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

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#51

Post by tokenadult »

bokonist wrote: post #45
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…

If the Flynn effect was true, then our great-grand parents must have had average IQs that would have categorized them as mentally disabled today. Clearly, this was not the case. My grand parents in their prime were just as smart as my parents, and my parents and uncles are just as smart as my cousins. It's also interesting that measures of vocabulary and numeracy have been flat over the past century. More evidence th…

My grand parents in their prime were just as smart as my parents, and my parents and uncles are just as smart as my cousins.

And this is one of the best empirical proofs that IQ scores are not a "measure" of how smart someone is. James Flynn discusses exactly this point of yours in several of his writings. He relates a story from Arthur Jensen about a mentally retarded man who claimed to be baseball fan, but who was very vague about the rules of baseball and didn't seem to know the names of many professional players. Yet that man had an IQ score that would relate back in time to a population average score from the era when baseball became a popular sport, widely followed in the United States.

All the Flynn effect means is that people have much more exposure to the type of puzzles in the Raven Progressive Matrix today than they did in the 1950's.

I'm very sympathetic to this statement, because I used to think that it offered the best explanation for the Flynn effect. But I am now convinced by Flynn's latest book

http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn-Effect/...

that on the one hand the gains in IQ test scores are real, and not just artifacts of familiarity with test item content (in large part because so many different kinds of tests have all shown this effect) and on the other hand that IQ has increased in society, and has been applied in the labor market and other aspects of daily life, without wisdom (Flynn's term) or rationality (Stanovich's) term increasing as generally in society.

You'd probably enjoy reading Mackintosh's book,

http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Human-Intelligence-N-Mackintosh/dp/...

by far the best introductory text on IQ testing, and Flynn's latest

http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn-Effect/...

to delight your mind by grappling with how some specialist researchers have attempted to resolve the interesting issues you bring up in your reply.

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#52

Post by tokenadult »

catzaa wrote: post #48
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…

We had almost this exact same discussion a month ago. Firstly, you quote only from Flynn and not from any scientist holding an opposing viewpoint (e.g. Arthur Jensen). Although Flynn is a good scientist, I don't think that it is good to rely just on the studies of one political scientists and activist – he is author of “How to Defend Humane Ideals: Substitutes for Objectivity” after all). There are numerous studies t…

I've read more of what Haier has to say since his name last came up in an HN thread. I especially like this quote:

"Just because intelligence is strongly genetic, that doesn't mean it cannot be improved. 'It's just the opposite,' says Richard Haier, of the University of California, Irvine, who works with Thompson. 'If it's genetic, it's biochemical, and we have all kinds of ways of influencing biochemistry.'"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126993.300-highspeed...

The all kinds of ways to influence biochemistry include influences that are not themselves biochemical. Things that people DO can cause biochemical changes in their brains. (Sleep deprivation is well known to do that, for example, as are activities that bring about good mood.) Very likely engaging in challenging education brings about biochemical changes that result in changes in IQ.

you quote only from Flynn and not from any scientist holding an opposing viewpoint (e.g. Arthur Jensen)

First of all, let me say very forthrightly that maybe mainstream journalism operates on an equal-time principle, but science manifestly does not. It actually makes no difference at all who says anything in science, because it should be examination of the data that leads to a conclusion, not examination of a scientist's reputation. But since you asked me to quote Arthur Jensen, I will be glad to:

"Now and then I am asked . . . who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind." Modgil, Sohan & Modgil, Celia (Eds.) (1987) Arthur Jensen: Concensus and Controversy New York: Falmer.

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#53

Post by bokonist »

tokenadult wrote: post #51
bokonist wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the Flynn effect was true, then our great-grand parents must have had average IQs that would have categorized them as mentally disabled today. Clearly, this was not the case. My grand parents in their prime were just as smart as my parents, and my parents and uncles are just as smart as my cousins. It's also interesting that measures of vocabulary and numeracy have been flat over the past century. More evidence th…

My grand parents in their prime were just as smart as my parents, and my parents and uncles are just as smart as my cousins. And this is one of the best empirical proofs that IQ scores are not a "measure" of how smart someone is. James Flynn discusses exactly this point of yours in several of his writings. He relates a story from Arthur Jensen about a mentally retarded man who claimed to be baseball fan, but who was…

I haven't read the books you've mentioned, although I'm pretty familiar with the debate, and the latest arguments.

I think it's interesting to make an analogy with a sport like running. If you measure running ability in a group where every person has absolutely no training, all the differential in running ability will be genetic. But a person will be able to train and improve, and so a change in environment ran result in gains in ability. If some people in the group start to train harder, then the differential in scores will be a mix of environmental and genetic.

If you compare members of a cross country team who all endure the same grueling training, the differences in their running speeds will be genetic. If one member tries to train even harder, he will probably be unable to raise his speed even higher. At some point, he maxes out and no training will raise his speed even further.

The subtests that have a flat trend were vocab, math, and general knowledge. What this indicates is that the environment of a century ago maxed people out at these skills a century ago. This is not surprising, as these skills are the most culturally common skills. Even in 1900 a person had constant exposure to reading, math, and general knowledge.

The subtests that have seen the greatest rise are all obscure skills - object assembly, picture arrangement, similarities. My guess is that the great increase in schooling resulted in more training in these obscure skills. Increased availability of games and puzzle books also helped. In 1900 if you were a genius kid, you read the classics. In 2009 you can play all sorts of fun puzzle games online or in books. As a result of this, scores on these obscure puzzles have gone up.

The net of this may mean that the hardcore hereditarians ( Murray, Jensen) are wrong about the specifics but right about the big picture. They are wrong to think that differences in the Raven test by themselves mean that one group has more natural cognitive abilities than another group. But they are probably right that individual and group differences in the economically and socially useful cognitive skills are mostly genetic. The differences in the obscure cognitive skills ( Raven's, picture arrangement) may be much more environmental.

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#54

Post by catzaa »

tokenadult wrote: post #52
catzaa wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had almost this exact same discussion a month ago. Firstly, you quote only from Flynn and not from any scientist holding an opposing viewpoint (e.g. Arthur Jensen). Although Flynn is a good scientist, I don't think that it is good to rely just on the studies of one political scientists and activist – he is author of “How to Defend Humane Ideals: Substitutes for Objectivity” after all). There are numerous studies t…

I've read more of what Haier has to say since his name last came up in an HN thread. I especially like this quote: "Just because intelligence is strongly genetic, that doesn't mean it cannot be improved. 'It's just the opposite,' says Richard Haier, of the University of California, Irvine, who works with Thompson. 'If it's genetic, it's biochemical, and we have all kinds of ways of influencing biochemistry.'" http://…

> 'It's just the opposite,' says Richard Haier, of the University of California, Irvine, who works with Thompson. 'If it's genetic, it's biochemical, and we have all kinds of ways of influencing biochemistry.'"

There is good evidence that several compounds can increase intelligence (albeit temporary in most cases). A good example is several stimulants. The best way would probably be to alter the genetics directly. This however does not take away the fact that it is still innate and most people are not likely to see their intelligence changed.

> Very likely engaging in challenging education brings about biochemical changes that result in changes in IQ.

Is there any evidence that this is the case (i.e. research studies)? This may happen – but I have not seen any documented evidence of that this is the case.

If this was the case, children adopted at birth in middle class families would have general intelligence factors matching their step-parents (this is not the case). Also, the general intelligence factor would be changed with learning – but there has not been any evidence that this is the case.

> First of all, let me say very forthrightly that maybe mainstream journalism operates on an equal-time principle, but science manifestly does not.

That is true. Views of science with which the majority of scientists agree is generally represented as the opposite in the public press. A good reason for that is in the public sphere the “ought to” become “is” and scientists reinforcing that is given publicity.

There are several books like that (a lot of them by Gould).

> It actually makes no difference at all who says anything in science, because it should be examination of the data that leads to a conclusion, not examination of a scientist's reputation.

This is not entirely true. I am the last person to say a dissenting scientists should be silenced but the public simply cannot go into detail in any of several subjects. A good example is client change – no single person in the public is smart enough to know all facets of climate change science.

The public view is largely made up of the consensus view of a lot of scientists – but that does not mean that there is no place for the Bjorn Lomburgs.

The intelligence debate is the same – we should not rely on a single scientist. No single scientist is a master of all the fields (from neurobiology to psychometrics).

It is unfortunate that the politically correct view (the “ought to”) is promoted over the actual science. Public press is not representative in what goes on in the research.

> “Now and then I am asked . . . who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind." Modgil, Sohan & Modgil,

That is true – and Jensen is correct in that. Flynn is in many cases the most prominent proponent of many views. My problem with Flynn is twofold.

The first problem is that he is a political scientists and he tries to defend the “ought to” - instead of trying to search for the “is”. If he was just active in intelligence research (instead of politics) it would be fine.

The second problem is that several scientists near the intelligence debate is viscously attacked for where they get their funding (in a politically motivated attempt to cut of funding). Their scientific objectivity was questioned and it is really ugly. Flynn is active in politics – yet no one attacks his scientific objectivity. It is a double standard that is simply not right.

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#56

Post by Conservationist »

_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.

In what case is a person with an IQ of 105 smarter than someone with an IQ of 125?

Please cite examples.

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#57

Post by electromagnetic »

jackchristopher wrote: post #38
biohacker42 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I read 1:6 (O-3:O-6) is supposedly balanced, no ill effect or positive effects. 1:4 is considered good, but aiming for a 1:1 is definitely a good target.

The thing I find most disturbing is that omega-6 can replace monounsaturated fats in your skin and could significantly increase your risk of cancer. I'm unsure of how exactly, but the polyunsaturated fats increase the free radical production, where as monounsaturated and saturated fats can prevent it. Not to mention polyunsaturated fats might inhibit vitamin D production.

Another thing to consider, omega-6 can inhibit your immune system, which further increases your risk of cancer. It just kicks you when you're down, not only can O-6 cause cancer, but it can stop your body fighting it too.

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#59

Post by Ardit20 »

while I.Q. doesn’t measure pure intellect — we’re not certain exactly what it does measure

It measures what it is set to measure. An IQ test given to school children measures their mastery of school subjects, and IQ test given to cadets measures their courage, quick thinking and whatever other skill is necessary to be a good cadet. So an IQ test is simply a test of certain skills and knowledge not intelligence as such.

That might explain why IQ has risen, since education is becoming more sophisticated, more are going to university, more people have access to information i.e. through internet, so too the skills and knowledge which is tested gives higher results.

That might also explain the adoption studies, the children in poor households have poor environment, i.e. no books and poor stimulation, i.e. parents don't engage them in conversations. So their knowledge suffers because they are expected to watch telly rather than play or read.

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#60

Post by Ardit20 »

tokenadult wrote: post #52
catzaa wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had almost this exact same discussion a month ago. Firstly, you quote only from Flynn and not from any scientist holding an opposing viewpoint (e.g. Arthur Jensen). Although Flynn is a good scientist, I don't think that it is good to rely just on the studies of one political scientists and activist – he is author of “How to Defend Humane Ideals: Substitutes for Objectivity” after all). There are numerous studies t…

I've read more of what Haier has to say since his name last came up in an HN thread. I especially like this quote: "Just because intelligence is strongly genetic, that doesn't mean it cannot be improved. 'It's just the opposite,' says Richard Haier, of the University of California, Irvine, who works with Thompson. 'If it's genetic, it's biochemical, and we have all kinds of ways of influencing biochemistry.'" http://…

It actually makes no difference at all who says anything in science

We aren't talking about physics where the variables are defined precisely. We are talking about psychology which is a pseudo-science at best as there are so many components that one may not really know what caused what or if it was something else that caused it. So when it comes to pseudo-science, a place where research is mosaic with many studies supporting the hypothesis and many others not, there is plenty of room for authors bias.

As for the debate of nature v nurture you to are having, one of you summed it up pretty well, the environment causes changes in the brain, but the question is a bit circular, namely did the brain make the person seek out the environment which led to the changes of the brain, or was the environment unrelated to the agents intentions. Anyhow, the question is not which one it is, but to what extend does nurture or nature influence. So its proportionality not absolutism.

Post reply on HN