Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Raise Our I.Q.

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#31

Post by mynameishere »

tokenadult wrote: post #23
byrneseyeview wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That a better way to raise average IQ is to encourage smart people to breed?

a better way to raise average IQ is to encourage smart people to breed? That's an interesting hypothesis, but the effect size of environmental changes is MUCH larger than the effect size of changing gene frequencies in increasing the IQ scores of the general population. It has been typical for decades for authors who take a strongly hereditarian (which means "pre-Mendelian," really) view of influences on IQ to suppos…

I suspect that the Flynn effect begins and ends with the improvement to diet, as is the case with height. Though really, society has changed in so many ways in 100 years, that it's impossible to say this or that was responsible, therefore let's replicate it. At any rate, there's a serious upper limit to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Has_progression_en...

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#32

Post by nazgulnarsil »

tokenadult wrote: post #30
nazgulnarsil wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the flynn effect has leveled off and shows signs of starting to reverse in industrialized nations.

I'll accept "leveled off" regarding certain countries, having read Flynn's work, and I'll accept "starting to reverse" if you are only talking about crystallized intelligence, for the same reason, but do you have any current citations to a disfavorable trend anywhere in fluid intelligence?

I'm looking for a copy of the paper that doesn't require access to a university archive. Every link so far goes to the same source. the name of the paper if you want to look for it is

A long-term rise and recent decline in intelligence test performance: The Flynn Effect in revers

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#33

Post by bd »

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #32
tokenadult wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll accept "leveled off" regarding certain countries, having read Flynn's work, and I'll accept "starting to reverse" if you are only talking about crystallized intelligence, for the same reason, but do you have any current citations to a disfavorable trend anywhere in fluid intelligence?

I'm looking for a copy of the paper that doesn't require access to a university archive. Every link so far goes to the same source. the name of the paper if you want to look for it is A long-term rise and recent decline in intelligence test performance: The Flynn Effect in revers

Also, from mynameishere's Wikipedia reference:

"The end of the Flynn effect?: A study of secular trends in mean intelligence test scores of Norwegian conscripts during half a century"

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.intell.2004.06.004

After all, this makes sense. Flynn effect seems to be working mostly by reducing "bad stuff" going on that would make you dumber than your potential (most of the gains are concentrated in the lower half of the distribution and negligible in the top half).

Once everybody's environment is more or less ok, there is no magic that will start to produce geniuses from normal people.

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#34

Post by _b8r0 »

jerf wrote: post #26
_b8r0 wrote: post #19

Really? I only ever thought of IQ as a measurement of elitism, not intelligence. I've met some really smart guys with IQs much lower than you'd expect, and dealt with some really stupid higher IQ folk.

As much fun as it is to decry high IQs as the sole purview of snotty brats who can't actually amount to anything in the real world, it is still nothing but a combination of sour grapes and a biased sample. You notice the brats, you don't notice the high-IQ people that aren't snotty brats. Science says that A: IQ clearly doesn't measure "real intelligence" B: Whatever "real intelligence" is, IQ does correlate with it…

I'm going to discuss your comment in three parts. Thank god this isn't reddit as I'd probably follow up with a "Your shit's all fucked up and you talk like a fag" or a pun type post.

Your first assertion is that people who decry high IQs as the sole purviews of snotty brats is a combination of sour grapes and a biased sample. I can't speak based on a scientific sample of high IQ folk. I can only speak for myself and people I know. My IQ (in case you were wondering) is 167 according to SB5 testing (I was tested through most of my childhood and some of my early academic life) putting me in the fairly smart range. To provide a counterpoint, I'll quote Alfred Binet (the 'B' in SB5) and just say:

"The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured." - Binet 1905.

There are snotty brats with low IQs. There are snotty brats with high IQs. Thus we can surmise that in any given sample of sufficient size regardless of IQ there are snotty brats. If you don't believe me I suggest you visit 4chan.org sometime.

Your second comment tries to pair correlation with reality. In some cases this works, in your example it doesn't as "real intelligence" is undefined, yet we are expected to accept that this undefined and unmeasured form of intelligence correlates with IQ. If you were to define what constitutes real intelligence then there's a point of discussion, but you must admit that your statement 'Whatever "real intelligence" is' implies that you don't know what it is - to be honest no-one does and that's the problem. An IQ score doesn't provide a measure of real intelligence, only problem solving within a measured subset of boundaries.

This then acts as a counterpoint for your third argument being that:

The science cannot be strong if "real intelligence" is less definable than "Real Madrid". Therefore I pose the counterpoint that correlation of an individual's success rate of "Real Madrid" (whatever "success rate" is) is more valid than correlation with "Real intelligence".

After all, "Real Intelligence" never won La Liga, the European cup, and so on, yet noone would ever argue against the genius of Real Madrid's European cup winning squads, no more than you could argue with the master strokes of Van Gogh or Raphael, nor the abilities of Newton - despite his inferior understanding of modern mathematics and logic, nor the ancient greeks despite their limitations.

One of the things I really appreciate about HN is that people have constructive arguments and disagreements. I completely accept that there's an element of fun in the topic I discussed (particularly about football teams) but I would like to say that although I don't agree with you, thanks for expressing your opinion and challenging mine. It's always good to have to rethink your worldview :)

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#35

Post by tokenadult »

mynameishere wrote: post #31
tokenadult wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a better way to raise average IQ is to encourage smart people to breed? That's an interesting hypothesis, but the effect size of environmental changes is MUCH larger than the effect size of changing gene frequencies in increasing the IQ scores of the general population. It has been typical for decades for authors who take a strongly hereditarian (which means "pre-Mendelian," really) view of influences on IQ to suppos…

I suspect that the Flynn effect begins and ends with the improvement to diet, as is the case with height. Though really, society has changed in so many ways in 100 years, that it's impossible to say this or that was responsible, therefore let's replicate it. At any rate, there's a serious upper limit to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Has_progression_en...

I suspect that the Flynn effect begins and ends with the improvement to diet

Flynn points to data from a World War II famine in the occupied Netherlands showing that the famine region had no difference in IQ changes over time from the region that didn't experience famine. The IQ score increase has also occurred in countries that were well nourished to begin with for the most part.

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#36

Post by jackchristopher »

showerst wrote: post #4

This doesn't really apply in the western world, but interestingly enough, one of the cheapest ways to raise an society's IQ is by introducing the use of iodized salt: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/health/16iodine.html

Sodium is important to brain function. It's recently been linked with antidepressant properties:

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/salt_may_be_...

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#37

Post by jibiki »

_b8r0 wrote: post #34
jerf wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much fun as it is to decry high IQs as the sole purview of snotty brats who can't actually amount to anything in the real world, it is still nothing but a combination of sour grapes and a biased sample. You notice the brats, you don't notice the high-IQ people that aren't snotty brats. Science says that A: IQ clearly doesn't measure "real intelligence" B: Whatever "real intelligence" is, IQ does correlate with it…

I'm going to discuss your comment in three parts. Thank god this isn't reddit as I'd probably follow up with a "Your shit's all fucked up and you talk like a fag" or a pun type post. Your first assertion is that people who decry high IQs as the sole purviews of snotty brats is a combination of sour grapes and a biased sample. I can't speak based on a scientific sample of high IQ folk. I can only speak for myself and…

"In some cases this works, in your example it doesn't as 'real intelligence' is undefined, yet we are expected to accept that this undefined and unmeasured form of intelligence correlates with IQ."

So do you think (general) intelligence exists?

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#38

Post by jackchristopher »

biohacker42 wrote: post #6
chadgeidel wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've often wondered how much diet plays a role in "mental acuity." When he referred to poor children being adopted into upper middle class families that was the first thing that came to mind.

It's a very big role, especially in early childhood. As the parent points out iodized salt is a big one, another is omega 3 oils.

Omega-3 needs to be balanced against Omega-6, but there isn't agreement on the ratio. They're polyunsaturated fats, which I try to limit. But I aim for a 1:1 ratio.

Omega-3 is anti-inflammatory, the Omega-6 pro-inflammatory. They're both essential to bodily processes, even though O-6 is pro-inflammation.

Good sources of O-3: Fish Oil, Krill Oil, Salmon Oil

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#39

Post by peregrine »

Retric wrote: post #10
alfredb wrote: post #3

The most important part to me : That’s particularly true of girls and math, apparently because some girls assume that they are genetically disadvantaged at numbers; deprived of an excuse for failure, they excel. Our conditionment plays a very important role in limiting or improving our abilities. Doing maths is solving problems. During this process, having empowering believes about oneself is crucial. I remember when…

If you are looking for practical advice remember the big 4: Diet: Specifically micro-nutrients and more generally a healthy diet. Sleep: Vastly underrated, sleep deprivation is on par with getting drunk. Consider, long term sleep deprivation can kill you. Mental Activity: Consider, Solitary confinement can quickly lead to long term mental issues. Exercise: It's frighting how important this is. PS: I suspect sleep and…

I go to a fairly difficult school and I work 25+ hours a week at an internship. So routine is very important to me, a lot of time Diet, Sleep, and Exercise go to the wayside. It seems I will get a good routine going of eating well and exercising but then I go on break and I loose it.

Thanks for reminding me.

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#40

Post by rsheridan6 »

scott_s wrote: post #18
nazgulnarsil wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

socially repugnant has nothing to do with science. the data says parent IQ is highly correlated with offspring IQ.

And the offspring are, expect in the case of adoption, in the same socioeconomic class as the parents.

The operative phrase being "except in the case of adoption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twin_Family_Study#The...

Post reply on HN