Brilliant response! Thank you.

"Antonio Damasio of the University of Southern California had a patient rendered emotionless by damage to his frontal lobes. When asked what day he could come back for an appointment, he stood there for nearly half an hour describing the pros and cons of different dates, but was incapable of making a decision. This is not the Spock-like brain engine suggested by the I.Q."

By all means, lets infer from one person with severe brain damage to the entire population.

Yeah -- this certainly didn't make ANY sense at all. What on EARTH does an example of someone with damaged frontal lobes have to do with IQ or general intelligence? Just seemed like some sort of random example thrown in for who knows what reason. 'Cause it had something to do with brains? I dunno. ??

The point is that frontal-lobe-specific damage often doesn't impact IQ test scores at all, so IQ measurements don't necessarily show us how skilled a person is at thinking.

Which is true enough. But very rarely do we encounter people who haven't had localized brain damage, whose frontal lobes function well, and yet have low IQs. IQ and the other, less easily measureable aspects of cognition aren't independent.

I was going to say something involving the phrase "fish in a barrel", but fish are seldom as confused as David Brooks. I understand how annoying it is to see utter nonsense being spouted in a national newspaper, but you have to understand that to a first approximation putting his brain farts to print is what Brooks is paid to do. I never got it -- I know who reads Paul Krugman and I know who reads John Tierny. I even know who reads Maureen Dowd, god help the poor souls. But I don't know anyone who reads David Brooks out of anything other than anthropological interest. It's weird.

I didn't even know Beth Visser was at Brock. I should go shake her hand sometime.

After all, if my patient could figure out long division, so should every other 5 year old.

Ah, constructivist math...

You have to periodically re-calibrate your bathroom scale, and you have no question about what it is measuring; why should IQ be any different?

I don't get this one at all. Not all scales need recalibration, and if one does, it's because of soe kind of physical wear and tear. Nothing comparable in an IQ test.

don't get this one at all. Not all scales need recalibration, and if one does, it's because of soe kind of physical wear and tear. Nothing comparable in an IQ test.

Almost all measurement instruments need some type of re-calibration at some point(s). At the gym I see them doing it once in a great while just to make sure that it, say, doesn't register 5 lbs when there is nothing on the scale. Of course weight and IQ are quite different, but I was trying to make the point that re-calibration is not unique to IQ, it is not an issue to get in a tizzy about, and, moreover, there are very refined ways to do the re-calibration-linking process.

Wow, what a shock--the New York Times not bothering to get their facts straight. What events of the past five years could possibly have led us to expect such an occurrence? And what could be more sensible than having a professional pundit with no background in the relevant science write an article about intelligence testing? Perhaps next week we can get Jonah Goldberg explaining how evolution turns out not to really contradict Genesis so much as people thought.

I really don't accept the analogy at all. Mechanical and electrical devices need to be maintained and tuned, but renorming a test is a completely different thing. It sounds to me as though you're trying to wave away the Flynn effect.

It sounds to me as though you're trying to wave away the Flynn effect.

IMO, the FE is likely little more than a calibration problem. I have a paper coming out that shows, using the NLSY, when you calibrate the instrument (in this case the PPVT) correctly, the FE almost completely disappears. Of course, we will really never know until the Psych. Corp open up the Wechler data archives, although I and a colleague are in the process of working on a workaround to that problem.

Still, this is nothing more than a red herring when it comes to within generation comparisons.

Yeah, but IQ tests are used for more than just within generation comparisons. It also affects international comparisons to the extent that the Flynn effect diminishes as it progresses, with different nations at different stages of the trajectory.

If I had an idea what "recalibrating the instrument" meant I could respond. You recalibrate scales when they get physically out of whack -- basically you're restoring them to their original state.

When I say recalibrate, I mean to put them on the same underlying metric. Perhaps if I used the word equating/linking, instead, it would alleviate confusion.

It also affects international comparisons to the extent that the Flynn effect diminishes as it progresses, with different nations at different stages of the trajectory.

How so? If the scores are obtained in (ballpark) the same period of time, why can't they be compared?

David Brooks is the "conservative safe for liberals," and surely he does channel the elite Orthodoxy on both the Right and the Left that IQ doesn't matter (except when it does for their personal lives, for example, where there children go to school). The shame is that what if it does matter? "Intellectuals" do us no service in not mooting the implications it might have for a liberal democratic order.

The point is that frontal-lobe-specific damage often doesn't impact IQ test scores at all, so IQ measurements don't necessarily show us how skilled a person is at thinking.

Ah ha! Thanks, Caledonian. I had no idea.

Well, at least Alex's point still holds -- i.e. that it's pretty silly to infer from one brain-damaged person to a whole population.

you are all off base here.

brooks is triangulating furiously to get IQ research mentioned in the new york times.

this is the equivalent of a captive in a vietnamese prison doing his best to spell out "they are torturing me" with his eyes in morse code while being forced to denounce america on camera.

The point is that frontal-lobe-specific damage often doesn't impact IQ test scores at all, so IQ measurements don't necessarily show us how skilled a person is at thinking.

The issue with studying people with brain damage is that inference can usually only be made one way: If X area is damaged, and Y function can no longer be performed, then likely X and Y have a close, perhaps causal, relationship. However, if X is damaged and Z function is still viable, it doesn't necessarily mean that X, or some area right next to it, anyway, is not related to Z. However, I am not a neuroscientist, so perhaps I am overstating things here.

I think some IQ instruments get at some aspects of thinking/higher-order cognitive processes (e.g., the Raven's), but you are right in that IQ tests generally don't do this; however, the last parts of the full (20 subtest) version of the Woodcock-Johnson gets into this somewhat.

Interestingly, the Jung-Harier paper I linked to reported that BAs 46,47 (pre-frontal) and 10 (frontal) all were related to IQ.

Like John Emerson, I don't understand the recalibration point. Your bathroom scales need adjusting from time to time, mainly because they are affected by being used - screws get loose, etc. I don't see how IQ tests are affected by use in this way, unless you are talking about practice effects.

BTW, has anyone done a proper investigation into the Skodak and Skeels results? They seem to me a bit 'Burtish', and not in a good sense.

This is only the second time in history that I've defended Brooks. Usually I can't stand the guy. He's not a liberal or for liberals; he finds slick ways to convince wavering centrists not to ditch the Republican Party.

"brooks is triangulating furiously to get IQ research mentioned in the new york times."

If this is true, blah, then keep the guy away from me. This is intellectually dishonest, and we don't need such folks muddying up the waters.

BTW, has anyone done a proper investigation into the Skodak and Skeels results? They seem to me a bit 'Burtish', and not in a good sense.

Chapter 5 of Spitz's book is devoted to it.

Cognition and health? Yeah, I've heard about that recently hypothesized relationship, but I really doubt it'll show up much. Obviously, at extremities on the low range, one's health can be greatly diminished, but the sorts of things that go in line with better health and mortality in the world honestly don't seem to require that much substantial cognitive ability. Of course people with very high IQ's would be probably live longer than those with average IQ's too, but you can only go so far with how much independence and self-acualization that allows.

And, what's the deal with driving ability and IQ? Isn't that more related to testosterone than anything? (which explains why women, the elderly, and east asians are typically bad drivers)

People have been getting heavier and taller, at different rates in different countries and regions, over the past decades and centuries. Does that mean that weight and height are invalid constructs? That there is more to weight than what a scale can measure? That rulers are poorly designed?

John Emerson,

I think the job of Brooks at the New York Times (at least why they hired him) was to try to show that the New York Times has a conservative columnist.

Of course, what the New York Times thinks is a suitable house conservative is not a conservative. Brooks is a kind of neocon who tries to ingratiate. He knows that neocons are now so heavily dissed that he has moved further to the left while still trying to seem different than liberals.

The New York times has a very weak list of pundits. But I think the whole idea of having regular pundits is dumb. Who can come up with a new opinion twice a weak and say something both insightful and with fairly broad appeal? Oh, and the pundit can't offend regular readers into dropping their subscription.

I agree that pundits are obsolete. The NYT pundits are generally weak, except Krugman. Brooks is a lame conservative, maybe a lame moderate. No one wants to claim Friedman by now, but he's not a liberal.

There are plenty of conservative voices in the media, including the print media. The problem with the Post and the Times is that they're centrist insiders. They're not liberals. I'm sure that they wouldn't have hired Krugman if they'd known how he turned out. He made his rep pushing free trade.

what's the deal with driving ability and IQ? Isn't that more related to testosterone than anything? (which explains why women, the elderly, and east asians are typically bad drivers)

Black males have highest testosterone. Do they have good reputation as drivers? If so, they should be promoted for trucking, cab driving, ect.

People are born with a blank slate and all of life is little more that the acquisition of stimulus-response patterns? Skinner died in the 1990s, and strict adherence to this view died long before


I think you're confusing classical conditioning with operant conditioning. Skinner never claimed that genes do not affect behaviour.

Women have cheaper insurance rates because they are safe drivers, not because they lack testosterone.
Elderly drivers become bad because they cant see anymore and have slower reflexes.
East Asians are bad drivers because most of them
didnt have a car but a bike before.
Im confused about this thread, I tried to read his pov and yours, its like a free for all postings.

As far as I know, the worst drivers are almost all guys. Asian drivers and women drivers aren't necessarily fun to watch or drive behind, but they're not the worst drivers.

Dresidian please have a look at the literature before telling us about your gut feelings.

Re accidents: here are data on deaths per 10,000 in car accidents in Australia for males 20-34

IQ Rate
>115 51.3
100-115 51.5
85-100 92.2
80-85 146.7

We just got into intelligence in my psych class. Right off the bat the instructor says it's controversial and she doesn't agree with a lot in the field and it's okay for us to disagree with it as well because we've all got different but equally valid conceptions of intelligence. Then she goes into quoting Gould on the Bad Old Days of culture-infested IQ tests created by hereditarians judging people's worth. She did give an example of an attempt at a culture neutral test that showed patters of differently shaded and numerous triangles with a missing piece to complete the pattern. Then she said that in America we get into shapes at a really early age with games where you put the round-peg in the round-whole but in Europe they aren't into that. Can anyone from Europe comment on that? I had never heard of that before and it sounds odd.

TGGP,

The shape thing is interesting. I'd be curious if 1)she's right, and that's not the kind of game Euro-babies play. 2)There is or is not a difference on RPM between European whites and american whites.

Another possibility is that Americans like and are good at shapes, so kids play with them. European kids are bad with shapes and play with other things instead.

I've heard anecdotally from an anthropologist that hunter-gatherers don't deal with many right angles and see some optical illusions differently than we do. It puts a new light on cave paintings(who knows what they looked like to the painters) and I could see it having an effect on picture recognition-style tasks on IQ tests.

I've said this before, but I wouldn't be surprised if video games have increased spatial intelligence among populations which play them a lot.

"Dresidian please have a look at the literature before telling us about your gut feelings."

Yeah, I couldn't look at the literature because the studies are locked to people WITHOUT subscriptions. Not everyone can really pay for that.

But really, could someone detail what the article on health and intelligence says? I've already seen the Gotfferdson study, so what else does it have?

You still have quite bit of people here who only can think with their guts.

Guess a worm thinking with its guts feeling.

And, what's the deal with driving ability and IQ? Isn't that more related to testosterone than anything? (which explains why women, the elderly, and east asians are typically bad drivers)

do u have any proof to back this statement up? according to this study:

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi.../full/88/8/ 3605

driving ability was not affected by the administration of a high-dose of testosterone.

... the false allure of objective fact ...

There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling.

Dresidian says

But really, could someone detail what the article on health and intelligence says? I've already seen the Gotfferdson study, so what else does it have?

Gottfredson points out that the claims that there is an (unfair) correlation between SES and better health (ie, that people of higher SES enjoy better health) is likely confounded by the hidden variable of IQ.

TGGP - UK babies definitely get to have shape-sorting toys.

I expect with a bit of diligence on other eBay.de etc you could prove the same for other countries.

Brooks is telling all parents of children who have Mental Retardation or Borderline Intelligence that their children's low cognitive ability is a direct result of parental inadequacy. If these parents would love their children more, the Mental Retardation would go away.

No, he's saying that growing up in a family, as opposed to growing up in an orphanage, has a beneficial result on IQ for mentally retarded children.

The above should read "beneficial effect," not "beneficial result."

wongba: Really? So why are those particular groups such poor drivers?

dresidian: i'm not sure i agree with ur base assumption that women and east asians are poor drivers as i'm not sure what ur definition of "poor" is. according to this report:

http://michigantrafficcrashfacts...2005/ veh_16.pdf

young drivers are more likely than elderly drivers to be involved in accidents. i would assume u believe elderly are "poor" drivers because of reaction time and decision making, but i would also assume they already compensate for that with reduced driving speed and hence their lower accident rate. or maybe they just drive less b/c half of them are stuck in retirement homes. i haven't found gender or racial statistics but with east asians pioneering the sport of drifting (where they put their life on the line drifting at night down twisting mountain roads) i wouldn't bet that east asians are worse drivers than other racial groups. also, do u means east asians in asia or east asians in the US (or wherever u live)?

again, i'm just not sure how u can make the assumption that those groups are poor drivers unless u provide some data. surely u aren't just going by personal observation?

IQ doesn't correlate well with people who are artistic (Van Gogh?);
IQ doesn't correlate well with people who are musical (Ray Charles?);
IQ doesn't correlate well with people who are great business leaders;
IQ doesn't correlate well with people who are great political leaders (George W Bush);
IQ doesn't correlate well with people who are military leaders...

...except in very vague, broad terms, ie. all these people are probably above average to some degree (some significantly so, some moderately so). Apart from that I don't think you would see any patterns.

Very high IQ individuals (ie. 150+) may do well as University professors, psychologists, computer programmers and statisticians, but does anyone (except themselves) really consider skills in these areas to be the best definition of 'smart'?

(Except physicists -- those guys I really like.)

So within the broad above/below average context, IQ tests roughly measure intelligence (certainly NOT with anything like the precision their supporters claim), and when you get above the 'above average' measure, I don't think they measure intelligence as much as specific data handling skills with little correlation to intelligence (some individuals might indeed be highly intelligent, others might be borderline autistic and thus actually mentally impaired).

Christianity teaches that all men's souls are equal.

My experience tells me a man's abilities show in what he makes of himself, and that those with the highest IQ are on average the most foolish, faddish and gullible in society -- the most likely to be communists or libertarians, to follow political or psychological fads, or to be cult members.

In fact those who want to make more of IQ than a statistical curiosity -- the 'super IQ' faction -- probably secretly want to create a new feudalism of statisticians and psychologists with the rest of us as their serfs!!

Good Luck with that when we 'averagers' have all the best leaders!

"...except in very vague, broad terms, ie. all these people are probably above average to some degree (some significantly so, some moderately so). Apart from that I don't think you would see any patterns. "

Erm, wouldn't that be like sort of hugely significant?

dobeln,

Not at all. A vague correlation is not at all significant, hardly even useful. Many things can indicate above average intelligence: how well you play a musical instrument, whether you write beautiful poetry, how well you write, speak ...or drive (as mentioned above). But these are not a _measure_ of intelligence.

In particular, they are hopelessly incapable of supporting the current obnoxious race theories for which they are presented as evidence.

Kipster,
Some data rather than mere assertions (and incorrect ones at that) would be more useful in supporting your point of view.

IQ tests are just a crude tool for educational bureaucrats too lazy to conduct proper examinations.

Brookes was right, these tests simply measure a persons ability to pass a test of low-level intellectual puzzles. Do I need data to prove a ruler can't measure electrical charge? The tool plainly can't measure what is claimed of it.

Can IQ tests measure insight -- into the universe or into ourselves? can they measure understanding of human nature? Can they measure the ability to predict human behaviour? These are all indicators of real human intelligence.

The real proof is that IQ tests are biased towards a particular mental type which includes the borderline autistic -- who have great attention to detail but are mentally impaired in important aspects of real human intelligence. How can such a test be of general value?

I do well at IQ tests, so perhaps I should support them, but I know that those with with real intelligence don't support something just because it flatters them.

Mr BIg Dog Daddy,

Your answer implies poor reasoning. What data would one use to prove or disprove the accuracy of an IQ test -- an intelligence measuring test perhaps? No such test exists. Does that therefore prove that IQ tests are an accurate tool for measuring IQ? Of course not, what an illogical circular argument.

By the way, the ability to reason logically and construct a reasoned argument are both properties of true human intelligence that IQ tests fail to measure.

Look, chaps, I'll grant that IQ tests can determine roughly whether someone is of average, or above or below average intelligence. But such a determination is trivial. I could tell that about you after 2 minutes conversation. Does it follow that I have measured how intelligent you are? What an absurd suggestion.

The question of human intelligence and consciousness is such a vast one. We who are intelligent can deduce intelligence in others, but no mechanical test can measure it. The small and fearful mind can't tolerate this (yet another quality IQ tests don't measure).

The assumption of IQ test proponents is that people who have great attention to detail in low-level intellectual tasks therefore possess all the gifts, insights and understandings of true high intelligence, is a huge and unexamined assumption (it's like measuring age by measuring height -- a rough correlation exists over a certain range). That those in the real world (as opposed to certain pockets of academia or the world of faddish internet race theories) have now started to reject the utility of these test, is just one a sign that the assumption is unfounded.

But I've taken IQ tests. I knew straight away what they're like - can a wooden ruler test electrical charge? They measure what they measure -- nothing more or less. Is what they measure 'intelligence'? -- no.

Here's a final test of your own intelligence. Are you judging IQ tests logically or do you cling dogmatically to your beliefs, because part of your identity is invested in them? You know, the ability to let go of assumptions -- even those that are dear to us -- is a very important aspect of real intelligence (and, need I say it, one that IQ tests fail to measure).

Yeah -- this certainly didn't make ANY sense at all. What on EARTH does an example of someone with damaged frontal lobes have to do with IQ or general intelligence? Just seemed like some sort of random example thrown in for who knows what reason. 'Cause it had something to do with brains? I dunno. ??

Brooks stated: "far from being a cold engine for processing information, neural connections are shaped by emotion". It helps to know that the frontal lobes process emotional information. Damasio's patient shows something well known to AI researchers: that goal-directedness (emotion in humans) is an essential component of rationality (the ability to effectively solve a problem or perform a task). The complaint about drawing general conclusions from brain-damaged patients is off the mark -- much of what we know of brain function comes from cases where the function isn't properly performed.

You recalibrate scales when they get physically out of whack -- basically you're restoring them to their original state.

The scale is a lousy analogy. IQ scores are calibrated so the average is 100, but weight isn't recalibrated as people become more and more obese.

I find amusing the rather arrogant tone of Alex B.'s comments when he makes so many blatant and ignorant errors.

Almost all measurement instruments need some type of re-calibration at some point(s).

That's because they undergo physical change. IQ tests, being abstractions, do not. Sheesh.

Well, at least Alex's point still holds -- i.e. that it's pretty silly to infer from one brain-damaged person to a whole population.

How do you know that there's only one? And what inference to the whole population is being made? The patient illustrates a fact known from multiple threads of evidence -- that emotions are critical to decision making.