The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing Wednesday examining the cognitive abilities of former President Joe Biden.
The Senate Judiciary subcommittee held a hearing Wednesday digging into the cognitive abilities of former President Joe Biden and claims of whether his aides helped what they say was a cover up of his alleged mental decline -- claims the former president and many on his staff have denied.
The probe didn't uncover any new information on the former president -- with Democratic members of the subcommittee boycotting the hearing.
Democratic senators on the committee walked out of the hearing shortly after it began, with Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin blasting the panel for even holding the hearing, while he says a number of timely investigations should be going on related to President Donald Trump's current actions.
"So far this year, the Republican majority on this committee has not held a single oversight hearing, despite numerous critical challenges facing the nation that are under our jurisdiction," Durbin said.
Durbin Plays Video Questioning Trump's Cognitive Abilities At Judiciary Hearing On 'Biden Cover-Up'
Scientists believe that the remarkable intelligence of beluga whales is demonstrated by their ability to learn and communicate using the complex language of whistles and clicks. This has been observed in a specific case where a beluga whale, living in captivity alongside a pod of bottlenose dolphins, has successfully acquired and adopted their unique language.
(via Beluga whale learns to 'talk' to pod of bottlenose dolphins )
Lower-Paid People New Study Shows New research has shattered the myth that the ultra-wealthy are the smartest people around. See Next: Gamer
The comprehensive study, conducted by researchers from Linköping University in Sweden, the European University Institute in Italy and the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, analyzed data from 59,400 Swedish men who took a military conscription test when they were young adults. The researchers then meticulously tracked their career trajectories, earnings and job prestige for over a decade, from when they were 35 until they turned 45.
The results showed a strong relationship between intelligence and earning potential until the figure exceeded $64,000 a year. Beyond this point, the correlation became almost negligible. And at the highest pay scales, intelligence plateaued, suggesting that other factors, such as socioeconomic background, culture, personality traits and luck, became more significant.
The study also found that job prestige didn't increase with cognitive ability at higher pay scales. In professions such as medicine, law and academia, more prestige didn't seem directly related to more income.
The findings challenge the idea that success and higher levels of income are earned by superior intellect and talent. Instead, the researchers suggest that small initial success differences between individuals can grow into extreme inequalities over time.
The study has limitations. It focused only on men, limiting its generalizability to the wider population. But it still provides a relatively large sample across a variety of pay levels and occupations.
In a world where the ultra-rich continue to get richer and have more influence over global political, social and economic landscapes, the study's findings are significant. The argument that those taking home the most pay deserve it the most is one that needs to be challenged, the researchers point out — especially at the highest end of the scale.
Teens with lower intelligence and emotional abilities are more likely to support authoritarian beliefs, whether left- or right-wing, suggest
By: Eric W. Dolan
Published: Jan 23, 2025
A recent study published in the Journal of Personality has found that adolescents with lower levels of both cognitive and emotional abilities are more likely to hold authoritarian attitudes, whether on the left or right of the political spectrum. The findings highlight how limitations in reasoning and emotional regulation are tied to authoritarianism, shedding light on the shared psychological traits that underpin these ideological attitudes.
Adolescence is a critical developmental period when political beliefs and ideological attitudes begin to take shape, yet studies examining these processes among adolescents are sparse. Researchers at Ghent University in Belgium aimed to determine whether the relationships observed in adults—such as the link between lower cognitive abilities and more authoritarian attitudes—also apply to adolescents.
One of the primary motivations for the study was to address the assumption that ideological development primarily occurs during adulthood, particularly following exposure to higher education. This assumption has been widely discussed in political psychology, with theories suggesting that adolescence is too early for meaningful political engagement due to limited cognitive capacities.
However, recent research has challenged this view, arguing that proto-ideological beliefs emerge even in childhood and that understanding these early beliefs can shed light on how ideological attitudes develop. By focusing on adolescents, the researchers hoped to capture a critical stage in this developmental trajectory.
Another key goal was to examine the role of emotional abilities, which had received less attention than cognitive abilities in prior research. Emotional abilities—such as understanding and regulating emotions—are crucial for navigating social situations and making judgments about societal issues. Given that previous studies on adults found emotional abilities to be strong predictors of ideological attitudes, the researchers hypothesized that these abilities might play an even more significant role during adolescence.
To examine how cognitive and emotional abilities relate to ideological attitudes, the researchers recruited 507 participants aged 15 to 22 years. The participants were primarily high school and college students, ensuring a sample representative of middle and late adolescence.
The researchers used standardized intelligence tests to measure cognitive abilities. For participants aged 16 or younger, the WISC-V test was administered, assessing skills such as verbal comprehension, fluid reasoning, and processing speed. For those 17 and older, the Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test was used, which measures fluid and crystallized intelligence through tasks like reasoning, symbol learning, and comprehension.
Emotional abilities were assessed using four abridged performance-based tests, including measures of emotional understanding and recognition. The results from these tests were combined into a composite score to represent each participant’s overall emotional abilities.
To measure ideological attitudes, the researchers used three well-established scales. Right-wing authoritarianism was assessed using items measuring conformity, respect for authority, and aggression toward out-groups. Social dominance orientation was measured by assessing preferences for hierarchical versus egalitarian social structures. Finally, left-wing authoritarianism was evaluated using a scale adapted to capture opposition to traditional authority and advocacy for redistributive policies.
The results showed significant relationships between both cognitive and emotional abilities and ideological attitudes, though the strength and nature of these relationships varied. In line with prior studies in adult populations, adolescents with lower cognitive abilities were more likely to endorse authoritarian attitudes, both on the right and left of the political spectrum.
Interestingly, the relationship between cognitive abilities and social dominance orientation was weaker than for right-wing authoritarianism, suggesting that hierarchical preferences might be less cognitively driven.
Emotional abilities, however, emerged as even stronger predictors of ideological attitudes than cognitive abilities. Adolescents with lower emotional abilities were more likely to hold authoritarian beliefs across all three dimensions: right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and left-wing authoritarianism. Furthermore, when emotional abilities were included in the models, the influence of cognitive abilities on ideological attitudes became nonsignificant, suggesting that emotional abilities may play a mediating role.
Another key finding was the striking similarity between right-wing and left-wing authoritarian attitudes. Both shared common psychological underpinnings, such as a preference for conformity and authority, which were negatively related to emotional and cognitive abilities. This overlap supports the idea that authoritarian attitudes, regardless of political orientation, stem from similar cognitive and emotional processes.
Interestingly, the study found no significant differences between middle and late adolescents in the strength or nature of these relationships. This consistency suggests that the links between abilities and ideological attitudes are stable across this developmental period, challenging the notion that these relationships emerge only in adulthood.
“In summary, the present results mirror the results obtained in adult samples, with similar relationships of more or less equal magnitude between cognitive abilities and ideological attitudes, and with even stronger relationships for emotional abilities,” the researchers wrote. “The very concept of ‘ideological attitudes’ almost necessitates that its developmental roots go back in time. Many people are committed to politics, but in reflecting on ‘the political’ they do not always think in terms of specific policy issues. Ideological attitudes, after all, have a different compass, one that aligns with values and norms . Such values and norms likely develop at younger ages and are amenable to socialization, making people responsive to specific ideological attitudes.”
The findings shed light on how both cognitive and emotional abilities are related to adolescents’ ideological attitudes. However, because the data were cross-sectional, the researchers could not establish causal relationships or observe how these abilities and attitudes evolve over time. This limitation leaves unanswered questions about whether deficits in cognitive and emotional abilities lead to authoritarian attitudes or if certain ideological beliefs influence the development of these abilities. Future longitudinal studies are necessary to explore these dynamics in greater depth, tracking changes across adolescence and into adulthood to better understand the developmental pathways that connect abilities to ideological preferences.
The study, “The Relationship Between Cognitive and Emotional Abilities and Ideological Attitudes Among Adolescents,” was authored Alain Van Hiel, Kim Dierckx, Hilde Depauw, Tassilo Tissot, Ruben Van Severen, Johnny Fontaine, and Arne Roets.
Objective
A large number of studies—usually based on samples of adults—have revealed a negative relationship between cognitive abilities and right-wing ideological attitudes. Recently, this relationship has been claimed to be weaker among adolescents.
Method
We administered data in a sample of adolescents (N = 531) who completed a full cognitive abilities test, as well as a number of abridged, performance-based emotional abilities tests. We also administered Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), and Left-Wing Authoritarianism (LWA).
Results
The results revealed the relationships that mirror the pattern obtained in adult samples, both among middle (age 17 or younger) and late adolescents (age 18 or older). Specifically, the relationship between cognitive abilities and ideological attitudes emerged with a similar magnitude. Not only did the analyses reaffirm previous studies with regard to the relationships for RWA and SDO, but we also revealed meaningful relationships for LWA. Moreover, emotional abilities bore out even stronger relationships than cognitive abilities.
Conclusions
The present results thus show that the relationships between cognitive and emotional abilities on the one hand and ideological attitudes on the other hand also apply to adolescents. We discuss the need to better understand the development of ideological attitudes throughout childhood and adolescence.
Boost IQ: Tips & Tricks to Enhance Your Cognitive Abilities
Intelligence is a highly sought-after trait in today’s competitive world. Whether it’s acing exams, solving complex problems, or making informed decisions, a higher IQ can give you an edge. But is it possible to boost your IQ? The answer is yes! In this article, we’ll explore some practical tips and tricks to enhance your cognitive abilities and boost your IQ. Let’s dive in!
Discover how to boost your IQ with practical tips and tricks. Learn effective strategies to enhance cognitive abilities and unlock your intellectual potential.
“Should I tell Alvin that learning new things constantly is causing his headaches? Or should I just let him spin for a while?”
“I have fallen into the same trap many many times. Learning things needs to be slow. You need to have time for your brain to process what you learned.”
“Alvin probably forgets so much of what he “learns” because he absorbs it fast and then moves on to learning the next thing too quickly.”
New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/how-does-ai-use-impact-critical-thinking/
How Does AI Use Impact Critical Thinking?
Artificial intelligence (AI) can process hundreds of documents in seconds, identify imperceptible patterns in vast datasets and provide in-depth answers to virtually any question. It has the potential to solve common problems, increase efficiency across multiple industries and even free up time for individuals to spend with their loved ones by delegating repetitive tasks to machines.
However, critical thinking requires time and practice to develop properly. The more people rely on automated technology, the faster their metacognitive skills may decline. What are the consequences of relying on AI for critical thinking?
Study Finds AI Degrades Users’ Critical Thinking
The concern that AI will degrade users’ metacognitive skills is no longer hypothetical. Several studies suggest it diminishes people’s capacity to think critically, impacting their ability to question information, make judgments, analyze data or form counterarguments.
A 2025 Microsoft study surveyed 319 knowledge workers on 936 instances of AI use to determine how they perceive their critical thinking ability when using generative technology. Survey respondents reported decreased effort when using AI technology compared to relying on their own minds. Microsoft reported that in the majority of instances, the respondents felt that they used “much less effort” or “less effort” when using generative AI.
Knowledge, comprehension, analysis, synthesis and evaluation were all adversely affected by AI use. Although a fraction of respondents reported using some or much more effort, an overwhelming majority reported that tasks became easier and required less work.
If AI’s purpose is to streamline tasks, is there any harm in letting it do its job? It is a slippery slope. Many algorithms cannot think critically, reason or understand context. They are often prone to hallucinations and bias. Users who are unaware of the risks of relying on AI may contribute to skewed, inaccurate results.
How AI Adversely Affects Critical Thinking Skills
Overreliance on AI can diminish an individual’s ability to independently solve problems and think critically. Say someone is taking a test when they run into a complex question. Instead of taking the time to consider it, they plug it into a generative model and insert the algorithm’s response into the answer field.
In this scenario, the test-taker learned nothing. They didn’t improve their research skills or analytical abilities. If they pass the test, they advance to the next chapter. What if they were to do this for everything their teachers assign? They could graduate from high school or even college without refining fundamental cognitive abilities.
This outcome is bleak. However, students might not feel any immediate adverse effects. If their use of language models is rewarded with better test scores, they may lose their motivation to think critically altogether. Why should they bother justifying their arguments or evaluating others’ claims when it is easier to rely on AI?
The Impact of AI Use on Critical Thinking Skills
An advanced algorithm can automatically aggregate and analyze large datasets, streamlining problem-solving and task execution. Since its speed and accuracy often outperform humans, users are usually inclined to believe it is better than them at these tasks. When it presents them with answers and insights, they take that output at face value. Unquestioning acceptance of a generative model’s output leads to difficulty distinguishing between facts and falsehoods. Algorithms are trained to predict the next word in a string of words. No matter how good they get at that task, they aren’t really reasoning. Even if a machine makes a mistake, it won’t be able to fix it without context and memory, both of which it lacks.
The more users accept an algorithm’s answer as fact, the more their evaluation and judgment skew. Algorithmic models often struggle with overfitting. When they fit too closely to the information in their training dataset, their accuracy can plummet when they are presented with new information for analysis.
Populations Most Affected by Overreliance on AI
Generally, overreliance on generative technology can negatively impact humans’ ability to think critically. However, low confidence in AI-generated output is related to increased critical thinking ability, so strategic users may be able to use AI without harming these skills.
In 2023, around 27% of adults told the Pew Research Center they use AI technology multiple times a day. Some of the individuals in this population may retain their critical thinking skills if they have a healthy distrust of machine learning tools. The data must focus on populations with disproportionately high AI use and be more granular to determine the true impact of machine learning on critical thinking.
Critical thinking often isn’t taught until high school or college. It can be cultivated during early childhood development, but it typically takes years to grasp. For this reason, deploying generative technology in schools is particularly risky — even though it is common.
Today, most students use generative models. One study revealed that 90% have used ChatGPT to complete homework. This widespread use isn’t limited to high schools. About 75% of college students say they would continue using generative technology even if their professors disallowed it. Middle schoolers, teenagers and young adults are at an age where developing critical thinking is crucial. Missing this window could cause problems.
The Implications of Decreased Critical Thinking
Already, 60% of educators use AI in the classroom. If this trend continues, it may become a standard part of education. What happens when students begin to trust these tools more than themselves? As their critical thinking capabilities diminish, they may become increasingly susceptible to misinformation and manipulation. The effectiveness of scams, phishing and social engineering attacks could increase.
An AI-reliant generation may have to compete with automation technology in the workforce. Soft skills like problem-solving, judgment and communication are important for many careers. Lacking these skills or relying on generative tools to get good grades may make finding a job challenging.
Innovation and adaptation go hand in hand with decision-making. Knowing how to objectively reason without the use of AI is critical when confronted with high-stakes or unexpected situations. Leaning into assumptions and inaccurate data could adversely affect an individual’s personal or professional life.
Critical thinking is part of processing and analyzing complex — and even conflicting — information. A community made up of critical thinkers can counter extreme or biased viewpoints by carefully considering different perspectives and values.
AI Users Must Carefully Evaluate Algorithms’ Output
Generative models are tools, so whether their impact is positive or negative depends on their users and developers. So many variables exist. Whether you are an AI developer or user, strategically designing and interacting with generative technologies is an important part of ensuring they pave the way for societal advancements rather than hindering critical cognition.
