
How to Raise Our I.Q. - tokenadult
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/opinion/16kristof.html
======
alfredb
The most important part to me :

 _That’s particularly true of girls and math, apparently because some girls
assume that they are genetically disadvantaged at numbers; deprived of an
excuse for failure, they excel._

Our conditionment plays a very important role in limiting or improving our
abilities. Doing maths is solving problems. During this process, having
empowering believes about oneself is crucial.

I remember when I learned how to dance. The first thing I had to fight was my
own belief that as a geek, I was good at maths but supposed to be akward at
dancing. Not giving up is much difficult in this condition, but the reward is
of a greater kind when you fight this particular demon. Believing in yourself
is first and foremost refusing to let the outside world determine your
idendity. Reality is complex and we are too multi dimensional to be fit in one
category or another.

Instead of focusing on abilities, I prefer to focus on the center of interests
of someone. Passion is the master, ability is the servant. While it's true we
don't have the same potential in every area, we never know what we are capable
of until we try it. And trying is precisely to challenge our inner beliefs,
daring to face the unknown.

~~~
Retric
If you are looking for practical advice remember the big 4:

Diet: Specifically micro-nutrients and more generally a healthy diet.

Sleep: Vastly underrated, sleep deprivation is on par with getting drunk.
Consider, long term sleep deprivation can kill you.

Mental Activity: Consider, Solitary confinement can quickly lead to long term
mental issues.

Exercise: It's frighting how important this is.

PS: I suspect sleep and diet account for most of the differences in measured
IQ in the french study.

~~~
peregrine
I go to a fairly difficult school and I work 25+ hours a week at an
internship. So routine is very important to me, a lot of time Diet, Sleep, and
Exercise go to the wayside. It seems I will get a good routine going of eating
well and exercising but then I go on break and I loose it.

Thanks for reminding me.

------
goodside
"If intelligence were deeply encoded in our genes, that would lead to the
depressing conclusion that neither schooling nor antipoverty programs can
accomplish much."

More optimistically, it means that they're already working pretty well. In a
chaotic environment where smart people are likely to be randomly struck down,
most variation in intelligence is environmental: The smartest are those who
avoid malnutrition, neonatal infections, mothers with drug addictions, etc. In
a utopia where everyone receives perfect education and lives up to their full
innate potential, all variation is due to genetics, because we're holding
everything else constant.

Edit: Less optimistically, it also means that there are no additional gains to
be had at the margin. Maybe the benefit of public schooling has been just to
sort smart-student pegs into high-paying-job holes, and now that most of that
sorting is done there's nothing left for schools to do.

~~~
tokenadult
Another reply in this thread cites some of the research on IQ score trends
over time. There probably is more gain yet to be had among disadvantaged
populations than among advantaged populations (which have already enjoyed huge
gains), but the mechanism of causation of IQ gains is unclear enough that
there may yet be a lot of room for increase for all populations.

Even if IQ gains grind to a halt in particular places, there is still much to
be done to raise the level of rationality in the population there. (Another
reply to this thread just cited Keith Stanovich's recent book What
Intelligence Tests Miss,

[http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001238...](http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300123852)

which is all about how to improve rationality among people of various IQ
levels.) And for general social improvement, it is also possible to shape
public policies so that they take into account common forms of human
irrationality,

[http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-
Happi...](http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-
Happiness/dp/014311526X/)

so that daily life is more sound even if the people living it are neither more
intelligent nor more rational.

------
showerst
This doesn't really apply in the western world, but interestingly enough, one
of the cheapest ways to raise an society's IQ is by introducing the use of
iodized salt:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/health/16iodine.html>

~~~
chadgeidel
I've often wondered how much diet plays a role in "mental acuity." When he
referred to poor children being adopted into upper middle class families that
was the first thing that came to mind.

~~~
biohacker42
It's a very big role, especially in early childhood. As the parent points out
iodized salt is a big one, another is omega 3 oils.

~~~
jackchristopher
Omega-3 needs to be balanced against Omega-6, but there isn't agreement on the
ratio. They're polyunsaturated fats, which I try to limit. But I aim for a 1:1
ratio.

Omega-3 is anti-inflammatory, the Omega-6 pro-inflammatory. They're both
essential to bodily processes, even though O-6 is pro-inflammation.

Good sources of O-3: Fish Oil, Krill Oil, Salmon Oil

~~~
electromagnetic
I read 1:6 (O-3:O-6) is supposedly balanced, no ill effect or positive
effects. 1:4 is considered good, but aiming for a 1:1 is definitely a good
target.

The thing I find most disturbing is that omega-6 can replace monounsaturated
fats in your skin and could significantly increase your risk of cancer. I'm
unsure of how exactly, but the polyunsaturated fats increase the free radical
production, where as monounsaturated and saturated fats can prevent it. Not to
mention polyunsaturated fats might inhibit vitamin D production.

Another thing to consider, omega-6 can inhibit your immune system, which
further increases your risk of cancer. It just kicks you when you're down, not
only can O-6 cause cancer, but it can stop your body fighting it too.

~~~
jackchristopher
O-6s also down regulates thyroid function, decreasing metabolism.

[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/omega-6-linole...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/omega-6-linoleic-
acid-suppresses.html)

I didn't want to mention sat fat benefits, because I hate making heretical
claims without time to back up them up, but I agree.

Even the AHA has admitted that stearic acid, a sat fat, is fine. As we turn up
the power of the microscope on nutrition, sat fats suddenly aren't blanket bad
for you. It looks like I depends on the form, source and context you're eating
it. I try to down a lot of coconut milk/oil. It's a healthy sat fat, a MCT
that's burned immediately instead of stored as fat.

The AHA promotes O-6s by the way. It seem like there's a lot of cached thought
in nutrition. Many in the field can't design a study. They test a "high-fat
diet" without thinking it matters what fats were eaten, and in what form.

------
antipax
The easiest way to improve I.Q. scores is probably to take practice tests.

------
iuguy
Really? I only ever thought of IQ as a measurement of elitism, not
intelligence. I've met some really smart guys with IQs much lower than you'd
expect, and dealt with some really stupid higher IQ folk.

~~~
jerf
As much fun as it is to decry high IQs as the sole purview of snotty brats who
can't actually amount to anything in the real world, it is still nothing but a
combination of sour grapes and a biased sample. You notice the brats, you
don't notice the high-IQ people that _aren't_ snotty brats.

Science says that A: IQ clearly doesn't measure "real intelligence" B:
Whatever "real intelligence" is, IQ does correlate with it fairly highly (as
well as a number of other measurements), though you must understand what
"correlate" means to fully comprehend that and C: real intelligence has real
impacts on your real life, no matter how wonderful or awful that may sound.

It's real. The science is strong. The science is much more complicated and
nuanced than most people understand, or, more profound, than most people
_want_ to understand. If you want to really understand the world, dismissing
IQ is not a good start. (Nor is putting it on a pedestal, of course. If you
want to understand the real world, recognizing that there is ground in between
is also pretty helpful.)

~~~
iuguy
I'm going to discuss your comment in three parts. Thank god this isn't reddit
as I'd probably follow up with a "Your shit's all fucked up and you talk like
a fag" or a pun type post.

Your first assertion is that people who decry high IQs as the sole purviews of
snotty brats is a combination of sour grapes and a biased sample. I can't
speak based on a scientific sample of high IQ folk. I can only speak for
myself and people I know. My IQ (in case you were wondering) is 167 according
to SB5 testing (I was tested through most of my childhood and some of my early
academic life) putting me in the fairly smart range. To provide a
counterpoint, I'll quote Alfred Binet (the 'B' in SB5) and just say:

"The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence,
because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be
measured as linear surfaces are measured." - Binet 1905.

There are snotty brats with low IQs. There are snotty brats with high IQs.
Thus we can surmise that in any given sample of sufficient size regardless of
IQ there are snotty brats. If you don't believe me I suggest you visit
4chan.org sometime.

Your second comment tries to pair correlation with reality. In some cases this
works, in your example it doesn't as "real intelligence" is undefined, yet we
are expected to accept that this undefined and unmeasured form of intelligence
correlates with IQ. If you were to define what constitutes real intelligence
then there's a point of discussion, but you must admit that your statement
'Whatever "real intelligence" is' implies that you don't know what it is - to
be honest no-one does and that's the problem. An IQ score doesn't provide a
measure of real intelligence, only problem solving within a measured subset of
boundaries.

This then acts as a counterpoint for your third argument being that:

The science cannot be strong if "real intelligence" is less definable than
"Real Madrid". Therefore I pose the counterpoint that correlation of an
individual's success rate of "Real Madrid" (whatever "success rate" is) is
more valid than correlation with "Real intelligence".

After all, "Real Intelligence" never won La Liga, the European cup, and so on,
yet noone would ever argue against the genius of Real Madrid's European cup
winning squads, no more than you could argue with the master strokes of Van
Gogh or Raphael, nor the abilities of Newton - despite his inferior
understanding of modern mathematics and logic, nor the ancient greeks despite
their limitations.

One of the things I really appreciate about HN is that people have
constructive arguments and disagreements. I completely accept that there's an
element of fun in the topic I discussed (particularly about football teams)
but I would like to say that although I don't agree with you, thanks for
expressing your opinion and challenging mine. It's always good to have to
rethink your worldview :)

~~~
jerf
If you have a point in your discussion of my first point, it escapes me.

For your discussion of the second point and third point, let me tell you the
term to Google: "g factor". You can take that argument up with psychologists
themselves.

Your arguments against correlation are pretty much what I was trying to cover
with my parenthetical. You aren't decrying correlation, you're decrying
popular misapprehensions about correlation, ones which I don't share. The
correlation is present and the statistical analysis is simple; nobody can
point at the g factor in one single test, but the statistical tests that show
it is there is Statistics 101-type stuff.

The science is clear. Take it up with the scientists. You can start by
searching for "g factor". (I recommend the quotes be included.)

------
tokenadult
Publisher's description page for the book under review:

<http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/winter09/006505.htm>

------
mynameishere
_Yet while this view of I.Q. as overwhelmingly inherited has been widely held_

He _needs_ this straw man for the article to work at all. In fact, the belief
that IQ is "overwhelmingly inherited" is considered socially repugnant, and
has been for some time. All of the things he lists are just duplicates or
variations on things we've already been doing, and mostly failing at.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
socially repugnant has nothing to do with science. the data says parent IQ is
highly correlated with offspring IQ.

~~~
scott_s
And the offspring are, expect in the case of adoption, in the same
socioeconomic class as the parents.

~~~
Devilboy
Twin studies show that identical twins reared apart are highly similar in
terms of (for example) IQ. Much more so than fraternal twins reared together
(or apart for that matter)

This indicates that genetics certainly play a very important role here. It
might not be PC to say so but the science is pretty clear.

~~~
tokenadult
_the science is pretty clear_

Actually, the science of broad heritability, which is what you are talking
about here, is anything but clear. The concept of heritability (it originated
with Francis Galton) is a pre-Mendelian concept, an example of the saying that
a person with a hammer treats any problem as a nail.

Heritability says NOTHING about malleability of a particular trait in
populations, as any professionally edited genetics textbook will remind you.
And there is already plenty of empirical evidence that IQ scores, and real-
world intelligent behavior outside the testing room, and rationality (which is
distinct from IQ) are exquisitely sensitive to environmental influences, many
of those influences being cultural or educational rather than nutritional.
That's what the book under review is about: providing a large number of
citations to primary research literature on the malleability of IQ and
educational achievement.

------
Splines
"How do you raise your IQ? For some, standing on a soap box is the only way."

------
defen
Wait, is IQ important or not?

~~~
JeffL
IQ is very important, or at least intelligence is and IQ is the best way we
have of trying to measure it. The Bell Curve is a pretty interesting book and
it talks about all the things that IQ is correlated with.

~~~
aswanson
I think he was being sarcastic/rhetorical.

------
Ardit20
_while I.Q. doesn’t measure pure intellect — we’re not certain exactly what it
does measure_

It measures what it is set to measure. An IQ test given to school children
measures their mastery of school subjects, and IQ test given to cadets
measures their courage, quick thinking and whatever other skill is necessary
to be a good cadet. So an IQ test is simply a test of certain skills and
knowledge not intelligence as such.

That might explain why IQ has risen, since education is becoming more
sophisticated, more are going to university, more people have access to
information i.e. through internet, so too the skills and knowledge which is
tested gives higher results.

That might also explain the adoption studies, the children in poor households
have poor environment, i.e. no books and poor stimulation, i.e. parents don't
engage them in conversations. So their knowledge suffers because they are
expected to watch telly rather than play or read.

