Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
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.
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.
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...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
"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.
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.
--- At my sig, unleash hell.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
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
Too much Law; not enough Order.
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.
-- Imperial units must die --
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.