Recently in intelligence Category

Dr. RIchard Nisbitt, a a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, argues in his recent book, Intelligence and How to Get It, that what we think of as intelligence owes little or nothing to genetics.

Perhaps the larger lesson is a very empowering one: success depends less on intellectual endowment than on perseverance and drive. As Professor Nisbett puts it, "Intelligence and academic achievement are very much under people's control."

I'm a little late on this, but Mental Floss held a Tournament of Genius in the spirit of March Madness.

Some of the contestants in the round of 64 (and a few in the round of 32) were laughable - Matt Groening over Pablo Picasso? - but the Sweet Sixteen is uncompromising (seedings in parentheses).

DIVISION #1:

Albert Einstein (1)

vs. Jonas Salk (12)

Pythagoras (6)

vs. Plato (2)

DIVISION # 2:

Thomas Jefferson (1) vs. Marie Curie (5)

Michaelangelo (3) vs. Benjamin Franklin (2)

DIVISION #3:

Sir Isaac Newton (1) vs. Ludwig von Beethoven (4)

Louis Pasteur (3) vs. William Shakespeare (2)

DIVISION #4:

Leonardo da Vinci (1) vs. Galileo Galilei (4)

Rene Descartes (3) vs. Nicola Tesla (7)

Check out the full bracket, round-by-round match-ups, and the final match.

Google's creation of true artifical intelligence.

They certainly spare no effort. The AI, named CADIE, has a youtube channel and a blog.

You're thinking, "Ha, ha! Tim linked to Woman's Day Magazine!"

But seriously: you can save a bottle of wine with a broken cork with a coffee filter and a rubber band.

Why are you still laughing?

The Sporting Blogs Spencer Hall takes a look at some of the recent football coaching changes on the college and professional level and concludes:

... Do not deny the role blind luck and circumstance had in determining his (Bill Belichick) legend as a football success. It is a frightening admission to make either as a fan or a person, though. It essentially admits that you're not the person putting the chips on the table and making the wagers. Instead you are the wager, and could be swept away with one or two bad turns of the wheel. There's hard work, preparation, more hard work and preparation, and then the rest rides on the roll of the dice.

This excerpt sounds as if it could have come directly from the mouth of Gladwell. Or perhaps a more grim Gladwell.

In regards to the verbal mis-step of Chief Justice John Roberts during President Obama's Oath of Office, NY Times Op-Ed contributor, Steven Pinker, clues the non-language historians among us into 'split verbs' and what really caused the Chief Justice's hiccup.

(Observer Drujba)

A new study shows that intelligence is a major player in the hunt for a suitable mate.

These biologists believe intelligence, as manifested in things like artistic and musical ability, is such a reliable indicator of underlying genetic fitness that it has been chosen by members of the opposite sex over the millennia. In the ensuing arms race to show off and get a mate it has been exaggerated in the way that a peacock's tail is. This process of sexual selection, Dr Miller and his followers believe, is the reason people have become so brainy.

What does this mean?

It means we, as a race, are genetically programmed to weed out the deficient in favor of the efficient. We are getting smarter because we are designed to promote intelligence. We don't even need to think about it.
Some people will provide anecdotal evidence that suggests beauty, not intelligence, is the major characteristic that governs our mate search. For some, beauty very well may be the characteristic that consciously guides the search, but I suspect that the person seeking beauty over intelligence will find over time and under the glossy exterior of beauty that a severe lack of intelligence is a dealbreaker.
The search for beauty without intelligence may be rooted in the need for power. Having a jaw-dropping mate gives the perception that one is powerful. People who want power convince themselves that beauty denotes this and is necessary to achieve a power position. But this is a bad short-term solution to a long-term problem. Long-term power is derived from knowledge, not beauty. Beauty can help achieve power in the short-term and will not affect it in the long-term, unless there is a genuine lack of intelligence. Just ask Nick Lachey.

Look at the prefrontal cortex on her!

Some in the media are celebrating the brainy renaissance. See: Wired Magazines Sexiest Geeks of 2007.
So beauty is not inherently dumb. That is a bad correlation for anyone to assume. Realistically, they can coexist. But intelligence is the key. So get smart. And get some.