The difficulty comes in the very word measurement which implies some form of numerical logic. If we look at known distance measurements one would automatically use metric measurements of centimeters and meters. The measurement starts from zero and Includes units of multiples. Intelligence measurements have no such “zero” starting points but instead rely on a series of tests based on the average score from similar social groups known as “general intelligence” or “g. ” A popular conception of “intelligence,” r “g”, Is that of cognitive “strength” based on the mechanisms of how we learn which Is demonstrated by The Heckler Scale.
This test Is composed often subspaces which assess distinct cognitive abilities such as working memory, processing speed, perception, and reasoning. The total score from these scales determines a person’s IQ (intelligence quotient) which means their Intellectual capability compared to the general population. Whilst this test asserts that It measures Intelligence overall as a “strength”, it can be argued that instead it is simply measuring the “distance” teens one person’s performance and another on a culturally specific test.
Furthermore, whether this can be said to incorporate the entirety of what might be deemed “Intelligence” remains to be seen given that such tests historically western and therefore have somewhat limited application. Therefore whilst they might assert that they are measuring “strength”, they may actually be measuring the distance a person is from the cultural “norm” for answering such questions. Furthermore, it could be argued that other skills such as the ability to work as part of a team, or the ability to show empathy correspond to more “real life” sources of intelligence that determine a person’s ability to achieve in life.
Such cognition is arguably more complex which leads to the suggestion that other sources of variance such as cultural, environmental and other non-cognitive factors effect and shape a person’s ability to understand and evaluate the world. The idea that IQ differences reflect cultural “distance” rather than a cognitive “strength” is simply recognizing these factors and implementing contextual testing of a person’s ability through more than en testing basis. 82028002 Michelle Jacques TAMA – Part 2. Any difference between the changes for team and individual exercise.
It should be noted that the small sample groups, variation in size of sample groups and lack of information on base exercise levels or control of other variables across all groups are limitations of the study. The data also fails to detail any mention of range or outliers which may distort the mean. The study does not aim to detail the effect of exercise on general knowledge. As the general knowledge score does not say whether it was before, after or during the study and provides no comparison, conclusions on change/effect cannot be drawn.
It does show that the control group performs better on average than either of the other groups. The change in IQ is indicated by the value added by sports to the IQ beforehand. All three groups’ average IIS are within three points of each other at the beginning. The data shows the “team sport” group improved by seven points on average, individual training group by 2 points and the control group by 1 point. This would suggest the natural fluctuation of a groups Estes on any given day is 1 point, so the training could have improved the individual groups between 1 and 3 points on average and the team sport between 6 and 8.
This implies that additional sport improves IQ in team sport more so than individual. Part 3 I enjoyed the collaborative forums for this exercise and think they are a great idea to get to know the rest of the students. It’s quite supportive and almost a safety net for questions I thought I may seem silly but it turns out everyone else want to know too! It’s certainly helped me stay fairly on track so far and I find the diverse responses interesting to read.