What I found most interesting about this article is how it compares to our discussion last class about how IQ can only ever go down. In this article, the researchers seem to be agreeing with this sentiment in their claim that speed and memory remained relatively unfazed by aging through the formative years, IQs expectantly followed suit. If this is so, what is it that makes a baby so adept at these things? Are we therefore, some of us, born with the genius already inside of us, just waiting to absorb enough information to be known, or does it in fact come from some nurturing aspect? This article doesn't answer that question, but I"m sure someone can.
Monday, November 07, 2011
Testing the Correlation Between Reading Proficiency and IQ
In Susan A. Rose and Judith F. Feldman's article "Memory and Speed: Their Role in the Relation of Infant Information Processing to Later IQ" (1997), the authors experiment in order to determine if there is a correlation between infant memory and speed of processing and later IQ scores, with surprising results. The observing 80 or so 7-month-old infants through their formative years taking note of the children's visual recognition memory, habituation, learning, object permanence, and various measures of attentions. It was proven in this that a child who is able to visually recognize something over a 7-month gap is more likely to have an IQ, in fact almost all cases yielded such a result compared to the infant who could not visually recall objects. Furthermore, speed and memory were found to show continuity across age and contributed to both infant cognition and later IQ.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Human beings absorb information easily when they are young. The infants receive a lot of data verbally and non-verbally. All they do is observing and listening, this is the process of natural education. Their minds process what they hear and what they see. And will repeat the action instantly according to what have been recorded in their mind. (Its like you know the lyrics of a song after listening to it so many times.) Of course, the more data the infants process in their early age, the greater their IQ will be and the faster they would process the information. For example, someone born in France would be fluent in French and will automatically say their first words in the native language, and communicate easily in their later age. Compared to someone from the USA who learned French as a second language in high school, it will be harder for them to acquire the language skills and make the good pronunciations and communicate fluently. By analyzing this example, we can say that speed and memory is developed through ages and the IQ is related to the infant’s environment and education. Like this article mentions in the summary on page 261, “Further, data suggest that at all levels of reading proficiency verbal intelligence scores give a somewhat better prediction of academic achievement than do nonverbal scores, although in the case of arithmetic the difference is so slight as to have no practical significance.”
Reading Proficiency and Intelligence Scores, Verbal and Nonverbal
Dean S. Hage and James B. Stroud
The Journal of Educational Research , Vol. 52, No. 7 (Mar., 1959), pp. 258-262
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27530218
In relation to genes and genius, I found an article and research relating the CHRM2 gene (the neuronal receptor gene on chromosome 7) with intelligence. However, the gene is not for intelligence, but processes that influence IQ. The article said, "When people had more than one positive variation in the gene, the improvements in performance IQ were cumulative". Many researchers have focused on this gene since 2003.
While it may be comforting to try and find the sole purpose of genius, I think it is a variety of factors and genes may be only a small part of it.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/wuso-gag022607.php
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2350/8/66
While looking into Chase's question of Nature versus Nurture in regards to intelligence, I came across a very general explanation to what current theories and research have to say on the matter.
Are You Born Intelligent or Does It Develop Socially?
The article suggests that intelligence is 25% attributable to Nurture and 75% attributable to Nature. So it appears that the scales tip in the direction of genetics for IQ, but parenting and environment do make a difference.
Many of the articles dealing specifically with intelligence in the nature versus nurture debate, fell into the nature camp. But I found this article, Nature vs. Nurture: Mysteries of Individuality Unraveled, which would suggest a more equal distribution.
The highly popular twin experiment observes both identical twins and fraternal twins, living together and apart, to determine genetic and environmental factors. The article agrees that a lot of the evidence points to genetics but there's still too much middle ground that can't be explained by genes alone. What I found interesting were the epigenetic markers mentioned in the article. The fact that certain environmental factors such as chemical exposure can "turn up" the epigenetic markers and change individual genetics was surprising. How can so much scientific weight can be placed on genetics, or the nature debate, when environment clearly affects people in equal measure?
After reading this article, it reminded me of a debate that I had with my friends about the importance of EQ; I was arguing how these two things are of equal importance in our lives.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mr-personality/201104/eq-nomics-can-emotional-intelligence-beat-the-recession
This article writes that in reality, IQ is in fact a much better predictor of career success. However, studies on job-related behavior shows that a great percentage of people are unemployed or chose to quit their job because they couldn't stand their bosses and along with a few other simple reasons. Facts have proven that emotional intelligence actually plays a huge role to one's entrepreneurial success.
This article, Impact of Family Resources on Childhood IQ, is related to your question about nature or nurture affecting IQ. John R. Wolfe looked for any correlation between a child’s IQ and their parents’ income. Parents with a higher income could, potentially, provide their child with better food, better schooling, better childcare and other factors that could nurture their child’s IQ development. Parents with lower incomes would not be able to provide their child with such resources. Wolf, however, did not find a significant correlation between parents’ income and their child’s IQ. Though the study only looked at one nurturing factor, the results suggest that, since a higher income and access to resources do not affect IQ, intelligence is more likely determined by “nature” or genetics.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/145470
There is an article in Science Daily (October 2011) suggesting that IQ can rise or fall significantly. Modern IQ tests give results for processing speed as well, and it seems that this research is suggesting that IQ is not so stable as has been previously thought.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111020024329.htm
A further article also looks at our brain structure and how it can be changed to improve reading ability, and also bring about a change in IQ scores. It is possible that other factors were involved in this change, but it also bears looking further at.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/brain-structure-and-reading-ability-and.html
There is also the possibility that IQ tests themselves are not quite as reliable for these measurements as previously thought by some researchers.
I wanted to look further into the idea of Nature vs. Nurture that some of you brought up which led me to the story of Paula Bernstein and Elyse Schein, which you can listen to on NPR here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15629096
These two identical twins were unknowingly part of a study in the 60s and 70s that separated identical twins (and one set of triplets) when they were infants and followed their development as they grew up in different households.Paula and Elyse said that although they share many similarities (personality-wise, their taste in music, etc.) they have each made decisions in life that shape who they are. When asked if they felt like if their households had been reversed, would they have grown up to be the same person their sister had become they replied that no, they still firmly believe that who they are would have essentially remained the same. What was most shocking to me about this study was that it was even allowed for a time.I thought it was interesting how the doctor who conducted the study said that at the time, people believed that it was better for twins to be separated at birth so they could truly become an individual.
http://www.mensa.org/
http://www.mensa.org/about-us
The idea of IQ led me to researching a little into Mensa (we had discussed Mensa in class the first time we touched on IQ). The website explains the basic premise of Mensa, a club where the only requirement is a high IQ, however, one of the more interesting aspects of the group was their attitude to social issues, such as politics and religion. They claim to endorse nothing, the organization existing as a completely neutral zone. This is ironic in that this essentially means they will not exclude anyone from being in Mensa based on social issues, only if their IQ is not high enough, an extremely unique juxtaposition.
I found a troubling article that stated, “high IQ in childhood may predict later drug use”. According to findings on Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, children with high IQs (especially females) where more likely to experiment with drugs when they grow up. One theory researcher James White PhD suggests is that “People with a high IQ have also been found to be more open to new experiences”. Women with high IQ scores (the actual number is not given) were about 57% more likely to have used multiple illicit drugs by the age of 30. I don’t think the point of this article was to condone drug use but it should definitely be sign to parents that just because your child is in good academic standing does not mean that they will not dabble in drugs.
http://children.webmd.com/news/20111114/high-iq-in-childhood-may-predict-later-drug-use
after reading this post i made somr research on child and adult memories and it lead me to this article :
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080313124445.htm
The article talks about how, in legal system, adult witnesses are more reliable than the child witnesses however chuldren are more capable to remember what actually happened. In class we talked about different kinds of memory and how we can build up the memories with external effects. "verbatim trace" , precise memories , gist trace, the memory that we develop as we grow older. research explains how children grows the gist trace slower thus less likely to develop false memories. so mayne after some research it will be more common to see children witnesses in court.
Post a Comment