[TheStranger]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Article focuses mainly on adolescence but also touches on adulthood possibilities.

"The question is, if our brain structure can change throughout our adult lives, can our IQ also change?" adds Professor Price. "My guess is yes. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that our brains can adapt and their structure changes, even in adulthood." "This interesting study highlights how 'plastic' the human brain is," said Dr John Williams, Head of Neuroscience and Mental Health at the Wellcome Trust. "It will be interesting to see whether structural changes as we grow and develop extend beyond IQ to other cognitive functions. This study challenges us to think about these observations and how they may be applied to gain insight into what might happen when individuals succumb to mental health disorders."

There was also a tidbit about how it was equally possible that education played a role in increase of scores. Discuss.

[spect]

its what i believe. but i think only marginal changes can occur with people in adulthood that are not illness afflicted.

mri technology has some interesting possibilities for neuroscience, i really wish it would develop more to achieve them.

[Indefinable]

I read about neuroplasticity in a psychology book out of curiousity for the social convention.
I don't quite remember the full details of the explanation but it explained that our brain's neuroplasticity is hardened during the nurturing and development as a baby/child. These instincts or habits learned over time "harden" and it becomes harder to re-shape our way of thinking. However, it is still possible to change the way our habits were shaped, it just takes a lot more effort and we experience this during our adolescent years and/or adulthood.

Sorry, I may be making up some of the points, but that's generally what I recall.

[Sumwun]

I could've told you that without a study.

The idea that intelligence is an inherited trait and not a learned one is grossly outdated, but it's still far too popular.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by Sumwun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I could've told you that without a study. The idea that intelligence is an inherited trait and not a learned one is grossly outdated, but it's still far too popular.

Intelligence is by most estimates 70% inherited or at least a majority genetic.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The New York Times Magazine has listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.[8]"




To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I suggest you read up on twin studies relating to IQ.

[TheStranger]

	Originally Posted by Sumwun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I could've told you that without a study. The idea that intelligence is an inherited trait and not a learned one is grossly outdated, but it's still far too popular.

I think it still is an inherited trait to a large extent. While neuroplasticity has its limits, I don't think they've been fully explored yet. Until recently, it wasn't known that antidepressants could help brain injury patients recover more quickly.

[Vantage]

	Originally Posted by TheStranger To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There was also a tidbit about how it was equally possible that education played a role in increase of scores.

I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean. Equally possible versus what? Changes in neural connections? I don't think these two factors are opposed, or that the article is even suggesting that they are; they are likely strongly correlated, and if more longitudinal studies that examined social and learning environments were employed, I'd think this is the result that would come out. I could be wrong, though. Perhaps the simple impact of puberty and all the sex hormones that come with it are reorganizing the brain in a (albeit externally sensitive) manner that results in intelligence changes.

I know that pregnancy makes female rats better task performers (
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) but also that exhaustive training can change the makeup of motor cortex in monkeys (
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
). Sure, neither of these are human studies so their relevance may be somewhat tainted when trying to make honest comparisons, but I simply think that factors like these are so interconnected it would be hard to peel them apart.

Again though, I may have missed the true point/topic of discussion you were shooting for and if so I apologize.

[TheStranger]

I'm just going to quote the frickin' article.

	but it is equally possible that education had a role in changing IQ, and this has implications for how schoolchildren are assessed.

An increase in verbal IQ score correlated with an increase in the density of grey matter -- the nerve cells where the processing takes place -- in an area of the left motor cortex of the brain that is activated when articulating speech. Similarly, an increase in non-verbal IQ score correlated with an increase in the density of grey matter in the anterior cerebellum, which is associated with movements of the hand. However, an increase in verbal IQ did not necessarily go hand-in-hand with an increase in non-verbal IQ.

So, yes, I was NOT saying that education and neural connections/grey matter were mutually exclusive. It makes sense they are connected.

Anyway, the increase in non-verbal IQ and its correlation with increased grey matter is interesting. Not because I don't believe it, though.

[scorpiomover]

There are a lot of freaky experiments relating to neuroplasticity and IQ.

For instance, in 1960, Pedro Bach-y-Rita suffered a massive stroke. Naturally, at the time, it was believed that he would be unable to recover at all, and the same is generally believed of most stroke victims today. His son George decided that the doctors were wrong. He put his father through a challenging set of exercises over a few years. This resulted in an almost complete recovery. He even ended up re-marrying. His youngest son Paul decided to become a neurologist. When his father died, Paul attended the autopsy, expecting to find that the damage to his father's brain was severely over-estimated. When he saw the results, he was shocked. The brain damage was huge. 97% of the nerves connecting the cortex to the spinal cord had been destroyed. Yet the brain recovered to normal functioning. This resulted in Paul publishing work on what is now called 'neuroplasticity'. Despite this, today, such a patient would still be declared to be unable to recover much function.

Another freaky result was showed on a Horizon programme. They took people who are now elderly, who had their IQ tested in their youth. They had, on average, about 10 points above their original results.

However, at the moment, I have not yet seen anything from the scientific community that takes ALL these neurological known results, and put them together in a consistent and valid whole picture of what is going on.

---------- Post added 10-25-2011 at 03:49 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by TheStranger To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Anyway, the increase in non-verbal IQ and its correlation with increased grey matter is interesting.

Interesting, because I believe that Einstein's brain was found to have a much higher level of white matter, but not grey matter.

[TheStranger]

To my knowledge, Einstein's IQ was never tested. We shall assume, though, that he would've scored highly.

[phoboser]

This doesn't surprise me. IQ becomes more heritable as the shared environmental effect fades throughout adolescence. IQs of people with lower genotypic IQ with beneficial childhood environments should fall relative to those of people with higher genotypic IQ without beneficial environments during the teenage years.

[Nonsuch]

So telling someone now that their brain is pretty dense is really a compliment . . .

So what -

I've noticed that my IQ rises and falls depending upon how tired I am, when I last ate, my general health, etc. but this has nothing to do with the density of my brain.

[TheStranger]

I think the point was that the density itself changes. But yeah, marginal fluctuations are nothing new.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This doesn't surprise me. IQ becomes more heritable as the shared environmental effect fades throughout adolescence. IQs of people with lower genotypic IQ with beneficial childhood environments should fall relative to those of people with higher genotypic IQ without beneficial environments during the teenage years.

Yeah, I read about those twin studies as well. FYI, Horizon administered IQ tests on old people who had already had their IQ measured when they were young. Their IQs were all HIGHER, not lower, by about 10 points.

[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yeah, I read about those twin studies as well. FYI, Horizon administered IQ tests on old people who had already had their IQ measured when they were young. Their IQs were all HIGHER, not lower, by about 10 points.

So Flynn Effect operates within lifetime, as known. Three point rise per 10 years should raise their scores by at least 10 points compared to their younger scores.

IQ is not the g factor (intelligence); it's the imperfect measuring stick. And it's not absolute because performance on IQ tests can be improved through training, both directly by rehearsal and indirectly by learning. IQ measurements are relative to, and only make sense within, one's cohort. That's why they have to be normed.

So the fact that their IQ scores increased doesn't mean that their intelligence increased. In fact, the elderly have lower raw scores on IQ tests compared to young adults. Compared to younger people at the time they took the second test, they scored lower.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So Flynn Effect operates within lifetime, as known. Three point rise per 10 years should raise their scores by at least 10 points compared to their younger scores.

Understandable. But they were tested at about 11, and then at about 80. The Flynn effect would have accounted for over 21 points, not 10 points.

	IQ is not the g factor (intelligence); it's the imperfect measuring stick.

I agree that IQ has a lot to be desired. Personally, I'm very mistrustful of the 'g' factor, because I've only ever heard of it being used by people who seem to think that IQ tests proved something.

	And it's not absolute because performance on IQ tests can be improved through training, both directly by rehearsal and indirectly by learning. IQ measurements are relative to, and only make sense within, one's cohort. That's why they have to be normed.

That could be true, IF most of one's cohort knew the questions beforehand. But any exam where you know the answers beforehand, normally invalidates the exam, especially in maths exams, and a large portion of IQ tests test maths results. So if one could train to pass IQ tests, then that would totally invalidate all IQ scores, even within one's cohort.

On the other hand, that training might itself raise one's IQ, which means that the fact that you trained, does not diminish at all from the score, and the score is absolute.

Also, I might not have access to the tests that were around years ago. But I can get the questions on recent IQ tests that my colleagues sat. So actually, I have lots of chance that an IQ test measured against my peers would be wrong, but an absolute IQ test would be right.

So I acknowledge your problem with IQ tests. But I don't think your solution will work either.

	So the fact that their IQ scores increased doesn't mean that their intelligence increased. In fact, the elderly have lower raw scores on IQ tests compared to young adults. Compared to younger people at the time they took the second test, they scored lower.

I've seen other experiments that tested intelligence between young people and old people. Surprisingly enough, there too, old people score better than young people, and not just a little bit, but by a very wide margin. So I can only say that the claims you make, are against the evidence that I have come across.

If you want, you could post links to your data sources, and I could then look it up, and decide for myself if cognitive bias is in operation there or not.

[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Understandable. But they were tested at about 11, and then at about 80. The Flynn effect would have accounted for over 21 points, not 10 points.

Flynn Effect is on average 3 points/decade, it's been slowing down in developed nations, and there's significant decline in IQ in old age. A 10 point gain is plausible.

But forget about that. Originally I thought you meant that they were given the same test they were given when they were young adults, scored right on more questions, and that the test wasn't renormed. But why on earth would adults scoring higher than 11 year olds on the same test be something newsworthy, even for Horizon?

Now I think you mean that some specific group scored higher at age 80 than they did at 11 compared to their cohort. If that's the case I don't know. I didn't watch the program. Maybe they were all from lower SES, and the fading of the shared environmental effect explains it.

	I agree that IQ has a lot to be desired. Personally, I'm very mistrustful of the 'g' factor, because I've only ever heard of it being used by people who seem to think that IQ tests proved something.

You distrust it because the people who believe it's valid also believe it proves something?

	That could be true, IF most of one's cohort knew the questions beforehand.

Rehearsal. Training on an IQ test invalidates the test for that person.

Learning. Here I was referring to learning different ways of thinking, becoming familiar with the testing format, becoming literate and numerate... all are things that have been offered to explain the Flynn Effect. The Flynn Effect affects one's cohort uniformly, which is why it can be controlled for by a simple renorming.

	So actually, I have lots of chance that an IQ test measured against my peers would be wrong, but an absolute IQ test would be right.

There's no such thing as an absolute IQ test. The raw score is adjusted to one's cohort, hence quotient. An IQ of 100 doesn't mean that the person has 100 "intelligence units".

	So I acknowledge your problem with IQ tests. But I don't think your solution will work either.

I didn't offer a solution. Norming has always been used because that's the only way IQ scores can be meaningful.

	I've seen other experiments that tested intelligence between young people and old people. Surprisingly enough, there too, old people score better than young people, and not just a little bit, but by a very wide margin.

No.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	If you want, you could post links to your data sources, and I could then look it up, and decide for myself if cognitive bias is in operation there or not.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Gottfredson has made her many publications on intelligence and intelligence testing available at her website.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[shortnsweet]

Makes sense, I'm sure a lot of things can be affected while those neurons are still growing and strengthening up. I guess the same could be said for any stage of childhood before the mental state is solidified.

[TheStranger]

Came across some interesting information about IQ in my sociology textbook, although it is not necessarily entirely related to the topic at hand.

	Refuting this position, Thomas Sowell argued that, on average, white ethnic groups, such as the Poles, Jews, and Italians, scored in the 80s on IQ tests administered during the 1920s but as a group had gained 20 to 25 points by the 1970s after experiencing upward mobility.

This was in refutation of the average african american score. It was also suggested that upward mobility can increase powers of abstract reasoning, I suppose that is how I clumsily inserted this into the topic.

[lkso]

Originally Posted by Indefinable To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I read about neuroplasticity in a psychology book out of curiousity for the social convention. I don't quite remember the full details of the explanation but it explained that our brain's neuroplasticity is hardened during the nurturing and development as a baby/child. These instincts or habits learned over time "harden" and it becomes harder to re-shape our way of thinking. However, it is still possible to change the way our habits were shaped, it just takes a lot more effort and we experience this during our adolescent years and/or adulthood.

This information is largely out of date but is still perpetuated in psychology, especially in child development. It is still perpetuated in certain areas of neuroscience.

All studies into brain structures were simply snapshots at various stages of ones life. It was assumed that differences in brain structures led to a change in behavior. Learning, which directly leads to changes in the brain (aka: plasticity), was never accounted for.

For this reason, the argument that the first years of life are the most important in less important.

However, new research suggests that a poor upbringing leads to the activation of certain genes which result in poorer health outcomes directly, by increased stress, and indirectly, behaviors which elicit social ostracism.

---------- Post added 11-30-2012 at 05:38 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Flynn Effect is on average 3 points/decade, it's been slowing down in developed nations, and there's significant decline in IQ in old age. A 10 point gain is plausible.

It hasn't been slowing in developed nations. It's still increasing at a linear rate @ 0.3points/year for abstract reasoning skills. It's abstract reasoning skills which is driving the increase in IQ scores.

It is relatively static in areas of mathematics and language. The increase in IQ scores in these areas are correlated to improvements in education in these areas. The better the subject instruction, the better the IQ scores.

	Rehearsal. Training on an IQ test invalidates the test for that person.

IQ tests are re-scored and normed for those who have previously taken them because scores increase the second or third time a person takes them. This still makes the test valid.

[Phaze228]

Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are a lot of freaky experiments relating to neuroplasticity and IQ. For instance, in 1960, Pedro Bach-y-Rita suffered a massive stroke. Naturally, at the time, it was believed that he would be unable to recover at all, and the same is generally believed of most stroke victims today. His son George decided that the doctors were wrong. He put his father through a challenging set of exercises over a few years. This resulted in an almost complete recovery. He even ended up re-marrying. His youngest son Paul decided to become a neurologist. When his father died, Paul attended the autopsy, expecting to find that the damage to his father's brain was severely over-estimated. When he saw the results, he was shocked. The brain damage was huge. 97% of the nerves connecting the cortex to the spinal cord had been destroyed. Yet the brain recovered to normal functioning. This resulted in Paul publishing work on what is now called 'neuroplasticity'. Despite this, today, such a patient would still be declared to be unable to recover much function.

That's astounding.
He got back normal motor function with what little he had left and yet we all have normal motor function with an excess of nerve mass. Makes me oh so curious as to how much more function we can have if we challenge ourselves like Pedro did.

[DeadIdealist]

Wait, you're saying you CAN raise your intelligence?

[scorpiomover]

Originally Posted by lkso To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It hasn't been slowing in developed nations. It's still increasing at a linear rate @ 0.3points/year for abstract reasoning skills. It's abstract reasoning skills which is driving the increase in IQ scores. It is relatively static in areas of mathematics and language. The increase in IQ scores in these areas are correlated to improvements in education in these areas. The better the subject instruction, the better the IQ scores.

This sounds very interesting. For one, pure mathematics is, fundamentally, pure abstract reasoning. For another, mathematics has been rather unpopular lately.

Other languages are correlated with higher IQ, and a number of behaviours that suggest increased reasoning of how others think. Languages have also gone from being mandatory to learn at least one, to being completely optional, for the past 20 years.