
Rejection massively reduces IQ  - known
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2051
======
foompy_katt
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "rejection reduces short-term
performance"? It makes sense that someone who has just been rejected would
have a hard time focusing on an immediate task- their brain is still stuck
trying to understand and ameliorate the rejection.

My question is, what are the long-term effects of a single rejection? Or even
the effect of multiple episodes of rejection which aren't due to being poor or
some other variable? I can think of many people who face a lot of rejection
but thrive anyway, sometimes even _because_ of rejection (i.e. they become
more experienced, or they use rejection to motivate themselves).
Entrepreneurs, for example.

------
Matti
The original paper is behind a paywall but I found the 4-page article
"Rejected and alone" by Roy Baumeister -- one of the researchers -- to be an
interesting read.

[http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/v...](http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_18-editionID_130-ArticleID_960-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist%5C1205baum.pdf)

* Rejection affects behavior, but has generally no or little effect on emotion: "Thus, social exclusion does have powerful effects on people, but these effects do not depend on emotional distress. This has been something of a shock to many of us and has even led us to question some widely held assumptions about the purpose of emotion and its relationship to behaviour."

* Social exclusion results in a higher pain threshold and a higher tolerance for pain. "Further studies indicated that the numbness to physical pain can explain the emotional numbness that we had observed over and over."

~~~
radu_floricica
Thank you! I was really disappointed with the comments here - mostly mindless
IQ bashing. The real revolution in psychology is happening right now, and I
fear the people who should be most interested and in a position to benefit the
most are exactly the ones who'll ignore it as more freudian bullshit.

------
rauljara
The idea of IQ, or intelligence quotient, was originally formulated as measure
of a person's innate intelligence. It was supposed to be something you were
born with, and not something that would change with the environment. This is
just the latest study that shows that IQ is, in fact, sensitive to one's
environment, and can change. I hope people will someday learn to avoid taking
IQ tests as these unquestionable measures of how smart someone is, or ever
will be.

~~~
Matti
_"Test-Score-Differences Fallacy 1: Nonfixedness Proves Malleability

This fallacy uses evidence of any fluctuation or growth in the mental
functioning of individuals as if it were proof that their rates of growth can
be changed intentionally. IQ level is not made malleable by any means yet
devised (Brody, 1996), ..."_

\- Linda Gottfredson, Logical fallacies used to dismiss the evidence on
intelligence testing
[http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2009fallacies....](http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2009fallacies.pdf)
(PDF page 24)

~~~
Alex3917
So you are saying that iodine deficiency does not cause a decrease in IQ?

~~~
crystalis
The traditional view is similar to IQ as an empty glass. You can fill it up to
the top, but once you're there, you've maxed out on IQ itself. Different
people have differently sized glasses, and there are many things that clearly
affect the rate or amount of fill, just as there are many things that affect
height. However, there are few things that indicate that they are increasing
the potential IQ.

Losing a tire in my car won't make me lose any horsepower, but it's not going
to be the same ride.

~~~
tokenadult
_The traditional view is similar to IQ as an empty glass._

Actually, the view of behavioral geneticists, including those with whom I have
a weekly discussion of current research,

[http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall09/mcguem/psy8935/defau...](http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall09/mcguem/psy8935/default.htm)

is that each individual has a "reaction surface," a range of possible
behavioral responses genetically endowed for that individual depending on what
environmental influences that individual encounters. NO ONE active in the
field of behavorial genetics claims to have proved that many individuals today
have maxed out their potential for intelligent behavior. There may be (as yet
unknown) interventions that could massively change IQ at the individual level.

~~~
rkts
No one has proved that technology won't one day make everyone grow to 6 feet
and live 200 years. In fact that could quite plausibly happen. But you'd still
be a fool to count on it.

------
petercooper
The core part of the article:

 _"To live in society, people have to have an inner mechanism that regulates
their behaviour. Rejection defeats the purpose of this, and people become
impulsive and self-destructive. [..]"_

I'm going to go along with this. I'd say it's part of the reason teen crime is
sky high in the UK right now. We've failed to interact as local communities in
the last 10-15 years and we're paying the price in people being selfish and
aggressive seeking only their own ends (teenagers don't beat up 2 year old
kids in healthy communities -
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8348130.stm>)

~~~
fnid
You know, I have to say that London was the most violent place I've ever been.
9 out of 10 times that I'd go out in the city, there were muggings, very
aggressive fights, people thrown out of bars, guys running into the street
kicking cars right in front of the cops, buses that smelled and left one
feeling tense and threatened.

And this wasn't just at night. At three in the afternoon, I saw a bar brawl
flow out onto the street.

On one of my trips to Amsterdam, a local commented on how aggressive the brits
were who would visit for stag parties, get drunk and start fights.

There really is something unhealthy going on there. It's worrisome really.
There were lots of articles at the time about the youths. I can't remember
what they called them, some kind of acronym. YAGs or something like that. It's
a real tragedy.

~~~
tokenadult
_I have to say that London was the most violent place I've ever been._

As a point of comparison, have you ever been anywhere in China? That's where I
have seen the most open public violence, much more so than in any part of the
United States (I have been to all fifty states, including some very tough
parts of inner cities.)

------
WilliamLP
Great... so every time you guys down-vote me I get stupider.

Edit: fixed grammar after being upvoted.

~~~
chrischen
Great, so every time I apply to YC I'm getting stupider.

~~~
stcredzero
Remember, correlation does not imply causation! (jk) Maybe this is why sales
guys are the way they are? Again, correlation doesn't imply causation.

------
ovi256
I hypothize that the counter - control mechanism that they claim absent is
actually depression. You are rejected, you then either become aggressive or
fall into a depression which has been shown to cause dwelling on issues and
analying a problem endlessly, hopefuly allowing a solution to be found.

~~~
fnid
That's what I suspected too. The thoughts of rejection occupy brainwaves that
are otherwise spent thinking about and answering questions correctly.

------
diego
I just finished reading "How We Decide" by Jonah Lehrer. It discusses a number
of similar experiments where scientists observe what parts of the brain are
activated during different types of situations. According to some experiments
dealing with feelings seems to draw resources away from the part of the brain
used to solve problems that require analytical thought.

A similar experiment involved having people perform analytical tasks while
being exposed to situations that require self-restraint. The harder the tasks,
the less people are able to resist temptation.

------
Mz
IQ tests come with a lot of social and cultural bias. So, for example,
immigrants tend to do more poorly and members of an outclass tend to do more
poorly (for example, historically this meant Black Americans tended to test
poorly). I would think one thing going on here is a kind of harm to the social
orientation of the test-taker. If everyone "hates" you, what's your motivation
for being "agreeable"? And if your answers stop "agreeing" with what is
socially valued, your test score can be hurt.

Does this mean you are dumber? Not necessarily. It's common for extremely
intelligent children to test poorly because they are unable to gear their
answers towards the test's expectations. One simple example: A child may fail
to classify the picture of a "whale" as a "W" word because they know the type
of whale it is (such as "Blue Whale") and aren't sophisticated enough to know
that the test makes the assumption that children of a certain age won't have
such specific information. A very socially savvy child may do better on such a
test than a child whose interests are more "technical" (so to speak).
Anecdotally, very socially savvy and socially oriented kids of high IQ often
do a wonderful job of hiding how smart they are in order to fit in better.
They may routinely shoot for roughly average even though they may be capable
of substantially better performance than all their classmates. If no one likes
you or accepts you and there is no fixing that, why bother? And if not
bothering means you classify the "blue whale" as a B word instead of a W word
because you feel that is more accurate and precise, your score may suffer.

~~~
Alex3917
"It's common for extremely intelligent children to test poorly because they
are unable to gear their answers towards the tests expectations."

That's so weird. I distinctly remember this happening to me in third grade,
but I never knew that it was an established phenomenon.

~~~
Mz
I know that from participating on email lists for many years. I don't know how
much of that type of information is in the standard literature. Tests are only
a tool. The conclusions drawn from them are only as wise as the person(s)
administering and interpreting them.

~~~
tokenadult
_I don't know how much of that type of information is in the standard
literature._

There is a HUGE standard literature on IQ testing. What email lists are you
talking about? My experience after reading much of the scholarly literature on
IQ testing is that most participants on email lists about IQ testing never
visit academic libraries and never seem to change their default Google
searching over to Google Scholar or Google Books where they might have a
chance to sift through the online chaff to find some grains of careful
research.

~~~
Alex3917
The problem is that unless you already know the name of that specific
phenomenon then Google scholar is useless.

------
tokenadult
"15 March 2002"

Where is the follow-up on this? Has this result ever been replicated?

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

The guidelines for this site

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

which is, after all, called "Hacker NEWS," define "anything that gratifies
one's intellectual curiosity" as on-topic, but I sure am curious if it is news
to report one result from 2002 that didn't seem to result in any meaningful
research follow-up. Is there any current news on this same issue?

------
bh23ha
I am not sure it is evolutionarily useful to become self destructive upon
rejection, I imagine rejection has always been fairly common.

I think the researchers' interpretation is very biased. I can easily imagine
that the aggressive reaction is in fact useful. Perhaps not in modern high
tech. society, but even in modern day we are still an aggressive species and
aggression in often sexy, men with a criminal background on average have more
children. And today still, aggressive behaviour is a pretty good way to gain
social status in high school.

~~~
fnid
Perhaps it does have an evolutionary purpose. Say you are a male who is
constantly rejected by the female. If mate with the female, perhaps even
against her will, then you produce offspring.

Also, being rejected is a dominance issue. If rejected from more powerful
members of the society produces aggression to the point of killing those more
powerful then the aggressive individual rises to power and increases the odds
of reproduction.

------
jollojou
I'd introduce another perspective on rejection: having a rejective state of
mind significantly reduces one's ability to analyse the situation at hand.

It's about prejudices. We all hold a large amount of prejudices even though we
would consider our selves open minded. Prejudices result in cognitive
responses where one rejects an idea at hand before one even starts to evaluate
the pros and cons of the idea.

------
elblanco
Interesting ramifications for the startup that's struggling to make sales.
Extrapolating on this finding might indicate that a startup that meets early
failure is more less doomed to failure since those failures pile on one
another and basically make them dumb and mean.

~~~
Mz
My read on it is that it only measured a short-term reduction in performance.
I saw no indication that it suggests long-term consequences from a single
instance of rejection. Some people are inherently more likely to be bitter,
grudging, etc and hold onto such negative feelings. Other people are more
inclined to get over it and move on. Bill Gates has said that your unhappiest
customers are your best source of learning. Some people are inclined to view
negative feedback as useful information and not wallow in a negative emotional
reaction to it. This behavior can be learned to some degree.

I would think that part of why the examples cited in the article resulted in
negative reactions is because it was not constructive feedback: The
artificially induced feeling of rejection apparently was delivered with zero
feedback as to why they were being rejected. Some real life situations are
like that. But other real life situations hold a great deal of information
about why people are rejecting something. Anyone who wants to be an
entrepreneur would be well advised to learn to view negative responses as
"constructive feedback" and not take it too personally. Most sources I have
seen indicate that entrepreneurs typically experience a lot of rejection (and
failure) prior to achieving success.

------
DrJokepu
Correlation is not causation. It's a logical fallacy to state that "rejection
reduces IQ" on learning that rejection correlates with a decreased ability to
get high scores on IQ tests.

~~~
tokenadult
The study purported to have an experimental design.

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

It would, however, be a good idea to attempt to replicate this finding.

------
fsniper
Is this post is a response to Y-Combinator rejections? :) It's a bit pity
we've been rejected. But it did not made us angry or less intelligent. (As far
as I know :))

------
astine
_This just in: Being aggrevated hurts when taking tests!_

Seriously, what did the researchers expect? That frustration wouldn't affect
people's focus?

~~~
jlees
Yeah, it seems to me fairly obvious that if someone implied before a test that
I would fail, and I had cause to trust their opinion, I'm not likely to do as
well as I would have because of the nagging self doubt etc. No change on my
innate ability to do the test, but the level of application and focus would be
drastically different.

(On the other hand it can go far enough as to improve focus, sometimes. "I'll
show them", "I failed last time but I know I can do it", etc)

~~~
fnid
I don't know why you guys got downmodded. I agree with both. The article is
pretty bad and neglects a very common sense approach to thinking.

I see little evidence that it actually reduces someone's intelligence. Maybe
their test results acutely, but I highly doubt it makes someone dumber.

------
modelic3
This is just another drop in my bucket of suspicions about aspects of
creativity and intelligence. Stress free and confident individuals tend to be
more creative and intelligent than those that are constantly angry and
stressed out.

------
rooshdi
So IQ is based on emotions? That doesn't sound right.

------
Estragon
Working for _New Scientist_ massively reduces the capacity for critical
thinking.

