Página inicialGruposDiscussãoMaisZeitgeist
Pesquise No Site
Este site usa cookies para fornecer nossos serviços, melhorar o desempenho, para análises e (se não estiver conectado) para publicidade. Ao usar o LibraryThing, você reconhece que leu e entendeu nossos Termos de Serviço e Política de Privacidade . Seu uso do site e dos serviços está sujeito a essas políticas e termos.

Resultados do Google Livros

Clique em uma foto para ir ao Google Livros

Carregando...

What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought

de Keith E. Stanovich

MembrosResenhasPopularidadeAvaliação médiaConversas
753355,214 (3.06)Nenhum(a)
Critics of intelligence tests-writers such as Robert Sternberg, Howard Gardner, and Daniel Goleman-have argued in recent years that these tests neglect important qualities such as emotion, empathy, and interpersonal skills. However, such critiques imply that though intelligence tests may miss certain key noncognitive areas, they encompass most of what is important in the cognitive domain. In this book, Keith E. Stanovich challenges this widely held assumption.Stanovich shows that IQ tests (or their proxies, such as the SAT) are radically incomplete as measures of cognitive functioning. They fail to assess traits that most people associate with "good thinking," skills such as judgment and decision making. Such cognitive skills are crucial to real-world behavior, affecting the way we plan, evaluate critical evidence, judge risks and probabilities, and make effective decisions. IQ tests fail to assess these skills of rational thought, even though they are measurable cognitive processes. Rational thought is just as important as intelligence, Stanovich argues, and it should be valued as highly as the abilities currently measured on intelligence tests.… (mais)
Nenhum(a)
Carregando...

Registre-se no LibraryThing tpara descobrir se gostará deste livro.

Ainda não há conversas na Discussão sobre este livro.

Exibindo 3 de 3
Why, oh lord, why, does every popular science book repeat over and over again the same two concepts, filling well over 200 pages with slightly different wordings of the same thing?

It happens here, too: the (interesting) stuff could have been comfily put in 50/70 pages, making it more readable.

Anyway, it seemed to me a good - although somewhat vague - introduction. ( )
  kenshin79 | Jul 25, 2023 |
IQ tests are reliable measures of intellectual ability, but intelligence is only one aspect of the cognitive mind; the other aspect is rationality, which is only weakly correlated with intelligence and is not adequately measured by intelligence tests. ( )
1 vote Benthamite | Jan 6, 2009 |
Dear Psychology,

I really wanna be friends. You ALWAYS have the answers and are so much smarter than me.

But, well, with your "cognitive miser," "fluid intelligence" and "myopic loss aversion," you come off as kinda smug. And how many times are you going to say the same thing? Over and over and over again? Don't you know when to shut up? Or is just that you have nothing else to say? You're like my grandmother who goes on about her recipes. Don't get me wrong -- the food is great, but no matter how much she talks, I'll never be able to cook like that. In fact, I don't want to! I've got other stuff to do! Besides, her house doesn't even look like anyone lives in it and it smells funny.

I still dig you and all, so I'm sure I'll come hangout again sometime. And maybe you're right, I am just (Moby) Dick-whipped, but let me work through it on my own, please?

Fully Disjunctive Reason This,

Esteban
( )
  KidSisyphus | Apr 5, 2013 |
Exibindo 3 de 3
sem resenhas | adicionar uma resenha
Você deve entrar para editar os dados de Conhecimento Comum.
Para mais ajuda veja a página de ajuda do Conhecimento Compartilhado.
Título canônico
Título original
Títulos alternativos
Data da publicação original
Pessoas/Personagens
Lugares importantes
Eventos importantes
Filmes relacionados
Epígrafe
Dedicatória
Primeiras palavras
Citações
Últimas palavras
Aviso de desambiguação
Editores da Publicação
Autores Resenhistas (normalmente na contracapa do livro)
Idioma original
CDD/MDS canônico
LCC Canônico

Referências a esta obra em recursos externos.

Wikipédia em inglês (3)

Critics of intelligence tests-writers such as Robert Sternberg, Howard Gardner, and Daniel Goleman-have argued in recent years that these tests neglect important qualities such as emotion, empathy, and interpersonal skills. However, such critiques imply that though intelligence tests may miss certain key noncognitive areas, they encompass most of what is important in the cognitive domain. In this book, Keith E. Stanovich challenges this widely held assumption.Stanovich shows that IQ tests (or their proxies, such as the SAT) are radically incomplete as measures of cognitive functioning. They fail to assess traits that most people associate with "good thinking," skills such as judgment and decision making. Such cognitive skills are crucial to real-world behavior, affecting the way we plan, evaluate critical evidence, judge risks and probabilities, and make effective decisions. IQ tests fail to assess these skills of rational thought, even though they are measurable cognitive processes. Rational thought is just as important as intelligence, Stanovich argues, and it should be valued as highly as the abilities currently measured on intelligence tests.

Não foram encontradas descrições de bibliotecas.

Descrição do livro
Resumo em haiku

Current Discussions

Nenhum(a)

Capas populares

Links rápidos

Avaliação

Média: (3.06)
0.5
1
1.5
2 2
2.5 1
3 3
3.5
4 1
4.5
5 1

É você?

Torne-se um autor do LibraryThing.

 

Sobre | Contato | LibraryThing.com | Privacidade/Termos | Ajuda/Perguntas Frequentes | Blog | Loja | APIs | TinyCat | Bibliotecas Históricas | Os primeiros revisores | Conhecimento Comum | 204,493,836 livros! | Barra superior: Sempre visível