You cannot change your higher order neurological "algorithms"
why?
LongeCityAdvocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans
Question for Nootropic experts here.
Started by
justinb
, Aug 25 2005 10:23 PM
94 replies to this topic
#93
-
- Guest
- 55 posts
- 1 ₮
Posted 02 September 2005 - 12:16 AM
IQ is not genetic. It is thought to have a genetic component.
You are completely misinformed about the definition of IQ.
IQ is a measure of your deviation from the mean score on a fairly arbitrary test. It is computed by scaling raw scores on a test such as the WAIS or Stanford-Binet such that the mean raw score is scaled to 100 on the IQ scale. Assuming that scores on such tests are a crude measure of what we mean in general by "intelligence," this is a valid procedure. The tests I mentioned have high intra-indvidual test-retest correlation, high correlation with each other, and with academic success (SATs etc. are highly correlated with IQ tests as well). Of course, many MANY researchers disagree with the idea that IQ is a measure of intelligence. Howard Garnder, e.g., has argued that we possess multiple intelligences (on the order of 7, last time I checked). Others argue there are over one hundred dimensions of intelligence.
If you cannot see that nutrition and IQ are highly correlated, and that the nutritional intake of a person is not "genetic" in any sense of the word, you do not understand the concept of IQ at all. Even Hernstein and Murray would not make such an egregious claim.
Here are some stylized facts that pertain to your claim that "[y]ou will never increase your IQ, just reach your potential:"
1) IQ increases with the fraction of time per year spent in school.
2) An individual's IQ as an adult is inversely correlated with the age at which he/she began schooling.
3) Brain surgery, and in particular lesions for epileptic patients, often increases IQ.
4) Mean IQ in first-world countries has been increasing over the past 30 years. In Sweden, the mean IQ increased by nearly one standard deviation in a decade. Evolution does not operate this quickly. This is known as the Flynn effect.
5) Some Nootropics have been shown to improve test performance. It is likely that they increase IQ too, although I do not know if any studies employing IQ tests as a measure of cognitive gain have been done.
You will never increase your IQ, just reach your potential.
You are completely misinformed about the definition of IQ.
IQ is a measure of your deviation from the mean score on a fairly arbitrary test. It is computed by scaling raw scores on a test such as the WAIS or Stanford-Binet such that the mean raw score is scaled to 100 on the IQ scale. Assuming that scores on such tests are a crude measure of what we mean in general by "intelligence," this is a valid procedure. The tests I mentioned have high intra-indvidual test-retest correlation, high correlation with each other, and with academic success (SATs etc. are highly correlated with IQ tests as well). Of course, many MANY researchers disagree with the idea that IQ is a measure of intelligence. Howard Garnder, e.g., has argued that we possess multiple intelligences (on the order of 7, last time I checked). Others argue there are over one hundred dimensions of intelligence.
If you cannot see that nutrition and IQ are highly correlated, and that the nutritional intake of a person is not "genetic" in any sense of the word, you do not understand the concept of IQ at all. Even Hernstein and Murray would not make such an egregious claim.
Here are some stylized facts that pertain to your claim that "[y]ou will never increase your IQ, just reach your potential:"
1) IQ increases with the fraction of time per year spent in school.
2) An individual's IQ as an adult is inversely correlated with the age at which he/she began schooling.
3) Brain surgery, and in particular lesions for epileptic patients, often increases IQ.
4) Mean IQ in first-world countries has been increasing over the past 30 years. In Sweden, the mean IQ increased by nearly one standard deviation in a decade. Evolution does not operate this quickly. This is known as the Flynn effect.
5) Some Nootropics have been shown to improve test performance. It is likely that they increase IQ too, although I do not know if any studies employing IQ tests as a measure of cognitive gain have been done.
#94
-
- Guest
- 2 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 02 September 2005 - 02:14 AM
Hi everyone,
This is just to broach a few points.
Hold on. It's not genetic, but it has a genetic component. So, it is partly genetic? Or did you mean to stress the "thought to," in which case it probably would have been apposite to say it's "not thought to be genetic." Otherwise, if it is partly genetic and partly conditioned by the environment, you partly agree with your chief interlocutor and adversary there, Justin, in that IQ is indeed genetic, albeit only partly, and so it would have been a good idea to have said "IQ is not *only* genetic," instead of making a categorical claim that even you yourself implicitly reject.
The position that intelligence is partly conditioned geneticallly and partly environmentally appears to be common sense to me. One may be predisposed genetically to be very tall, but if the person is born in subsaharan Africa, in all likelihood they may not even live long enough to reach adulthood. Hence, there is no doubt as to the impact of environment on cognitive and other types of development.
Hence, if one accepts genetic material to be the primary independent variable and environmental factors as a condition variable, then it does stand to reason that environmental factors simply govern the size of the impact of our independent variable, i.e. the genetic makeup, in producing our dependent variable, which would be "intelligence," whatever that is. Finally, if one accepts this conceptualization of how intelligence is engendered -- that genetic material is a constant and the environment is a coefficient in any given case -- then Justin's take that genes represent a potential which is actualized to a degree in each case, but that cannot be transcended, is basically a reiteration of what I've said. Practically, that means you are *not* going to be 3 meters tall if you're fed ten times a day. (You may become 3 meters wide, though.)
On the other hand, if you do not accept this very common-sense conceptualization of the genesis of intelligence and/or development in general, you are free to posit another one, but I have not seen you do that so far. Indeed I doubt anyone here can claim *anything* very authoritatively in this area of psychology, because I doubt the professionals, i.e. the scientists themselves cannot reach a consensus.
All right, let's move on.
Alternately, even more researchers agree with the idea that standardized IQ tests do measure intelligence. That is why the state system uses them in the first place. I am not supporting any position here; I'm merely pointing out potentially relevant information that was neglected. The fact that there is controversy is not at all surprising -- just about every issue in social science is disputed. You guys seem to be getting at the root of philosophy of science, perhaps without even realizing it. And philosophy by its nature is metaphysical, so in the end, it may happen that the best you can achieve is to agree to disagree. There ought to be no hard feelings in that case. What I do not understand, however, is why you undermine the very concept that you use to support some of your conclusions, as will become evident further down.
But let me get back to the issue at hand. You can dispute the ontology in this case, by saying that there is no such thing as intelligence at all -- a sort of a radical constructivist approach; or you may dispute the epistemology by claiming that there is no way to adequately operationalize this mysterious concept of intelligence, which I think many psychologists do legitimately. Or, like Gardner whom you mention, they may attempt to refine the concept in a way they see fit. It is a normal process of refining scientific theories by constant realignment with the putative reality behind it. (Of course, one does this via some sort of proxies, not directly, since intelligence in and of itself is not observable.) But very few mainstream social scientists would dispute the ontology altogether -- that would be like shooting yourself in the leg.
Perhaps it would be useful to distinguish two types of intelligence. (You yourself pointed out how there may be various types of intelligences.) If I am not mistaken, there is a distinction that can be made here that would explain these two factoids you've mentioned that ostensibly gainsay Justin's claims. Namely, there is fluid intelligence, and there is crystallized intelligence. It is entirely reasonable that crystallized intelligence increases in proportion to the time spent in school. But that does not really affect the claim that nothing can augment fluid intelligence beyond the frame that is genetically coded.
Boy, the Swedes must have been eating a lot of great nootropic food lately!
Jokes aside, an increase in IQ scores is not exactly the same thing as an increase in intelligence per se. You said it yourself, if I may remind you of this little inconsistency:
The last time I checked, none of the theories purporting to account for the Flynn effect were conclusive and definitive. Therefore, any conclusion predicated on it is likely to be arguable at best and untenable at worst.
The objection here is along the same lines as before. First, the conceptualization that I laid out above does permit influences adventitious to the genetic material, especially with regard to crystallized intelligence. Second, we have not yet agreed -- and neither have you -- that increasing the IQ is tantamount to increasing intelligence, which is what is really being discussed here as far as I can tell. I think we may agree that nootropics can increase IQ scores, but whether or not that amounts to an increase in intelligence will remain debatable because the concept itself is debatable.
I hope that clarified some of the issues that are so hotly debated here. Let that be my modest and humble contribution. [lol]
Finally, let me make a disclaimer for all the perfervid flamers out there. I am NOT a psychologist; my knowledge of it is strictly amateurish, as is everyone else's on this board, most likely. Most of my knowledge on the subject derives from my casual interest in the phenomenon of intelligence as a member of Mensa and Intertel, organizations in which IQ is a pivotal concept.
/G/
This is just to broach a few points.
IQ is not genetic. It is thought to have a genetic component.
Hold on. It's not genetic, but it has a genetic component. So, it is partly genetic? Or did you mean to stress the "thought to," in which case it probably would have been apposite to say it's "not thought to be genetic." Otherwise, if it is partly genetic and partly conditioned by the environment, you partly agree with your chief interlocutor and adversary there, Justin, in that IQ is indeed genetic, albeit only partly, and so it would have been a good idea to have said "IQ is not *only* genetic," instead of making a categorical claim that even you yourself implicitly reject.
The position that intelligence is partly conditioned geneticallly and partly environmentally appears to be common sense to me. One may be predisposed genetically to be very tall, but if the person is born in subsaharan Africa, in all likelihood they may not even live long enough to reach adulthood. Hence, there is no doubt as to the impact of environment on cognitive and other types of development.
Hence, if one accepts genetic material to be the primary independent variable and environmental factors as a condition variable, then it does stand to reason that environmental factors simply govern the size of the impact of our independent variable, i.e. the genetic makeup, in producing our dependent variable, which would be "intelligence," whatever that is. Finally, if one accepts this conceptualization of how intelligence is engendered -- that genetic material is a constant and the environment is a coefficient in any given case -- then Justin's take that genes represent a potential which is actualized to a degree in each case, but that cannot be transcended, is basically a reiteration of what I've said. Practically, that means you are *not* going to be 3 meters tall if you're fed ten times a day. (You may become 3 meters wide, though.)
On the other hand, if you do not accept this very common-sense conceptualization of the genesis of intelligence and/or development in general, you are free to posit another one, but I have not seen you do that so far. Indeed I doubt anyone here can claim *anything* very authoritatively in this area of psychology, because I doubt the professionals, i.e. the scientists themselves cannot reach a consensus.
All right, let's move on.
Of course, many MANY researchers disagree with the idea that IQ is a measure of intelligence. Howard Garnder, e.g., has argued that we possess multiple intelligences (on the order of 7, last time I checked). Others argue there are over one hundred dimensions of intelligence.
Alternately, even more researchers agree with the idea that standardized IQ tests do measure intelligence. That is why the state system uses them in the first place. I am not supporting any position here; I'm merely pointing out potentially relevant information that was neglected. The fact that there is controversy is not at all surprising -- just about every issue in social science is disputed. You guys seem to be getting at the root of philosophy of science, perhaps without even realizing it. And philosophy by its nature is metaphysical, so in the end, it may happen that the best you can achieve is to agree to disagree. There ought to be no hard feelings in that case. What I do not understand, however, is why you undermine the very concept that you use to support some of your conclusions, as will become evident further down.
But let me get back to the issue at hand. You can dispute the ontology in this case, by saying that there is no such thing as intelligence at all -- a sort of a radical constructivist approach; or you may dispute the epistemology by claiming that there is no way to adequately operationalize this mysterious concept of intelligence, which I think many psychologists do legitimately. Or, like Gardner whom you mention, they may attempt to refine the concept in a way they see fit. It is a normal process of refining scientific theories by constant realignment with the putative reality behind it. (Of course, one does this via some sort of proxies, not directly, since intelligence in and of itself is not observable.) But very few mainstream social scientists would dispute the ontology altogether -- that would be like shooting yourself in the leg.
Here are some stylized facts that pertain to your claim that "[y]ou will never increase your IQ, just reach your potential:"
1) IQ increases with the fraction of time per year spent in school.
2) An individual's IQ as an adult is inversely correlated with the age at which he/she began schooling.
Perhaps it would be useful to distinguish two types of intelligence. (You yourself pointed out how there may be various types of intelligences.) If I am not mistaken, there is a distinction that can be made here that would explain these two factoids you've mentioned that ostensibly gainsay Justin's claims. Namely, there is fluid intelligence, and there is crystallized intelligence. It is entirely reasonable that crystallized intelligence increases in proportion to the time spent in school. But that does not really affect the claim that nothing can augment fluid intelligence beyond the frame that is genetically coded.
4) Mean IQ in first-world countries has been increasing over the past 30 years. In Sweden, the mean IQ increased by nearly one standard deviation in a decade. Evolution does not operate this quickly. This is known as the Flynn effect.
Boy, the Swedes must have been eating a lot of great nootropic food lately!
Jokes aside, an increase in IQ scores is not exactly the same thing as an increase in intelligence per se. You said it yourself, if I may remind you of this little inconsistency:IQ is a measure of your deviation from the mean score on a fairly arbitrary test. [...] Assuming that scores on such tests are a crude measure of what we mean in general by 'intelligence,' [...] many MANY researchers disagree with the idea that IQ is a measure of intelligence
The last time I checked, none of the theories purporting to account for the Flynn effect were conclusive and definitive. Therefore, any conclusion predicated on it is likely to be arguable at best and untenable at worst.
5) Some Nootropics have been shown to improve test performance. It is likely that they increase IQ too, although I do not know if any studies employing IQ tests as a measure of cognitive gain have been done.
The objection here is along the same lines as before. First, the conceptualization that I laid out above does permit influences adventitious to the genetic material, especially with regard to crystallized intelligence. Second, we have not yet agreed -- and neither have you -- that increasing the IQ is tantamount to increasing intelligence, which is what is really being discussed here as far as I can tell. I think we may agree that nootropics can increase IQ scores, but whether or not that amounts to an increase in intelligence will remain debatable because the concept itself is debatable.
I hope that clarified some of the issues that are so hotly debated here. Let that be my modest and humble contribution. [lol]
Finally, let me make a disclaimer for all the perfervid flamers out there. I am NOT a psychologist; my knowledge of it is strictly amateurish, as is everyone else's on this board, most likely. Most of my knowledge on the subject derives from my casual interest in the phenomenon of intelligence as a member of Mensa and Intertel, organizations in which IQ is a pivotal concept.
/G/
#95
- Topic Starter
-
- Guest
- 726 posts
- 0 ₮
- Location:California, USA
Posted 03 September 2005 - 03:08 AM
Howard Garnder, e.g., has argued that we possess multiple intelligences (on the order of 7, last time I checked). Others argue there are over one hundred dimensions of intelligence.
Which is complete BS; it is simply politically correct hackery to make people with good "mechanical skills" feel better if they can't read or think critically.
If you cannot see that nutrition and IQ are highly correlated, and that the nutritional intake of a person is not "genetic" in any sense of the word, you do not understand the concept of IQ at all. Even Hernstein and Murray would not make such an egregious claim.
Perhaps you should actually read what I have written here. The end result of a person's intelligence, which generally is set between 25 and 30, is the environment working on their genetics. Your potential is solely genetic. Your end result is how well you harness your potential. Not to mention that ever high levels of intelligence have a ever lesser correlation with the environment. Basically, people around the mean can be all over the place during their lives and people with a very high IQ tend to have a stable level of intelligence through-out their lives. There is a significant environmental component, it is the environment working on your genes.
3) Brain surgery, and in particular lesions for epileptic patients, often increases IQ.
I haven't heard that before, I'll definitely check that out.
As far as the rest of your points, just read that I said above.
It is entirely reasonable that crystallized intelligence increases in proportion to the time spent in school. But that does not really affect the claim that nothing can augment fluid intelligence beyond the frame that is genetically coded.
Bravo!
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
