21–30 of 48 posts
In summary: Positive correlation: (Anxiety, Low Choline), Intelligence Positive correlation: (No Anxiety, Normal Choline), Intelligence
We have demonstrated in a previous study that a high degree of worry in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) correlates positively with intelligence and that a low degree of worry in healthy subjects correlates positively with intelligence. Much simpler alternate hypothesis: Generalized Anxiety Disorder is more accurately diagnosed in intelligent people. (As for the study, the small sample size etc makes…
Given the mean IQ of the participants with GAD was 119 in this study this hypothesis has certainly not been excluded. It is like 99% of these studies - of limited applicability and almost certainly unable to be replicated in a larger study. There is a name for these sort of studies, but I am trying to be charitable.
We have demonstrated in a previous study that a high degree of worry in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) correlates positively with intelligence and that a low degree of worry in healthy subjects correlates positively with intelligence. Much simpler alternate hypothesis: Generalized Anxiety Disorder is more accurately diagnosed in intelligent people. (As for the study, the small sample size etc makes…
We have demonstrated in a previous study that a high degree of worry in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) correlates positively with intelligence and that a low degree of worry in healthy subjects correlates positively with intelligence. Much simpler alternate hypothesis: Generalized Anxiety Disorder is more accurately diagnosed in intelligent people. (As for the study, the small sample size etc makes…
We have demonstrated in a previous study that a high degree of worry in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) correlates positively with intelligence and that a low degree of worry in healthy subjects correlates positively with intelligence. Much simpler alternate hypothesis: Generalized Anxiety Disorder is more accurately diagnosed in intelligent people. (As for the study, the small sample size etc makes…
Few examples....I got a decent gash on my leg a few months ago. I was going out kayaking with some friends so I shaved my leg around the cut and wrapped it up nice and good with a duct tape bandage and water proof tape over that. I am not about to chance getting a flesh eating bacteria or something weird like that. Practically costs nothing to take a precaution. Another example, wearing a condom, even if you're in a relationship with the same person and you've both been tested. What if birth control doesn't work? What if she had unprotected sex with someone else? Not that I don't trust her, I do, but what if? I also get extreme FOMO when choosing what backend language to learn (still haven't chosen after a few months). Sometimes when looking at the documents for new libraries it takes me a few days to actually sit down to look at them from the anxiety that maybe I'll be too stupid to understand the docs. This leads to me sitting at the computer staring at the docs but not actually reading because my mind is just in one huge clusterfuck looping around these thoughts and thinking what if I follow the instructions wrong? I'll have to start over and would have wasted time. Finally when I actually start typing and doing stuff I have no problem. While I know I just have to learn how to use these things once and I'll know it 'forever' and that just sitting there is actually wasting more time than I would be if I had to stay over 50 times, I just can't help it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the first sentence of the conclusion: > It should be noted, however, that... the mean IQ for the GAD group was elevated in comparison to the control group (a mean of ∼119 versus a mean of ∼109). Further, the IQ means for both the GAD group and the control group were significantly higher than the average IQ of the general population (∼100). Results should thus be interpreted with the consideration that the study…
I've always wondered about this when talking to friends of mine who are psychology grad students about the studies they work on. Since most of them rely upon volunteers attracted via mechanisms like flyers put up on a university campus or the raffle of a free iPad in a college town, aren't these types of volunteer-based studies going to tell you a lot about college kids and (potentially) very little about the general…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the first sentence of the conclusion: > It should be noted, however, that... the mean IQ for the GAD group was elevated in comparison to the control group (a mean of ∼119 versus a mean of ∼109). Further, the IQ means for both the GAD group and the control group were significantly higher than the average IQ of the general population (∼100). Results should thus be interpreted with the consideration that the study…
I've always wondered about this when talking to friends of mine who are psychology grad students about the studies they work on. Since most of them rely upon volunteers attracted via mechanisms like flyers put up on a university campus or the raffle of a free iPad in a college town, aren't these types of volunteer-based studies going to tell you a lot about college kids and (potentially) very little about the general…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the mean IQ of the participants with GAD was 119 in this study this hypothesis has certainly not been excluded. It is like 99% of these studies - of limited applicability and almost certainly unable to be replicated in a larger study. There is a name for these sort of studies, but I am trying to be charitable.
Without reading the study I can't be sure, but it should be relatively easy to screen for that bias by factoring into their analysis the ratio of patients presenting with an awareness of their anxiety as distinct from the patients who presented with other reasons than anxiety since this kind of information should be available and makes sense to consider.
There is an interesting reversal of this effect with schizophrenia. In order to be diagnosed with schizophrenia you have to have social or occupational dysfunction [1] (effectively not be able to care for yourself). You can be completely delusional, but if you are able to care for yourself then you are not considered to have schizophrenia. People with a high IQ you are often able to look after themselves while delusional much more effectively than people with a low IQ and so not meet the DSM criteria. The underlying biology maybe identical, but the diagnosis is different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always wondered about this when talking to friends of mine who are psychology grad students about the studies they work on. Since most of them rely upon volunteers attracted via mechanisms like flyers put up on a university campus or the raffle of a free iPad in a college town, aren't these types of volunteer-based studies going to tell you a lot about college kids and (potentially) very little about the general…
Exactly. And lots of studies (just hearsay) where smashed when trying to replicate them with a sample that mimics the general population.