Listen dude, that just not totally true! I'm so much smarter.
Posted on 03/30/2006 12:04:14 PM PST by LibWhacker
A large-scale study of brain development pinpoints the anatomical changes that are linked to IQ.
The brains of more intelligent children appear to develop in a characteristic way, growing quickly over an extended period between the ages of 5 and 12. These findings -- some of the most detailed research on brain development and IQ -- resulted from a 15-year study done by the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH.)
The study, which used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to gain a detailed picture of how the brains of children change over time, found that in kids who did better on standard IQ tests, the cortex grew thicker and faster and its growth peaked later than among their average peers.
[To view images from the study, click here.]
Researchers say the findings could help scientists pinpoint genes involved in brain development and IQ levels. It could also give scientists a better picture of normal brain development and shed light on childhood developmental and psychiatric diseases, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD.)
"The study shows that there are clear features in brain images that are different for smart children versus average children," says Paul Thompson, a brain-imaging expert at the University of California, Los Angeles (who was not involved in the project). "Now it should become extremely fast to identify some of the main factors that make the brain develop in a healthy way...such as how kids are taught, their diet, their parental upbringing, or...genetics."
Most previous studies of brain development have compared children's brains at a single time in their lives. The new study, published today in the journal Nature, took a broader look, by studying children as they grew. The researchers followed more than 300 children, ages 5 to 19, for a total of 15 years, taking MRI images of their brains at several different times in their development.
The cortex, which is made up of nerve-cell bodies covering the outer layer of the brain, is largely responsible for higher-order brain functions, such as reasoning and perception. All children show the same basic pattern of cortical development: the cortex grows during childhood, and thins in adolescence, as unused neural connections are pruned away.
According to this new study, children with the highest IQs start out with a thinner cortex, which undergoes rapid growth, peaking at around age 12, instead of age 8 or 9 for children who got average scores on IQ tests. "Children with the most agile minds have the most rapidly changing cortex," says Philip Shaw, a child psychiatrist at NIMH who led the research.
The greatest correlation was seen in the prefrontal cortex, which mediates planning and complex reasoning. "Intelligent children have a prolonged period of thickening in the prefrontal cortex. We wonder if this gives them an extended period to develop the complex circuitry to support high-level thought," says Shaw.
John Gabrieli, a neuroscientist at MIT, says the long-term duration of the study allowed scientists to uncover patterns not observable in previous studies, such as the delayed developmental trajectory for people who go on to score high on IQ. "If you tested just at age 7 or 14, you would have come to opposite conclusions," he says.
"It would be interesting to see how those trajectories evolve in kids with dyslexia or other learning disorders," Gabrieli adds. "Perhaps you could identify children at risk for learning disorders much earlier than we now do."
Shaw's team recently finished a similar study of children with ADHD, in which researchers looked for the brain changes that accompany spontaneous remission of the learning disorder. Shaw says the database of normal brain development helped interpret those findings, which they expect to release in a few months.
Richard Haier, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, who studies IQ, says the findings also raise the question: "What influences the development of this brain area to give some people a thicker cortex than others? Is it based on genetics or some interactions or experience that a young person has that may foster a thicker cortex?"
Shaw and his colleagues now plan to search for genetic variants that are linked to the pattern of cortical development, and hence IQ. Many studies have demonstrated that IQ has a strong genetic component, yet it's still unclear how those genetic differences manifest in the brain.
While this area of research has been contentious -- critics worry that knowing genetic determinants of IQ could lead to a deterministic attitude toward education -- experts say that IQ is most likely linked to a complex interaction of genetics and environment.
Shaw says it's still too soon to tell how much of the growth pattern is due to genetics and how much to the environment, or both. His team plans to investigate this question in future studies.
You might also title this "Why some kids are more dumberer"
As usual, no interest in the smart ones.
Stupidity is more than just IQ...
On the down side, we get bigger headaches.
Just look at Academia to prove that..
Intelligence is more a product of heredity than environment. According to "The Bell Curve" the relationship between heredity and intelligence is .8 of a standard deviation factor.
My kids are smart because they have such an awesome mom. :)
My kids are smart because I am......wait.....I'm not that bright! Oh.......shucks!
Exactly!
Institutional thought fostered in Academia makes the 75 IQ point having East Texas Red Neck appear to be a genius compared to a lib college professor.
But how can you distinquish between heredity and environment? You would have to have control groups of kids with smart heritages being raised by dumb folks. And I don't thin smart parents are going to go for that.
Most liberal "intellectuals" are simply educated beyond their intelligence.
Awww, you're smart AND humble! That's more than I can say for myself! :)
Listen dude, that just not totally true! I'm so much smarter.
Huh?
i thoght NIMH stuck to rats?
They are lazy and arrogant as well. Their reaction to being challenged is a dead giveaway.
BTW, as we all know..."You can't fix stupid." :-)
Actually...I feel I am much smarter than I'm capable of.
Honest!
It would be interesting to take children who are of 'average' intelligence at age 6, and put them through a rigorous academic program. Maybe their cerebral cortex would thicken much more than expected.
Down at the gym, we believe if you work out a lot, you will develop large muscles.
Other studies have shown that the best-perfoming musicians are the ones that practice the most.
Could it be, that the smartest people are the ones who study and think the most?
"The Bell Curve" is a piece of scientific garbage that should never be invoked to make a point.
I don't think so. If IQ was measured by headaches I'd be a genius (and I'm not).
explain
Yep, I think there may be something to that. But it can't be the entire story either, because there were guys like "Haystack" Calhoun, who benchpressed 400 pounds the first time he walked into a gym.
Identical twin studies. Studies with identical twins (with identical heredity) show that even when raised in different environments that they still score the same on IQ tests.
I believe they studied identical twins adopted into different families.
Absolutely.
This article makes me think back to my days in genetics class.
The professor demonstrated how certain genetic traits allow mice to find their way through a maze much faster than the mice with another set of genetic traits.
The precise same studies have been proven accurate in monkeys and human beings.
There IS hard science being done in the area of brain chemistry that indicates early childhood trauma or malnutrition having a real impact on physical brain development, which certainly impacts intellectual performance. Trauma and malnutrition are correlated with poverty, and disproportionate numbers of minority groups are impoverished in the US.
However, a seriously looking book out of Harvard with charts and graphs and equations can give racist views an aura of respectability, and therefore will always sell books.
" "The Bell Curve" is a piece of scientific garbage that should never be invoked to make a point."
How would YOU know?
Really? Cite the refutation with as many sales. Sure pointy-headed egalitarians may disagree with Herrnstein and Murray and write papers to each other but never to so large an approving audience. Join the Science Wars. Tagline...
My father once said he is so bright, his father calls him son.
Because, as an experimental physicist, statistical analysis is what I spend a good part of my time doing.
Misusing statistics the way the authors of TBC have, is very offensive to me.
All that said, it is also apparent that I have a difficult time sometimes, making sense. Shows ya what good a 135 IQ is...
Mine are just average because my ex is a dumba$$ and an idiot.
You married her.....now who's the idiot? Lol! :P
I disagree. There are oftentimes difference in performance between groups, but innate ability is a different thing altogether. But you were correct in putting the word race in parentheses - those identified as "Black" are likely to be mostly European. I've been to Oxford (England, not Mississippi) and one would be very hard pressed (as in WRONG) to perceive differences in academic performance among the "races" (and the "black" and "brown" people there are decidedly less "European" than the minorities in the US).
Anyway, since the vast majority of Americans regardless of race, are woefully ignorant of basic principles of science and math and statistics, it isn't surprising that TBC could be heralded as legitimate science.
That being said, my old landlady taught public schools for years, and used IQ tests. She would often find that some kids could perform well (which does correlate with ability), but whose languange, attitude and demeanor would lead someone at first glance to judge their aptitude negatively. It is one handle that teachers have..
You wouldn't expect to see difference because the members of the different "races" as you say, are all carefully selected for high performance to get into Oxford. Those at Oxford, Cambridge, or the Ivies in the U.S. are a tiny, highly selected (biased) sample, not representative of the general population, at all. As you have described your qualifications in previous posts, you should know that.
"'It would be interesting to see how those trajectories evolve in kids with dyslexia or other learning disorders,' Gabrieli adds. 'Perhaps you could identify children at risk for learning disorders much earlier than we now do.'"
And garner additional state and federal funding "much earlier than we do now" for special needs kids, while the average kids are dumbed down and medicated into complacancy.
Smart, talented, handsome people tend to have smart, telented, handsome kids, while stupid, untalented, ugly people tend to have stupid, untalented, ugly kids, and THE LIBERALS CAN'T STAND THAT! Nya-Nya-Na-NYA-Nya!
Carefully selected on the basis of performance... exactly. You're making my point in an obverse sort of way. Everyone at Oxford is selected on the basis of high performance - those whose innate abilities, developed habits, parental expectations, reward structure (and a long list of other "et ceteras") have resulted in their achieve admission. No inferences about the race-innate ability connection can be inferred, because of all the other factors.
Applying the same logic, groups of persons perform, on average, worse or better on IQ tests in public schools, than others. A whole bunch of other factors are thrown in the mix, with no attempt to factor them out separately: preparation, home stability, behavior habits, early childhood malnutrition/trauma, cultural and parental expectations, emotional state (another long list of et ceteras).
Part of science is to draw out cause and effect. Every item in the list above needed to be studied and factored out carefully before any "analysis" could be done. And the quantity "IQ" is still an ill-defined measure of innate ability.
A very good book on this subject is Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man", in which he explores in depth the fallacy of making "linear" extrapolations from a multidimensional system such as human intelligence.
Both of you are wrong! I assume that what you mean to say is the Normal curve not "the bell curve". It is EXTREMELY useful just so many people don't understand and misuse it. Like "the relationship...is .8 of a standard deviation" makes absolutely NO sense. Perhaps you meant a .8 correlation? Perhaps you'd like to join my students in stats class so you can sound smarter too.
I sincerely hope you're not teaching kids statistics.
Welcome to FR!
Right, which is why I put "racial differences" in quotes. He argues that because those who have a social agenda which mandates equal results between races, use statistics like this to measure racial differences, their goals are invalid.
I never read the "Bell Curve", so I wont pass judgement on it, but this particular defense of it (I don't know how much of the criticism of his book he answered, however) was very convincing.
The whole concept of racial grouping is pretty weak these days anyway, but then thats exactly what social liberals do. That sword can cut many ways...
And I suppose they are good lookin for the same reason ? ;-)
Lol! Flattery will get you everywhere! P.S get those eyes checked, Pronto!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.