Introduction
‘Cognitive elites’ are individuals possessing a high level of cognitive ability. Cognitive ability refers to an individual’s mental capacity to think, reason, remember, and make decisions and includes such abilities as intelligence and creativity. Cognitive elites possess extraordinary intellectual faculties compared to the general population, enabling them to advise society on different intelligence perspectives. By enlightening society on intelligence, these cognitive elites help in finding solutions to communal problems. Widening participation refers to the inclusion of young people and under-presented groups in sharing social services such as higher education entry. Indeed, it would be more beneficial to society if people focused resources on the ‘cognitive elite’ rather than widening participation since the elites can solve complex societal issues and be good leaders.
Cognitive Elites as Problem Solvers
Firstly, the cognitive elites have better problem-solving skills and are more likely to develop innovative solutions to complex social issues, thus ensuring societal success. Cognitive elites will solve societal problems by educating parents on the roles of nurture and nature in their children’s upbringing (Sauce & Matzel, 2018). The debate centers on whether the individual’s intelligence is inborn (nature) or due to environmental influences (nurture). Studies have shown that the heritability of intelligence can account for anywhere between 40-80% depending on age (Mollon et al., 2018). Meaning that much of the variation in an individual’s intellectual capacity can be attributed to genetics. This heritability intelligence increases with maturity and decreases during very early childhood development. The combination of an individual’s genetic makeup along with their environment determines their behavior, including intellectual aptitude. Furthermore, this implies that even though genes may contribute significantly to an individual’s intellect, one cannot disregard essential socializing experiences, such as parental encouragement or educational opportunities from society, which equally determine intellectual capacity.
Cognitive elites are all aware of how nature and nurture can impact young people who are future leaders; therefore, they will use their profuse knowledge to educate society to ensure youths are appropriately raised. On the other hand, a person’s intelligence is largely influenced by their environment. Biological variables, including genetics and physical health, can play a role in determining cognitive aptitude and mental function (Scorza et al., 2019). Family dynamics: from the amount of support provided to the values that may be instilled—can similarly impact a child’s overall cognitive development. Education also significantly impacts one’s intellectual capacity, as access to high-quality learning institutions and materials is typically associated with higher levels of intelligence. Finally, culture plays into how one views themselves and their ideas about what makes something “intelligent”: cultural norms can drastically shape how someone sees themselves intellectually (Dajani, 2020). Altogether, these factors demonstrate how much influence the environment has on the human ability to think critically and acquire knowledge – leading directly to the overall intelligence level.
Additionally, epigenetics are essential in expressing certain genes through one’s behavior. Certain environmental factors can trigger gene expression changes, which could lead to new patterns of thinking when attempting to solve complicated problems. Thereby, these combined considerations can explain why some members of society possess superior problem-solving skills over others. Generally, both nature and nurture must be considered if people attempt to understand why this phenomenon exists.
Cognitive Elites as Societal Leaders
Secondly, the cognitive elites are more likely to be effective leaders, capable of guiding society in a positive direction. The notion of the cognitive elite is one that has been theorized for years and implies that those with higher IQs have the potential to lead society in a positive direction. This concept relies heavily on theories like Spearman’s g-factor, which is based on the idea that there is a general intelligence factor across all human abilities. The focus of this theory revolves around measuring and understanding individual differences in general intelligence by taking into account multiple areas of cognitive ability. Spearman proposed this theory as early as 1904, postulating that all cognition can be reduced down to two factors – crystallized knowledge (gC) and fluid intelligence (gF) (Almi & Ouskourt, 2018). gC represents an individual’s accumulated knowledge base and how well they are able to apply past experiences toward new tasks, while gF refers to their capacity for abstract thought processing. Within this framework, a bigger emphasis would be put on general intelligence than particular or specific types of reasoning, known as the primacy effect.
Moreover, to measure these different aspects of cognitive ability, Spearman proposed several methods like “e-tests,” which measure mental speed or basic reactions. He also developed tests aimed at assessing individuals’ problem-solving skills, such as inductive logic problems or unconstrained mathematical simulations called “L-and S”-type exercises (Białaszek et al., 2017). In addition to traditional test forms, modern research has equally utilized neuroimaging tools such as conjoint analysis or fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) scans for measuring the validity of g-factor scores using brain activity data. Overall it can be seen from various theories around IQ levels. Both contemporary and classic –focusing resources on smarter members of society could potentially benefit them in leading others in directing intelligent discussion into actionable steps throughout communities worldwide.
Additionally, it is well established that cognitive elites can make great leaders who can improve societal intelligence. In 2013, Protzko et al. conducted a meta-analysis of the effects of early intervention on intelligence. Their findings indicated that intensive educational interventions in the first few years of life result in higher IQ scores down the line (Protzko et al., 2013). This underscores the importance of investing in initiatives to raise society’s collective intelligence at an early age, with investment and effort paying off significantly later. Governments should prioritize programs for pre-schoolers – such as quality education and nutrition – to ensure more children have access to opportunities for development from an earlier age.
Generally, there are several strategies for improving overall levels of IQ. According to Pan (2018), exercising regularly has a positive correlation with IQ performance. Physical activities increase oxygen flow around the body, including the brain, which aids in promoting healthier brain cells resulting in better learning capabilities and higher performance on tests related to IQ (Pan, 2018). Additionally, getting enough sleep is also key: not sleeping enough or oversleeping will cause fatigue and ultimately lead to poor concentration – both factors contribute significantly towards lower IQ results over time if left unchecked.
Finally, diet plays a major role in unhealthy cognitive abilities. Eating nutrient-rich foods like nuts, blueberries, and extra-virgin olive oil enhances cognition skills, while some foods lead to intelligence decline (Liu et al., 2021). All these need to be taken into account to improve the intelligence quotient among people within a given population group, as efforts made during all life stages are essential for maximizing each individual’s potential. This improvement will develop top-performing leaders able to drive toward optimal outcomes across different settings regarding societal intelligence enhancement initiatives.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clear that the cognitive elites have a wider societal impact in comparison to those involved with widening participation. The cognitive elites possess greater insight into social problems and are more likely to steer society in the right direction, helping alleviate stressors caused by various social issues. By investing time and resources into the cognitive elite, society maximizes its potential to benefit as a whole. Cognitive elites understand different aspects of intelligence; thus, focusing societal resources on them is one way of growing communities.
References
Almi, Y., & Ouskourt, M. (2018). The association between variance in working memory capacity and foreign language receptive and productive lexical knowledge (Doctoral dissertation, Université Frères Mentouri-Constantine 1), 28-35. Web.
Białaszek, W., Marcowski, P., & Ostaszewski, P. (2017). Physical and cognitive effort discounting across different reward magnitudes: Tests of discounting models. PloS One, 12(7), e0182353. Web.
Dajani, K. G. (2020). Cultural determinants in Winnicott’s developmental theories. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 17(1), 6-21. Web.
Kuzminov, Y., Sorokin, P., & Froumin, I. (2019). Generic and specific skills as components of human capital: New challenges for education theory and practice. Foresight and STI Governance, 13(2), 19–41. Web.
Liu, X., Morris, M. C., Dhana, K., Ventrelle, J., Johnson, K., Bishop, L., Hollings, C. S., Boulin, A., Laranjo, N., Stubbs, B. J., Reilly, X., Carey, V. J., Wang, Y., Furtado, J. D., Marcovina, S. M., Tangney, C., Aggarwal, N. T., Arfanakis, K., Sacks, F. M., & Barnes, L. L. (2021). Mediterranean-dash intervention for neurodegenerative delay (mind) study: Rationale, design and baseline characteristics of a randomized control trial of the mind diet on cognitive decline. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 102, 106270. Web.
Mollon, J., Knowles, E. E., Mathias, S. R., Gur, R., Peralta, J. M., Weiner, D. J., Robinson, E. B., Gur, R. E., Blangero, J., Almasy, L., & Glahn, D. C. (2018). Genetic influence on cognitive development between childhood and adulthood. Molecular Psychiatry, 26(2), 656–665. Web.
Pan, T. (2018). Study on the influence of exercise on children’s cognitive learning ability. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(5), 1940-1944. Web.
Protzko, J., Aronson, J., & Blair, C. (2013). How to Make a Young Child Smarter: Evidence from the database of raising intelligence? Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 8(1), 25–40. Web.
Sauce, B., & Matzel, L. D. (2018). The paradox of intelligence: Heritability and malleability coexist in hidden gene-environment interplay. Psychological Bulletin, 144(1), 26–47. Web.
Scorza, P., Duarte, C. S., Hipwell, A. E., Posner, J., Ortin, A., Canino, G., Monk, C., & Program Collaborators for Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (2019). Research review: Intergenerational transmission of disadvantage: Epigenetics and parents’ childhoods as the first exposure. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, And Allied Disciplines, 60(2), 119–132. Web.