Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Why Some Kids are Smarter

So I came across this article earlier today from Technology Review. Now, after a 15 year study scientists are saying that "the brain of more intelligent children appears to develop in a characteristic way, growing quickly over an extended period between the ages of 5 and 12." So, I guess what scientists are saying is that your brain physically grows and strengths with higher IQs. Makes me wonder what the key influencers of a developing brain that will give people a thicker cortex? Any thoughts?


You can read the entire article here: http://www.technologyreview.com/BioTech/wtr_16641,304,p1.html?=DIG

Some of it is just natural variation.

Some it growing up in a target rich environment.

Some is the influence of the environment, and parents, encouraging or discouraging mental gymnastics.

Social advocacy demands (and litigates) that every child is intellectually indistinguishable from every other child. Other-abled children deserve unlimited succor and resources. No child in a class may achieve more than any other. So-called "Gifted" children are nothing other than hate language. Find them and destroy them with counseling, prescription drugs, and famine.

IQ does not exist. Standardized objective achievment assesssments are invalid. INERT INTELLIGENCE IS THE PARADIGM OF INSTITUTIONAL RACISM (UC/Berkeley, Boalt School of Law). The singular objective of higher education is diversity.

Uncle Al avoids Black and Brown doctors. He prefers Jews and Asians who, as a class, were actively excluded from medical schools for being superior to Blacks and Browns who were fervently courted for being demonstrably incompetent (diverse). Iatrogeneic and nosocomial mortality are not Equal Opportunity employers.

Intelligence does exist, it can be measured, it does make a difference. Intelligence cannot be stolen, reassigned, granted, counterfeited, redefined, created by political fiat, or drugged into existence. Official compassion has assassinated the future by destroying its sources at incredible taxpayer expense.

The meek shall inherit the Earth, and Hell with it.

Thank you Al for one of the most open acknowledgements of racism I've seen in a very long time.

You get the not-politically-correct award for the day.

Too bad your prejudices don't correspond with objective reality.

Jews and Asians excluded from medical schools? ROFL!

And having worked with the databases of three medical boards (http://www.abms.org/member.asp) I know for a fact that you are incorrect.

Reminds me very much of a great quote:
"To die for an idea; it is unquestionably noble. But how much nobler it would be if men died for ideas that were true."
~ Prejudices (1919)

The problem isn't that all jews and asians are excluded, but that some are excluded in preference to people who are far less qualified.

It is a very effective troll subject.

After one starts in the workplace, IQ is meaningless. I would rather have a retarded person on my payroll if he actually accomplishes something than a supposedly intelligent person who gets nothing done.

Obviously, an intelligent person who accomplishes something is likely to be a real asset.

As a rule, I find that people who spend a lot of time worrying about their own intelligence should spend more time accomplishing something.

Now, to the original subject. I find this somewhat surprising. I seem to recall that for normal and above intelligence people, a properly administered IQ score is very stable after age 5. So, it would seem odd if the brain has some sort of growth spurt after this time.

Falliable wrote:
"The problem isn't that all jews and asians are excluded, but that some are excluded in preference to people who are far less qualified."

Nonsense!

Think I'm wrong ... back it up with something more substantive than neocon scare-mongering.

J Arthur wrote:
"I find this somewhat surprising. I seem to recall that for normal and above intelligence people, a properly administered IQ score is very stable after age 5. So, it would seem odd if the brain has some sort of growth spurt after this time."

Just speculating here ... but it is quite possible that the growth spurt is layed down over a foundation. Shaky foundation. Shaky house. Solid foundation. Solid house.

when I was in grad school, there was a big stink at Berkeley when they tried to limit the enrolment of asians to something like 30%. 30% represents a much proportion than found the general population of California. Cries of "quota" were raised and the idea died.

I know someone who got an NSF minorities grant (do they still do that?). She has a Ph.D. It would be hard for someone who was awarded a standard NSF who left without a degree to complain about that.

"30% represents a much proportion than found the general population of California. "

Much what? Higher or lower? You lost me here.

Well, obviously I am not one of the smarter kids!


...much higher proportion than in the genreal population.

thanks for bringing that up!

Restating J Arthur's statement for clarity ...

The proportion of Asian students at the University of California, and for that matter here at the University of Washington, is very substantially higher than the proportion of Asians in the local general population.

What is less well known, but openly discussed among many academics, is that Americans do not respect education and educators as much as those from other countries and cultures. In my class last year I had two African-American students ... black Americans? No! One was from Egypt the other a caucasian from South Africa. In the last 6 years I have had only 2 or 3 blacks in my classes that were not African by birth. And the proportion of Asians (Japan, China, Philipines, Indonesia, Vietnam) probably three to six times their presence in the general population. Others that are over-represented compared to their presence in the general population are Eastern Europeans (Russia, Ukraine, Armenia) and South Asians (Indian and Pakistan).

Fascinating as an instructor to see persons who came to the US on technology visas more interested in extending their education than the American's whose jobs they are taking. And a very sad commentary on American mores.

"Think I'm wrong ... back it up with something more substantive than neocon scare-mongering."


I'm not sure what you would accept. There have been many articles written on this subject. I was watching an interview with dean of admissions at a prominent California university where he was asked point blank whether a white or asian with an SAT of 1200 would be admitted. His response, "amost certainly not." He was then asked whether a black or hispanic would be accepted with the same SAT score. His response, "Almost certainly."

Universities step around their preferential treatment policies by just saying that the minority students they select are as qualified as the whites they reject (without evidence), but moreover by saying they need the minorities to make the campus more diverse, which they say will improve the education for all students who do get selected.

This isn't "neocon scaremongering." This is what the universities are saying to justify their position. The problem is that anyone who questions these policies is accused of being a racist, or an ethnocentrist, or a neocon scaremonger - or any of a number of other names that can be mustered in the hopes of squelching honest inquiry.

"when I was in grad school, there was a big stink at Berkeley when they tried to limit the enrolment of asians to something like 30%. 30% represents a much proportion than found the general population of California. Cries of "quota" were raised and the idea died.

"I know someone who got an NSF minorities grant (do they still do that?). She has a Ph.D. It would be hard for someone who was awarded a standard NSF who left without a degree to complain about that."

I'm afraid I can't follow your grammar or your argument.

This one isn't too difficult. Berkeley tried to impose a quota on Asians because they were over-represented. However, they were not able to do so. So, claiming that

"The problem isn't that all jews and asians are excluded, but that some are excluded in preference to people who are far less qualified."

doesn't fit the facts that I know.


One person in this discussion thread (Uncle Al) was awarded a standard NSF grant. He failed to complete his graduate studies. On the other hand, people who were given special NSF grants for women and minorities do manage to finish graduate school. If you need the point spelled out--it is impossible for Uncle Al to complain about that special program (NSF grants for women and minorities) given his own history.

I.e. statements like:
"Official compassion has assassinated the future by destroying its sources at incredible taxpayer expense."

ring hollow from a person who has wasted taxpayer funds.

J. Arthur wrote:
"it is impossible for Uncle Al to complain about that special program (NSF grants for women and minorities) given his own history."

Accept personal responsibility when it is so much easier to be bitter? You've got to be kidding.

JAG: "Berkeley tried to impose a quota on Asians because they were over-represented. However, they were not able to do so. So, claiming that

Responded to

TFF: "The problem isn't that all jews and asians are excluded, but that some are excluded in preference to people who are far less qualified."

Quotas are not the only way that preferential treatment can be implemented (I gave an example of another mechanism) - simply have to widely disparate standards for different sets of applicants.

JAG: "it is impossible for Uncle Al to complain about that special program (NSF grants for women and minorities) given his own history."

I.e. statements like:
Al: "Official compassion has assassinated the future by destroying its sources at incredible taxpayer expense."

JAG: ring hollow from a person who has wasted taxpayer funds.

TFF: Do you have data that Al wasted taxpayer funds? That he did not finish his degree doesn't mean he wasted his NSF grant.