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

61–65 of 65 posts

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#61

Post by tokenadult »

catzaa wrote: post #54
tokenadult wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Th…

no one attacks his [Flynn's] scientific objectivity

Yes, because he has demonstrated his scientific objectivity by changing his point of view from time to time, digging up new evidence when scientists say his previously offered evidence is inadequate, and scrupulously honoring his most ardent opponents with credit when their counterarguments prompt him to reconsider his previous publications. What Flynn writes in the early twenty-first century about IQ is much better quality research than what he wrote in the 1970s. (It's important to point out that already by the 1980s he was being published in Psychological Bulletin, the most prestigious journal in psychology, because his articles were meeting a high standard of scholarship.) Take a look at which psychologists and sociologists praise Flynn, his research in general, or his latest book on the Amazon.com page for his latest book:

Ian Deary, Edinburgh University

Charles Murray, American Enterprise Institute & co-author of The Bell Curve

Sir Michael Rutter, Kings College London

N. J. Mackintosh, University of Cambridge

Richard Restak, American Scholar

S. J. Ceci, Cornell University

Robert J. Sternberg, PsycCRITIQUES

and others.

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#62

Post by jackchristopher »

electromagnetic wrote: post #57
jackchristopher wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 monounsaturate…

O-6s also down regulates thyroid function, decreasing metabolism.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/omega-6-linole...

I didn't want to mention sat fat benefits, because I hate making heretical claims without time to back up them up, but I agree.

Even the AHA has admitted that stearic acid, a sat fat, is fine. As we turn up the power of the microscope on nutrition, sat fats suddenly aren't blanket bad for you. It looks like I depends on the form, source and context you're eating it. I try to down a lot of coconut milk/oil. It's a healthy sat fat, a MCT that's burned immediately instead of stored as fat.

The AHA promotes O-6s by the way. It seem like there's a lot of cached thought in nutrition. Many in the field can't design a study. They test a "high-fat diet" without thinking it matters what fats were eaten, and in what form.

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#64

Post by nazgulnarsil »

queensnake wrote: post #49
bd wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There was a comment on iSteve, where someone said that perhaps whites were not intrinsically smarter than the global average (of about 90) but, that they've had a headstart of a century of Flynn Effect.

this is an actual possibility, watching the flynn effect in devloping vs industrialized nations is what led to the idea (AFAIK) there's not enough data to be able to draw any conclusions, partly due to the stigma of intelligence research.

Re: How to Raise Our I.Q.

#65

Post by catzaa »

tokenadult wrote: post #61
catzaa wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> '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. Th…

no one attacks his [Flynn's] scientific objectivity Yes, because he has demonstrated his scientific objectivity by changing his point of view from time to time, digging up new evidence when scientists say his previously offered evidence is inadequate, and scrupulously honoring his most ardent opponents with credit when their counterarguments prompt him to reconsider his previous publications. What Flynn writes in the…

> Yes, because he has demonstrated his scientific objectivity by changing his point of view from time to time, digging up new evidence when scientists say his previously offered evidence is inadequate, and scrupulously honoring his most ardent opponents with credit when their counterarguments prompt him to reconsider his previous publications.

This is true for Jensen and several other researchers - yet they are treated as pariahs in the public arena.

Several have questioned the objectivity of Jensen (and other researchers). As I have said before, James Flynn is both a passionate left-wing politician and he freely admits that he is egalitarian. E.g. in “How to defend Humane Ideals: Substitutes for objectivity”:

> This book was written by someone committed to humane-egalitarian ideals...

So, how can anyone question Jensen's objectivity but not that of Flynn?

There are several attacks on Jensen and others holding up Flynn as the poster boy (see at the end). Flynn has not done anything to dispel that. He even wrote a book attacking Jensen indirectly (Race, IQ and Jensen). Here is a quote:

> However, the last stand of the racist is not without importance, something I will attempt to demonstrate by giving a racist ideologue his say.

Scientists should search for truth – with not prior preconceptions or beliefs (i.e. he should search for truth and not just justification).

Here is an example of some Jensen attacks:

“Resurrecting Racism: The modern attack on black people using phony science” (by the popular anthropologist Francisco Gil-White):

You can read chapter 6 here : http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap6.htm

I will not quote it since the whole chapter is full of Jensen attacks.

The extremely popular “The Mismeasure of Man” by Stephen Jay Gould also have the same attacks Jensen and others.

The list goes on. There is a saying that I translated to English: “They are not sheared over the same comb” i.e. Flynn are treated differently than those with opposing viewpoints.

Post reply on HN