For whom the Bell Curves
Windt
The Bell Curve was published in 1994 by Charles Murray and is an
authoritative tome on how intelligence-or g-determines by a
substantial amount how an individual will fare in academic settings,
employment, its negative correlation with crime and poverty and even
divorce rates. According to Murray it is much better to be born poor
and smart than well-off and slow. Murray also says that g is not very
malleable to a meaningful degree.
I must say I have to agree that IQ or g determines much of what a
person is. As a college student I remember being placed in certain
groups for school-stretching back to 6th grade-based on my performance
on IQ type tests. Looking around at the present I see that those in my
ability class or rank have go to similarly ranked colleges and my
peers in lower ranked groups are not in college and my peers in a
higher ranked/accelerated group have gone on to Ivy League and its
equivalent.
Has anyone read this book(or parts of it as I have)?
likeprestige
Windt
then it probably is one of the most important advances in human
society since the computer or electricity. Thats my point=how
important IQ is and therefore how important dual n back could
potentially be.
>
> - Show quoted text -
likeprestige
question, it is only a stepping stone :-)
Arkanj3l
Gc is obviously quite malleable, in the sense that one can
continuously increase one's share of knowledge throughout life.
Nootropics can "improve" one's g, albeit temporarily -- if Murray is
referring to changes on a fundamental biological level, assuming diet
is optimal, then the only thing I could think of that could go against
that is gene therapy. That, however, could even prove to be a dead
end; intelligence is assumed to be polygenic, which is a bit of a
setback from an analysis standpoint, considering how big the genome is
and how unpredictable changes in it might prove to be.
Then there's n-back, but then one can argue that if n-back has a
ceiling of improvement then it is just a matter of including that in
'g' and then that's the end of it. Intelligence, or life in general,
doesn't seem to be a process of growth so much as it is optimization.
Pontus Granström
brick stone but still I got a hang of it. Most people who study
intelligence are not cognitive experts, nor "mathematical scientists"
most of them are into
the social science. Hence the understanding of intelligence will be
seen through their lens. It's like a asking a psychologists about the
nature of life rather than a evolutionary biologist or a biochemist. I
am not saying
that for most the psychological thinking will be best suited, but
statistics is very limited in terms of understanding intelligence. I
believe in the major gene theory, it would very much correspond with
the actual data. It's not likely
that a difference of a couple of points is due to genetics, IQ-tests
can never be cleansed from everything that "IQ is not", IQ isn't
really normally distributed, only normalised scores are. Hence the
classical "bell curve" is actually
one of the biggest myths of psychology.
Summary. - Evidence in favour of the major gene theory of intelligence
is stated in summary form. Empirical distributions from studies on
giftedness by Terman and Weiss and data of social mobility can be
explained by the existence of a major gene that in the homozygous
state is the prerequisite to have an IQ of 130 or higher. Under the
assumption of about 10% misclassification of genotypes, family data
are in agreement with Mendelian segregation at such a major gene
locus. Elementary cognitive tasks, highly correlated with IQ, are not
distributed normally. On the absolute scale of short-term memory
capacity (measured in bits), defined as the product of memory span and
mental speed, the heterozygotes are intermediate between the
homozygotes. Where there are major genes, there must be an underlying
biochemical code, which can be detected. To this aim enzymes,
responsible for the regulation of brain energy metabolism and
correlated with IQ and social status, should be the target of further
research. From the point of view of evolution, social stratification
and the frequency of major genes of intelligence depend upon each
other.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
> To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
>
Pontus Granström
Plomin et al. (1994) state: "General cognitive ability (intelligence,
often indexed by IQ scores) is one of the most highly heritable
behavioral dimensions. ... General cognitive ability ... is a
quantitative trait with a roughly normal distribution." Of course,
normalized by psychologists and definition, respectively. An IQ of 140
compared with an IQ of 70 suggests the double amount or the half of
cognitive ability, respectively. However, a look of the raw scores,
i.e. of the non-normalized scores, of IQ sub test shows that IQ 140
means an about fourfold amount of cognitive ability compared with IQ
70 (see Table 1). This relationship holds under the condition that all
sub tests are elementary cognitive tasks and the superior speed of the
most intelligent is not clouded by a ceiling effect.
http://www.v-weiss.de/intellig.html
Highly recommended.
ailambris
things have a genetic basis, then what is it exactly that DNB could
do, other than upregulate gene expression, which is hardcoded? Forgive
me, I am not a biologist.
Pontus Granström
performance on the IQ-test. The genotype is by it's nature hard coded,
the phenotype usually a bit less and the IQ-test performance taps a
phenotype but most certainly
not with a 1.0 correlation. Our muscles are also hard coded still they
are malleable. Our athletic performance depends on both training,
nutrition and mental ability (have high confidence and so on). No one
would
expect anyone to win a soccer game if the players haven't eaten
properly or have the right mindset for example. Also training plays a
great role to form the genetics. You will not become the best you can
be in soccer
without actually practicing it.
According to major gene theory there would only be three genotypes of
IQ, low,average,high. Because it only exists two alleles for "bit
capacity". That means that IQ-tests that could provide 200 scores must
be interpolated
between these genotypes. If I get an IQ of 130 or 140 would make no
difference in terms of genetics. The improved scores from RAPM might
come from the fact that IQ-test provides scores that aren't in
correspondence with
the actual distribution of mental capacity, that it provides scores
that are in some sense imaginary. It could mean that we all have the
potential to solve more problems reachable from our genotype if we try
"harder".
It could also be that we actually boost mental functions underlying
IQ, in the same way some does tabata intervals will crank up his/her
VO2max hence getting a better position in a 3k race or whatever. If IQ
is limited by
by speedxmemory, then at least to me n-backing seems like a very good
candidate for IQ enhancement, same goes with creatine, that provides
more energy to the brain hence more brain power.
To summarize it, there are many aspects that has to be taken into
account. Just because something has a strong genetic basis doesn't
mean that it is immune to all form of enhancement or manipulation.
Pontus Granström
just decided that IQ exists in 200 discrete steps, something there
never has been any genetical data to support.
menesus
instance, while your actual genes are hardcoded, your environment
affects which of those genes become a phenotype.
For instance, a laboratory diet can dramatically alter gene
expression:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18396267?ordinalpos=15&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Another example is that of Otto and Oswald, two identical twins who
both trained for track. However, Otto trained for endurance running
and Oswald trained for strength. Look at the difference between the
two:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/control-gene-expression/
So, while our genetics may be constant (nature), the expression of
these genes (genotype -> phenotype) depends on environment (nurture).
DNB and the brain? At this current point in time, although everyone
has a different brain structure (whether caused by nurture or nature
or both), it is possible to alter that structure. An example of this
is that DNB has been shown to alter dopamine D1 receptor binding:
Working memory is a key function for human cognition, dependent on
adequate dopamine neurotransmission. Here we show that the training of
working memory, which improves working memory capacity, is associated
with changes in the density of cortical dopamine D1 receptors.
Fourteen hours of training over 5 weeks was associated with changes in
both prefrontal and parietal D1 binding potential. This plasticity of
the dopamine D1 receptor system demonstrates a reciprocal interplay
between mental activity and brain biochemistry in vivo.
That's approximately 24 min / day.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/800.full?...=
Unfortunately, I'm not able to find any studies about whether brain-
training like DNB can affect BDNF, neurogenesis, hippocampal growth,
etc.
But the important thing is that these factors--processing speed,
capacity, cortical metabolism--are the desired end goal. If two people
have optimal brain structure--one from training, the other from
genetics--it doesn't matter, the end result is the same.
Pontus Granström
not how it "got there". My idea is also that RAPM is somewhat flawed,
there's no way anyone is going to tap the genotype of IQ without a
causal understanding of IQ and genetic
data, enzymatic activity and so on. For STM it seems more likely that
it would tap the genotype since the STM task can be quantified you
either remember more or less. What is the unit of "reasoning"?
1. RAPM can't be genetically hardcoded since the performance can be
improved (Flynn effect , dnb).
2. IQ isn't normally distributed only normalized scores are. Which in
theory would give room to swing.
3. The difficulty of RAPM seems not to be linear.
Actually it's quite complex, but we should have a clear distinction
between RAPM performance and genotype.
milestones
> Then there's n-back, but then one can argue that if n-back has a
> ceiling of improvement then it is just a matter of including that in
> 'g' and then that's the end of it. Intelligence, or life in general,
> doesn't seem to be a process of growth so much as it is optimization.
for sub-optimal performance (lack of exercise, nutrition, etc), but
there are also subtler reasons having to do with self concept, low
self esteem, and other psychological blocks that get in people's way.
They might have to do w/ negative grade school experience, negative
parental reinforcement, learning disabilities, and so on. Ultimately
though, these things do not affect one's level of G, but certainly
will block its expression. In my view, this is a good reason to
include lower order tasks -- such as reaction/inspection time or other
ECT's -- as an adjunct in helping to assess G, along with the
traditional measures that tap capacity for, and exhibition of, higher
order reasoning and encoding ability. A battery of these tasks could
then identify a bright indvidual who hasn't been identified as such
via other measures -- IQ tests, teacher/supervisor evaluations, etc.
Where I disagree with Murray is that he tends to equate cognitive sub-
optimization with "underachievement." To me, this greatly over-
simplifies this issue by reducing poor intellectual performance to a
lack of volition. In anyone's intellectual development, both the
cognitive and the volitional intertwine in complex ways. But then, it
is important to remember what function Murray serves: He is to Jensen
what Huxley was to Darwin -- a bulldog. Thus, he's out to be blunt and
provocative. There are, in fact, seemingly good points made from those
opposed to G who talk about "great cognitive improvements.." as a way
to dismiss G, but then it's just that some people
are more variable in their cognitive performance than others.
Nevertheless, their upper boundaries are their true level of G. The
goal is to function at this level. As I have said before, it's very
hard to do consistently. I think N backing is a great way to function
on one's own upper ranges far more often than one would
otherwise.
milestones
general," which is not only a different animal, but another zoo
altogether.
αrgvmziΩ σV
evolutionary ability and life is essentially founded on evolutionary
processes (natural, artificial, sexual, etc.), one would have to say
"life in general" is more or less the same sort of concept here, that
is, they are at the very least in the same zoo. Then again, when the
whole world is the zoo, it's merely a matter of us swines and parrots
attempting to see beyond our cages.
To be clear, neither life nor intelligence is the optimizer:
evolution is. At some point we will be so optimized as to augment this
process through self-optimization, to which in part n-back may
contribute.
argumzio
JJ_Brain
excellent knowledge, strong motivation, and minimum negative
interference." It also depends how one views intelligence: 1) problem
solving ability; 2) processing power; 3) intelligence potential.
http://www.supermemo.com/articles/genius.htm#High%20IQ%20in%20high%20demand
I think it depends what your goals are and your problems in life.
But, I think based on experience DNB improves the condition of the
mind.