- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Some thoughts on IQ
Posted on 8/2/25 at 9:14 pm to Narax
Posted on 8/2/25 at 9:14 pm to Narax
quote:No. It starts when the egg and sperm are formed.
No, when does genetic influence start, it's a rhetorical question.
It starts when the egg and the sperm join and the DNA is set from the 50% of each parent.
Do you really want to do this?
This post was edited on 8/2/25 at 9:15 pm
1
Posted on 8/2/25 at 9:18 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
So it's your contention that brain mass is synonymous with or generally related to IQ?
In terms of your 95% number, it might interest you to know the brain of Albert Einstein was only 90% the size of the average human brain.
So "your 95% number" is already 5% higher than Einstein's.
Really the mass part was the interesting part?
Neural connections and their pruning is what aligns with human brain functions...
Isn't this what you accused someone else of doing?
Posted on 8/2/25 at 9:20 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Do you really want to do this?
Yes it seems, do you think it's predestined which sperm gets to the egg?
Posted on 8/2/25 at 9:27 pm to Narax
quote:Goodness.
Yes it seems, do you think it's predestined which sperm gets to the egg?
No, predestination aside, a zygote is the intersection of gametes. It's a simple fact
Posted on 8/2/25 at 9:31 pm to Narax
quote:
Neural connections and their pruning
So """pruning""" is the element associated with brain mass? Hells bell, whales must have a whole landscape service of pruners in their brains.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 11:26 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
No, predestination aside, a zygote is the intersection of gametes. It's a simple fact
Let's look at this logically, until the sperm and the egg meet, you would not know which sperm the egg combined with.
Every sperm egg combination is different, aka fraternal twins.
Hence it's not until joining that the DNA is established.
Heck depending on the sperm it's going to be a boy or a girl.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 11:55 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
So """pruning""" is the element associated with brain mass? Hells bell, whales must have a whole landscape service of pruners in their brains.
What many studies have found, is that it's not brain mass, or sheer number of connections, but how those connections wind up being pruned that correlates to intelligence.
quote:
Disruptions in synaptic pruning have been linked to neurodevelopmental disorders. Excessive pruning is associated with schizophrenia, leading to reduced synaptic connectivity, while insufficient pruning may contribute to autism, resulting in excessive neural connections.
Now we are moving beyond IQ, but some have been researching and developing tools to modify gene expression.
quote:
Microglia, the brain’s immune cells, play a crucial role by engulfing these weak synapses. Specific molecules, such as complement proteins (C1q, C3, and C4) and fractalkine signaling, help identify and tag synapses for elimination, guiding microglia in their role.2
So if we know we can modify pruning...
quote:
Therapeutic strategies focus on modulating complement proteins like C1q, C3, and C5a, which drive synapse elimination under pathological conditions. Genetic or pharmacological inhibition of these components has shown promise in preclinical models.
For example, blocking C1q or C3 preserves synapses and prevents cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease and multiple sclerosis models. Additionally, Complement Component 5a receptor 1 (C5aR1) antagonists such as PMX205 have demonstrated neuroprotection by reducing inflammation and synaptic loss.5
Why do you think we wont be able to influence the pruning process for intelligence?
Posted on 8/3/25 at 6:39 am to Narax
quote:The hypothesis is one of weaning less-used transmission pathways while strengthening important ones in a neural network remodeling as we age. Weaning/remodeling (misleadingly referenced as "pruning") results in cleaner, more refined pathways.
What many studies have found, is that it's not brain mass, or sheer number of connections, but how those connections wind up being pruned that correlates to intelligence
At a general point in which the brain initially reaches peak functional IQ, we surmise less-used residual pathways still exist, albeit at lower levels. Theoretically the presence of these pathways accounts for associated creativity of youth. As remodeling continues toward maturity though, extraneous circuits continue to gradually dissipate. Though IQ remains, creativity might wane. Postmaturity, the same continuing process can subsequently lead to a slight downward IQ variance.
IOW, we theorize the physiology of intelligence relates to neural network efficiency, optimized through remodeling, to process information more quickly and effectively. As a result, high IQ individuals generally show less activity during problem-solving tasks, not because they’re doing less, but because they’re doing it more efficiently. This marginalizes importance of brain mass and/or numbers of neural connections.
Rather than "pruning," I liken it to a highway system. It is a metaphor in which transmission is highway traffic and neural networks are roads. Frequently used roads are widened. Less frequently used roads fall into impassable disrepair. But that is layered atop the fact some brains are born with better highways from the start (interstates vs gravel roads) such that this whole remodeling (or "pruning") process has some, but limited, effect ... perhaps 10pts around the mean, and far less at the extremities.
But you're not going to be able to exogenously remodel a gravel road brain to work at interstate speed,
This post was edited on 8/3/25 at 6:42 am
Posted on 8/3/25 at 7:27 am to wackatimesthree
and they're all smarter than you! let that sink in enjoy your mobile home!
Posted on 8/3/25 at 7:47 am to dickkellog
Believing everyone with different opinions than one’s own is stupid is definitely not a sign of high intelligence or maturity.
Posted on 8/3/25 at 7:58 am to 4cubbies
yeah, here's the thing cubbie, the social security max out is 176k they raise it every year, they don't ask me no one votes on it, but once you hit 176k you stop paying social security taxes in 2025, i maxed mine on june 1st.
do you honestly think i give a schit about any thing you think.
you get to enjoy having nothing and like it!
tell her what she's won johnny! a smoking pacino!
do you honestly think i give a schit about any thing you think.
you get to enjoy having nothing and like it!
tell her what she's won johnny! a smoking pacino!
Posted on 8/3/25 at 8:00 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
But you're not going to be able to exogenously remodel a gravel road brain to work at interstate speed,
It seems like this can be done with targeted training. Or at least intelligence or processing speed can be significantly improved. It looks like capacities like processing speed have genetic and biological limits, but plasticity allows for meaningful improvements within those bounds.
Posted on 8/3/25 at 8:02 am to dickkellog
Ya know how we were talking about the type of person who feels compelled to brag about having a high IQ even when no one cares or asked? Do you think that applies to someone talking about money, too? There’s a negative correlation between claims and real life?
Posted on 8/3/25 at 8:28 am to 4cubbies
quote:It cannot ... beyond a few IQ points (as I've said) which would not be detectable IRL activities. As wonderful as it might be to wish it so, you're not going to move an accurately measured 80 IQ to 100, much less 120.
But you're not going to be able to exogenously remodel a gravel road brain to work at interstate speed,
---
It seems like this can be done with targeted training.
Now AI interaction may eventually help. Something akin to neurolink may eventually be fitted to humans like contact lenses currently are. But for the here and now? Nope.
Posted on 8/3/25 at 8:39 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The hypothesis is one of weaning less-used transmission pathways while strengthening important ones in a neural network remodeling as we age. Weaning/remodeling (misleadingly referenced as "pruning") results in cleaner, more refined pathways.
Which AI did you use?
https://www.healthline.com/health/synaptic-pruning
Synaptic pruning is no hypothesis.
The rest is AI generated content which is only interesting for its metaphor of what it considers and it's indicators on what the prompt was.
Posted on 8/3/25 at 8:45 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
This paper examined the effects of training in creative problem-solving on intelligence. We revisited Stankov’s report on the outcomes of an experiment carried out by R. Kvashchev in former Yugoslavia that reported an IQ increase of seven points, on average, across 28 tests of intelligence. We argue that previous analyses were based on a conservative analytic approach and failed to take into account the reductions in the IQ test variances at the end of the three-years’ training. When standard deviations of the initial test and 2nd retest were pooled in the calculation of the effect sizes, the experimental group’s performance was 10 IQ points higher on average than that of the control group. Further, with the properly defined measures of fluid and crystallized intelligence, the experimental group showed a 15 IQ points higher increase than the control group. We concluded that prolonged intensive training in creative problem-solving can lead to substantial and positive effects on intelligence during late adolescence (ages 18–19).
LINK
Posted on 8/3/25 at 8:59 am to 4cubbies
quote:
In a recent issue of the journal Nature, researchers at University College London reported significant fluctuations in the IQs of a group of British teenagers. In a paper entitled, "Verbal and Non-Verbal Intelligence Changes in the Teenage Brain", the researchers tested 33 healthy adolescents between the ages of 12 and 16 years. They repeated the tests four years later and found that some teens improved their scores by as much as 20 points on the standardized IQ scale, while test scores for others went down by a similar amount.
"We were very surprised," says researcher Cathy Price, who led the project. "We had expected changes of a few points, but we had individuals that changed from being in the 50th percentile, with an IQ of 100, to being in the 33rd percentile, with an IQ of 127."
quote:
Price and her colleagues used neuro-imaging techniques to confirm that these big fluctuations in performance were not random. They evaluated scans of the teenagers' brains in the early teen years and compared them with scans from their later teen years.
"We were able to see that the degree to which their IQ had changed was proportional to the degree to which different parts of their brain had changed," explains Price. "For example, an increase in verbal IQ score correlated with a structural change in the left motor cortex of the brain that is activated by speech."
There are lots of factors that may explain changes in IQ. Though this study did not attempt to nail them down, lots of prior research has found that educational environment is key. Some researchers have even found that rigorous academic curricula can lead to improved IQ scores.
Teens' personalities, work ethic and the home environments are important, too. "There's a lot of variability in neural development during adolescence and in young adulthood as well," says Stephen Ceci, a professor of developmental psychology at Cornell University. He says this study should caution educators and parents against assuming that a low or high IQ score, measured at one particular time, is a reflection of what an individual is capable of.
LINK
Posted on 8/3/25 at 9:07 am to 4cubbies
Fascinating, modern combination of brain scans with more traditional methods is leading to some interesting insights.
Link to the released paper.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51731103_Verbal_and_non-verbal_intelligence_changes_in_the_teenage_brain
Link to the released paper.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51731103_Verbal_and_non-verbal_intelligence_changes_in_the_teenage_brain
Posted on 8/3/25 at 9:11 am to Narax
I just read this other paper that brings up some points I hadn’t considered favoring NC_Tigah’s take.
LINK
quote:
Most recent studies that have claimed increases in intelligence after a cognitive training intervention rely on comparing an intelligence test score before the intervention to a second score after the intervention. If there is an average change score increase for the training group that is statistically significant (using a dependent t-test or similar statistical test), this is treated as evidence that intelligence has increased. This reasoning is correct if one is measuring ratio scales like inches, liters or grams before and after some intervention (assuming suitable and reliable instruments like rulers to avoid erroneous Cold Fusion-like conclusions that apparently were based on faulty heat measurement); it is not correct for intelligence test scores on interval scales that only estimate a relative rank order rather than measure the construct of intelligence. Even though the estimate has considerable predictive value and correlates to brain and genetic measures, it is not a measurement in the same way we measure distance, liquid, or weight even if individual change scores are used in a pre-post design.
SAT scores, for example, are highly correlated to intelligence test scores (Frey and Detterman, 2004). Imagine a student takes the SATs when quite ill. The scores likely are a bad estimate of the student's ability. If the student retakes the test sometime later when well, does an increase in score mean the student's intelligence has increased, or that the newer score is now just a better estimate? The same is true for score changes following SAT preparatory courses. Many colleges and universities allow applicants to submit multiple SAT scores and the highest score typically carries the most weight; there are many spurious reasons for low scores but far fewer for high scores. Change scores from lowest to highest carry little if any weight. By contrast, change in a person's weight after some intervention is unambiguous.
In studies of the effect of cognitive training on intelligence, it is also important to understand that all intelligence test scores include a certain amount of imprecision or error. This is called the standard error of measurement and can be quantified as an estimate of a “true” score based on observed scores. The standard error of measuring inches or liters is usually zero assuming you have perfectly reliable, standard measurement devices. Intelligence tests generally show high test-retest reliability but they also have a standard error, and the standard error is often larger for higher scores than for lower scores. Any intelligence test score change after an intervention needs to be considered relative to the standard error of the test. Studies that use a single test to estimate intelligence before and after an intervention are using less reliable and more variable scores (bigger standard errors) than studies that combine scores from a battery of tests.
LINK
Posted on 8/3/25 at 10:09 am to 4cubbies
quote:
I just read this other paper that brings up some points I hadn’t considered favoring NC_Tigah’s take.
I don’t think that excerpt will give you much insight on the debate about malleability of persistent intellectual processing capability. These findings more relate to two other phenomena:
(1) Precision of measurement; and
(2) impact of training on certain measurement tools
The former is in our collective knowledge as cliche “Measure twice, cut once”. It relates to an earlier point that a collection of scores is usually better than a single score. Over a large enough population, we can reduce error in measurement and isolate the factor being measured over the other noise in the measurement
The second shows we can “game the game” and “teach the test” That may be more germane as new insight if we relate it to an IQ test We all instinctively know aspects of this are true. You can “cram for an exam” to increase your score. That has some correlation to mastery of a subject, but much of that output will be lost in time
It’s harder to do this on skills based assessments. Here we are testing more than memory. Of course, we know it’s achievable because there are entire industries that do these things. There are repetitions in form that can be reduced to rote identifications. Those can be memorized, and thus, severely reducing the measurement to issue spotting.
This study may even suggest that we can have short term skill development. That is we may be able to cram symbolic logic and elementary topology as short term skills
Nevertheless, I’m not sure it reads on meaningful insight into the debate of heritability or the nature of intelligence itself. The ability to obtain a short term result is much different than longitudinal
measures of attainment. Indeed, the former, at best, is a means for short term decision making. At worst it’s a pissing contest.
The latter is where it can get ugly and intersect with ego, tribalism, and eugenics. We don’t have a single scalar that globally measures the entirety of someone’s value. People will try to game that to make themselves or their group appear to be ubermensch
Page 28 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News