Seems to be a suspicious number of people in this thread purposefully "point missing" and slinging whataboutisms instead of talking about what the CCP (specifically) can do with that type of information...
I don't understand why so much of the "social media is harmful" discussion focuses on social isolation and teen judgment. These are obviously important but none of the linked resources discuss the shift in expectations for life outcomes that is caused by social media and internet usage.
The cliche saying is that happiness = reality - expectations.
The spread of the internet has broken users free of their local bubbles and exposed them to an entire world of possibilities. Everyone is now able to compare their life to the global maximum instead of their local maximum. It's much easier now to be successful (along any axis) and miserable because there will always be people who are more successful. All of this has been moved into the internet user's scope of daily existence.
Any links to research or writing in this area will be appreciated. Also, I am not a specialist but would be open to assisting with research in this area.
Noah is the man, BUT he has a really nasty habit of talking about subjects without referring to some canonical sources of his ideas that pre-date his own takes by a ton.
Haidt was WAY ahead of him on the smartphones causing depression by YEARS.
Additionally, with geopolitics, he encapsulates a lot of work by Peter Zeihan without ever referring to him directly.
No, it's a standard that is based on what a child should be able to perform at a certain age. Otherwise everyone could get exceptionally dumb and illiterate, which has already happened in CA apparently. As someone who went to CA public school, I can tell you that very little learning is going on (at least where I was).
They can understand faster. But not learn (remember) faster.
I think higher IQ people might in some cases learn faster because if they understand the thing they are trying to remember, they can "replay it" in their heads bumping up the number of exposures which might help remembering. But not everyone with high IQ does that.
The real difference appears to be they simply cover more ground in aggregate over the long run on their own steam because their physiology makes it calorically cheaper for them to do so compared to their peers.
IQ seems to correlate most strongly with working memory, though ones capacity for working memory doesn't seem to have much bearing on the mechanism behind the formation of new memories themselves. Building semantic memory requires repeated exposure.
What really matters is the rate at which the individual exposes themselves to learning opportunities. This appears to be a function of how rewarding it is to you, how expensive it is for you, and how much (or in some cases little) executive control you have.
Yes, that's my understanding of what this research says too.
Reading through all the comments I can see a lot of people struggling to reconcile this result with their existing mental models of intelligence and learning.
Learning isn't just remembering, it's also reflective of skills. Someone with considerably higher IQ can arguably understand how to program computers faster, and thus start writing programs on their own sooner. Would we not say they learned programming faster?
> Smarter people require less exposure to the same concept to "get it".
Or not.
I'm been labeled gifted my whole life and typically require much more exposure to concepts, in order to catch up to most folks. The gifted part comes in with what I can do once I reach their level.
Think of a skill where 'a' is an entry-level understanding, 'c' is average and 'e' is exceptional.
Most people transition easily, hitting a then b then c. Past that is harder and most don't go there.
For me to get to b, I have to learn a.1-a.100. To get to c it's b.1-b.100 (hopefully faster).
By the time I get to c, I'm far, far behind everyone else. However, my much broader understanding of a, b & c might make the hop to d & e trivial for me.
