
Raising the World’s I.Q. with Micronutrients - MikeCapone
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/opinion/04kristof.html?_r=1
======
jrp
This is a serious problem and it's good to see people working on nutrition in
poor countries - we hear "poor nutrition" and think of too much sugar and fat,
but it can get a lot worse.

That said, IQ is normalized and there won't be any global raising: world_iq =
100*population

~~~
bdr
Sure, but any given test is normalized to a particular population, not to the
whole world.

------
petercooper
When people are suffering physically from the effects of lack of iodine, isn't
it rather Western to consider raised intelligence the most talkworthy
improvement!? Iodized water should be used to make people's lives better and
_reduce their pain_ \- not to increase their intelligence by some token
amount. Increasing intelligence is a weird motivation to help people in dire
straits - how about helping people because it's the decent, human thing to do?

    
    
      An educated guess is that iodine deficiency results in a 
      needless loss of more than 1 billion I.Q. points around
      the world.
    

The prevalence of TV and gossip magazines in our culture are responsible for a
lot more than that. I don't see a big crusade to fix _that_.

The point this article makes is as meaningless as Shirky's assertions that our
"cognitive surplus" equates to a million Wikipedias we haven't written or
whatever. If billions of people in the developing world gain some
intelligence, great, but I doubt it'll be as much use as making their lives
better and more pain free so they can use the plentiful intelligence they
already have (I don't subscribe to the argument that the poor are any less
_intelligent_ \- they just have fewer opportunities).

~~~
byrneseyeview
_isn't it rather Western to consider raised intelligence the most talkworthy
improvement!?_

I assume you're using "Western" to mean something very racist and vile, like
"analyzing the data rationally and coming to the most sensible conclusion."
You are unfairly assuming that only Europeans can look at the correlation
between IQ and income, or IQ and crime, or whatever. Obviously, the Japanese
(IQ 105, crime 5% to 10% of that in the US) or South Koreans (IQ 106, crime
rate about 15% of what it is in the US) can look at these data, too, and hope
that the rest of the world catches up.

 _The prevalence of TV and gossip magazines in our culture are responsible for
a lot more than that. I don't see a big crusade to fix that._

Probably because you haven't read about how hard it is to change IQ. Nutrition
is one of the only things that can measurably affect IQ in the long run. The
other one -- the big one, accounting for 40-80% of all IQ variation -- is
genetics.

On the other hand, stupid but happy people are probably easier to control.

~~~
petercooper
_I assume you're using "Western" to mean something very racist and vile, like
"analyzing the data rationally and coming to the most sensible conclusion."
You are unfairly assuming that only Europeans can look at the correlation
between IQ and income, or IQ and crime, or whatever._

You assume wrong. I did not make the assertions or assumptions you assume.

How is "Western" racist? People of all races (except for, perhaps, those of
certain indigenous peoples) make up the West and hold Western opinions. And
since when were all Western people "European"?

It's disturbing that HN has gotten to the point where people are unfairly
assumed to be making "racist and vile" statements with nothing to back it up.
Shame on you.

~~~
byrneseyeview
I'm sorry my sarcasm was not more apparent. My point was that raising IQ would
do a lot of good for those people -- more than reducing their pain, in the
long term. High IQ groups tend to create stable states and nice places to
live, and they're also responsible for a lot of technological advancement.

My sub-point was that often the same people uncomfortable with this kind of
talk are down on Western culture in particular.

~~~
petercooper
_My point was that raising IQ would do a lot of good for those people -- more
than reducing their pain, in the long term._

Would you argue, then, that instead of sending food and medical aid to poor
countries, we should send teachers?

I'm not buying your argument. Raised IQ does correlate with improved quality
of life but the poorest people in the world have more serious problems we
could be helping with first such as actually staying alive.

And accusing someone of holding racist and vile views is sarcasm - the lowest
form of wit? I wish I could call that a good defense.

~~~
byrneseyeview
_Would you argue, then, that instead of sending food and medical aid to poor
countries, we should send teachers?_

Teachers do not raise IQ. Proper nutrition does.

 _And accusing someone of holding racist and vile views is sarcasm - the
lowest form of wit?_

Okay, read through the comment I made. I am sorry this is unclear, but I am
being _very sarcastic_. I know you are saying that it is Western to want to
raise IQ rather than reduce pain; I am saying that this is, in fact _the right
thing to do_ and thus that you are using "Western" to mean "logical and
sensible" -- and then I say what I'm guessing you would say to someone who
said "His views are very Western -- that is, logical, and sensible, and not
driven by emotion or ignorance." That is the joke: that you accidentally said
something nice about Western culture, and that had someone else said that to
you and meant it, you would likely have been annoyed.

I am sorry about that. Frog dissection, etc.

~~~
petercooper
_and thus that you are using "Western" to mean "logical and sensible"_

No, no, no... I'm _not_ saying that! :) That's how you're _interpreting_ it.
You are putting words into my mouth which is why the sarcasm made no sense. I
do _not_ agree that raising IQ rather than reducing pain is "logical and
sensible" at all - and just because you think it is does not make it
universally so.

Taking someone else's words and then telling them what they really meant can
never be a valid form of discourse. Indeed, that very behavior is "Western" in
style because you are assuming that what you think is good is good for
everyone else too.

~~~
byrneseyeview
_No, no, no... I'm not saying that! :) That's how you're interpreting it._

You're almost there. I understand that you, yourself, do not think that
raising IQ is rational and sensible -- that if we just give Nigeria a few
billion dollars more in aid, it's going to look like Westport, Connecticut.
The joke is that when you _condemned_ something as Western, the thing you
condemned was actually a pretty good idea, so calling it Western really
sounded like Western was a nice thing. Maybe a different example will make it
clear. If two American political partisans are arguing, and you hear:

"Raising taxes on the rich is so typical of liberals,"

and then "But when Clinton did it, our economy performed incredibly well. So
you must mean that liberals are typically pretty damn awesome!"

You can follow the joke, right? That is the joke I'm making.

 _Indeed, that very behavior is "Western" in style because you are assuming
that what you think is good is good for everyone else too._

I notice it's been pretty good for the rest of the world, actually. Lots of
countries have adopted market systems and the rule of law to some extent, and
they've really benefitted from it (not to mention Western technological
advances -- the West, of course, has done plenty of the same in the other
direction). And when we adopt communitarian values, or try to support
collectivist compromise over individualism, it tends to lead to stagnation at
best and disaster on average.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
yeah, tax levels are the only thing affecting the economy. wacky interest
rates that were eventually disastrous didn't have ANYTHING to do with the
first tech bubble, right?

~~~
Retric
Most of the wacky interest rate stuff happened after the tech bubble. It took
~8 years to fail after the bubble.

PS: I know you want to forget about the last 9 years as much as I do but they
happened. ;-)

~~~
nazgulnarsil
the inflation tom foolery I'm referring to is in regard to greenspan in 1994.
a policy change at the tie led to a pretty rapid change in the markets.

I'm searching for the paper on it but I can't find it. anyone know of a pdf
search of some sort?

------
rbanffy
Well... I see making people smarter _is_ both a contraceptive _and_ reduces
the number of religious nuts.

That messes with a lot of interests...

------
RobertL
Better idea might be to just fire all the koolaid drinking college professors.

