Slow Starters Have Higher IQ?

lockefire writes "Science Daily is reporting that children with 'superior' IQ's tend to have a slow start in the development of their cortex. These children have a 'delayed but prolonged' spurt that causes their cortex thickness to peak later than their peers and thin much quicker. This effect is most evident in the pre-frontal cortex. 'People with very agile minds tend to have a very agile cortex,' says Dr. Philip Shaw of the NIMH."

Comments

Nature vs. Nurture?

[jellomizer]

I wonder if the reason for this is that the slow starters grow up thinking they are not that smart. So they don't close their minds, as fast as their average IQ counterparts. to new ideas because they have been humbled enough to realize what they know may not be always correct. Vs. Children who grow up and start off smart early so they know they are ahead of everyone else so they assume that they are smarter then everyone else so they close their minds more to different ideas. And the change in thickness of their cortex is because the slower starters need to exercise their minds more.

Growing up I myself heard a lot of arguments against correct Ideas from the "Smart" students, arguments like I am the next Level class above you so your information is wrong and I am right. So they go on for the rest of their life with the wrong ideas about things while the "Slower" student goes along absorbing information and different ideas thus making their minds more agile.

I know many slashdotters don't like the nurture side of the debate because results are not as predictable, and some think it is an attack on evolution which it isn't. But especially the brain is very adaptable to environmental changes and can even "rewire" itself if serious damage occurs. I wonder if they could do statical information where they put the slower starter child in an environment where they taught information much more slowly and see how the brain develops in that situation.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[Philip K Dickhead]

Those "smart students" run into trouble, blasting off so quickly!

Women adore the 'delayed but prolonged' spurt. :-)

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[pandrijeczko]

Women adore the 'delayed but prolonged' spurt. :-)

Give me a shout if you hear of any wanting the "early but quick" one, will ya?

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[bobhagopian]

I suspect that this is unlikely, and not because Nature is the answer to everything, but because I don't think that being made fun of for being behind makes 100% of those students work harder to make themselves smarter.

The real finding here provides dramatic support to the Nature side of the debate. Students that end up being identified as the most intelligent are those whose cortices (the site of higher cognitive thought) continue to develop for longer, hitting their peak much later than their less gifted counterparts. As such, two possible explanations jump to mind for why students whose cortical growth peaks latest are those which are the smartest: 1) the cortex simply develops for longer, or 2) these kids have had a much richer set of experiences by the time their cortices stop growing. In either case, the growth of the cortex is probably heavily determined by genetics, but presumably can be affected by Nurture to a certain extent.

Although I don't remember the details now, there was a study done somewhere in Europe about a decade ago on a sperm bank that accepted donations only from those men judged highly intelligent to try to figure out how much of the result childrens' intelligence was attributable to the biological father, and how much was due to the conditions in which each child was raised. These kids ended up having an unusually large number of prodigies, which suggests to me that Nature (for better or worse) plays the major role in determining intelligence. That being said, if you're a horrible parent, you'll screw life up for your kid, and he/she may never be able to realize his/her potential.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[tedgyz]

Looks a good application for cloning.

Rinse. Repeat.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[LetterRip]

[QUOTE]I wonder if the reason for this is that the slow starters grow up thinking they are not that smart. [/QUOTE]

Has nothing to do with that :) You might want to read the article,

[QUOTE]The smartest 7-year-olds tended to start out with a relatively thinner cortex that thickened rapidly, peaking by age 11 or 12 before thinning. In their peers with average IQ, an initially thicker cortex peaked by age 8, with gradual thinning thereafter.[/QUOTE]

The 'slow start' is on the thickness of the cortex, they had higher IQs at the lower (age 7) age when they had the thinner cortex than the lower IQ children at the same age.

LetterRip

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[Cornflake917]

So they don't close their minds, as fast as their average IQ counterparts. to new ideas because they have been humbled enough to realize what they know may not be always correct.

I don't know if this is generally true, but my experience growing up was similar to what you theorize. Before grade school, some "professionals" were recommending to my parents that they put me in a special ed class and take the short yellow bus to school. Apparently, I had problems listening and communicating. They thought I had hearing problems because I often didn't respond when people talked to me. They did hearing tests on me and discovered no problem with my hearing. I also had some speech impediments. Thankfully, they decided to sit in one of the special ed classes and saw how all the other kids acted. There was no way in hell they were gonna leave me alone with those kids. I ended up being held back a year in kindergarten. I had some small issues with writing things in first grade. By the time I reached 3rd grade, my reading level was higher than most kids. By 6th grade, I had a 12th grade reading level, and I placed the highest in this standardized math test at my middle school. I skipped a grade in math starting at 8th grade. I did attain a sort of perfectionist attitude where I would get mad at myself at making mistakes, and I never really considered myself intelligent (maybe just less stupid).

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[tedgyz]

Give me a shout if you hear of any [women] wanting the "early but quick" one, will ya?

I hear that costs about $500. The faster you are, the more $$/hr.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[Anonymous Coward]

Growing up I myself heard a lot of arguments against correct Ideas from the "Smart" students, arguments like I am the next Level class above you so your information is wrong and I am right.

All this proves is that you were talking to assholes. An asshole is an asshole, the only difference is how it shows itself. If these kids were jock assholes instead of brainy assholes they'd have beaten you up and taken your lunch money.

On the other hand, if you think this is correct capitalization then maybe you're the one who didn't know a "correct Idea" when you heard it.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[NitsujTPU]

I am not a psychologist, so, take what I say with a grain of salt.

I think that intelligence is mostly nurture, beyond some minimal level of assurance that the party does not have some disorder that would prevent proper development. I don't think that that goes against evolution at all. Evolution is not an intelligent process, those who think that this is an argument against evolution are the sort who just drop evolution in as a "scientific" replacement for God. IE, evolution does what God would do, but it sounds smarter if they say evolution, rather than, evolution is entirely different from Intelligent Design, which it is.

I also think that the American school system promotes all sorts of incorrect attitudes toward intellectual development. IE, doing well in school is probably not indicative of intelligence. Doing well in school means that you developed at about the rate that the system indicates that you should. It is indicative of certain social factors of your personality that help you to curry favor with your educators and the "smart" classmates. You probably also learn well by rote and don't mind boring repetitive tasks.

None of these things have anything to do with intelligence, plenty of highly intelligent people fail to do well under this system. Nurture is something that feeds your intellect, not something that strokes your ego.

So, I agree, and would in fact reinforce your argument to the degree that I am capable.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[Forge]

Here is a study for you.

In Jamaica "Highly inteligent" people make up around 4% of the population. Same as in any where else.

However in the General Penitentary (Our largest prison) 17% of the men have those exceptional IQs.

What's the lesson? With a F**ked upbrining geniuses don't mearly "grow up to be dumb" (that's what hapens to average kids who don't attend school). They become a plague on society.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[Digital Pizza]

I had some of those experiences myself. Another victim of the one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter mentality that comes with institutionalized education.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[ElectricRook]

And what would happen, if half were told the father was highly intelligent, and the other half were told the father was of limited intelligence? Would nuture trump nature?

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was in the third grade, my Mother gave me a college level reading test. I was reading 300 words a minute with 80% comprehension. I too, was short bus for a semester.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, really it has more to do with neural/cortex interactivity's post-development from the neotenous lobes of the medulla oblongata. In the most prevalent of case studies, the latent abilities of the inciptient/abortive encephalon and cerebellum lie dormant in fluctuating states of diametric sensory cell energizing. Later, when synaptic functions are impelled (a conditional reflex) through naturally occuring chemical inducement which is produced by the Cowper's gland upon the individual's somatic time-codings. Eventually this additional cranial activity causes an overflow of neural peptides, and thus the boost in IQ.

Unfortunately, my mind developed at a very early age and so I'm stupid now. :(

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[gnuLNX]

Yes I agree totally. I have no mod points....thus my post off agreement.

100% total agreement.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man oh man...are people behind the times....It ain't nature vs. nurture, it's how one's genes interact with the environment....again, get with the program, dudes and (?)dudettes.

Also, one must include "reduction to the mean" in all things biological - that's a given, together, today with the infusion of evolutionary medicine and parasitology (for an excellent, easy-to-read primer, see Scott Westerfeld's excellent novel, PEEPS.

At you know where.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[Bastardchyld]

I am glad I saw this article. I don't feel so bad being clinically stupid at the age of "old-enough-to-no-longer-be-clinically-stupid."

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[complete loony]

My son is nearly 3. While he's making a lot of recognisable noises at the moment ("Da[d]" "Mu[m]" "Na[na]" "Ga" [his sister] "Mo[re]" etc), a while ago he wouldn't open his mouth to say much of anything at all. He still gets his point across though, he's quite expressive with body language, or he'll push you in the direction of the thing he wants. He has a big sister who never shuts up, it's like having a narator in the house / car. But he's crazy about puzzles, he used to sit for hours doing one puzzle after another, go back to the first one and start all over again without needing any assistance.
I'm not particularly worried about his apparent lack of development.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[NumerusSpy]

Give me a shout if you hear of any wanting the "early but quick" one, will ya?

The benefits of premature ejaculation can also be fiscal. Imagine this guys phone sex bill.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your son sounds very interesting. I am not a doctor, nor do i have any medical training to speak of, but have you considered the possibility that your son may be mildly autistic?
I mean this in all earnestness because what you describe seems to be very similar to how i was as a child, and i believe that i am mildly autistic (undiagnosed), more likely aspergers. I believe that my speech was further developed though. Anyway, when i read your comment it struck home very much, i don't know what else to say

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[complete loony]

Of course, everyone suggests that. For a while he did seem to be quite reserved and lacking in people skills. Now, he plays with his older sister and generally runs around enjoying himself. I think this has more to do with his sister now trying harder to understand him. He's still very posessive of toys he considers his, but at that age I wouldn't expect anything else.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[kaiidth]

The real finding here provides dramatic support to the Nature side of the debate. Students that end up being identified as the most intelligent are those whose cortices (the site of higher cognitive thought) continue to develop for longer...

But why does the cortex continue to develop for longer in these students? Why assume that this is heavily determined by genetics, or conclude that it is not? Presumably someone has looked into the genetics of cortex development in the past, but according to that article:

The NIMH researchers are following-up with a search for gene variants that might be linked to the newly discovered trajectories. However, Shaw notes mounting evidence suggesting that the effects of genes often depends on interactions with environmental events, so the determinants of intelligence will likely prove to be a very complex mix of nature and nurture.

This would seem to me to imply that they don't actually know why said development occurs, and are hedging their bets until such a time as they feel confident to speculate further. Which is the way it should be, and I congratulate them for being that rare thing, a research group who do not take advantage of inaccurate press releases to gain instant notoriety at the expense of science.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[nexarias]

I'm a Psychology major.

The evidence points strongly towards a biological bias in intelligence, at least if only for IQ. Identical twins reared apart and independently have IQ correlations of 0.8+, which is basically the correlation needed for test-retest reliability. By that I mean that testing one twin is equivalent to testing the other. Non-related children reared in the same family (by adoption or such) have an IQ correlation of 0.

The nurture theory proposes that children reared apart should have IQs that continually diverge, given their socioeconomic differences. This is not true.

The only real difference occurs when children are reared at poverty or below-poverty levels, where they are unable to attain nutrients to sustain adequate physiological growth.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[DissidentPhoenix]

You know what I love about psychology?
We can leave the political correctness bullshit behind us and actually talk about what IS the case.

It's glorious.
I love it when there are piles of armchair psychologists saying something so hard as though if they believe it enough it'll be true... and then cite properly conducted research that says the exact opposite.
Of course, then they tend to turn around and tell you that psychology isn't a science and doesn't teach us anything.

I've done my undergrad in psych and am now working on a thesis. While intelligence isn't my area of research, it is something that I've had drilled into me over the years. The thresholds are entirely nature - inasmuch as 'nature' = inborn in some way, which may be genetic but also other factors such as foetal alcohol exposure. How people do between the upper and lower bounds is a mixture. For example, those twin studies... I haven't read them, but I strongly suspect that the children raised in other families were raised in a similar (ie, probably white) cultural environment. What I'd really like to see is what happens when one twin is raised in an environment from a different culture... given that an IQ test has a lot to do with testing culture. This is why people can't use lower test scores from certain other cultures as support Nazi ideals...
Maybe it's been done already, do you know?

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[DissidentPhoenix]

Those people who talk nature vs. nurture without having a scientific understanding of what they're talking about are to psychology as anti-evolutionists are to biological engineering.

Grain of salt? Try a bucket (says the person currently writing a psychology thesis).

Intelligence is a terribly loaded term. Performance on IQ tests? That is almost entirely nurture - try being given a few pieces of paper in a language you've never encountered. Or imagine being from a culture without any written language at all. Of course you'd fail horribly. A favourite lecturer of mine years ago said that an IQ test is really only a test of culture. I'm inclined to agree of that.

Intelligence though... Well. That's another bucket of salt (or your flavour enhancer of choice). From what I recall of the research, the upper bounds and lower bounds are limited by nature. The rest is up to nurture. Of course, part of that could be things like not hitting your children on the head with a hammer, and helping them to develop healthy attitudes regarding study, making sure you don't lock them in a cupboard and make sure that they get to interact with other people and learn to read and write - at least if you want them to score well on in IQ test.

The saddest thing about knowing plenty about psychology is that I might have an IQ of 144, but I know that it doesn't actually mean anything much, other than me having a solid understanding of the culture that my IQ test was from. It probably also correlates highly with being a perfectionist and learning stuff well in school, which in turn generally correlates highly with depression, anxiety, OCD and a pile of other disorders. Honestly, does it mean I'd be a happier person? A better person? Hell no. The happiest people I have ever seen had Downs Syndrome and extremely low IQs. The best people I've encountered would have had average IQs at best.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[nexarias]

You *must* know that socioeconomic factors have been taken into account and controlled for in the twin studies... but I have no idea whether cultural factors have been controlled for. I don't think it's that possible, because identical twins reared separately aren't all that common.

If I recall correctly, there was a pair of twins where one was reared in Nazi Germany and the other in Communist Russia. Only their habitual similarities were discussed about, I don't think they were subject to IQ tests.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had some similar experiences, except I learned to read younger than you, and lacked the speech impediments. I never got recommended for special ed (that I know of), largely because I was reading books aimed at middle/highschool kids when I was in the first grade. Started reading Poe in 3rd grade, and understood most of it (had trouble with some metaphores and archaic/unusual terms, such as "Balm in Gilead" and that Pallas=Athena).

Was an absolute ace at the more analytical stuff (math/science), always had trouble in the fuzzier subjects, and subjects that were a lot of rote memorization (english, history, that sort of thing). I have to agree with the poster above who was talking about visual thinking: I always had trouble getting the initial basis in a subject, but once I had a starting point, I could always fit the new pieces into the whole.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[drsquare]

I wonder if the reason for this is that the slow starters grow up thinking they are not that smart. So they don't close their minds, as fast as their average IQ counterparts. to new ideas because they have been humbled enough to realize what they know may not be always correct. Vs. Children who grow up and start off smart early so they know they are ahead of everyone else so they assume that they are smarter then everyone else so they close their minds more to different ideas.

No, I think you've just made that up.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[rizole]

IANAP but I majored in psychology.

The whole nature Vs nurture debate is an artificially dichotomised thing.
It's not one or the other, it's both nature and nurture.

I haven't done any reading on this subject for a few years (so sorry if my facts are out of date) but evidence has been found that brain damage can be linked to child abuse and neglect. Child abuse .

You can have great genes for intellegence (nature) but if you get no stimulation or abused as a child (nurture), it can have an effect on the physical development of your brain and hence on your intellegence.

Both nature and nurture are critical for healthy development.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[NitsujTPU]

I could claim no more value for my commentary than a grain or two of salt. If you would assign it an entire bucket, then you have far more confidence in my rather arm-chairish analysis than I.

Since you are a bit more into this than I. I have a question. I heard that people with more education become less creative... a symptom of becoming more indoctrinated into whatever line of thought they are pursuing. So, supposedly, once I complete my PhD, I'll be willing to humor fewer "crazy ideas" and, as such, will be less creative. I, however, don't really find this to be the case. I have worked with highly educated scientists, and some of their ideas have been quite formative of entire fields, influential, and, dare I say, creative.

As someone who really studies this stuff, what do you make of such statements? Have you heard of this before?

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[Anonymous Coward]

What that study tells me is that children raised by parents that
1. really want children, the point that they will go to artificial means to achieve one
2. are wealthy enough to afford such a means of gaining a child
3. are concerned enough about having a "bright kid" that they select, and keep in contact with the sperm bank dedicating it to only using sperm from "smart" donors

are lilkely to have both the resources, and the desire to give their child all the most favorable environmental conditions.

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[jafac]

Evolution is not an intelligent process, those who think that this is an argument against evolution are the sort who just drop evolution in as a "scientific" replacement for God.

Well, the oversimplified assumption most people make is that:
Intelligence is an evolutionary advantage, so we evolved to become more intelligent so we could better compete against. . . what?

Long before we could read and write and make nice flint axes, homo sapiens were the dominant species on the planet.

So how could we possibly have "evolved" to become more intelligent, so that we can read, write, build things with wheels, build buildings that last in some cases, thousands of years, make machines that think, build vehicles that can take us to the moon and back? The answer is - WE didn't. Our culture did. That's a strong argument for "Nurture".

Re:Nature vs. Nurture?

[freakmn]

I'm guessing that if he finds that, then he will sure be shouting. Perhaps not to you, but shouting either way.

But can they tell us what we really want to know?

[Drathus]

Do they know The Secret of NIMH?

*hides*

What does that say

[Philip K Dickhead]

About "first posters", versus "slow starters"?

Re:What does that say

[mtenhagen]

And I guess this was your attempt for a first post? Are you waited in purpose hoping someone would think you are smart?

Re:What does that say

[Philip K Dickhead]

Tried! :-)

Yeah, baby...

[identity0]

Yeah, baby, it'll be higher than all the other guys', you just have to give me some time...

Re:Yeah, baby...

[ChrisGilliard]

Yeah, baby, it'll be higher than all the other guys', you just have to give me some time...

I sincerely hope you were referring to your IQ score when you said it will be higher than all the other guys'. The "yeah baby" made me picture Mike Meyers in Austin Powers. Bad visual.

Re:Yeah, baby...

[UserGoogol]

There is a literary device called a double entendre, where through the careful choice of words, a sentence is constructed with two different interpretations: a primary one which is literal and generally benign, and a secondary one which implies something a bit naughtier. The act of saying one thing but meaning the other is a practice very common in literature, politics, and (most relevantly to this particular example) joke-telling.

Mr. Identity's particular example of a double entendre is rather interesting, in that the primary meaning of a man telling "baby" that his IQ will be higher in due time doesn't actually make much sense. Indeed, the secondary meaning, that of discussing penis size, is far more meaningful. Of course, this how double entrendres tend to work; most people write double entendres so as to deliver the ironic second meaning, and thus the primary meaning can often go undeveloped.

That said, there is some ambiguity to the secondary meaning as well. Does the text refer to a "grower," a person whose penis size increases dramatically during arousal, or does it refer to a person who is still in the stages of penile development? The latter would fit more with the story, but the style of writing implies a slightly older person whose penis has long ago stopped growing. I think that the "grower" interpretation was closer to the author's goal, but at the same time, I doubt he cared very much. The joke was simple enough that deeper analysis is silly, and anyone who doesn't get the joke to begin with is an idiot. :)

Re:Yeah, baby...

[karnal]

And wasn't it a slip of some sorts to say one thing and mean your mother?

Re:Yeah, baby...

[identity0]

Dear sir,

I find your analysis of my literary works to be quite imaginative and deeply insightful.

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter, if one is available.

Sincerely,
identity0

Re:Yeah, baby...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

You see, the names of the players are in fact interrogative pronouns. So when the manager answers the questions giving the players names, he uses a noun that makes the sentence appear to be a question. Moreover, the "apparent" question appears to be a prompt for the the peanut vendor to clarify his original question, leading the vendor to restate the question, which begins the cycles again.

This is humorous because the vendors attempts to clarify and reason an answer out of the manager leads only to more succinct answers from the manager, which in fact, sound exactly like curt questions.

Argue it both ways

[jimmyhat3939]

I think you can always argue this both ways. For a long time scientists thought that the bigger the brain, the smarter the person. Come to find out there's no significant statistical correlation there.

Also, there are so many different kinds of intelligence that an IQ test is pretty much meaningless. I've worked with plenty of people who had a very high IQ but were completely ineffective either because of psychological weirdnesses or because they couldn't focus enough to get anything done.

Re:Argue it both ways

[TubeSteak]

Also, there are so many different kinds of intelligence that an IQ test is pretty much meaningless.

By itself, an IQ test is of very limited value... from a clinical perspective.

There are a battery of tests that psychs use to evaluate specific mental processes and executive functions. An IQ isn't meaningless, but without context, it won't always be useful.

Re:Argue it both ways

[Woldry]

so many different kinds of intelligence that an IQ test is pretty much meaningless.

One quibble -- if there is a physical attribute or pattern of development that can be correlated with a non-physical test like an IQ test, then the test is clearly measuring something, and is therefore no more "meaningless" than, say, an assessment of BMI or cholesterol levels.

That said, if by "is meaningless" you mean "doesn't adequately predict success in life" or "doesn't measure enough", then I have no quibble at all.

Re:Argue it both ways

[LearningHard]

Absolutely correct! You are the first person I have heard in a long time get this right. My fiancee has a MS in Psychology (her area of emphasis is Testing and Measurement so yes she knows her shit). There are so many different ways of measuring "IQ" and so many things it can mean that unless you know the specific test taken the number means absolutely nothing. I could take a WISC and then tell you about my absurdly high IQ. Of course I don't tell you that the test in question is meant for children.

Re:Argue it both ways

[f97tosc]

Also, there are so many different kinds of intelligence that an IQ test is pretty much meaningless.

I beg to differ. There are many different kinds of intelligence, but, as it turns out, they are rather strongly correlated. People that are good with mental rotation puzzles have on average better results on everything from memorizing numbers to writing persuasive essays. If we accept this extremely well documented phenomenon then it becomes interesting to measure this average cognitive ability, as it will help us predict performance on almost anything that involves thinking. We call such a test an IQ test.

And indeed, IQ tests on army recruits is a good predictor of career success (for any postion), SAT scores (which correlate strongly with IQ) is a good predictor of success for college students of any major, and IQ predicts future salary of MBA students.

Of course, we all know exceptions of smart people who do poorly for some reason or the other, but that does not disprove the general trend, and it certainly does not make IQ tests meaningless.

Tor

Re:Argue it both ways

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

Well none of the 'wonder children' seem to actually produce anything. Most of the real-geniuses were slow starters or thought to be retarted ie einstein.

Re:Argue it both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

For a long time scientists thought that the bigger the brain, the smarter the person. Come to find out there's no significant statistical correlation there.

Misleading. Cranial size DOES correlate with higher IQ in groups but within those groups are great variation that does not correlate with cranial size.

Also, there are so many different kinds of intelligence that an IQ test is pretty much meaningless. I've worked with plenty of people who had a very high IQ but were completely ineffective either because of psychological weirdnesses or because they couldn't focus enough to get anything done.

IQ doesn't measure how well you percieve someone or like someone. I know its acceptable amongst "average" people to try to demean others who are smarter than them by claiming that IQ isn't all its cracked up to be or that smart people are somehow really inferior people.

IQ tests try to measure something called "G", which is basically a standard conception of intelligence that is measured in several different ways. Reputable IQ tests use a standard battery of different question types to do this..

Re:Argue it both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely correct!

Says who? I'm tired of armchair scientists who have a political opinion about something trying to argue against things they clearly have an improper, at best, understanding of.

My fiancee has a MS in Psychology (her area of emphasis is Testing and Measurement so yes she knows her shit).

Credentialism. Show us some meaningful data.

There are so many different ways of measuring "IQ" and so many things it can mean that unless you know the specific test taken the number means absolutely nothing.

Misleading.

There are plenty of people who make IQ tests of varying quality, many times for business purposes only (i.e. sell IQ testing services). What makes a "good" IQ test is pretty well agreed upon these days and the scores are comparable, from the reputable ones.

I could take a WISC and then tell you about my absurdly high IQ. Of course I don't tell you that the test in question is meant for children.

So? I could just LIE and tell you my IQ is 290. How is this the fault of an IQ test?

If you do something improperly, its your fault.

Re:Argue it both ways

[hackstraw]

Also, there are so many different kinds of intelligence that an IQ test is pretty much meaningless.

Very true. I've studied cognitive, behavioral, and developmental psych, and have come to the conclusion that there is no Spearman g out there.

Good athletes are bright. Look at how they are talked about. "That was a brilliant play!" "What was he thinking?" People talk about them in terms of their cognition, not in terms of their strength or stamina. Now, I'm not saying that these are important things, but for athletes the physical thing is almost even. Its the cognition that is different. Otherwise, why would they need to practice? Just lift weights or do whatever.

I'm not trying to toot my horn, but I was a very slow starter. It took me 2 colleges (one, another, and back to the first) and about 8 years to get a college degree from a mediocre college, but I'm not a dummy. Again, I don't fully subscribe to the Spearman g thing, but I've taken IQ tests and have scored up to 140, but have had numerous issues over the years, and many people think I'm "dumb", kinda like the absent minded professor thing, I guess.

I also have a severe mental illness, and my cognitive abilities and personality vary from time to time. I also have substance abuse issues. I "self medicate", which I have no problem with, it helps me. Much better than a doctor can, but it does impair my cognition from time to time. I've heard that people that stop doing drugs gain on average about 10 IQ points after some period of time.

Honestly, I see the world a little bit differently than "normal" people. I've smoked cigarettes since I was a kid, and when I was 16 and I would see a pile of cigarettes in a pile in a parking lot, I thought that the people would sit there and smoke that many cigarettes at a time and make a pile. Only later did I figure out that the people dumped their ashtray in the parking lot. I guess that since I see the world as doing extreme and weird things like I do, that "normal" things like littering appear as abnormal to me. So, I think about the situation more. I also was a master knot tier when I was 11. I could tie any knot known in record speed. It took me until about 28 or 29 to figure out that a square knot was the best way to tie a shoe. I also had issues with my 5th grade teacher calling my house because my shoes would not stay tied, but did not comment on the A+ papers I wrote.

The world is set up for average people. Yeah, it may take a while for above average people to come out of the woodwork, but majority (aka, mediocrity) rules. If you want special accommodations in the US, be handicapped. You get whatever you "need" with no questions asked. But if your bright, you're on you're own. I was homeless a few years ago, and I called government services, and there was no help for able people that were temporarily out of luck. In retrospect, I did not need the help, but I thought it would be nice to have it, and assumed that there were housing or financial help for someone like me, but I was not fucked up enough.

Also, as many, if not most, of slashdotters know, that IQ has nothing to do with anything. It has its advantages and disadvantages. I purposely have to dumb down myself, and just "shoot the shit" to get along with people. Its OK, but I'm lonely much of the time because I know that most people simply have no idea what I know. I've met a couple of people here on slashdot that post almost exactly like I do, and think almost the same way. Multiple times, I have come across a user that I wanted to add as a friend, and realized that they already were, and once seeing their username, I remembered them.

I'm tired and drunk right now. Later.

Re:Argue it both ways

[haluness]

I have a feeling that a lot of the truly intelligent people somehow do manage to motivate themselves, rather than whine about how people treat them. If you're that intelligent, you'd realize that you're the odd-man-out and then get on with whatever you like doing.

Re:Argue it both ways

[hackstraw]

If you're that intelligent, you'd realize that you're the odd-man-out and then get on with whatever you like doing.

I agree 100%. But nothing is that simple. You either have to get yourself completely juiced in with others that are like you, which is very unlikely, or you have to have skills or learn if you can to convince the other 99.x% of the population that your "worthy".

Even if you're juiced in with bright people, they are good at other things that you don't have, and vice versa. Back to there is no real Spearman g. I work with very bright people from all over the world, but they do "stupid" stuff, and its often difficult for me to deal with that, as well as with what I'm good at doing. And, trust me, those people know things that I have no clue about.

Re:Argue it both ways

[Tomfrh]

I wonder if there's a statistical correlation between those who don't do so well on IQ tests and those who consider IQ tests meaningless.

Re:Argue it both ways

[Cybrr]

I think that doing "stupid" stuff is way to relax the brain. People just need to be aware that it could be harming others and/or themselves.

Re:Hey Baby . . .

[DigiShaman]

It's not how big your cortex is, it's how you use it. ...I prefer the headbutting technique

I'm Canadian....

[sharkey]

they put me in here because they think I'm slow, eh?

Procrastination rules!

[Anonymous Coward]

I always knew that procrastination had its advantages and I'll post more about that some other time.

i was

[voudras]

arrested once for exposing my pre-frontal cortex

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

good, i'm really s genius!

[MikeFM]

And here I was worried that by 30 I hadn't became a genius yet. Nice to know that with this delay I'm sure to be the worlds biggest supper genius when my time comes! Bwahahaha.

Re:good, i'm really s genius!

[pxuongl]

...and many a lesser supper genious will go hungry in your wake

Re:good, i'm really s genius!

[Pollardito]

you're living proof that non-starters are the smartest of all, some day i will get around to proving that

from the wisdom that is ralph wiggum...

[pxuongl]

i'm idaho!

huh?

[nurb432]

Ummm i dont understand..

( yes its a joke, laugh and get over it )

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardon me, but I believe the the word you may be searching for is "Duh?", or perhaps "Doh?!?" .....(proceeding to laugh and get over it);)

I dint know mice were so smart

[Audent]

All my life I wantid to be smart and not dumb and my mom always tolld me to try and lern just like Miss Kinnian tells me but its very hard to be smart and even when I lern something in Miss Kinnians class at the school I ferget alot.

Re:I dint know mice were so smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you need Sylvan Learning Center

DNF

[Ramble]

I think we've found the cause of DNF's relaxed shedule.

Application to "geniuses"?

[TechnoGuyRob]

This is a very probable conclusion. After all, it has been illustrated countless of times before in history. For example, take Isaac Newton, someone who could be consider the founder of classical physics. Newton did not excel in his studies in comparison to others; only when he reached the age of 21 did he develop his brilliant ideas and observations in utter seclusions. Now take Albert Einstein. Einstein was born in 1879. The school system did not treat him as anything special. He went with the other neigborhood children to a regular, average school. Furthermore, at the age of 16, he applied to the Swiss Institute of Physics but got rejected, and he failed to graduate from his subsequent enrollment at Zurich University.

In all honesty, take a look at "child geniuses" that prospered early on. We hear every once in a while about a kid that starts college at the age of 8, or 10; and that's the last time we hear about them. It is the people that consistently produce significant progress that "show".

One subject that seems to be an exception to this rule is the arts. For example, Mozart--and many other great musicians--were fluent in their art form very early on. But, I think that it very well might be that those "early bloomers" might not be all they're made out to be.

Re:Application to "geniuses"?

[buswolley]

Mozart was a natural to music. It flowed from him. Musical imagery was powerful within him. Yet Beethoven had less of these abilities.. he had to keep pen and paper around so he wouldn't forget an idea, and his manuscripts are so messy with revisions as to wear holes through the parchment. Yet, Beethoven is considered the better composer. Beethoven built musical structures of such enormity and passion. Composition is more than quickness, memory and fluidity. It is depth. It is temperment. It is a striving. It is the "something else" that no one knows about.

Re:Application to "geniuses"?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. The summary is misleading. The study found that the smartest people had delayed changes to the cortex. So the changes were slower than in average or stupid kids, but the smart kids were still smarter than them, both while young and when grown up.

This has nothing to do with people being relatively "slow" when young but becoming geniuses when older. And nothing to do with "early bloomers". Those anecdotal stories are notable precisely because they are exceptions to the rule -that smart people tend to be smarter than average at ALL points in their lifetime.

Re:Application to "geniuses"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Beautifully said!

Re:Application to "geniuses"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait wait wait...you mean Doogie Howser is a moron?!

Re:Application to "geniuses"?

[JohnSearle]

In all honesty, take a look at "child geniuses" that prospered early on. We hear every once in a while about a kid that starts college at the age of 8, or 10; and that's the last time we hear about them. It is the people that consistently produce significant progress that "show".

I have only one word to say to this... Doogie Howser. Which is actually two words, but hey we can't all be geniuses. He was a doctor at age 14!

Re:Application to "geniuses"?

[Sigma 7]

I have only one word to say to this... Doogie Howser. Which is actually two words, but hey we can't all be geniuses. He was a doctor at age 14!

Doogie Howser is a fictional character... which makes it all more awe-inspiring when you do meet him.

You don't see too many people such as that star - most child geniuses are simply given a higher quantity of work that eventually drains them out when they become adults. They are either drained because they don't learn what they want (e.g. they are "taught" art instead), are only exposed to the tedious aspect of learning (e.g. theory only), do not have resources to learn (e.g. no persistant textbook that can be reviewed later), and/or are continuously snuffed out (e.g. attended High School).

Depression interferes with learning as well - but teenagers are somehow taught that these are mood swings caused by some hormonal imbalance. (In some cases, this is incorrect - these moods are related to the teenager feeling that something is wrong, but doesn't yet understand why.)

This is my hypothesis, but I'm not a sociologist. Child prodegies can carry on into adulthood with new advancements (even if they aren't famous), but they have to be educated correctly - conventional education will not work.

Re:Application to "geniuses"?

[Michael Woodhams]

In all honesty, take a look at "child geniuses" that prospered early on. We hear every once in a while about a kid that starts college at the age of 8, or 10; and that's the last time we hear about them.

I think these kids generally end up as significant mathematicians or musicians. If you were a mathematician, you'd still be hearing about them (but likely ignorant of when they attended college.)

Your comment reminds me of an anecdote about the physicist J. J. Thompson. One of his classmates from school had grown up to be a successful industrialist - rich, possibly knighted. He gave a speach about his success. Part of it went something like this: "When I was young and at school, there was a boy called Johnny Thompson who was very good at school work. All the teachers would say 'why can't you be more like him?' But look where I am now, and who's heard of little Johnny Thompson?"

My source for the anecdote doesn't record the response, but it could have been something like "That would be Professor Sir Johnny Thompson, Nobel laureate and president of the Royal Society."

Not at all surprising . . . neoteny in action!

[StefanJ]

From the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny) for neoteny:

"Neoteny describes a process by which paedomorphism is achieved, and is a subject studied in the field of developmental biology. In neoteny, the physiological (or somatic) development of an animal or organism is slowed or delayed. Ultimately this process results in the retention, in the adults of a species, of juvenile physical characteristics well into maturity."

The notion that longer-lived, highly intelligent, highly social species take longer to grow up has been around for quite awhile. To take a couple of examples from SF:

In Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, World Controller Mond tells a biology class touring a baby hatchery about experiments to create drudge-class workers that grow up more quickly. One of the failures hit sexual maturity at age six but are too stupid to even be broom-pushers.

In Stapledon's Last and First Men, an advanced race of humans takes decades to grow up.

I suspect, but of course can't be sure, that what we're seeing in the case of bright kids are marginally more neotenic humans. You might naively say that they are more evolved "humans of the future," except the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Or in this case, the proof of fitness is in the cradle. Maybe being able to suck down toxic sludge or live in a sticky hot greenhouse climate will be a better guarantee of reproductive success than mere smarts.

Re:Not at all surprising . . . neoteny in action!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a world of difference between having a 'notion' and doing hard science. Science fiction abounds with 'notions', most of which are complete balderdash. Why do some people feel like every little brain fart should bestow the asshole that issued it honour and recognition?

Re:Not at all surprising . . . neoteny in action!

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not necessarily giving the one who supplied the idea honour or recognition, but the idea itself honour and recognition. poorexample: A good idea does not make a dimwit any less of a dimwit, but a dimwit doesn't make a good idea any less of a good idea. You DO however sound a bit jealous. Maybe someone didn't sniff your brain fart like you wish they had? =(

Re:Not at all surprising . . . neoteny in action!

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that ideas are cheap. Everyone has them. There are jillions of them floating around. Most of them are complete shit. So to the OP's position that a science fiction story said something vaguely related to the topic at hand, I say "so what"? Are we supposed to infer that these scientists are merely corroborating old science fiction? That without the brilliant insights of a bad novel that these concepts would have never floated to the surface? What connection do these stories have to the topic at hand? None. At all.

I'm feeling grumpy today. Can you tell? Just a little slashdot catharsis, nothing personal..

This explains...

[Quaoar]

...why the first posts are often the dumbest :)

Re:This explains...

[pxuongl]

... and that the replies to them are by part the dumberest

Re:This explains...

[ackthpt]

...why the first posts are often the dumbest :)

No... first posts are often made by people who don't have enough to do.

The shame is /. doesn't really rate posts by moderation, but by time. If higher rated threads rose to the top then frist ps0ters would look pretty silly.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to keep chasing the carrot on the string.

Re:This explains...

[Hal_Porter]

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to keep chasing the carrot on the string.


WHERE? Where's the carrot?

Rats!

[XanC]

Big rats.

Re:Rats!

[imothepixie]

But we only know about the Rats if we visit the Owl!

Re:Rats!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, smart rats!

I tried

[chia_monkey]

I tried sooooo hard to think of some witty comment to make about Dr. Shaw being the Secret of NIMH, but it just wasn't working. I guess I'm not so nimble...

Re:I tried

[Trillan]

At least you were in the right range. I kept thinking nickel metal hydride.

No, that's not TFA says !! Ignore summary!!

[javaxman]

Slower thickening of the cortext != slow starters. Actually, it's not even slower thickening... it's that it gets thicker, takes longer to thin...

Where the heck in this article would you get that it's "slow starters" ?

Now, there may be something about the somewhat different early development of the brain for these smarter kids with the thicker, later-maturing cortexes, and how that changes their early behavior compared to others, but TFA ( and the study ) didn't cover that, now, did they ?

Damn crappy wrong article summaries like this make me mad... somewhat at the submitters, but mostly at the admins. Thanks for actually reading and interpreting ( incorrectly ) the article, ScuttleMonkey !

Re:No, that's not TFA says !! Ignore summary!!

[Anonymous Coward]

... crappy wrong article summaries like this make me mad...

Possibly the submitter and admin had an initially thicker cortex that peaked by age 8?

Re:No, that's not TFA says !! Ignore summary!!

[lockefire]

Slower thickening of the cortext != slow starters. Actually, it's not even slower thickening...

Actually, the summary says "tend to have a slow start in the development of their cortex" which is true from the article. If you look at the only figure in the article you will see that the blue line (superiorly intelligent children) has a start of thickening and peak thickining significantly delayed from their peers.

it's that it gets thicker,

You will also note that the peak value for the blue line does not exceede the yellow line (high intelligence).

takes longer to thin...

Directly from the article: "It also thins faster during the late teens..."

Please note that Slashdot editors have the freedom to edit both the title submitted and the summary of the article (which they do).

Re:No, that's not TFA says !! Ignore summary!!

[javaxman]

Actually, the summary says "tend to have a slow start in the development of their cortex" which is true from the article.

Right, what I meant to say was "Ignore Title", rather than "Ignore summary"

Everyone knows what "Slow Starters" means, and it's *obvious* that "Slow starters have higher IQ" is NOT what the article, or the data, suggests at all. Regardless of who put that title in there, the editor or the submitter, it's not correct without further explaination of "when I said slow starter, I meant...", which is just BS.

Really, are you just yanking my chain here, are you purposely focusing on the text of the summary and ignoring the title just to demonstrate your superior analysis of the article, or what ? Are you somehow looking to defend the completely inaccurate title ?

Again, yea, my bad, the summary is actually quite accurate... it's just marred by a completely misleading and inaccurate title.

More of a psychological thing?

[peslick]

I wonder if this could deal with the psychology of learning rather than or in addition than just the physical sense of brain development? Then again I'm no brain scientist.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's the connectivity

[Chemisor]

My guess would be that the thickness difference would be mostly in the interconnections between neurons. An intelligent person would be able to form abstractions faster and to thereby reduce the number of connections. A person with less intelligence would have more connections because he is not thinking about stuff, he is just absorbing it, so all that redundant connectivity piles up and thickens the cortex. It would probably also make thinking harder; with too many associations any search would produce a mind-boggling amount of data.

Re:It's the connectivity

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant. That must be why hard drinkers are so smart: they kill off all that "redundant connectivity". So because they don't have "too many associations", they can blow bubbles with their saliva instead of being overwhelmed by the "mind-boggling amount of data" they would have otherwise have to deal with.

I understand what the article is saying.

[TechnoGuyRob]

I am one of those slow starter people. For example, I am going to think of something very contributive and helpful to add to this Slashdot discussion. It is going to happen, it's just going to take me a while. So mod me up ahead of time for my potential wisdom.

Re:I understand what the article is saying.

[Bamafan77]

I'm one of those slow starters too. I keep telling people who tell me I'm dumb that I'm going to to surpass them someday and this is the study to prove it. Sure I'm 29, but rest assured they'll be bowing before their Slow Cortex Thickening Overlords someday soon!

Re:I understand what the article is saying.

[carlmenezes]

Timeout Exception! :)

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[CarlinWithers]

I think it's politically incorrect to say this because no one should ever hear that they are "doomed to be dumb". I actually agree that no one should hear this, but denying that nature has a large effect on intellegence isn't the way.

People need to realise that there are many types of intelligence, and that not having a high IQ really only related to a small number of them. There is acedemic intelligence (heck you can often find a person who is great in one subject area and not another), there is emotional intelligence, there is interpersonal/social intelligence, there is technical (hands on) aptitudes that are also intelligences.

Nature affecting IQ doesn't mean that someone who has "bad" genes is dumb. It just means that they will probably use some other intelligence or talent to make their contribution to the world.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Conversely...

[Douglas Simmons]

this suggests that fast starters have lower IQ. Or are they not mutually exclusive? Logic police!

Myself...

[ackthpt]

I just put it down to lack of interest, but I had poor grades for most of my K-12 experience and first couple years of college.

At some points certain things suddenly connected and I "saw" what the goals where of several of my classes. I then carried a 3.92 for 2 years and hit the President's List.

I had always scored high on intelligence tests, even hitting 99th pecentile on 4 of 7 categories in HS.

There's probably an answer out there and, Oh, hello, who let you in here?

[NO CARRIER]

I believe it!

[LibertineR]

Every taxi driver, waiter, flight attendant and plumber I ever met tried to convince that they were brilliant! Maybe I should not have been a sceptic? I have learned to sit back and enjoy that cab ride from JFK into downtown, if only because I know the driver is going to teach me the meaning of life before we reach my hotel. If you want to learn politics, hot stocks, fashion trends, foreign policy, and what is going to happen on the next episode of '24', do yourself a favor and skip the limo and take that cab into Manhattan, baby. You will be a genius by the time you reach for your wallet.

Re:I believe it!

[Captain DaFt]

You found an english speaking cabby in Manhattan?
I thought they all retired in the 60's!

"Slow Start" does not mean slow in School

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a slow start in the thickening of a part of the brain. No where in the article does it say that these kids are somehow slow in school or intelligence tests. The headline is misleading. The graph in the article does not indicate intelligence.

Heh.

[Black Parrot]

> First Post!

Not a slow starter, are you.

Re:Heh.

[GGSDE]

I am depressed by this article :( .Hope I was a slow starter.

Stupid animals are "hard-wired"

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Well, duh to this research... It's pretty obvious isn't it.

Primitive brains (flies etc) are pretty much hard-wired. They don't learn a lot and are pretty much capable of 100% of full potential at birth. A fly isn't ever going anywhere special. At the other end of the spectrum is the human baby. It is almost completely helpless at birth and probably only at a percent or so if its full brain potential. The "programming" takes a long time.

Kids that take a longer time to program are possibly forming much more complex wiring.... ( or maybe they're just brain damaged :-))

discrimination?

[Anonymous Coward]

Say for a moment that this study is correct and IQ relates 100% to this process, which is entirely controlled by genetics. In today's society we cannot discriminate against genetic principles such as race/skin color, sex, appereance, or disability, etc. What now if this study is true? Is it OK to discriminate against people of differnt/inferior cranial development? We dont have any laws that say "you must hire a certain amount of average IQ people". If this study happens to be true, then an average IQ person cannot help being average, anymore than they can change their race or sex. They have just as much weight to argue discrimination of IQ as they can argue discrimination of race. What now?

I think society has neatly avoided this confrontation so far, because we dont know what makes people smart..but sooner or later we will.

Re:discrimination?

[Eli Gottlieb]

And there you've hit upon it: The stupid have the same rights as the intelligent.

Re:discrimination?

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

In groups, you can find many differences between different groups. IQ is a well known example of this.

However, in the interests of fairness, one should look at individuals. Blacks may, in groups, have low IQ, but I have met very many smart black people. Should I automatically assume any black person who wants to go into an intellectual field will be incapable, or should I just look at an individual's merits?

Basically, the only thing that this proves is that, as groups, we are not the same.

Re:discrimination?

[Kjella]

Should I automatically assume any black person who wants to go into an intellectual field will be incapable, or should I just look at an individual's merits?

The problem has never been what you do if you have individual merits, the issue is what to do when you don't. Should you take the group's merits into your consideration as a probability, or consider yourself to have no information at all? it's alao a decision game tree you and the rest of the world plays. If everyone went with the "preferred" group, then there's probably quite a lot of overlooked good people in the other group.

Wow. Just... wow.

[Anthony Boyd]

These children have a 'delayed but prolonged' spurt that causes their cortex thickness to peak later than their peers and thin much quicker.

I would give anything to have a "delayed but prolonged spurt."

hmmm.

[way2trivial]

I know more than a few teachers who are angered by the unfunded mandate "no child left behind" the arguments appear to boil down to
1- there are some kids that should be left behind, there are some that are just dumb-some that should dig ditches.

2-other countries (esp the ones that always show the highest test scores) let kids out of school as early as age 10 if they aren't suited to education, and that would mean the remaining students will test higher on average

3-it's unfunded, yet for education systems to get the same amount of money as before the program, they have to spend a lot of time just getting kids to pass the 'left behind' tests that the schools are graded on.

Not saying that's right or wrong, but #1 makes sense, if there is a range of aptitude in homo sap, some will suck at intelli'j'ence.

Re:hmmm.

[Guy Harris]

other countries (esp the ones that always show the highest test scores) let kids out of school as early as age 10 if they aren't suited to education

Could you please name the countries that 1) always show the highest test scores and 2) let kids out of school as early as age 10?

Finland is, as I remember, one of those high-scoring countries, but the Basic Education page at the Finnish National Board of Education site says "Basic Education means the general education provided for each age group in its entirety. It is intended for children from seven to sixteen years of age, and its completion in comprehensive school takes nine years."

Japan is another of the high-scoring countries; the US Library of Congress Country Studies information on Japan says under "Primary and Secondary Education" that, at least as of 1994, "Education is compulsory and free for all schoolchildren from the first through the ninth grades" and a diagram in the report (PDF) indicates that this runs up to age 14. (The page on "Upper-Secondary Education" indicates that, even after age 14, "94 percent of all lower-secondary school graduates entered uppersecondary schools in 1989".)

Re:hmmm.

[techno-vampire]

I know more than a few teachers who are angered by the unfunded mandate "no child left behind"

That's only one of the two problems with that idea. The other, and bigger is that "No child left behind." ends up as "No child gets ahead." Teachers spend so much time dragging along the slowest learners, the ones who really need to be left behind because the need that extra time, that they can't give the best and the brightest the attention they need and deserve. Thus, trying to bring the slowest up to standard means the best have to be held back.

Re:hmmm.

[somersault]

I never liked this either.. when I lived on the western isles for a few months of primary school, I had to be moved up a class because their sylabus was a little behind ours, and then after going back to my normal school, a few pupils in the class were put into the class with the year above (though that was because there was no space in the class below, but also I'm pretty sure they chose 4 or 5 of the better performing students to move). I was pretty good at spelling *wonders if he'll have made a mistook in this post*, and have always been pretty good at everything else in general school-wise (though towards the end of high school, and on towards uni, I started getting lazy). I always thought that they could have compressed the 1st 2 years of high school into one year (we were getting taught basic algebra, which I already knew from coding, variables, etc), and probably compressed a lot of the rest of the time too. I would have loved to have been able to skip a year or have separate classes for the better performing pupils (in fact in high school, there were different classes for everything, I was in the '2nd' class for english, and the '1st' for maths.. you could say that having different grades of class like that helped a bit, but with 30 kids in each class, and a few disruptive kids, you still end up with less potential.

Slowing everyone down to the level of the lowest pupil may be PC, but it's pretty inefficient to say the least. It would also cost a lot of government funds to sort out the school system to cater to each child individually, but I wonder if the benefits from those who advance through their education really quickly, would pay for themselves through the countries economy improving? Though the best and brightest would just head off to 'better' countries.

Re:hmmm.

[lysergic.acid]

Perhaps schools shouldn't be taylored towards only one specific kind of intelligence?

Also, research has shown that cultural attitudes, and the way it effects the psychological development of children in certain social groups, cause them to test poorly when they know it is a test, but when they are told it is an ungraded activity, the test scores seem to increase and fall in line with the global average.

Re:hmmm.

[Magnum7385]

That's only one of the two problems with that idea. The other, and bigger is that "No child left behind." ends up as "No child gets ahead." Teachers spend so much time dragging along the slowest learners, the ones who really need to be left behind because the need that extra time, that they can't give the best and the brightest the attention they need and deserve. Thus, trying to bring the slowest up to standard means the best have to be held back.

I love you. I used to keep a log of how much time each schoolday wasted of mine. It added up quite fast.

Re:hmmm.

[apt142]

Yeah, no shit it does. I tried to use all that extra time as efficiently as possible by trying to teach myself other useful things. Unfortunately there isn't much the beaurocracy will let you do in class even after you've finished your work. It'll 'distract' the other students.

While I agree that everybody should be up to a minimum, why do we hold the good ones back? Shouldn't the fact that a few slow learners are holding me back cause me 'distraction.' And why does it sound like I'm a smug asshole for suggesting I'm a faster learner than the average student? When did we teach that being smarter than somebody is something to be ashamed of?

It's being an insensitive clod about our gifts that we should be ashamed of, not the gifts themselves.

Re:hmmm.

[Magnum7385]

Yeah, no shit it does. I tried to use all that extra time as efficiently as possible by trying to teach myself other useful things. Unfortunately there isn't much the beaurocracy will let you do in class even after you've finished your work. It'll 'distract' the other students.

This is precisely why I said I kept a log of the time wasted, because nomatter how much my physics/chemistry/whatever teacher loved me, they still wouldn't let me go out into the hall and read a book when I already knew the material. It would have been a "distraction" for the other kids. I prefered to think of it as "motivation." Maybe if students could do as they please with their classtime, it might give the otherwise-normal-or-better-but-lazy students some incentive to give a damn, like the ones bored to the point of anger.

Re:hmmm.

[ClamIAm]

And if you look at the Bush Administration's views on the class divide, you can easily see most of the motive behind this.

Re:hmmm.

[dajak]

I second this. In an earlier discussion on Slashdot I looked up how the participants are selected in PISA assessments. All participating countries have compulsory education for the age cohort tested, and children in alternative vocational programs *are* included. The PISA scientists aren't stupid.

I can also attest for the Netherlands, another high performer, that almost no children are below the government radar: less than 3% drop out before 18, compared to more than 21% in the US, and less than 4% of 16-19 year olds is neither financially independent and employed nor in school (which is basically illegal).

We do traditionally have a highly stratified system, where children are selected early for vocational (50%), generic, or academic aptitude at age 12-14, but all of them participate in the correct proportions in PISA assessments.

If Americans feel their children have mysterious skills that aren't tested by existing assessments, they should design a standardized test for it and compare with the other countries. I think the reality is that countries like the US and Italy just get very bad value for money when it comes to education, and unrealistic education policy is part of the problem.

Re:hmmm.

[Maximum Prophet]

The thing is, in study after study, any new method eventually results in the students doing the same, i.e. doing as well as their parents did. (On average)

Extraordinary Teachers and Priciples can do wonders, but when their methods are adopted by lesser individuals, we go back to kids doing as well as their parents. It's possible that a negative influence like NCLB will have the exact same effect. The gifted students will zone out during school hours, then make up for it in their off time. That's what happened in my high school several decades ago, long before NCLB.

Subject X is HARD

[ackthpt]

I wonder if the reason for this is that the slow starters grow up thinking they are not that smart. So they don't close their minds, ... Growing up I myself heard a lot of arguments against correct Ideas from the "Smart" students, arguments like I am the next Level class above you so your information is wrong and I am right. So they go on for the rest of their life with the wrong ideas about things while the "Slower" student goes along absorbing information and different ideas thus making their minds more agile.

One of the greatest challenges is getting past the pervasive attitude that certain subjects are "hard" People get to believing it. Hell, it's in television, movies, comics, etc. that you have to be a "brainy nerd" like, say Jason Fox or Francis Ottoman to be able to hack certain subjects. The reality is people buy into the "for super brains only" and "[subject] is hard" and tune out. Attitude and confidence are everything when studying.

I was about to drop a chemistry class in college because I just felt I couldn't do it. It was just too much. But I was also working a student job in the computer center and had interacted a bit with faculty and administration on a concept of "writing across the curriculum", in a nutshell, repeat in writing not what was just shoved into your brain, but what you thought of it, what it meant to you, plus any connections to any other areas it seemed to connect. It's a cognitive kickstart, which rather than focus on rote learning emphasized understanding of the concepts. Once you've got the concepts down and feel confident, you've got it made.

I decided to be fair to myself before dropping the class and admitting failure and sat down in the commons to write out what about inorganic chemistry I did know. Turned out I did know a lot, it was just a few things I didn't know that were defeating me. Why focus energy on learning what you already know? So I focused on what I didn't know and pulled an A in the class. It was a watershed moment and after applying it to a few other classes I realized I could do it all and do it all well.

All except that three pronger in music... ah well...

Re:Subject X is HARD

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

s/hack/grok/

Come on, man!

Re:Subject X is HARD

[MrNougat]

Why focus energy on learning what you already know?

There's a school of thought that says just the opposite (although I think it applies to adults whose ability to learn may have become reduced for various reasons). That being, you're more likely to gain ability in what you're already good at than at what you're not so good at. If you have a choice of working on X (something you're good with) or Y (something you're not), you'd have a higher "percentage" increase in your ability if you worked on X than on Y.

I know I'm not explaining it very well, but even more generally, it does seem like it would be easier and more valuable to become an eXtreme eXpert in one area than a so-so jack-of-all-trades. (Well, at least it seems that way to me right now. I'll change my mind about that later, I'm sure.)

Re:Subject X is HARD

[dhasenan]

There are no hard subjects, only hard problems. And there is only one hard problem. (Or two; one being NP-hard and one being NP-complete.)

Re:Subject X is HARD

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

s/hack/grok/g

Better get that cortex thickened up son.

Re:Subject X is HARD

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

The post only has one instance of "hack". :p

Ironic, isn't it?

[Tim]

I find it ironic that the article was summarized completely incorrectly, but only in a way that reinforces the thinking of the people most likely to interpret the article incorrectly.

"Read the article? Bah...I'm smart enough to skip that step...after all, that's why the teachers never liked me!"

Re:But can they tell us what we really want to kno

[Anonymous Coward]

no fair, you stole my joke

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[Mistshadow2k4]

I think I might be an example of both arguements here. I was a slow learner when young but then suddenly surpassed my classmates about 5th grade or so. Before then I thought I was dumber than the rest of them. Slow development because of the cortex, or did I just try harder because I thought I was dumb? At age 35, it's hard for me to remember.

In high school my IQ test claimed I was near genius. So why can't I learn to read music? Several people have tried to teach me and I've tried to learn but I just never get it. Yet I'm quite intuitive about computers and GUIs. Neither of my parents were above average, but my mother could finish a difficult crossword puzzle in 10 minutes flat, whereas I can't finish one of average difficulty. Her mind grasped the pattern in them but apparently mine does not. I'm not good at other word games either like she was, but I'm very good at puzzles that involve shapes, colors and pieces (tetris, etc.). So there definitely are people who are better at some things than others, regardless of IQ or how developed their brains are supposed to be, which is much the same as saying there are different sorts of intelligence.

Wait a second...

[illuminatedwax]

There's actually a NIMH???

Re:Wait a second...

[Rod Beauvex]

Consult the owl. :D

Example: Tarek on the Apprentice

[elysian1]

Tarek on this season's Apprentice is supposed to be a genius MENSA member. His performance on the show, however, indicates he may be good at taking IQ tests, but when it comes to real life performance, people with lower IQ scores consistently outperform him.

Re:Example: Tarek on the Apprentice

[srobert]

"genius MENSA member"
  I don't watch the Apprentice so I don't about this Tarek, but one out of 50 people can get into Mensa.
  Seldom are geniuses interested in joining. But Mensa members are often underacheivers. I speculate that's because they don't have to work as hard to get an acceptible grade in school, and tend to get lazy as a result.

Re:Example: Tarek on the Apprentice

[Anonymous Coward]

You're trying to make a scientific argument about something based off an entertainment TV show?

Wow.

Re:Example: Tarek on the Apprentice

[Hektor_Troy]

I think you're quite right about that. Plus, school tends to be boring if it's easy.

I know at least 5 (former) members of Mensa (they didn't want to waste their money on membership) and probably twice as many that could probably be a member if they took the test. Personally I haven't taken their test, but I suspect I'm in the top 5 percentile.

Common trait amongst these people? Average grades. Very average grades. Lazy about schoolwork (or were when they were in school), found it utterly boring etc.

Re:Example: Tarek on the Apprentice

[cloudmaster]

Add me to the list of people who won't pay. I took the test for entertainment value - I get people asking me "what's your IQ" and similar ocasionally, and it seemed an amusing way to spend a credit card "cash back" check. Some of those test-takers are real geeks. :) I scored in the top 1 percent. Yippie. I'm a genius among geniuses. Boy, howdy, I guess I should pay another $50 per year so I can get an ID card that lets me prove to other people that I'm smart. "Hey, Cletus, look at this membership card!"

Or, I could save my money, automatically preventing myself from associating with those arrogant pricks who feel compelled to tell everyone they're in Mensa, and let people get to know me just like they get to know everyone else. It's not a score on some test that makes you smart. I'd not be surprised to find that several people think I'm dumb, in fact. Rather, I like to think that smart's defined by one's ability to acquire, apply, and transfer knowledge. I like to help people and learn stuff. If someone feels helped when I leave, or I feel that I've learned something, everyone's happy. An impression of "smartness" isn't important, though obviously any positive impression someone shares will make you feel nice. :)

Oh, and on-topic, I read at well above my age level all the way through school, and started reading before I was three. Math skills came early, too. I've been good at school work my whole life, but realized that I could still do "well enough" with a lot less effort early on. I was an honor roll student, but not "top of my class" because that kind of crap's just not important to anyone but the people who receive the "honor", and a jealous few who wish they could, for whatever reason. The rest of the world, AFAICT, could give half a shit who was validictorian of X graduating class, for example. But the on-topic point is that we're not all slow starters. Chalk up another one to the "overgeneralization always leads to wrong conclusions" cliche...

Re:Example: Tarek on the Apprentice

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people out here (IQ: 180) could easilly be accepted to Mensa but don't like the whole "us and them" and "look at me i'm so superior" kind of posture that clubs like that project.

In my book anybody that tries to show me how superior they are by rubbing their "badge of superiority" on my face (be it verbally or literally) immediately get mentally classified as "inteligent enough to get badge, too stupid to know how life really works".

Come to think of it i very, very rarelly tell anybody my IQ (which is why i'm posting as AC) - people figure out really fast on their own how bright i am and respect me for it and those that don't very rarelly are in a position that matters for me (they're rarelly decision makers and when they are, one can usually go around them).

Re:Example: Tarek on the Apprentice

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

You're trying to make a scientific argument about something based off an entertainment TV show?

Can you say Star Trek?

Re:Example: Tarek on the Apprentice

[Anonymous Coward]

Mensans aren't that smart. (top 1 in 50) Even Triple Nine Society members (top 1 in 1000) don't usually appear much brighter than average Slashdotters. Ultranet or Prometheus Society members (top 1 in 30,000) usually do seem quite bright. Mega society members (top 1 in 1,000,000)don't usually seem that much smarter than the Ultranet/Prometheus members, but the tests aren't reliable at that extreme. Those who join such clubs often don't have much else to be proud of in their lives beyond their IQs, but at the higher levels many members just want a forum where they talk with peers.

Plenty of exceptions

[Mr_Tulip]

Before people start claiming to be geniuses because they failed math at high school, there are many exceptions to this ieda, take for instance Stephen Hawking, , Stephen Wolfram or Mozart

All three were highly talented in their fields at a very early age.

I'm sure I could find plenty more examples given time.

Re:Plenty of exceptions

[Anonymous Coward]

Like, say... Einstein? He was an excellent mathematician in high school, contrary to popular belief.

Re:Plenty of exceptions

[Anonymous Coward]

"Before people start claiming to be geniuses because they failed math at high school, there are many exceptions to this ieda, take for instance Stephen Hawking, , Stephen Wolfram or Mozart
All three were highly talented in their fields at a very early age."

This is actually incorrect. Einstein never failed math, he always excelled in math and science--he fell short in the arts. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein: "There is a recurring rumor that Einstein failed mathematics later in his education, but this is untrue; a change in the way grades were assigned caused confusion years later." Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of these scientists had "delayed but prolonged" brilliance. They were brilliant, then by their early lives, but their breakthroughs and music stopped at an early age also.

Slow starters

[davidc]

... tend to be quick finishers.

/should try novocaine gel.

Re:Wow. Just... wow.

[chris_eineke]

Eat up your servings of broccoli. :P

What!?

[ucblockhead]

Misinterpretation of data? On slashdot!? Never!

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[ucblockhead]

It's the basic problem with IQ tests. They don't measure overall intelligence, but rather, one particular sort of intelligence. Hell, there probably isn't any way to assign a single number to overall intelligence just like you can't assign a single number to overall strength. Some people have more upper-body strength, some more lower-body strength, some more endurance, etc.

woo!

[Lord Bitman]

I must eventually be a super genius!
some day... !

Re:But can they tell us what we really want to kno

[DurendalMac]

No, but I think Nicodemus knows it.

Last post

[Wordsmith]

Last post, dumbasses.

Higher IQ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah? what about children with high EQ? AQ? XQ? and all the other quotients someone comes up with every few years?

arguing it the *other* way....

[Tim]

"Also, there are so many different kinds of intelligence that an IQ test is pretty much meaningless. I've worked with plenty of people who had a very high IQ but were completely ineffective either because of psychological weirdnesses or because they couldn't focus enough to get anything done."

While I wouldn't go so far to say that the IQ test is meaningless, I agree that there are many different kinds of intelligence. That said, there are also a lot of people out there who aren't very bright (or at least, aren't geniuses), who latch onto every pseudo-scientific notion they can to convince themselves of their own "misunderstood" intelligence, regardless of the (often overwhelming) evidence to the contrary.

In my experience, these people are oddly prevalent at comic conferences, libertarian conventions and /.

no, I can't... it's hearsay...

[way2trivial]

I have not looked into it myself, and wasn't tossing it out for that to be the most relevent portion.
the most relevant to the discussion idea was, some kids are dumb? it's a fact yes or no?

p.s. however, I ask you to consider, what would the affect on highschool average test scores be if you dropped the lowest six percent at age 14?

Re:no, I can't... it's hearsay...

[CanSpice]

p.s. however, I ask you to consider, what would the affect on highschool average test scores be if you dropped the lowest six percent at age 14?

That's a stupid question. If you drop the lower end out, of course the average is going to increase. You may as well ask "what would the average be if we only counted the smartest student in the school?"

And because you can't come up with any sort of proof at all that there's at least one country that gets high averages in schooling their students and also eliminates the dumb ones at the age of 10, then your entire argument falls apart. Either produce some data or admit that you're talking out your ass.

Re:no, I can't... it's hearsay...

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Either produce some data or admit that you're talking out your ass.

Check out your URL bar. Talking out of one's ass is implied.

Re:no, I can't... it's hearsay...

[sholden]

The US drop out rate is 4.5%, so it's not like the same thing doesn't push up their average too.

Re:no, I can't... it's hearsay...

[kesuki]

well, if only 96% of japanese students go on to highschool, and in america, only 4.5% drop out that's Still a 1.5% advantage, also in america, people drop out for a lot of reasons other than 'i sucked in school' because 13% of our population is below the poverty line, there are a number of very real housholds, where the kid may well choose to drop out of highschool to take up that full time job at the fast food down the street that they can walk to... so that they can put food on the table for their brothers and sisters... japan doesn't have anywhere NEAR that percantage below the poverty line. so while at least half a percantage point for 'deviation' needs to be considered, as we don't actually know that smart students aren't dropping out.

Re:no, I can't... it's hearsay...

[way2trivial]

As I originally stated, it's a third party claim, repeated by me.
I've been explicit on this in my second response.
although it's repeating an unciteable information source,

and it's also not what I consider the most relevant, but rather the generality that

"dumb kids do in fact exist" you may find that sad, but can we agree it's a fact?

Re:no, I can't... it's hearsay...

[ngileadi]

p.s. however, I ask you to consider, what would the affect on highschool average test scores be if you dropped the lowest six percent at age 14

I guess the ones that you leave in school would know the difference between "effect" and "affect".

Re:no, I can't... it's hearsay...

[garyrich]

You do realize that students in Japan and other places drop out of high school too, right? I think the 6% is about right for those that simply stop after middle school. Some can't cut academics, some can't afford it and some need to work in a family business. Many drop out after that for the same reasons.

Japanese high schools are also diverse in ways that most US ones are not. You have to test to get into them. For an "elite" high school that would put you on a path for Todai you'd have to test above high school graduate level to even get in at 9th grade. There are also what we would consider vo-tech schools that train people to work on assembly lines and really low high schools that don't do much more than warehouse them. High schools full of similar students with similar abilities. In the US it's about what zip code you live in, so we have highly diverse populations that are harder to teach.

Re:no, I can't... it's hearsay...

[Anonymous Coward]

well in the end, japan has a much higher lead over america than '1-2%' in academic standings, it is clear they've got an education system that is at least in some ways getting results.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

True genius is being great at everything. Being extremely good at a few things is just normal. Heck, give it some practice and most people are pretty damn good at most things imho. Of course, having a good teacher helps..

Mario Kart

[Databass]

Similarly, in Mario Kart, Bowser and Donkey Kong, (and lately Wario), have the slowest accelerations, but achieve the highest top speeds!

That's me!

[MattParkins]

Actually this is very much me! I was a very slow starter - I scraped through the GCSE's at school (16-year old graduation level in the UK), with a B and 2 Cs, went to a technical college. I think what made a real difference is that at the beginning of my teens I started playing chess and programming computers. By the time I was 25 I was a games programmer, and now I run my own business doing contracts.

I think its hard to tell though whether it was due to the slow start longer cortex spurt thing, or whether that has more to do with finding something that my brain actually enjoyed doing. I guess we'll never know!

Re:That's me!

[Anonymous Coward]

bzzzt!

a lot of the slow starters still aren't comprehending the study. go back and rtfa.

Re:That's me!

[Anonymous Coward]

lol guys i r genious

Flowers for Algernon

[marko123]

Rockin reference. I loved that story and read it in an old sci-fi anthology.

Re:Flowers for Algernon

[dpilot]

Just for your information, and excuse me if you already know this...

Though I've never actually seen it myself, there was a well-received movie adaptation of "Flowers for Algernon," called "Charly", starring Cliff Robertson. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062794/ Come to think of it, one of these days I need to put out the effort to see it. Looks like it's stilll available.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002KPHWY/qid=11 44199647/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-9452147-5242510?s=d vd&v=glance&n=130

Ummmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't like global warming where you can take ideas out of fiction and expect people to believe it.

Well give the man a hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's all clap together now... "I believe in the Darwin award! I believe in the Darwin award!"

All those in favor, raise your hand and say "eye, I, yo, yay" etc...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/04/paperweight.explo sion.ap/index.html

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[toolo]

ADHD?

Very misleading headline

[muntjac]

A slower "thickening of the cortex" does not mean the person is not as smart as others at a young age, it means their cortex isn't as thick. This headline completely misrepresents the finding and probably is causing much more disinformation than anything else.

First Posters

[JonathanR]

Does this also have implications for first posts?

a personal message from Audent and Dr. 3-State Bit

[3-State Bit]

Hello Everyone!

Please forgive the intrusion; I will be as brief as possible. I know you're all good friends of Audent here at Slash Dot, and I wanted to let you be the first to know that Audent has received a very special opportunity with our research group at NIMH Outreach. The study is perfectly safe, and Audent will be back with you in no time at all! Once he is, you might notice some very small changes, but rest assured that these will all be for the better. I know you will be very happy with Auden's new opportunities in life, as all good friends are and ought to be, but if you have any questions at all, do feel free to reply, and I promise to give your concerns my fullest attention. What a wonderful chance Auden has received with our study! I am sure he will be the first to share his gift with all of you.

Until then, I wish all of you the best here at Slash Dot and elsewhere. Yours faithfully,

Dr. 3-State Bit
Research Coordinator
National Institute of Mental Health
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/outreach/index.cfm

Re:But can they tell us what we really want to kno

[Neo-Rio-101]

...maybe it had something to do with storing Nickel Metal-Hydride (Ni-Mh) together to make a rechargeable battery.

NIMH?

[g1zmo]

Not In My Head?

"Slow"?

[jmkgh]

The word "slow" covers a lot of territory. I fall under the "superior" category they're talking about. I was always a very good student at a young age, but I couldn't tell time on an analog clock or tie my shoes until about fifth grade. So I think they need to clarify a bit. Being fast or slow in school doesn't necessarily hold true for other aspects of life.

Re:"Slow"?

[DragonTHC]

they mean fast or slow in terms of brain development

Re:Bad Information

[Anonymous Coward]

While I too have worked with a number of very smart, completely worthless people, you can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. IQ is a test of normalization. It remains to this day the single most effective quantitative predictor of future employment status and economic success.

This is certainly true but it brings up an important question. Why do we keep calling it Intelligence Quotient? Should it not be Success Quotient? Afterall I've never seen any studies suggesting there was some sort of correlation between intelligence and success. Looking back at a lot of management I've worked for over the years there is deffinetly proof that intelligence at least isn't even remotely a requirement for success.

The Metal Dealie you use to Dig Food

[Anonymous Coward]

Me no get this article at first, but when me think it again later...or, shall we say, after a considerable period of time had passed, upon reflection I quickly found myself engrossed in contemplating the potential ramifications of such a groundbreaking study, but then I found myself losing the uh...the thing about concen...uh, no...you know...the whatchamajigger...uh...

Never mind.

Your Einstein Stuff is Misleading and/or Wrong

[Cranky Weasel]

According to my copy of "Subtle is the Lord", Einstein failed his college entrance exam simply because he didn't study for it. He did, in fact, do very well on the science and math portions of that exam. Also, at 16 he was several years younger than the normal applicant.

While he did attend a "normal" school in adolescence he was top of his class. Grades provided by the family bear this out. There's no truth to the myth that he was a substandard student. He graduated from the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich with his diploma as a teacher in physics and mathematics. Being confrontational and hotheaded, it's not surprising he had trouble finding work, eventually taking a job at the patent office.

From nobelprize.org:

"During his stay at the Patent Office, and in his spare time, he produced much of his remarkable work and in 1908 he was appointed Privatdozent in Berne. In 1909 he became Professor Extraordinary at Zurich, in 1911 Professor of Theoretical Physics at Prague, returning to Zurich in the following year to fill a similar post. In 1914 he was appointed Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Physical Institute and Professor in the University of Berlin.

nobelprize.org

People believe some very amusing things about Einstein. I think it's a knee-jerk reaction to brilliance - cut him down a bit, lest we feel insignificant. You can point to a thousand sites that think he was dyslexic... and yet the Cambridge biography of the man found nothing on that subject, and the family has denied it.

The Title and the Story are Mismatched

[Cranky Weasel]

"Science Daily is reporting that children with 'superior' IQ's tend to have a slow start in the development of their cortex."

"Slow Starters Have Higher IQ?"

Now I would expect that a person submitting a story to a relatively technical place like slashdot would have just a hint of logical thinking ability.

Don't tell me that slow starters have higher IQ's - that doesn't follow. It's just flat out wrong here.

Tell me that a small number of people who are slow starters go on to have higher IQ's. The vast majority of slow starters simply remain slow, and their IQ never rises to brainy heights.

The summary was defective in the first place, as lots people have noted above, but it was defective within its own assumptions after that.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[sgt_doom]

Interesting.....not superior reading comprehension...Hmmmmm!!!

Seriously, though, it's not narture vs. nurture - if one has been keeping up the past fifteen years - it's how one's genes interact with their environment, that environment lighting up certain genes, etc.

Well...

[Nukenbar2]

I was always a stupid baby.

Not much has changed..

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[sgt_doom]

That's meant to be nature...forgive my low IQ....

Re:Bad Information

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

Why do we keep calling it Intelligence Quotient? Should it not be Success Quotient?

Because it is designed to measure intelligence, not success.

Re:Bad Information

[TrappedByMyself]

Looking back at a lot of management I've worked for over the years there is deffinetly proof that intelligence at least isn't even remotely a requirement for success.

Hmmm, you often seem to be put in a position where you're being given orders by someone who is unintelligent, yet weilds more power and makes more money than you. I think you need to reevaluate your definition of intelligence.

Re:But can they tell us what we really want to kno

[Deviant Q]

On a slightly related note, am I the only one whose brain instantly went to "Nickel Metal Hydride"?

I'm such a nerd!

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's an interesting idea but a significant misinterpretation of the data.

You must be new here.

Re:Bad Information

[Fnkmaster]

Agreed that IQ is a decent indicator of future success, but I don't know that it's the best one and it's definitely not the only one.

What about socioeconomic status? That's a pretty good one. And what about effort? Harder to quantify but somebody's dedication and work ethic seem to be more highly correlated to success than IQ to my subjective measurement. I'm guessing a combination of these factors would be a much better predictor (higher R^2) than any one of them alone.

Anybody have any good studies on this?

Punctuation?

[chrislunter]

Why do all the headlines end in question marks? And why is it always the most bizarre questions? Let's get /.'s opinion...do you think that slow starters have higher IQs? And that cockroaches make group decisions? Apparently, they ran out of experts.

Re:Bad Information

[sgt_doom]

Gee...I guess that explains George W. Bush's success!!!!

Seriously, though, an excellent empirical study (it was either done by Jensen or Hernstein, I think Jensen, and first published in the early '70s of the last century (soooo 20th century), established that the greatest predictor of one's success is the family they are born into, that is, their parents.

Which would explain what's-his-face, the Bushevik in the White House.....

Similar Experience?

[stuffman64]

I'd have to say my life follows this hypothesis fairly well. When I was three years old, I was barely speaking more than one word utterances. The doctors told my mom I would probably turn out OK, and she shouldn't worry too much. By the time I was in kindergarten, I had my first IQ test (Pennsylvania does this to place "superior" students in gifted programs, and "deficient" students in a remedial education program). I scored around a 105, just above average and I took all the regular classes like all of the other "regular" students. In state testing in second grade, I scored in the 99th percentile overall; higher than any other kid in my grade, including the "gifted" ones. Because of this, it was suggested that I be tested yet again. This time, I made a dramatic improvement, to two and a half standard deviations above average (I don't like to say scores, because, in essence they mean nothing more than how well I was able to do on a certain test on a certain day). This was more than enough to put me in the gifted program, so I'd get the perk of getting out of 'regular' class one day a week and doing what they considered "smart kid stuff" and I got to go on a bunch of field trips. Why being intelligent should earn some kids these special priveledges over other kids is beyond me.

I eventually started college and realized I had no idea how to learn stuff. High school was easy for me; all I'd have to do is show up and I'd get an "A." Soon I was depressed (more so than normal- I've suffered depression my whole life) and stopped going to classes altogether. When I finally got my act together, I went to a neurologist to figure out why I'm having such a difficulty in learning. I had yet another IQ test, in addition to all these other tests. Amazingly, my IQ went up another whole standard deviation- even though my reading comprehension and auditory memory subtests were actually considered low enough as for me to have a disability under the ADA (how it works is if you are more than 1.5 standard deviation below your test average, you are considered to have a disability in that area- the part I have a hard time accepting is that I still scored above the 90th percentile in both of these tests). My neurologist was very intrigued about how my scores have been improving considering how I got off to such a slow start.

I'm very blessed to have a one-in-10,000 IQ, but it comes with it's caveats. I still struggle to learn information I'm not interested in, I've suffered from pretty severe depression most of my life, and I almost never see a project of mine to completion- my mind just wanders too much. I've gotten a little off-topic here, but I'd be interested to see if my cortex withers more rapidly as I age as illustrated in the article.

Re:Similar Experience?

[RembrandtX]

Sounds familiar.

Although I was an 'average' developer until two or three, then I too rocketed up the chain.
Did the talented and gifted classes, even participated in a gov't sponsored learning program in my state to see how children with 'high' IQs learned vs 'ordanary' children.

I too excell at whatever I point my mind at, and have a 'people whisper about it when they find out' IQ.

And on the flip side, I also suffer through bouts of depression, and even worse, temper. Through out my life I have had issues both with rage, and depression. [Normally linked of course.] As a child I was self destructive, and an alcholic by 13. [Bone dry by 15, and been that way since.] If I chose to do well at something, I would. If something didn't interest me - I simply didn't do it.

As a child and young adult, this was ignored, my 'gifts' were what people concentrated on. Not the depression, the apathy to certain subjects, the night tremours, the drinking. Around college too, I was years above the subjects that interested, and totally ignored the ones that bored me. Thankfully - in college I was just another face, not a premadonna - and I think this is what turned me around.

The greatest lesson I learned in college was that no matter how friggen high your IQ is, you still have to brush your teeth, double check your math, and pass 'Ethics' - no matter how stupid you think the class is.

I have 800 hobbies, most of them only once, but I completly devour them in that one time. My wife calls me 'random man' or 'forgetful jones'. She jokingly says I can do higher math in my head, but still have problems telling which sock belongs on which foot.

It will be interesting to see if things 'slow down' as I approach middle age. I wonder, did I waste my prime ?

Re:Similar Experience?

[Anonymous Coward]

This post slightly describes my life. I came from a working class family in the UK. Never really had an education that pushed me in anyway.

A few times in my life, I've spent every waking moment working on projects. When I was about 14 I spent every lunch period inside with my electronics teacher and worked on a very complex project, whilst the rest of the class (bar 2 other students, one of which moved the following year to a fee paying private school) worked on the default project, making a temperature sensor. I was one of two students to get an A* (A starred)

During my bachelors, I worked on my thesis sometimes going without sleep. I got my highest grade of any course on this project. Now I'm doing my Master of Science, one course in particular I just found boring. Couldn't even bring my self to finishing the project, even though I had started it before it was officially set. So now I've got to work even harder just to not fail.

To make matters worse, I find it very difficult to make friends, since I find it very hard to trust other people. Being so isolated for all of my life has, just like the previous posters, left me pretty unhappy.

Reflecting on my experiences, I would defiantly like to be happier socially, but I find it very easy to stroll into the library and read a random book on science or history and let me mind wonder.

Re:Similar Experience?

[Paradigma11]

IAAP(I am a Psychologist). you propably should read up on the tests you did. many tests are not good in the first place and worse on the extreme sides. this is not much of a problem in propabilistic testing if you do adaptive testing. http://www.windowsgalore.com/cert/adaptive_testing /index.htm also dont forget that percentiles are no measurement of your ability they only show your position in the relevant population. Only IRT(Item Response Theory)give a measure of your latent ability. That you were classified as having a disadvantage is interesting but i am not that fit in intelligence theories. i guess the test was postulating a second order intelligence factor and your subtests showed a lack in some first order factors. i wouldnt take that very seriously tough.

Re:Similar Experience?

[kria]

While I've never tried to find a root cause, I started off doing well in tests very early (infant ones, like get the safety pin out of the jar, okay, now get it out of the baby bottle where you can't just get it out by reaching), got A's all through elementary and high school...

And hit college, and found that never having had to study to do well has some huge drawbacks when all the classes are dramatically more difficult than high school. I had to re-learn how to learn, because it was much more information than I could just soak up.

And I think everyone is interested in seeing how they measure up to this new cortex-growth yardstick.

Re:Similar Experience?

[myside]

Yeah, I'm sure you're both geniuses. Now read the article - it's about physiological "slow" development of the cortex (not even that really, the summary is badly done), not intellectually slow development.

Re:Similar Experience?

[stuffman64]

No, the article is about how IQ is possibly related to the speed of physiological cortex development (how about a quote like, "Rather, IQ is related to the dynamics of cortex maturation"). I was merely suggesting that perhaps I am one of the slow developers who experienced a rapid change in "intelligence" as a result of the delayed process.

Re:Similar Experience?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is always another prime just around the corner so if you wasted one it might not matter.

Re:Similar Experience?

[Alomex]

But it doesn't have to be that way. I too have a one-in-several-thousands IQ, but with proper coaching was able to overcome my ADD like problems. I still work on ten different projects at any given time, but I did learn to sit down long enough to learn something, take it to completion and stop using the ADD as an excuse.

Re:Similar Experience?

[Savantissimo]

I'd mod you up if I hadn't already posted.
Question: do you think that Rasch measures such as the change-sensitive scores on the new Stanford-Binet V are on a ratio or rather an interval scale? In other words, do such measures have a meaningful zero point so that one can say that Alice is 5% smarter than Bob?

ADD related?

[Frangible]

I had very late development and have a high IQ (way over their "superior" range heh), but also have ADD which is a dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex, which made me a spaced-out zombie for 26 years until I got medication for it.

Interestingly, it seems at least one study suggests people with ADD get "stuck" in a phase of cortical development, possibly delaying later development.

As ADD seems correlated with the dopamine transporter density and genes that increase the number of DATs, perhaps lower extracellular dopamine levels result in slower cortical development and ADD represents an extreme manifestation of an "agile" cortex-- sometimes perhaps a bit too agile for its own good.

IIRC, task persistance and switching tasks is controlled by the temporal lobes, not the PFC, and while that ties in with the PFC's executive control, I think the definition of "agile" they use in this study might apply to a different region of the brain entirely.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, you must be a wife; sorry: man's genius is singular. We rebuke the abstract manifold.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[Scrameustache]

Nurture is important, but nature is unavoidable.

Make Darwin proud: Repeal helmet laws!

Witty comeback to all those who teased me!

[ezdude]

So, I should have told the school bully, "You're just jealous because my cortex is maturing faster than yours!"

Re:So.. many... misinterpretations!!!

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, and apparently there's a lot of biological slowness on Slashdot this evening, although I think that it might have more to do with copious quantities of liquor than delayed development of the cerebral cortex.

Agile?

[bradleyland]

WTF? Is this some kind of Ruby on Rails tie in?

I kid, I kid!

IQ Doesn't necessairly show intelligence

[dooms13]

IQ doesn't necessarily show how smart a person is or will be. That is also up to the personallity of that person. There are many people out there with 140+ IQ's but are lazy and do not work so they do not make the most of it or learn much, while there are those who have a 120 IQ and will work their butts off and become successful and actually learn more than the person with a higher IQ. For instance I go to school with a kid who was a math genius in high school and calculus based classes, but he doesn't do any work now and is not doing well in higher level courses. Intelligence is more than a number.

On another note, most of the standardized tests are given to see how well a person integrates into a society or given culture. A person with a higher SAT score will perform better in the collegiate culture than one with a lesser score. While those who have better GRE scores will perform better in graduate school. They do not necessarily test how smart a person is, but rather their ability to succeed at that level.

First Post!

[i_am_the_r00t]

woo hoo! I hope i am typing fast enuff to be first post!

Re:So.. many... misinterpretations!!!

[Michael Woodhams]

The article summary seems fine. The title is wrong.

Re:Bad Information

[hackstraw]

It remains to this day the single most effective quantitative predictor of future employment status and economic success.

Economic status. I pretty much agree. Employment status, I disagree.

If I were unemployed right now, it would take me 6 months+ to find a "job". "Normal" people can find a job in a day or two, max.

I see many more ads in the paper for "normal" jobs, but for jobs that fit a level of intelligence and expertise, those are rare, and often require relocation, which costs money and are difficult if a wife and family are involved.

Re:Bad Information

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up.

Intelligence tests are most certainly NOT a measure of future success -- actually, you would have to define success before you decided whether scoring high on the test correlates with it. Intelligence tests are meant to measure general intelligence, period. Very few psychologists (the word 'fringe' comes to mind) would go so far as to say that IQ is the single best indicator of future success.

Most people who have seen the real world (whether it be the real-real world or academia) know that great communication skills and average intelligence trumps average communication skills and great intelligence the vast majority of the time.

I got...

[Ibiwan]

The First Post!

Status?

[5n3ak3rp1mp]

Describe what you mean by "future status".

Financial? Social? Intellectual? Number of happy kids? Books published?

There are examples of people who excel in one of these but not the others. And I assume you don't just mean "financial".

So what do you mean by "status" and moreover, how is it not subjective?

*yawn*

[hotfireball]

...what time is it now?.. *blink*

Nurture Side of the Debate? Wow!

[RabidTrucker]

I liked your assessment whoever you are. I was a slow starter because I was in a car wreck with my Dad long before seatbelts were is use, altho Mr. Tucker did have them but the "Big 4" was driving him out of Detroit along with the seatbelts that might have helped me in 1952... then in 3 more years I was just a little guy but I was wanting to figure out how an adult was using that metal thing {door handle} to lock me inside a car. Well, I figured it out about the time we got to the 90 degree curve up the way. Centrifugal pulled me out as the car turned, or inertia, whatever. I would add tho that hitting the ground didn't hurt! My child head weight caused me to flip as I went out, so it was the back of my head that contacted Ground Zero.

I do my part to discourage Evolution and show it for what it is and another latecomer webpage from last week http://www.newpath4.com/perp.htm .

Anyway, being a 1950's baby was a very happy experience for me. I didn't start walking til I was about 14 months, which of course would SCARE TH' DAYLIGHTS out of today's doctors & new Moms. I was so happy I guess I liked my home, liked my parents, didn't feel a need to walk away. Once I got started though I MADE UP FOR LOST TIME. I found out I could push the living room furniture all over the hardwood floor, so I started re-arranging. When I found the KITCHEN, and the OVEN DOOR, I found those coiled elements. So one day I got to pulling on em. When Mom found me I had em half pulled out on the floor and was laughing a lot over what I had done.

I was taking things apart, opening car doors, moving furniture... Things didn't improve much as I grew up. I tripped and fell on a target arrow. While running. Fortunately it didn't hurt too much, just the point went between my nose and eye, stopped at the bone & snapped the arrow shaft. hahaha Then there was 2 or 3 other times when I had so much blood in my eyes my buddies had to walk me back to th' house. Mom managed not to faint or nuthin'. I guess it just got to be normal business.

Life was that way til I hit the teen years. My thyroid was messed up and at the puberty age -when it was supposed to do marvelous things- I got some additional stuff that was to keep me from attending college > http://www.newpath4.com/overweightschoolvendingmac hinesobesity2006preludetorileyfountainofyouthrelea se.htm

Since the thyroid hormones were wrong for me, it was like being poisoned. It caused me to experience the effect that long distance marathon runners encounter, of "hitting the wall". My concentration was affected. Then from all the concussions I'd had while growing up, I found I was bipolar. At that point, even though I really upset all my teachers (who knew my test scores since the 8th Grade)- the wall that was hitting me, a CHEMICAL WALL, just there wasn't any way I would have done well in college.

I upset the family, Mom, Guidance Counselors... but I decided then that I would spend the rest of my life looking for answers. I found plenty. I found out why my Dad had been an alcoholic, that he wasn't some loathsome wretch but had actually turned to alcohol as a form of "self-medication" for the pain in his legs. Then there was so many in my family who committed suicide. Well, a few weeks ago I found out why.

It wasn't *just* the mental or bipolar genes at all. Seems we have some kind of genetic thing ongoing that causes our entire body of blood vessels to constrict. All that incredibly high blood pressure {mine went to 200/130 2 months ago) is just like smoking cigarettes NON STOP. So it's no wonder none of the males live much past 60YO, if that. The pressure gets so great it's like being under 50 feet of water I guess.

When I was a child, before every

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[shawb]

Regarding not being able to learn music, there are several possibilities (I don't know enough about your personal background (actually, I know nothing about your musical background) so these may not apply to you.) Sorry if any of these sounds like insults, it's just conversation and mental excercise

1) You were not taught how to play a musical instrunment at an early enough age. Music is an expressive form, which can essentially communicate ideas or at least emotions, likely very similar to language. It is vastly easier for people to learn new languages at a certain age (I think younger than about 6 years old? Someone more versed in developmental psychology may feel free to correct me here.) After that age, it becomes more and more difficult to learn a foreign language. Although learning any foreign language in this critical time appears to make it much easier to learn a different foreign language later in life than if the person only learned their native tongue. My guess is that translating between languages is a skill that must be learned early to be fully effective.

2) It is possible that you are simply tone deaf. Not meant to be an insult. Some people have innate "perfect pitch" and can replicate any tone given to them. Some people are on the other end of the spectrum and have a very difficult time differentiating between any pitches. This seems to be mostly a physiological limitation of some sort, although practice can move one significantly closer to the "perfect pitch" end of the spectrum. (Personally, I don't have "traditional" perfect pitch in which I can hear a tone and tell if it middle C or not, but am fairly decent at discerning relative pitches... E.G. if one note is four steps above another, if one pitch is an octave double of another, etc etc.)

3) The people who tried to teach you how to read music may have simply not been good teachers in this particular field.

4) Whether or not the reading music was in an attempt to learn an instrunment that you are interested in playing can make a big difference. And some instrunments are more suited for learning to read music: the piano being pretty much ideal as it is laid out in pretty much the exact form that sheet music is written in. But I think whether or not you are actually interested in learning that particular instrunment is more important (assuming a melodic instrunment... learning to play drums or other rhythmic instrunments would not help.)

5) Many of the other details in your post imply that you are an extremely visual thinker as opposed to verbal. Your relative ability to play tetris over doing a crossword puzzle is very telling of this. Even your doing poorly early on in school and then finally racing ahead is very telling. Much of early education seems to be rote memorization, which is done better in a verbal mindframe. Since speech is a linear process it would seem logical that memorizing lists of facts etc would come easier to a verbal thinker. Defining a visual thinker is a bit difficult to do with words, but it is my opinion that the thought processes are not nearly as linear and there are multiple parallel concepts being processed at the same time. This allows for a greater ease in learning certain abstract topics which would only come into play later in an academic career. I believe that visual thinkers have a little bit more difficult time learning a completely foreign topic. This is because (in my opinion) that visual thinkers need to compare the thing being learned to other related ideas. But once a few key concepts in the area are known, it becomes quite trivial for the visual learner to visualize the patterns of how other concepts link into the framework of the entire topic or discipline. This could possibly be compared to object oriented programming, where once a class is set up all the information and functions contained within can then be reused by something which needs it. A visual mode of thinking means that you have to have a baseline knowledge built up to be a

IQ is too reductive

[drDugan]

IQ as a measure of ability is reductive and almost useless. People are good at different things, and many many skills are not measured by "IQ" that are highly correlated with success in the world. Leadership, confidence, self-image, creativity, organizing the external world, etc. etc. etc. Jung and other have made extremely good models that provide better measures for people's abilities and skills.

Re:IQ is too reductive

[Paradigma11]

i am a psychologist and know a bit about diagnostics. IQ-tests are not that bad in predicting success at work. a good IQ Test will explain for example about 30% of the variance in many positions, same as biographical data. naturally, they dont explain totally different parts of the variance but its still economically to use both information. also IQ-tests differ a lot in quality. most tests currently used are still based on classical test theory which has some major problems. modern propabilistic tests, especially those based on the rasch modell, are far superior in many ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasch_model . if you can show me a reliable(>0.8) test for "organizing the external world" which has high internal and external validity and is not prone to manipulation please tell me. Dont forget that there are limits to what we are able to predict. If you have a model that explains more than 50% of the variance you have propably made a methodological mistake(kline, 1998). life is unpredictable in many ways(accidents, divorce, finding a good social network..)but the problem is that we cant accept that fact.

Re:IQ is too reductive

[drDugan]

I'm not a professional in this area, but I've read some. I think that different people process information in funamentally different ways. My point regarding this whole "IQ testing" idea is that one test cannot (does not/ should not) apply to all people in the same way. It's like developing one system for determining the breed of an animal, and applying to both dogs and horses the same way. They are very different.

The problem is that to most of the outside world, the differences between how people's minds work are not nearly as obvious as the difference between dogs and horses. Yet I would argue that the differences are significant (in the scientific sense), and there are some people who are extremely good at recognizing and measuring the differences.

In regard to your statement above about success at "work"... People work in so many different ways in so many different environments. How can one possibly lump the daily efforts of a performance ballet artist in with a software program manager? Both are jobs... I would guess what people call IQ will apply more to the manager than the dancer.

great... but consider also that

[jackstack]

higher IQ does not necessarily even remotely translate to "being smart", or "overall happiness" in life. All these things, as far as I can tell, are unrelated.

Nimh, eh?

[Nekomusume]

There's something appealing about studies regarding higher intelligence being done by an organization called Nimh.

Are you implying that...

[ickeicke]

Are you implying that you were dumber than your school bully? Since the article states that people with a higher IQ score, have slower development of their cortex.

Re:Are you implying that...

[ezdude]

Hmmm...That's not how I read it: "The smartest 7-year-olds tended to start out with a relatively thinner cortex that thickened rapidly, peaking by age 11 or 12 before thinning." Also, just take a look at the chart. Did you even read the article?

Re:Are you implying that...

[ickeicke]

Yes I did, but I believe that a thicker cortex does not strictly relate to a higher intelligence, not does the thinning indicate a stagnation of growth. The thinning is just a sign that ineffective cells are being removed.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting... in my foray into academia I find myself surrounding by idiots with OCD (why would anyone want to know so much about so little unless they were OCD?). I'm sure they have high IQs, but I find they think anyone who don't share their abnormal levels of interest in obscure topics is "low IQ."

Let's consider the article as an intelligent test

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we should look at this article as a sort of intelligence test?

All those who are posting, "Ah Gawd. This is just like me! I was considered stupid as a kid but developed into a genius later!", taking into account your response to this article, may I suggest that maybe the initial diagnosis was in fact the correct one?

Wow is right!

[rcw-home]

I came up with more engines http://www.newpath4.com/enginewow.htm which combines ice cold liquid air and hot steam together to clash and cross-combine inside the engine cylinder for both steam implosion & air explosion. Both forces slam toward the piston head at the Speed of Sound

I can personally recommend this guy's web pages to anyone who is a fan of Alex Chiu, Sollog, or the Timecube guy.

No hurry though - if he's gone fifty-four years without grasping the concepts of Entropy or Ideal Gas Laws, he'll probably go his whole life.

Re:Wow is right!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

No hurry though - if he's gone fifty-four years without grasping the concepts of Entropy or Ideal Gas Laws, he'll probably go his whole life.

There's nothing to grasp about entropy. Simply saying something won't work because of a fairly loose theoetical framework is unwise. Before Watt invented the steam engine, everyone thought that there was no way of designing an engine that could use linear momentum to generate angular momentum.

Saying an engine design won't work because of entropy is more or less a similar argument. Entropy is simply technical constrait an engine or solonoid must overcome to become useful.

Re:Wow is right!

[rcw-home]

Before Watt invented the steam engine, everyone thought that there was no way of designing an engine that could use linear momentum to generate angular momentum.

Except that Watt didn't merely author some web pages about his steam engine - he built one.

Entropy is simply technical constrait an engine or solonoid must overcome to become useful.

The way that you do that is through an outside energy source. Show us a car that regenerates all of its own fuel and we will happily rewrite the laws of thermodynamics for you.

Until then, every other serious modern engine design proposal (Kalina cycle, etc) comes with a thermodynamic cycle analysis. Where is his?

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[RichDiesal]

Actually, politically incorrect though it may be, the psychological evidence these days points to a general factor of intelligence that is likely around 30-40% genetic. That's not to say that nurture isn't important of course (60% is obviously substantial), but genetics do give a person a sizable and substantial advantage over their not-so-gifted brethren. And having said THAT, there are a lot of risk factors that during pregnany that will lower that intelligence further (exposure to lead, other toxins, undue stress, etc.)

There has been a long running debate instigated by a psychologist named Robert J. Sternberg that stated there were three intelligences: academic, practical, and creative. Academic intelligence is the type measured by IQ, practical is the ability to use information in a useful way, and creative is creativity. Well guess what - the empirical evidence reveals that this is a totally arbitrary distinction, and that the general factor of intelligence proves much more useful and descriptive than any combination of specific intelligences (even splits like math/verbal).

Even Sternberg himself, who based his entire career on this idea, has finally admitted defeat: the data just isn't there to support much value of intelligences beyond the general factor.

What DOES show promise is the measure of things beyond intelligence/ability - things like personality, integrity, and so on. While you may be "doomed to be dumb" to _some_ extent, there are plenty of ways to overcome those limitations.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[Simon Garlick]

Thank god someone posted this early.

Worst article title, and worst article summary, ever.

I'm a Dunce with a High IQ

[ccmay]

People need to realise that there are many types of intelligence, and that not having a high IQ really only related to a small number of them.

True. I am living proof of this. I was quite precocious and learned to read at age 3. Took high school classes in grade school, and college classes in high school. I have an elephantine long-term memory that makes me unbeatable at trivia games. Yet I would never say I have an "agile mind". Far from it. I think slowly, talk slowly, sometimes even forgetting what I am talking about mid-sentence as I grope for a word. I'm totally devoid of musical talent or interest. I can remember each step of the Krebs cycle, but never remember to pick up the dry cleaning on the way home. I find a dozen ways to piss off my wife every week due to my own slow-witted absent-mindedness.

I do have an IQ several standard deviations above the mean, but it is clear that the computer of my mind is missing a few of the "system service" processes that most normal people take for granted. Lucky for me I have a profession that rewards obsessive one-track minds.

-ccm

ref

[Anonymous Coward]

As back up to the poster's statement:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060401/fob1. asp

actually, you can discriminate

[Anonymous Coward]

But only if that deficit means they are a less capable candidate. For example, someone with Tay-Sachs cannot demand a job as a proffesional wrestler with the claim they didn't get the job because of genes.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[Reziac]

I have a tested-perfect ear and was taught all the Music Stuff thru many years of required classes, but still there is something missing when I try to read music -- I can puzzle it out, but it never really connects with the notes that I *know* it represents. Like someone who can figure out words one letter at a time, but can't extract meaning from it. Turns out that's a real syndrome, "word blindness"... I think I'm "music blind", in the same manner.

Finns are stupid, but great at school.

[more]

The average IQ of Finns is about 98.5, about the same as in US. However, Finns are great at PISA. This is mostly because of two reasons:

1) Finns are good for schooling. They are bit passive and believe (too) easily in authority.

2) The Finns have a narrow gene pool. This means that a Finn is somewhat similar to another Finn. A homogeneous class is easier to teach.

The Finnish school system is not that optimal. Children are still though in 25 to 32 pupil groups, depending on age. However, the teachers are pretty good, and Finns are good for school.

The Koreans, Japanese and Hollandese people are highly intelligent, but Finns are just a tad below the average. Three out of the four very highly intelligent (IQ above 160) Finns that I know are from the northern parts of Finland. As far as I know, they are not Lapps, though.

Re:Finns are stupid, but great at school.

[Fred_A]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say but this is how it comes through :

1) Finns are good for schooling. They are bit passive and believe (too) easily in authority.

Finns are gullible morons that will passively take anything.

2) The Finns have a narrow gene pool. This means that a Finn is somewhat similar to another Finn. A homogeneous class is easier to teach.

Oh and they're inbred too.

FWIW Finnish schools have the highest proportion of foreign students of Europe. Finns have the highest rate of foreign language mastery with people speaking 3 or 4 languages being common.

Sometimes one of them also starts a FOSS project.

Re:Finns are stupid, but great at school.

[more]

Finns are gullible morons that will passively take anything.

No, a moron has an IQ of 50-70. Finns are normal people, with a tendency to passively take anything.

Oh and they're inbred too.

Yep. We are the second-most inbread people in the world, right after Islandese.

The reason why we know so many languages is that our nation has been robbed so many times. We still have the old legisture of teaching Swedish to every Finn, because that used to be law when Swedes captured our best lands, forced their religion on us to be able to better tax us, and imperialized us in many other ways - for example, by burning our oldest archives at Kaarina castle. No one really needs Swedish, except to serve the descendant of the old imperial lords, who still own most of the land (the Swedes divided the best land amongst themselves, Swedish families still owing much of the costal areas).

So, we learn Finnish from our mothers, but it is impossible to communicate with foreigners in Finnish, so we learn 1-2 languages to communicate with foreigners, and Swedish to be able to serve the people who robbed our lands in the 17th century. In practice, 95 % of people never use Swedish after school.

Re:Finns are stupid, but great at school.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, don't you just love that propaganda :)

Providing some sources to confirm these facts would be too much to ask for, I guess.

Re:Finns are stupid, but great at school.

[Anonymous Coward]

While you are right in general, you seem to have forgot how a million Finns were able to flee to Sweden during the 2nd world war much thanks to being able to communicate properly with the Swedish. Although Sweden hasn't recognized Finnish as an official language as Finland has done with Swedish, the Swedish government also hasn't recognized Swedish as an official language. Mind you, there are plenty of Finnish TV and radio programs in the ether on the Swedish public networks just as there are Swedish TV and radio programs running in Finland.

My point being that it's not a unidirectional relationship and that the figure of 95% is clearly made up from your own experiences. If you lived in a Swedish speaking area, I'm sure your figures and opinions would be different.

First post!!!

[JollyFinn]

Some people get bad answers very fast.
Some people get correct answers on time.
I get best answers too late.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[jcupitt65]

Another reassuring point is that IQ is, in many ways, like that other statistic men love to boast about.

Of course it means almost nothing in practice. Who cares if you are good at silly logic puzzles if all you do all day is sit around and feel pleased. People who actually do something useful or interesting are much more important. In other words: it's not the meat, it's the motion.

Namedrop: I knew Philip at college and he's got a paper in Nature before me. Bastard.

First post!

[ceeam]

First post!

Re:But can they tell us what we really want to kno

[DimJim]

I was still thinking that after i read your post. After copy-paste-googling i do now get your point.

<br>
That's what you get from not being native english speaker. "NIMH - Rouva Brisby ja h&#228;nen salainen maailmansa" does not right a bell with grandparent post.

Re:But can they tell us what we really want to kno

[DimJim]

For the record, this is my last post today.(Still blaming my fewer, like in other threads) I can't seem to make coherent sentances today...

LOGIC!

[dos_dude]

So children with 'superior' IQ have a slow start. Fine.

But that doesn't friggin mean that everyone with a slow start has a superior IQ!

IQ isn't a definitive measure of intelligence

[Anonymous Coward]

IQ is often used as a short hand for intelligence or brightness. As if the IQ System were some sort of definitive measure of intelligence. It isn't.

IQ tests measure only an aptitude to perform well in IQ tests. Nothing else. No other conclusion can reasonably be extrapolated from the results of these tests.

A person can be taught to perform better in IQ tests. But learning how to do better under IQ testing does not equate to being any more intelligent.

There is no such thing as IQ.

[master_p]

Here is a revolutionary concept for y'all: there is no such thing as IQ. People that seem to be less clever simply have a more clouded 'brain', mainly to psychological discrepancies. I would accept that people with "higher IQ" were really smarter if they could "survive" in situations that "lower IQ" people survive from. It requires real cleverness to survive in certain difficult to live places, but noone acknowledges that fact.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[Aceticon]

From what i remember from doing an US IQ test i downloaded from the Internet (i'm neither from the US nor live there) they also have some cultural-dependant factors - if i remember it correctly it was mostly the language skills part, the memory part and some of the logical part (things like stories composed of multiple steps from which you have to figure out a logical step and/or result) that had those (things like linguistic expressions - which vary from country to country - or references to things "everybody" is expected to know).

Oh yeah, and IQ tests do try and measure overall inteligence - in a real deal IQ test (which tend to be long) one can definitely spot the parts that measure visual pattern recognition, numerical pattern recognition, language, memorization skills, logical skills and others.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[lysergic.acid]

True, you can't deny biological factors, but I think most people have a lot of misconceptions about "intelligence" and IQ tests. More often than not, environmental factors, such as culture, can be more of an obstacle for one's intellectual development than biological factors. And in 99% of the cases, one can in fact increase their intelligence significantly simply by apply themselves in the right manner.

A lot of people seem to have the misconception that intelligence can be accurately quantified, as if IQ directly correlates to one's intelligence. Like you said, there are many types of intelligence and mental faculties, and most are not very well understood. It's not as simple as how many brain cells you have. You must also factor in the quality of the neural connections, and other things that neurologists are only beginning to understand.

What interests me the most is the apparent connection between different mental gifts and mental illness. In particular, the observed correlation between mathematical genius and autism/asperg's, and also the link between creativity and depression/bipolarism. I'm still not quite sure if the correlation represents a direct relationship, or if there are other factors that we aren't seeing.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[Aceticon]

1) You were not taught how to play a musical instrunment at an early enough age. Music is an expressive form, which can essentially communicate ideas or at least emotions, likely very similar to language. It is vastly easier for people to learn new languages at a certain age (I think younger than about 6 years old? Someone more versed in developmental psychology may feel free to correct me here.) After that age, it becomes more and more difficult to learn a foreign language. Although learning any foreign language in this critical time appears to make it much easier to learn a different foreign language later in life than if the person only learned their native tongue. My guess is that translating between languages is a skill that must be learned early to be fully effective.

Actually to fluently speak a language one cannot mentally translate between languages in your mind - in practice one goes directly from the word in whichever language (house/huis/maison/casa) to the mental concept (in this case the concept of a house).

In practice one can actually think in that language.

At least that's how it works for me.

I suspect that learning the link between a word and the meaning of that word (what it represents) is pretty much the same in your mother tongue or any other language. This would explain why at the age that you learn to speak, learning any (other) language is so easy.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[lysergic.acid]

I shared similar experiences in my childhood, though I'm only 20. Up until maybe 5th or 6th grade I didn't do too well in school compared to other students (though my parents claimed that they could tell I was above average in intelligence from very early on. but then again, they are my parents) but by 6th grade I was easily one of the top students at my school, a trend which continued throughout jr. high, high school, and college. I can't say that I didn't have to work very hard (often to the point of tears I was so bad at certain subjects such as writing), but even when I became a total slacker in high school and college I still found it easy to keep up in math and science classes, and even set the curve semi-regularly without studying ahead of time or doing homework assignments.

It seems that early on my brain adapted to a certain type of thinking, such as the thought processes used for math and science, and perhaps my neural connections are just optimized for those kinds of problem-solving skills or whatnot. The area I seem to have the most difficulties in is language skills. I have a hard time learning new languages. I nearly failed out of my sign language class in high school, and I used to be a very poor writer. I've been able to improve my writing skills through lots and lots of practice, but I still have a hard time picking up new languages.

Emotional Quocient

[Aceticon]

I suggest you search for it (or EQ) in the Net and read about it.

Basically EQ measures things like interpersonal, social, self-motivation and self-guidance abilities.

For example, having an optimistic outlook on things (related to self-motivation), being persistent/hard-working, being confortable with large groups of people or being able to set for yourself clear objectives and a path to get there are all things that relate to your EQ.

Think of IQ as a measurement of one's mental raw power and EQ as the measure of one's ability to, in the wider framework that is the world (which is full of other people and all that ;) ) use that brainpower to "achieve one's objectives in life".

The strong influence of EQ in one's success explains things like why some people that are geniuses in a specific area can still be unsuccessful in it (e.g. the really bright, awkward quiet guy that has been working by himself for the last 10 year in the dark corner of the office and has never gotten a raise).

PS: The good news is that someone's EQ can change and it's possible to improve one's own EQ.

Re:Bad Information

[Braintrust]

"IQ testing is a surprisingly accurate predictor of future status. "

My IQ has been tested almost a dozen times in my life. I was barely 4 years old when it started. Stanford-Binet. Mensa. Etc. The scores have ranged from a low of 187 to a high of 204.

I am that smart.

I am currently a bouncer in a nightclub, making twelve dollars an hour.

Plus tips.

it's just an extrapolation

[tinkerton]

compare dogs to monkeys to humans: humans are extremely slow starters. Most people should be aware of that. So it's a natural extrapolation to go looking for the possibility that slow starter humans end up somehow smarter than the rest of the pack.

Afterwards you can start filling in the meaning of what slow starters and smart people are. In how many ways can you be a slow starter? Is it better to slow down the early education of your kids on some fronts? etc.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[Fjan11]

I think it's politically incorrect to say this because no one should ever hear that they are "doomed to be dumb". I actually agree that no one should hear this

You go on to explain how there are "several kinds" of intelligence, and that people can be good at one and not the other. The painful truth is however, that intelligent people tend te be good at a lot of things but, yes, there are dumb people who will be less succesful than others at anything they try. Life isn't fair. "Different kind of intelligence" may be true, prehaps, and it is a nice story to motivate a slow kid, but let's not try to hide the fact that there are people out there doomed to be bad at just about everything and the education system has to deal with that.

The politically correct attitude makes it almost impossible to discuss dealing with the shallow end of the gene pool because someone always starts the argument that "they must be good at something else" and it's the system at fault for not giving them the right opportunity. This argument speaks to an inate sense of fairness about how the way the world should be, but the world is not fair or unfair, it just is.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[Frozen Void]

You can increase your IQ (but not Intelligence) by training pattern recognition and visuallly analyzing dozens of tests.Just taking hundred of tests,will markedly improve your IQ.
Which is IMHO a waste of time.I never believed in IQ or in such things a "Measurable General Intelligence".
You can be a quantum mechanics genius or a uber-hacker but have no idea how to
drive a car or solve rubik cubes(i.e. Knwoledge is specific).What is real intelligence is wisdom to use acquired knowledge the right way(which is usually the fastest/efficient way) and ability to analyze/interpret knowledge. Acquisition of knowledge on other hand is easy.

Interesting..

[Magnum7385]

Without having read the article, I consider myself to have experienced this. I remember very distinctly not reading until 1st grade or so, not enjoying math until 2nd grade, and otherwise not very scholastically inclined, because honestly it was a bit of trouble for me. From this point into my [early teen | teen | late teen | young adult] years, I very soon and in a prolonged fasion was considered by my classmates as "the brain", "the smart kid", etcetera.. I have many memories from 4th grade helping teach the other children about the computers/calculators/science idea because the teacher was often swamped with running around the room seeing to kids. Correcting my "technology" teachers in middle school. Locating security holes, and offering free hands-on tech support to to the "administration" and teachers alike in high school. I graduated [highschool] with a 4.0, and barely tried. You know the type, the one that never studies, aces the tests, sleeps in class and still gets straight A's on turned in assignments, etcetera. Eh. It feels like I plateaued somewhere, which is significantly influenced from the perception that my cognitive growth compared to the difficulty increase in subject matter in whatever was being learned at the moment drastically shrank in ratio from one to another. I actually have to try at what I'm getting into, instead of reading something once and knowing it from there on out [which isn't completely gone.. =D]. Maybe that's just how difficult college is surprising me as, who knows. Now I'll read the damn thing.

Re:Interesting..

[Magnum7385]

I should add, now that I think of it, I had 2 years of preschool and had a slight speech impediment as a kid, outside of stuttering. I don't brag about these facts much, as you can imagine, but for me they add further merit to this idea.

the problem with high IQ

[tinkerton]

well, 'A' problem then.. and who knows how common...

Is that a show of intelligence is like burning rubber with a motorbike.
The ego gets tied to the potential instead of to the actual achievements. Unfortunately a lot of achievements are not that dependent on IQ.

Suppose that you grow up and find that somebody mixed up your IQ results with those of another guy. You're actually not that smart. It wouldn't be fun. Hurts.
Nobody takes away your achievements.

Strange thing to say

[displague]

'People with very agile minds tend to have a very agile cortex,' says Dr. Philip Shaw of the NIMH.

That's a strange thing to say about a personified battery.

Is there a word that works similar to personify, except meaning to draw the characteristics of a people or society onto a single object?

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[hinux]

There is acedemic intelligence (heck you can often find a person who is great in one subject area and not another), ...

A bright person is capable of performing well above average but he/she really doesn't have to. It may be that he/she just is not interested in something and puts little or no effort into it.

,... there is emotional intelligence, there is interpersonal/social intelligence, there is technical (hands on) aptitudes that are also intelligences.

you seem to be using the word 'intelligence' to refer to a whole bunch of different concepts. Intelligence, according to some definitions, does refer to the general *capacity* to adapt to one's environment. When using the word 'intelligence' in the sense of abstract mental faculties (which often is the case), an 'intelligent' person isn't necessarily more physically active or more sociable than those that are not. But it doesn't preclude them, either.

Nature affecting IQ doesn't mean that someone who has "bad" genes is dumb. It just means that they will probably use some other intelligence or talent to make their contribution to the world.

Nonetheless, I agree with your statement about one's contribution to society. Stealing a speech from Spiderman: with greater intelligence comes greater responsibility. Intelligent people are more responsible than others, at least in a moral sense (because they can understand the world and forsee the future better than others) but that may be a wishful thinking. Such a person is as free as other people to act irresponsibly, if he chooses.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

there is emotional intelligence, there is interpersonal/social intelligence, there is technical (hands on) aptitudes that are also intelligences.

No, they aren't. These are called empathy, sociability and dexterity, but not intelligence, which is problem solving skill. Dumb people don't get intelligent by calling different skills "another kind of intelligence" any more than clumsy people become dexterous by calling their intelligence "academic dexterity".

This PC nonsense is killing your language, guys. You're losing the ability to clearly express facts by catering for the petty issues of easily offended malcontents. Say what you mean, mean what you say.

(For the record: I consider myself quite intelligent, somewhat clumsy, completely unempathic and entirely unsociable. See, expressing facts is easy.)

Sigh always the same IQ discution

[aepervius]

IQ score cannot be generalized from a population to the enxt. IQ are standard score on standard test WITHIN that same population. And from the definition of IQ you will then get for the total population an average of 100. So Finn can't have an average of 98.5. They will get an average of 100. And before you start about generalized test, well those test are not standard among population of different culture. In other word any attempt to compare IQ between population is doomed to fail JUST BECAUSE OF THE CULTURE DIFFERENCE !

Re:Bad Information

[lysergic.acid]

What kind of important decisions do IQ tests help us make?

The problem with IQ tests, and also SAT tests, are that they usually have certain inherent biases or flaws in their design which benefit particular social groups. Specifically, standardized tests such as IQ tests and the SATs have been shown to have cultural biases in the way questions are phrases, or perhaps even in the kinds of questions used in the tests. Stereotypes have also been shown to psychologically handicap certain minorities.

Additionally, most standardized tests commonly used to grant access into academia or other coveted sectors of society usually have exploitable flaws which tend to favor the financially successful. For example, many asian students from an upper-middle class financial background score exceptionally high (relative to their peers from different socio-economic/cultural backgrounds) on the SATs not because they are particularly smart or studious, but simply because they knew how to prepare for the test, and have had a lot of practice studying for the test. This results in the test not measuring the academic abilities/merit of a student, but simply how familiar they were with the SAT test--a skill with essentially no academic/intellectual value.

So students with rich parents who can afford to send them to the best SAT prep schools score higher than students with more academic merit simply because they're familiar with test taking strategies with respect to the SATs. This is often exploited in the Asian community, which gives students of a different culture an unfair disadvantage simply because they aren't aware of how big of an advantage a good SAT prep school can give. Even if everyone were aware of this exploitable flaw in the tests, it still leaves you with a bunch of students spending hours after school everyday to study how to take a test rather than simply engaging in true intellectual pursuits which they are interested in.

So the inherent flaws in these standardized tests, in combination with their roles as gatekeepers to upper-mobility resources--in other words, de facto determiners of the maximum level of success one may achieve--causes serious inequities in our society to persist. So outside of medical/scientific research on brain & psychological development, I really don't see many legitimate uses for such tests as they exist today.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[TimeZone]

Actually to fluently speak a language one cannot mentally translate between languages in your mind - in practice one goes directly from the word in whichever language (house/huis/maison/casa) to the mental concept (in this case the concept of a house). In practice one can actually think in that language. At least that's how it works for me.

Definitely. I am not a native French speaker, but I learned the language in high school and college (though I've forgotten much of it by now). Anyways, during the times when I was using the language a lot, there were occasions when I would be able to think of the word in French but not English. Talking with some friends: "uh... I can't remember the english word... parapluie... that thing you use to keep rain off your head." And I was thinking of the little pictures you often see in electronics manuals of an umbrella keeping rain off the device, to say "do not get wet".

On a possibly related note, I used to be an excellent speller in middle school. Then I learned French. Now I can't spell for crap.

TZ

It blows my mind.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing that a class of problems exist where knowing whether or not a solution exists is nearly equivalent to finding a solution (if one exists).

Hell, it's easy (relatively speaking) to determine if a number is prime and whether trying to factor it into (smaller) primes is futile (Of course, to find the factors if it's not is a bitch).

Not so with 3-SAT and the other NP-complete problems.

Plus theres the interesting effect that proving Factoring!=P implies P!=NP.

Blows my mind, it does.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

In high school my IQ test claimed I was near genius. So why can't I learn to read music? Several people have tried to teach me and I've tried to learn but I just never get it. Yet I'm quite intuitive about computers and GUIs.

Try getting another geek to teach you. Geeks generally think with one half of the brain (left I think), and mucisians and other art people with the other. So, if ony is 95% left and the other is 95% right brained, you might have serious problems communicating a simple problem. My suggestion (and it's only a suggestion) is to find someone who can play music, and ask them about a C programming problem. If they can answer that, you should be able to communicate with them.

Next, don't start with a guitar, basoon or somesuch. Pick something with keys - keyboard, piano, organ, etc - and one note per key. Just like a computer keyboard, except the letters are in ABCDEFG order instead of QWERTY.

I'm a geek (C, Linux, Pascal, VB, C64 basic, x86 assembler, 6510 assembler), and I taught myself to play. Not by listening, but by looking up which note corresponds to which key. Not even from a music book, but by looking under "sheet music" in the encyclopedia.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[_am99_]

This seems to be mostly a physiological limitation of some sort, although practice can move one significantly closer to the "perfect pitch" end of the spectrum. (Personally, I don't have "traditional" perfect pitch in which I can hear a tone and tell if it middle C or not, but am fairly decent at discerning relative pitches... E.G. if one note is four steps above another, if one pitch is an octave double of another, etc etc.)

Just for your information, you seem to be under the impression that "perfect pitch" is something you have to be born with - it is a VERY common mis-conception.

I have tried the perfect pitch tapes by Dave Lucas-Burge, and you would be surprised to see that anyone (well most people) can learn perfect pitch. The first time you hear the difference you are amazed that each note on the chromatic scale has its own color to it. Some stand out more than others, but you can learn hear each note's own color with enough time and dedication.

I have not completed the program; and since I am out of practise I am not very good. But anytime I play an B-flat on the piano (single note - not good with chords yet), or often when I hear it in a song, I can feel the color of the note. It is pretty crazy - you should check it out.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[indifferent children]

Pick something with keys - keyboard, piano, organ, etc - and one note per key.

Now for the bad news: if you type really well/fast, then piano might be especially hard. Unlike a computer keyboard, when you play piano, you are expected to hit more than one key at the same time. Imagine typing on a keyboard where every letter is like shift/alt/ctrl. If you did that, they should probably call it 'chording', in honor of the piano. :-)

Re:Bad Information

[freeweed]

An intelligent person is willing to adjust to some changes in life, make some sacrifices, and just about do anything to ensure they can continue to survive. A truly intelligent person is also willing to take a "normal" job, if it means paying the bills - if the alternative is to sit around moping about how unfair life is because there are no jobs suited for them.

Whether or not this correlates to a high IQ is another matter entirely.

Re:Bad Information

[Erixxxxx]

I would just disagree with:

IQ testing is a surprisingly accurate predictor of future status

and rephrase it as

"IQ testing is an accurate predictor of ones future ability to succeed in a wide(r) variety of fields"

I have no problem with IQ/intelligence being rooted in biology/genetics. Environment can be an inhibitor or a mutator, but not a creator of that which isnt there.

What bothers me is the seeming perception on the part of some to view an IQ as some sort of measurement of capacity (this isnt directed at your post specifically Neal, more the thread in general). The test is timed. There is a time limit. An IQ is not a measurement of capacity. An IQ is a measurement of rate.

If hypothetically we could measure a kids leg bones and leg muscle mass and say "Hes going to be a fast runner some day", the kid may very well grow up to win every race he runs. But that doesnt mean other people dont reach the finish line.

It just seems like so many people see an IQ like, "Well this person can hold x amount of intelligence while this person can only hold y amount". Its silly. Its nuts. Someone with an IQ of 110 can learn calculus, its just going to take them longer than someone with an IQ of 140. Since we know its biological, we know its not lack of ability, but lack of predisposition.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[Jesus_666]

But once I got to calculus there were many math concepts that simply seemed foreign and unlearnable to me, and for some reason I keep looking back to that math class taught in french and think that's where it all went wrong, although if I was able to visualize the math concept, I'd do just fine. It's once I have to start transforming pure equations and intuiting in a linguistic sense that I start to get in trouble.

I have the very same problem (which is why I have to redo the goddamn Math II course this semester): I can do most math stuff without problems, but once it comes to polynomials and related stuff my mental process hits a brick wall. In school I used to have a B in math. Then polynomials were introduced (must have been around the ninth grade) and I immediately dropped to a regular E. In the last semester of school we went from polynomial-based stuff to stochastics. I went back to a B. Unfortunately the last semester's grades didn't count against the final report card...

My health insurance paid for an IQ test when I was about fifteen. It turned out that I had an overall score of 124 but also a deficiency in some area, which would have to be determined with another examination. Once the exact deficiency would have been determined I would have been able to work around it or train that area. Of course the insurance decided that while they cover IQ tests they don't cover anything that might actually help people so now I'm stuck knowing that I have or had some kind of deficiency but not what kind of deficiency it is/was or how it affects me.

The point of the story: I think that it's probably not the stuff you didn't learn that threw you off track but rather some kind of mental block.

Re:Bad Information

[hackstraw]

An intelligent person is willing to adjust to some changes in life, make some sacrifices, and just about do anything to ensure they can continue to survive.

"It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value."

-- Arthur C. Clarke

A truly intelligent person is also willing to take a "normal" job, if it means paying the bills - if the alternative is to sit around moping about how unfair life is because there are no jobs suited for them.

Whether or not this correlates to a high IQ is another matter entirely.

I'm not sure of the point here. I was making a point that "normal" stuff is, well, more normal than super intelligent stuff. Its not uncommon for people to be laid off or have their employer go out of business or whatever and its not uncommon for it to take 6 months+ to find a similar kind of job. Its also not uncommon for people to have savings to live 6+ plus with little to no income.

Well, actually, with the bling-bling attitude here in the US, scratch the savings... Gotta have that Hummer and that huge interest only house, right? Thats the sign of real intelligence.

Did most of you even read this article?

[godyag]

I keeping reading these little anecdotes from people relating their troubles in early school years to their incredible intellectual gain later in life... this article has nothing to do with this.

The term "Slow Starters" (which isn't even mentioned in the article yet somehow got mixed up with it) does not imply dumb kids who did great later on... it refers to the prolonged development of the outer layer of the brain... the authors have found a correlation between a how long the cortex thickens in childhood and higher IQ.

Stop posting your life's story about how you grew up with nobody believing in you, and how your misinterpretation of this article makes you feel better about yourself.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[Pchelka]

I really worry about the weight society gives to standardized tests to measure intelligence. I have a Ph.D. in physics, so I suppose I am pretty smart. On the other hand, I did really lousy on the logic part of the SATs/GREs. It was full of annoying questions that usually involved guessing how old some guy named Bob is, given that he is older than Mary and younger than Pete, and so on and so forth. They never had "Just ask Bob how old he is!" as an answer choice. That always seems like the most logical answer to me - why strain your brain trying to figure it out, when you could just ask Bob? I think that they have changed this part of the GRE to something else now - I took it a really, really long time ago. I tried taking an I.Q. test once, just for fun, but the whole thing was these stupid logic questions like on the GRE that I took. I got extremely bored by the whole I.Q. test thing and quit after about 5 minutes. I just didn't care enough about the I.Q. test (or knowing what my I.Q. is) to actually think about the questions and work through the test.

I don't mean to sound arrogant, like I think I am too smart for these silly tests. On the other hand, I'm not sure what these tests are really measuring, as your educational background, cultural experiences, etc. can have a big impact on your scores. I think this is why the test preparation industry is such a big deal. Taking courses to learn how to take these tests seems to boost people's scores. If this is the case, aren't the tests just measuring your ability to take that particular type of test, rather than actual intelligence or abilities?

I just don't think that we understand enough about the way the brain works to accurately gauge things like intelligence 100% of the time. Yes, some people are smarter than others. Some people are good at math, others at music, and some lucky people are good at both things. In grad school, one of the other students told me that women just aren't as good at math and science as men because we think differently. In the end, he dropped out, while I actually graduated. I just wish that society could stop worrying so much about trying to quantify intelligence and labeling people as "average" or "slow" or "genius" because of a test score. Or deciding that they are not cut out for a particular career because of their race or gender. We should just let people be themselves, and the rest will sort itself out eventually.

IQ does predict success

[Savantissimo]

Research has demonstrated a strong correlation between IQ and sucess in all levels of jobs as well as marriage and other areas of life. The correlation is not equal to 1, so there will be smart people who fail and less smart people who succeed. The best article I could find quickly which supports this is from Scientific American: The General Intelligence Factor

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[ClamIAm]

I've sort of been thinking about this lately. I've come to the conclusion that "smart" and "dumb" aren't two ends of a continuum, but more things that you "have". This type of thinking has allowed me to justify the fact that there are people who are labeled as "dumb" but contain wonderful insights into everything, and people who obviously are intelligent but are just dumb as hell. Take, for example, one of my roomates, who is double-majoring in Physics and Math and gets good grades. Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that he lacks the ability to think for himself, especially when it comes to religion, politics, art, music, and even science.

NIMH?

[SuiteSisterMary]

NIMH? Would this be...the Secret of NIMH?

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[jellybear]

You forgot a few. There's also physical intelligence (a person who is strong), aesthetic intelligence (good looking), hereditary intelligence (has powerful and influential parents), or moral intelligence (a person who morally deserves better than someone who merely has a high IQ). Saying that intelligence refers only to being smart betrays a lack of political intelligence. BTW, I suspect some people who respond to this post will lack ironic intelligence.

The Answer You're Looking For

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why they're bothering with the cortex thickness, the answer is plain if you look closely. Smart people use the left half of the brain more or both sides at above average levels (logical, analytical, precise), dumber people just use primarily the right side of their brain or both sides at below average levels (uses feeling, fantasy based, symbols and images). What is average? A mathematical answer exists but is superfluous for this discussion.

Think about it with a simple diagram:

idiots = use the right side of the brain more predominately or use less than both sides (you know who you are) = waste their brains away with drugs, alcohol and good times = aren't properly educated to the ways of the universe = are musicians and artists, actors etc. (liberals or left-leaning) = use the right side of the brain more predominately or use less than both sides (you know who you are) = are dumb but create fantastic products

Someone could be smart (left side predominantly) but a true genius would be above average on both sides. Therefore, the most intelligent people in the world would excel in logic and problem solving as well as possess a creative side. I know people that truly appreciate fine art and music yet are extremely intelligent and can succeed spectacularly on their own merit where others fail miserably with assistance.

I'm not saying it's true in all cases but it's definitely a major trend, if nothing else. It's a sliding scale.

That's how I see it, anyway.

The Hunter
#8,3,13,21

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[hinux]

Actually to fluently speak a language one cannot mentally translate between languages in your mind - in practice one goes directly from the word in whichever language (house/huis/maison/casa) to the mental concept (in this case the concept of a house).

On a related note, when i read a book (or listen to radio/tv...) i will have forgotten exact words after a while but the gist of what it was about remains with me for a long time. Unless I rote learnt it, everytime i try to recall that fact, i'll end up with slightly different variations on the speech description of that fact.

There may be an internal representation(s) in the mind that the written/spoken phrases are converted into so that it can be stored & manipulated in the mind and retrieved in the future. Being bilingual(or trilingual, etc) may mean that there is still only one internal representation of a concept/idea which the speech center needs to access to create appropriate speech in a particular language.

But then, i'm no neuroscientist so don't quote me on this.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[hinux]

Knowledge or Power are not Wisdom

True, but without the right knowledge, wisdom is difficult to attain.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[hinux]

Although, I don't agree fully (to a small extent, i do agree) with your argument about the value of IQ tests, letting people be themselves seem like a good move.

Someone with high IQ score may have the capacity to do well but they don't have to, especially if they are not motivated. Besides, with a few exceptions, the vast majority of jobs don't really require highly intelligent people to man them. Sure, it would be nice if the bosses are actually smarter than their staff but job hierarchy are not often based on just one aspect of someone's characteristics.

Let's not forget that a job is means to an end, not an end in itself. I wish people would stop asking "What do you do for living?" as an ice breaker.

Re:Bad Information

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, let me guess.... u took the same test 20 times.

"agile cortexes and adhd diagnosis"

[proudhawk]

an interesting point with those with "fast cortexes"

it seems that such people are often misdiagnosed as having adhd
(the willful behavior, bouncing off the walls, etc). such a
misdiagnosis (and the resulting medicinal push) can have disasterous
effects upon the these children (I should know, I was one of those
kids 30+ years ago).

perhaps we should be looking for better alternatives than having the
parents insist on doping up their kids to control them easier.

just some thoughts from a "child of the pharmecuitical age"

First post!

[tinkerton]

Neh. Beat that.

Re:Interesting But Incorrect

[Frozen Void]

how do they get their "right knowledge" in the first place?