraine has ignited a new space race

An argument for deep learning limitations based on generalization

NGA is working with small drones to help rescue operations resulting from wildfire & other disasters

Why Most Introductory Examples of Bayesian Statistics Misrepresent It

How China is building a parallel generative AI universe

The NGA usually monitors Iranian protests & North Korean missiles. It’s now helping find hurricane victims, too

Two major problems with IQ

The first problem with IQ stems from those who misunderstand what it’s trying to measure. IQ measures your score on a test against the averages of everyone else taking that test. It tells you how good someone is at answering certain types of questions, as compared with others. Thus, it’s not about an absolute intelligence, but relative intelligence. The trouble occurs when people misunderstand this point. They assume IQ represents raw “brain power.” Worse, some people equate IQ with worth.    

In short, the data we have — the data some people use to pigeon-hole a person for life — is desperately weak and inconclusive.

The second problem is that IQ is far too narrow a metric to dominate so much of the psychometric landscape. IQ represents only one, or a few, kinds of intelligence. Psychologist Howard Gardener identifies eight different kinds of intelligence, and “IQ tests and other kinds of standardized tests valorize” only two of them.

Jonny Thomson writing in BigThink

Knowing our Limits & Tolerating those who Disagree

If we truely want to know, it sometimes means recognizing when we don't know. -David Dunning

Entrenched Opinions

While lack of knowledge is certainly a major source of bias, professional expertise doesn’t fare much better. Whether we are looking at judges, lawyers, professors, scientists, doctors, engineers, architects, writers, journalists, politicians, investors, economists, managers, coaches, consultants, or computer programmers, sharp differences and entrenched opinions are the norm. Deep experience and expertise do not necessarily lead to objective consensus. As behavioral scientists have long noted, subject matter experts tend to:

1.    Rely too much on societal and professional stereotypes

2.    Overvalue their personal experiences, especially recent ones

3.    Overvalue their personal gut feel

4.    Prefer anecdotes that confirm their existing views

5.    Have limited knowledge of statistics and probability

6.    Resist admitting mistakes

7.    Struggle to keep up with the skills and literature in their fields

8.    Burn out and/or make mistakes in demanding work environments

9.    Avoid criticizing, evaluating, or disciplining their peers

10. Become less open-minded over time

For decades, we have seen the unfortunate results of these traits in criminal sentencing, student grading, medical diagnoses and treatments, hiring and salary negotiations, financial services, editorial coverage, athletic evaluations, political processes, and many other areas.

We may think that we are being impartial and fair, but our minds are full of stereotypes, preconceptions, self-interests, confirmation biases, and other discriminatory forces.

David Moschella writing for the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation

Rewrite your brain

Many people believe that their intellectual ability is hardwired from birth, and that failure to meet a learning challenge is an indictment of their native ability. But every time you learn something new, you change the brain-the residue of your experiences is stored. It's true that we start life with the gift of our genes, but it's also true that we become capable through the learning and development of mental models that enable us to reason, solve, and create.

Peter C. Brown and Henry L. Roediger III, Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning

Intelligence and personality can be developed

A “fixed mindset” assumes that our character, intelligence, and creative ability are static givens which we can’t change in any meaningful way, and success is the affirmation of that inherent intelligence, an assessment of how those givens measure up against an equally fixed standard; striving for success and avoiding failure at all costs become a way of maintaining the sense of being smart or skilled. 

A “growth mindset,” on the other hand, thrives on challenge and sees failure not as evidence of unintelligence but as a heartening springboard for growth and for stretching our existing abilities. Out of these two mindsets, which we manifest from a very early age, springs a great deal of our behavior, our relationship with success and failure in both professional and personal contexts, and ultimately our capacity for happiness.

The “growth mindset” creates a passion for learning rather than a hunger for approval. Its hallmark is the conviction that human qualities like intelligence and creativity, and even relational capacities like love and friendship, can be cultivated through effort and deliberate practice. Not only are people with this mindset not discouraged by failure, but they don’t actually see themselves as failing in those situations — they see themselves as learning.

Maria Popova writing in BrainPickings

Three Types of Learners

College students will take - usually without even realizing it – one of three basic approaches to their studies that will determine much of what they get out of school.

“Surface learners” as the psychologists called them, looked for facts and words they could memorize, attempting to anticipate any questions someone might ask them. In subsequent studies, we have learned that surface learners usually focus only on passing the exam nor on every using anything they read.

Meanwhile, other students expressed much different purposes. They wanted to understand the meaning behind the text and to think about its implications and applications, to search for arguments, and to distinguish between supporting evidence and conclusions. These are “deep learners.”

There is a third style of learning that students will take. “Strategic” learners primarily intend simply to make good grades, often for the sake of graduate or professional school.  These people will usually shine in the classroom and make their parents proud of their high marks. In many ways, they look like deep learners but their fundamental concerns is different. They focus almost exclusively on how to find out what the professor wants and how to ace the exam. If they learn something along the way that changes the way they think, act, or feel, that’s largely an accident.

They rarely go off on an intellectual journey through those unexplored woods of life, riding their curiosity into a wonderland of intellectual adventure and imagination. They approach college with a checklist rather than with any sense of awe and fascination.

Ken Bain, What the Best College Students Do