
Increased intelligence is a myth so far (2014) - gtpasqual
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3950413/
======
Moshe_Silnorin
I've been interested in brain training and nootropics for a very long time.
The conclusion I've come to is intelligence is pretty much fixed, current
psychopharmaceuticals are of very, very, very limited usefulness, and most of
the differences in intelligence we see between people are caused by genetic
factors not education or rearing. This was immensely disappointing for me -
I'd literally give everything I own to be moved up a few standard deviations,
but it does seem to be the case. I'll be the first in line for any effective
enhancement, but we do not have them now. The most likely approaches for
increasing the intelligence of humans are things like embryo selection and
genetic engineering of embryos - biotechnology can only do so much after your
brain is done growing.

Iterated embryo selection looks like it will lead to humans smarter than any
human who has ever lived - perhaps they will be clever enough to figure out
how to upgrade an old fogey like me. As an aside, I'm not sure people
understand how ridiculously cheap iterated embryo selection will be provided
some very conservative advances in biotech, ethical mores will be unlikely to
suppress it - even if international treaties are put in place.

~~~
fthssht
Looks like you've been reading Bostrom. I was actually annoyed about the
amount of time he spent on the whole notion of genetically engineering smarter
humans. I think his intent was to rigorously prove that even if technology for
some reason halted and all progress in machine learning ended along with
moore's law we'd still reach super intelligence. From that standpoint I get it
as a philosopher to create a bulletproof argument. But I think it's very
unlikely that it will happen that way. It's already far more practical to
teach Watson to read better than genetically engineer a new Einstein. Also I
don't think there's an iq 200 set of genes, there's probably trade offs that
would prevent this a brain has a given number of neurons and they operate at a
slow speed so this is like trying to breed a better horse when cars are
obviously on the horizon and will be followed by jets.

~~~
Moshe_Silnorin
>The most likely approaches for increasing the intelligence _of humans_

I agree, given the gestation time of a human, AI may well come first. Even if
we perfected iterated embryo selection today, 18 years is a lot of time and
perhaps AI would be developed before the super geniuses reach peak
productivity.

>Also I don't think there's an iq 200 set of genes, there's probably trade
offs that would prevent this a brain has a given number of neurons and they
operate at a slow speed so this is like trying to breed a better horse when
cars are obviously on the horizon and will be followed by jets.

Everything I'm reading is saying the genes for IQ, as with most traits, are
additive. And it really is as easy as putting as many high-IQ-associated genes
into one genome as possible.

~~~
rtl49
Bear in mind that that each of the "high-IQ-associated genes" (alleles) is
responsible for the synthesis of a polypeptide, and that the phenotypes
produced by their interactions can be extremely difficult to predict.

I believe the studies you have in mind, one of which appeared on HN last week,
find that high IQ is not associated with any small set of highly unusual
alleles (i.e. "freak mutations"). This isn't to say that genetically
engineering a person to have a high IQ is as simple as "putting as many high-
IQ-associated genes into one genome as possible." It could be the case that
certain specific interactions between the products of these alleles prove
deleterious to the individual with respect to intelligence or other traits.

I agree that some of the sentiment on HN about the mutability of intelligence
is wishful thinking, but our understanding of genomics and the genetic
component of intelligence is still very much incomplete.

~~~
Moshe_Silnorin
I'm getting this from Hsu. He seems to think this will not be an issue:
[http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421](http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421)

------
SolaceQuantum
The idea of intelligence has always made me leery. I have a little brother who
placed second in a state competition (musical instrument) for kids who almost
doubled him in age before his tenth birthday. People like to say he's a
genius, but only my family knows the truth: two hours of piano a day, four on
weekends, since before he was even in kindergarten. I don't really believe in
intelligence.

~~~
isoos
The Polgár sister's story backs you in that:

"Polgár and her two older sisters, Grandmaster Susan and International Master
Sofia, were part of an educational experiment carried out by their father
László Polgár, in an attempt to prove that children could make exceptional
achievements if trained in a specialist subject from a very early age.[11]
"Geniuses are made, not born," was László's thesis. He and his wife Klára
educated their three daughters at home, with chess as the specialist subject."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r)

~~~
maxander
Which begs the question, when people are willing to commit their children to
this kind of super-intensive training regimen at such an early age, why on
Earth are they doing it for games or music and not something (if you will
excuse a crass way of saying it) _useful_?

Imagine a physicist or mathematician or engineer tutored in their discipline
from age five! And imagine if those were as _common_ as the little kids one
sees dutifully going to piano practice every afternoon. The world would look
very different.

~~~
foldr
Quite a lot of physics and mathematics is _less_ useful than playing the
piano, since it is equally lacking in practical application and doesn't even
give other people pleasure.

------
ap22213
As a species (or society) do we have clear objectives in mind when we seek to
'increase intelligence'? Is it higher productivity? more progress? enhanced
capability? faster learning? Aren't there lots of low hanging fruit that we
haven't taken yet? First, shouldn't we try to eliminate the things that are
known to cause decreases in intelligence? Or, do we not know what those are?

Also, having been around a lot of 'highly intelligent' people, I have found
that many are still not very effective. Most still make bad choices, have poor
judgement, adhere to dogma, can't think laterally or fluidly, lack curiosity,
lack discipline, lack self-reflection, etc. Is it possible for a 'smart'
individual to easily get better at those things?

~~~
nickff
> _Aren 't there lots of low hanging fruit that we haven't taken yet? It seems
> like it'd be easier to eliminate the things that are known to cause
> decreases in intelligence, first. Or, do we not know what those are?_

Yes, these issues have been researched, and are continually being addressed
(though one might argue they should be given much more attention than is
currently the case). Some examples of causes of decreased intelligence include
malnutrition (sometimes caused by parasites), and heavy metal poisoning (often
lead and/or arsenic in well-water).[1][2][3]

> _Also, having been around a lot of 'highly intelligent' people, I have found
> that many are still not very effective. Most still make bad choices, have
> poor judgement, adhere to dogma, can't think laterally or fluidly, lack
> curiosity, lack discipline, etc. Is it possible for a 'smart' individual to
> get better at those things?_

If you are interested in these issues, I suggest that you read some of Phillip
Tetlock's work on judgement and prediction; I have found it tremendously
interesting and helpful, though I have often been taken aback when re-
examining my own faults through the lens of his work.[4] From what I have
read, you are already at a tremendous intellectual advantage, as you are
examining meta-cognition issues, which can help you improve your cognition,
and understand your limitations.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_health_on_intelligen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_health_on_intelligence)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic_poisoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic_poisoning)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_E._Tetlock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_E._Tetlock)

------
wodenokoto
I feel like the whole argument is based on "your true IQ is the highest score
you'll ever receive on a test", which is a statement that by definition would
make improvements in IQ impossible.[0]

I still don't understand why, if everybody in the control group only change
around the error ratio and the test group on average advances beyond the error
ratio, that doesn't show an improvement. According to the authors what _would_
show an improvement?

[0] they don't say this outright in the paper, but the SAT discussion clearly
allude to this form of thinking. They don't even entertain the idea that
practice might be the reason for a large increase in a persons SAT score, but
rather say, the highest score is representative.

~~~
mannykannot
> I feel like the whole argument is based on "your true IQ is the highest
> score you'll ever receive on a test", which is a statement that by
> definition would make improvements in IQ impossible.

I am no statistician, but I think there is more to the argument than that. My
take is that Haier is saying that IQ is not a ratio scale, and you cannot
gauge the significance of a result by treating it as if it is.

Nevertheless, I get the impression he is trying to stretch the importance of
this observation. He writes 'Nonetheless, the main point is that to make the
_most compelling_ argument that intelligence increases after an intervention,
a ratio scale of intelligence is required' (my emphasis), which raises the
question of whether there is not a not-quite-so-compelling argument to be made
without such a metric.

FWIW, I don't have a horse in this race as I am on the fence over whether IQ
is as fundamental a measure as its proponents insist.

------
paulsutter
It's more important to increase effectiveness than intelligence anyway. An IQ
20+ points greater causes reduced credibility, which is why people with IQs
over 150 are under-represented in "elite" professions like finance, law,
consulting[1]

[1] [http://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/p/the-
inappropriately-e...](http://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/p/the-
inappropriately-excluded-by-michael.html?m=1)

~~~
Alex3917
For what it's worth, this article makes the exact same math mistakes that the
article discusses. I.e. the phrase "an IQ 20+ points greater causes reduced
credibility" doesn't even make any sense, since a point isn't a fixed
interval.

(I might not have an IQ of 150+, but I can spot the same pattern 30 seconds
later.)

------
jimrandomh
There is a legitimate concern in here about the methodology of testing
intelligence-training interventions, but it's not quite clear what exactly the
thing is that "is a myth", and I followed a reference at random (Jaeggi et al,
2008) and arrived at a study whose methodology was fine.

(EDIT: Whose methodology passed my cursory inspection but was terrible in a
subtle way.)

~~~
bordercases
Don't tell Gwern that. [http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ#moody-2009-re-
jaeggi-2008](http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ#moody-2009-re-jaeggi-2008)

~~~
jimrandomh
Huh, good catch. The too-short time limit issue was a methodological issue I
had definitely not thought to check for. (Haier doesn't mention it.)

~~~
gwern
There are actually several distinct issues with Jaeggi 2008. The speeding is a
concern but it increasing looks like it's not driving the score increase. The
passive control group is a big issue (although Jaeggi et al, via Au, are doing
their best to fight to the grim end and deny it as long as possible). As is
the subsamples using different IQ tests.

Finally, as Haier spends a lot of time explaining, pre-post test gains is
fundamentally invalid as a way of proving testing increases the g-factor,
because such gains are necessary but not sufficient; an increase in
intelligence should show up as a gain, but many non-increases will also show
up as a gain because despite the best efforts, IQ tests do not measure solely
intelligence.

I'm increasingly understanding that this is as big a problem for n-back as the
passive control group inflation. Many attempts to increase intelligence in the
past, some where there was no dispute at all that test scores did increase,
have failed as soon as a latent variable analysis was applied; I'm not aware
of any which passes. All of the interventions had increased scores on only
some subtests, and there were no general gains; they had not increased
intelligence, only taught a specific subdomain. So our prior is highly against
n-back being the exception. Worse, several studies have already tried to apply
the latent variable analysis, and they _all_ indicate that n-back flunked. So
our already exceedingly skeptical prior gets reinforced by evidence of no
effect on intelligence, whatever one subtest like a matrix test might say. (If
Au or Jaeggi have addressed this, I have not seen it yet. They prefer to
concentrate on the fact that the test scores increase and that you can cast
doubt on the active/passive criticism by trying to correlate with whether a
study was done in the USA or not, or whether the control group gained enough
pre/post.)

You can see some links discussing the topic, including Haier's methodological
argument here, in point #3 in [http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-
analysis#analysis](http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis#analysis)

------
angelbob
The abstract mostly seems to state "increased intelligence is currently too
difficult to measure, so we wouldn't know."

Which is fair. But "is a myth so far" suggests disproof, not proof that it's
not currently true. As they repeatedly show, it would be very difficult for
them to prove that, since they'd have to usefully measure delta in
intelligence.

~~~
gwern
> Which is fair. But "is a myth so far" suggests disproof, not proof that it's
> not currently true. As they repeatedly show, it would be very difficult for
> them to prove that, since they'd have to usefully measure delta in
> intelligence.

The burden of proof should be on anyone who claims to have an intelligence
boosting method. The field is littered with hucksters who have claimed to
succeeded; this was true in the '60s when Jensen first wrote on it, and it's
still true now. It's the cold-fusion of psychology (something which is
theoretically possible, would be immensely valuable practically, and has never
panned out when examined rigorously).

Anyway, Haier's paper is not intended to be comprehensive, and we can point to
some examples of investigating claimed intelligence increases and seeing that
they indeed turn in the predicted null effect on intelligence: te Nijenhuis et
al 2007, te Nijenhuis et al 2014, etc. See my other comment with link to
citations & fulltexts.

------
scythe
What is really most concerning about these studies is that the intervention
too resembles the metric in order to believe they don't teach to the test.
It's like treating depression by teaching people how to lie to psychiatrists.
If you're measuring intelligence by performance on little 10-minute puzzles,
and you show an improvement by teaching people to solve puzzles, I'm not
really impressed. If you show an improvement in puzzles by teaching people
guitar, giving them a drug, or sending them to basic training, I'll invest in
your company. On the other hand, if you measure intelligence by job
performance or some other life measure, and you show an improvement with
puzzle games, it doesn't seem quite so unfair.

~~~
maxerickson
A cartoonish description of cognitive behavioral therapy would be encouraging
people to tell different lies to themselves. I think it might be hard to learn
to effectively lie to a therapist without accidentally believing some of what
you are saying, so I would not be stunned if that ended up having some
effectiveness.

------
aaron695
The article kinda states that being sick can reduce your intelligence.

That to me alone means by staying healthy we stay more intelligent. ie. Get
more sleep.

I think the title is quite misleading.

------
ZeroGravitas
It seems more and more apparent that large sections of modern science are
quackery. Will we fix this somehow and look back on this era from the future,
and wonder about the many millions spent on serious people in white coats who
basically produced random noise with a dash of prejudice and a touch of click-
bait?

~~~
vinceguidry
To be fair, for most of history large sections of science were quackery.
Didn't really stop us from getting here.

~~~
pcunite
True, the wrong answer can sometimes make the correct one clear.

------
bhouston
This is generally a low quality article.

