Slashdot Mirror
You Can't Get Smarter, But You Can Slow How Fast You Get Dumber (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader writes: An article at the NY Times summarizes the state of research on cognitive improvement. There are multiple industries — from big pharma to the makers of "brain-training" games — trying to convince you there are ways to become more intelligent. Unfortunately, scientific research doesn't really bear that out. There is, however, evidence you can provide short-term boosts, slow aging-related cognitive decline, and trick yourself into achieving better outcomes. Experiments show that simply telling a group of low-performing students that intelligence is malleable led to higher test scores. Researchers also found a use for mental exercises, but only in adults over the age of 60, a time at which some level of cognitive decline is common. Physical exercise seems to help fight that cognitive shrinkage as well. Oddly, different exercises fight it in different ways. As for drugs, there is some evidence that stimulants help with long-term memory, but that's about it. That's not to say they have no effect, just that their effect is more to make you feel smarter instead of actually being smarter. The article does point out one of the best ways to combat cognitive decline: maintain social engagement as you get older. "[P]eople with the highest level of social integration had less than half the decline in their cognitive function of the least socially active subjects."
This doesn't agree with the research I've seen.
The cognition-enhancing effects of psychostimulants involve direct action in the prefrontal cortex.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Prescription Stimulants' Effects on Healthy Inhibitory Control, Working Memory, and Episodic Memory: A Meta-analysis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Efficacy of stimulants for cognitive enhancement in non-attention deficit hyperactivity disorder youth: a systematic review.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Psychostimulants and cognition: a continuum of behavioral and cognitive activation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Cognitive effects of methylphenidate in healthy volunteers: a review of single dose studies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
The neurobiology of modafinil as an enhancer of cognitive performance and a potential treatment for substance use disorders.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Not to mention Adderal, caffeine, and Nootropics, such as Piracetam, Ocetam, high dose B12, Hydergine (an ergoloid mesylate), as well as about a dozen others.
But you know: NYT knows best.
The rarity of some score depends on the scale used. "Genius" is an informal term used to draw a line sometimes, and I wouldn't use it to describe me. I do use the label for my brother, however, because I recognise the raw power of his mind. But, as psychologists have already debated long ago, it's maybe a bad term to associate with IQ - you need way more ingredients to demonstrate the atypically brilliant productive output popularly associated with genius.
We were both tested before taking academic scholarship exams to a private school, so early teens. I know my upbringing was atypical - I was the offspring of a senior civil servant and a PA to a then well-known business owner, so I got a privileged education and an ambitious mix of family friends. But if you hang around a forum with millions of visitors who are reasonably bright, the 1-in-200ers (say) are going to appear fairly often. General intelligence testing has become a ridiculously big deal in society, creeping way beyond its original purpose, so people with high IQ are likely to take notice of discussions about it.
But the Internet is the Internet, and people do bullshit a lot, especially when anonymised. So, if you're hesitant to believe personal accounts - and I don't blame you - consider their objective plausibility. If you still don't feel comfortable, ignore them entirely and concentrate on the arguments.