I have a question, just how general is general intelligence?

[Duke Leto]

New brain science shows poor kids have smaller brains than affluent kids

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/new-brain-science-shows-poor-kids-have-smaller-brains-than-affluent-kids/2015/04/15/3b679858-e2bc-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

So what?

It's just as plausible that they have smaller brains because they are poor as that they are poor because they have smaller brains. Moreso since the White underclass of 100 years ago is generally the Affluent Suburbanites of today.

 

[arkirk]

According to the article you cited, we aren't there. The authors do mention that at no point did they use longitudinal data - i.e. they didn't test to see if their measures of IQ were accurate, merely consistent. It's a very clever statistical model, which, if we assume that IQ is related to identified neurological features, will prove very useful in estimating their impact. I'm not sure what you think it proves though.

Yeah, but the notion that people of differing IQs have differing brains is becoming harder to disprove.

New brain science shows poor kids have smaller brains than affluent kids

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/new-brain-science-shows-poor-kids-have-smaller-brains-than-affluent-kids/2015/04/15/3b679858-e2bc-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

Of course, people with differing brains would have differing IQ's. That really is just a matter of two different approaches and neural data sets meeting a test. Some will score higher and some lower. So what? Poor kids also have smaller muscles, poorer diets, and poorer upbringing. What does the size of a brain have to do with intelligence? I think you are missing my point. The makers of the IQ test have sold you a product, the test and method of testing, and have used their test to DEFINE WHAT INTELLIGENCE IS....SCORING HIGH ON THEIR TESTS.

Actually, IQ tests are possibly a good measure of how well a person will score in the academic world if they can afford to go there. The IQ test is in effect, an aptitude test for a limited subset of activities, not a measure of how intelligent a person is.

 

[Trausti]

Yeah, but the notion that people of differing IQs have differing brains is becoming harder to disprove.

New brain science shows poor kids have smaller brains than affluent kids

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/new-brain-science-shows-poor-kids-have-smaller-brains-than-affluent-kids/2015/04/15/3b679858-e2bc-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

Of course, people with differing brains would have differing IQ's. That really is just a matter of two different approaches and neural data sets meeting a test. Some will score higher and some lower. So what? Poor kids also have smaller muscles, poorer diets, and poorer upbringing. What does the size of a brain have to do with intelligence? I think you are missing my point. The makers of the IQ test have sold you a product, the test and method of testing, and have used their test to DEFINE WHAT INTELLIGENCE IS....SCORING HIGH ON THEIR TESTS.

Actually, IQ tests are possibly a good measure of how well a person will score in the academic world if they can afford to go there. The IQ test is in effect, an aptitude test for a limited subset of activities, not a measure of how intelligent a person is.

If you don't understand that documented relationship, then being dismissive of IQ or radiographic brain studies makes sense.

 

[Togo]

According to the article you cited, we aren't there. The authors do mention that at no point did they use longitudinal data - i.e. they didn't test to see if their measures of IQ were accurate, merely consistent. It's a very clever statistical model, which, if we assume that IQ is related to identified neurological features, will prove very useful in estimating their impact. I'm not sure what you think it proves though.

Yeah, but the notion that people of differing IQs have differing brains is becoming harder to disprove.

But that was never the issue. Any group can be shown to have neurological differences to any other group. The issue is to show that the observed brain difference causes the observed test score difference. Guess what you can't do with a correlation? Show a causal link.

Note that's not just statisticians being difficult or wanting to throw obstacles in your way. It's because the measurements you are making, and relationships that are being tested, do not in fact demonstrate the conclusion you are trying to reach.

New brain science shows poor kids have smaller brains than affluent kids

They also have smaller ankles. They're physically smaller, due to their environment and upbringing. What of it?

 

[arkirk]

Yeah, but the notion that people of differing IQs have differing brains is becoming harder to disprove.

New brain science shows poor kids have smaller brains than affluent kids

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/new-brain-science-shows-poor-kids-have-smaller-brains-than-affluent-kids/2015/04/15/3b679858-e2bc-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

Of course, people with differing brains would have differing IQ's. That really is just a matter of two different approaches and neural data sets meeting a test. Some will score higher and some lower. So what? Poor kids also have smaller muscles, poorer diets, and poorer upbringing. What does the size of a brain have to do with intelligence? I think you are missing my point. The makers of the IQ test have sold you a product, the test and method of testing, and have used their test to DEFINE WHAT INTELLIGENCE IS....SCORING HIGH ON THEIR TESTS.

Actually, IQ tests are possibly a good measure of how well a person will score in the academic world if they can afford to go there. The IQ test is in effect, an aptitude test for a limited subset of activities, not a measure of how intelligent a person is.

If you don't understand that documented relationship, then being dismissive of IQ or radiographic brain studies makes sense.

I have not dismissed any data that has been offered. It is probably possible to find that a person with a certain brain activity profiles on MRI can score higher or lower on an IQ test. You can correlate radiographic data to ABILITY TO SCORE WELL ON AN IQ TEST. This still only amounts to a brain being more or less suited to taking IQ tests and performing tasks scoring high on IQ tests require. If intelligence can be reduced to ability to score high on some test, then the definition of intelligence is shrunk to meaning only "How did you do on THIS TEST."

 

[Nexus]

What does the size of a brain have to do with intelligence?

 

[Trausti]

Yeah, but the notion that people of differing IQs have differing brains is becoming harder to disprove.

But that was never the issue. Any group can be shown to have neurological differences to any other group. The issue is to show that the observed brain difference causes the observed test score difference. Guess what you can't do with a correlation? Show a causal link.

Note that's not just statisticians being difficult or wanting to throw obstacles in your way. It's because the measurements you are making, and relationships that are being tested, do not in fact demonstrate the conclusion you are trying to reach.

New brain science shows poor kids have smaller brains than affluent kids

They also have smaller ankles. They're physically smaller, due to their environment and upbringing. What of it?

The study made no mention of that. In the US, anyway, childhood malnutrition is rare regardless of socioeconomic status. If you have to make up evidence for form an argument, you've conceded you have no argument.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

But that was never the issue. Any group can be shown to have neurological differences to any other group. The issue is to show that the observed brain difference causes the observed test score difference. Guess what you can't do with a correlation? Show a causal link.

Note that's not just statisticians being difficult or wanting to throw obstacles in your way. It's because the measurements you are making, and relationships that are being tested, do not in fact demonstrate the conclusion you are trying to reach.

New brain science shows poor kids have smaller brains than affluent kids

They also have smaller ankles. They're physically smaller, due to their environment and upbringing. What of it?

The study made no mention of that. In the US, anyway, childhood malnutrition is rare regardless of socioeconomic status. If you have to make up evidence for form an argument, you've conceded you have no argument.

You do know there is this thing called GOOGLE, right?

More than 30 million Americans experience hunger regularly or are at risk of going hungry, according to the Child Welfare League of America. Some 8.5 million Americans, including nearly 3 million children, experience hunger on a daily basis Many of them must rely on food banks and church-sponsored hot meals programs to get by. Of course, those who don't get enough to eat run the risk of becoming malnourished.

Malnutrition in Children
Some 13 million American children live in homes with limited access to food, and an average one in three children receive food assistance via the food stamp program called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, according to the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. Malnutrition leaves children vulnerable to illness and infection. It can also lead to higher levels of aggression, hyperactivity and anxiety. Malnutrition also affects a developing child's ability to learn. Children in food-insufficient homes don't do as well in school as those whose nutrition is adequate, according to Louisiana State University. Long-term malnutrition in children can lead to stunted growth and mental and physical disabilities.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/487412-malnutrition-in-america/

 

[Trausti]

But that was never the issue. Any group can be shown to have neurological differences to any other group. The issue is to show that the observed brain difference causes the observed test score difference. Guess what you can't do with a correlation? Show a causal link.

Note that's not just statisticians being difficult or wanting to throw obstacles in your way. It's because the measurements you are making, and relationships that are being tested, do not in fact demonstrate the conclusion you are trying to reach.

New brain science shows poor kids have smaller brains than affluent kids

They also have smaller ankles. They're physically smaller, due to their environment and upbringing. What of it?

The study made no mention of that. In the US, anyway, childhood malnutrition is rare regardless of socioeconomic status. If you have to make up evidence for form an argument, you've conceded you have no argument.

You do know there is this thing called GOOGLE, right?

More than 30 million Americans experience hunger regularly or are at risk of going hungry, according to the Child Welfare League of America. Some 8.5 million Americans, including nearly 3 million children, experience hunger on a daily basis Many of them must rely on food banks and church-sponsored hot meals programs to get by. Of course, those who don't get enough to eat run the risk of becoming malnourished.

Malnutrition in Children
Some 13 million American children live in homes with limited access to food, and an average one in three children receive food assistance via the food stamp program called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, according to the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. Malnutrition leaves children vulnerable to illness and infection. It can also lead to higher levels of aggression, hyperactivity and anxiety. Malnutrition also affects a developing child's ability to learn. Children in food-insufficient homes don't do as well in school as those whose nutrition is adequate, according to Louisiana State University. Long-term malnutrition in children can lead to stunted growth and mental and physical disabilities.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/487412-malnutrition-in-america/

Hunger =! malnutrition. Childhood Kwashiorkor, Marasmus, and Beriberi are practically non-existent in the US. Unlike elsewhere, here obesity is associated with poverty.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But that was never the issue. Any group can be shown to have neurological differences to any other group. The issue is to show that the observed brain difference causes the observed test score difference. Guess what you can't do with a correlation? Show a causal link.

Note that's not just statisticians being difficult or wanting to throw obstacles in your way. It's because the measurements you are making, and relationships that are being tested, do not in fact demonstrate the conclusion you are trying to reach.

New brain science shows poor kids have smaller brains than affluent kids

They also have smaller ankles. They're physically smaller, due to their environment and upbringing. What of it?

The study made no mention of that. In the US, anyway, childhood malnutrition is rare regardless of socioeconomic status. If you have to make up evidence for form an argument, you've conceded you have no argument.

You do know there is this thing called GOOGLE, right?

More than 30 million Americans experience hunger regularly or are at risk of going hungry, according to the Child Welfare League of America. Some 8.5 million Americans, including nearly 3 million children, experience hunger on a daily basis Many of them must rely on food banks and church-sponsored hot meals programs to get by. Of course, those who don't get enough to eat run the risk of becoming malnourished.

Malnutrition in Children
Some 13 million American children live in homes with limited access to food, and an average one in three children receive food assistance via the food stamp program called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, according to the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. Malnutrition leaves children vulnerable to illness and infection. It can also lead to higher levels of aggression, hyperactivity and anxiety. Malnutrition also affects a developing child's ability to learn. Children in food-insufficient homes don't do as well in school as those whose nutrition is adequate, according to Louisiana State University. Long-term malnutrition in children can lead to stunted growth and mental and physical disabilities.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/487412-malnutrition-in-america/

Going hungry is not the same as malnutrition.

What you are actually showing is mostly parents more interested in drinking/drugging than feeding their kids--a problem that's very hard to solve other than by taking the kids away and throwing the parents in jail.

 

[Trausti]

But that was never the issue. Any group can be shown to have neurological differences to any other group. The issue is to show that the observed brain difference causes the observed test score difference. Guess what you can't do with a correlation? Show a causal link.

Note that's not just statisticians being difficult or wanting to throw obstacles in your way. It's because the measurements you are making, and relationships that are being tested, do not in fact demonstrate the conclusion you are trying to reach.

Apologies. Meant to address this before.

Specific Genes Linked to Big Brains and Intelligence
Brain size and smarts are, to some extent, genetic — and now, a team of more than 200 researchers has uncovered specific genes that are linked to both brain volume and IQ.
Though scientists have suggested bigger brains are "smarter," this study is the strongest case yet for a genetic connection to brain size and to IQ.

Another notable genetic sequence, located within the HMGA2 gene on chromosome 12, was linked with intracranial volume — in other words, the space inside your skull that marks the outer limit as to how big your brain can get. At this spot, every C-allele variant was linked to not only lower intracranial volume, but also to lower IQ scores on the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery, a measure of intelligence.

http://www.livescience.com/19692-genes-brain-size-intelligence.html

 

[AthenaAwakened]

But that was never the issue. Any group can be shown to have neurological differences to any other group. The issue is to show that the observed brain difference causes the observed test score difference. Guess what you can't do with a correlation? Show a causal link.

Note that's not just statisticians being difficult or wanting to throw obstacles in your way. It's because the measurements you are making, and relationships that are being tested, do not in fact demonstrate the conclusion you are trying to reach.

New brain science shows poor kids have smaller brains than affluent kids

They also have smaller ankles. They're physically smaller, due to their environment and upbringing. What of it?

The study made no mention of that. In the US, anyway, childhood malnutrition is rare regardless of socioeconomic status. If you have to make up evidence for form an argument, you've conceded you have no argument.

You do know there is this thing called GOOGLE, right?

More than 30 million Americans experience hunger regularly or are at risk of going hungry, according to the Child Welfare League of America. Some 8.5 million Americans, including nearly 3 million children, experience hunger on a daily basis Many of them must rely on food banks and church-sponsored hot meals programs to get by. Of course, those who don't get enough to eat run the risk of becoming malnourished.

Malnutrition in Children
Some 13 million American children live in homes with limited access to food, and an average one in three children receive food assistance via the food stamp program called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, according to the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. Malnutrition leaves children vulnerable to illness and infection. It can also lead to higher levels of aggression, hyperactivity and anxiety. Malnutrition also affects a developing child's ability to learn. Children in food-insufficient homes don't do as well in school as those whose nutrition is adequate, according to Louisiana State University. Long-term malnutrition in children can lead to stunted growth and mental and physical disabilities.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/487412-malnutrition-in-america/

Hunger =! malnutrition. Childhood Kwashiorkor, Marasmus, and Beriberi are practically non-existent in the US. Unlike elsewhere, here obesity is associated with poverty.

But that was never the issue. Any group can be shown to have neurological differences to any other group. The issue is to show that the observed brain difference causes the observed test score difference. Guess what you can't do with a correlation? Show a causal link.

Note that's not just statisticians being difficult or wanting to throw obstacles in your way. It's because the measurements you are making, and relationships that are being tested, do not in fact demonstrate the conclusion you are trying to reach.

New brain science shows poor kids have smaller brains than affluent kids

They also have smaller ankles. They're physically smaller, due to their environment and upbringing. What of it?

The study made no mention of that. In the US, anyway, childhood malnutrition is rare regardless of socioeconomic status. If you have to make up evidence for form an argument, you've conceded you have no argument.

You do know there is this thing called GOOGLE, right?

More than 30 million Americans experience hunger regularly or are at risk of going hungry, according to the Child Welfare League of America. Some 8.5 million Americans, including nearly 3 million children, experience hunger on a daily basis Many of them must rely on food banks and church-sponsored hot meals programs to get by. Of course, those who don't get enough to eat run the risk of becoming malnourished.

Malnutrition in Children
Some 13 million American children live in homes with limited access to food, and an average one in three children receive food assistance via the food stamp program called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, according to the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. Malnutrition leaves children vulnerable to illness and infection. It can also lead to higher levels of aggression, hyperactivity and anxiety. Malnutrition also affects a developing child's ability to learn. Children in food-insufficient homes don't do as well in school as those whose nutrition is adequate, according to Louisiana State University. Long-term malnutrition in children can lead to stunted growth and mental and physical disabilities.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/487412-malnutrition-in-america/

Going hungry is not the same as malnutrition.

What you are actually showing is mostly parents more interested in drinking/drugging than feeding their kids--a problem that's very hard to solve other than by taking the kids away and throwing the parents in jail.

I can be full as a tick and still be malnourished if i am full on bad food.

Don't confuse under nourished with malnourished.

Obese people can be and more often than you may think are malnourished.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can be full as a tick and still be malnourished if i am full on bad food.

Don't confuse under nourished with malnourished.

Obese people can be and more often than you may think are malnourished.

That, too. You're not doing your position any favors here!

 

[Togo]

EDIT <This concerns Trausti's linked article>

Not sure what this is supposed to show.

It's a meta-analysis study - so a correlational analysis of hundreds of different studies at different times, showing a correlational link between IQ and a particular allele, and a correlational link between that allele and the upper limit of cranium size. Which demonstrates that there is some kind of link there, whether it's the allelle helping with IQ scores, or limited cranium size stopping some forms of higher brain development that would remove potentially higher scores, or simply that people with high IQ are more likely to self select for brain scan experiments. The actual experimental write-up might shed some light, but since it's a meta-analysis study, possibly not. Certainly we can be sure that the effect they're measuring, which wasn't significant from their own results but only turned up when they expanded the study to include the meta-analysis of other studies, must be extremely small.

You can't put much faith in the headline, since this is a magazine site, and not subject to peer review.