Tags

, , ,

On page 206 of Bias in Mental Testing, Arthur Jensen writes:

Not sure why Jensen considers all these correlations positive, unless zero is a positive number (I consider it neutral).

And I’m not sure why some commenters think weight lifting requires coordination when the correlation between strength (hand grip, chinning) and coordination (Pursuit rotor tacking, Mirror star tracing) is zero.

But maybe these are not the best measures of strength or coordination (mirror star tracing sounds more like a cognitive test than a physical one), but when I lift weights, I don’t feel like I’m using coordination. To me coordination is best measured by very fast paced tasks that require moving multiple body parts with exquisite timing.

Physical coordination probably correlates more with IQ than does any other physical ability. Daniel Seligman writes:

Contrary to certain stereotypes about athletes and intellectuals, physical coordination is positively correlated with IQ. Technical studies by the U.S. department of Labor report a 0.35 correlation between coordination and cognitive ability.

0.35 is very similar to the correlation between IQ and brain size; so there are at least two physical traits (brain size and coordination) that correlate moderately with IQ.

Some might argue that physical coordination is a part of intelligence since it’s largely a brain function. I define intelligence as the ability to use whatever physical traits one has as a tool to exploit whatever environment one’s in. I see coordination as one of those physical traits used as a tool by intelligence rather than part of intelligence itself, but it’s a meta-tool in that it controls the body which in turn controls the external environment.

The problem with including physical coordination in our definition of intelligence is that intelligence is only important because it’s what separates man from beast, and physical coordination fails to do that. Even if it were possible to put a man’s brain in a cheetah’s body, he would not be able to exploit the environment because his brain’s not evolved to control the cheetah’s body. But if a man’s brain could control what the cheetah did with its motor control, only then would the cheetah display the goal directed adaptive behavior we know as intelligence.

It’s like the Master Blaster character in Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. If Master’s brain was literally put in Blaster’s body, he might not have the coordination to win so many fights, but by telling Blaster how to use his coordination, he has given him his mind.

Feelings control intelligence

Intelligence is often defined as the mental ability to problem solve, but something is only a problem if it’s bothering us (i.e. cause us to feel pain or discomfort). Hence, feelings define the problems we use our intelligence to solve.

Intelligence controls physical coordination

Once our intelligence decides what behavior will solve a problem most efficiently, our physical coordination must direct our muscle movements accordingly. One could argue coordination itself is a mental ability and thus part of intelligence however by definition, abilities are only mental if they don’t cluster with sensory or motor functions, and physical coordination clusters with the latter. Even though coordination is part of the brain, it’s not fully part of the mind. It’s more neurological than mental per se.

Physical coordination controls the body

This is true by definition

Body controls external reality

This is self-explanatory

Advertisements