I find this whole idea of "racial realism" ridiculous. On the full spectrum of color, from the darkest African blacks to the lightest Scandinavian whites, why AP Asians, Near East Asians & Jews on the left tail IQ wise and not the Norse? IT'S NURTURE. I mean if a Finn marries a Congolese would their children be only at the mean of the curve?
I find this whole idea of "racial realism" ridiculous. On the full spectrum of color, from the darkest African blacks to the lightest Scandinavian whites, why AP Asians, Near East Asians & Jews on the left tail IQ wise and not the Norse? IT'S NURTURE. I mean if a Finn marries a Congolese would their children be only at the mean of the curve?
AP Asians include Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia. East Asians- Japanese and Chinese, and Ashkenazi Jews are known for being on the right tail, not the left tail. If it were nurture ,it would be easy enough to increase an individual's IQ by one standard deviation, but so far that hasn't been done. IQ can be decreased through brain injury but cannot be increased by nurture. An individual's IQ is set before kindergarten.
“Children’s intelligence fluctuates as they develop. It used to be held that IQ stabilises by around the age of 10. This was the rationale for introducing tests at 11-12 years of age in those education systems where ability is used to select which secondary school children attend. However, recent evidence suggests that both verbal and non-verbal intelligence may vary during the teenage years, by up to 20 IQ points, suggesting that such selective systems do not have a firm foundation.” Source: http://www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk/resources/neuromyth-or-neurofact/intelligence-is-fixed/
Where in this linked article did it say that a child's IQ could vary by up to 20 points? If that's true, what percentage of tested children had a 20 IQ point fluctuation and in which direction?
I read the link and clicked on 1- read that but cannot find the actual study that showed children's IQs with 20 point fluctuations. Where is that study, what's the title? The 4th paragraph states a conclusion that I've never seen anywhere else. I'd like to see the research that led to such a conclusion.
Thanks. Study was done in 2011 with 33 subjects. The results have not changed what experts say currently about IQs not changing much after kindergarten. This appears to be the only study of its kind.
You don't but experts in the field do. It's not my field of expertise but I would tend to go with what experts say. The study was never replicated, it's a total of 33 children, I know nothing technically about the fMRI that was used or the settings. It was 20% of the subjects that gained or lost IQ points- that's 7 subjects. Half lost points- perhaps due to sports/brain injuries. That leaves 3 or 4 that gained points. That's not a lot of evidence to base much on.
So, if a study is small about fluctuations in IQ in teenaged kids, then IQ is set at five? All I can find says at least IQ stabilizes at puberty. Saying “experts say” doesn’t mean much. I’ve read a lot about brain development in kids and I have never read that. Also, if you have ever hung out with kids, all things develop in spurts, at different rates in different kids. There is the whole idea of a “late bloomer” and the notion that precocious kids are not necessarily geniuses for a reason.
I find this whole idea of "racial realism" ridiculous. On the full spectrum of color, from the darkest African blacks to the lightest Scandinavian whites, why AP Asians, Near East Asians & Jews on the left tail IQ wise and not the Norse? IT'S NURTURE. I mean if a Finn marries a Congolese would their children be only at the mean of the curve?
AP Asians include Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia. East Asians- Japanese and Chinese, and Ashkenazi Jews are known for being on the right tail, not the left tail. If it were nurture ,it would be easy enough to increase an individual's IQ by one standard deviation, but so far that hasn't been done. IQ can be decreased through brain injury but cannot be increased by nurture. An individual's IQ is set before kindergarten.
“Children’s intelligence fluctuates as they develop. It used to be held that IQ stabilises by around the age of 10. This was the rationale for introducing tests at 11-12 years of age in those education systems where ability is used to select which secondary school children attend. However, recent evidence suggests that both verbal and non-verbal intelligence may vary during the teenage years, by up to 20 IQ points, suggesting that such selective systems do not have a firm foundation.” Source: http://www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk/resources/neuromyth-or-neurofact/intelligence-is-fixed/
Where in this linked article did it say that a child's IQ could vary by up to 20 points? If that's true, what percentage of tested children had a 20 IQ point fluctuation and in which direction?
It was the fourth paragraph. I did not edit it. Just to say, IQ is not set by kindergarten.
I read the link and clicked on 1- read that but cannot find the actual study that showed children's IQs with 20 point fluctuations. Where is that study, what's the title? The 4th paragraph states a conclusion that I've never seen anywhere else. I'd like to see the research that led to such a conclusion.
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/psychology/dnl/personalpages/Ramsden_etal_2011.pdf. This is from the footnote, it seems to be a link to the research group that studied changes in IQ in teenage brains. It seems to be Nature… https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10514
Thanks. Study was done in 2011 with 33 subjects. The results have not changed what experts say currently about IQs not changing much after kindergarten. This appears to be the only study of its kind.
I don’t see anything to support that IQ is set by age 5. Do you actually have any evidence? It seems completely absurd to me.
You don't but experts in the field do. It's not my field of expertise but I would tend to go with what experts say. The study was never replicated, it's a total of 33 children, I know nothing technically about the fMRI that was used or the settings. It was 20% of the subjects that gained or lost IQ points- that's 7 subjects. Half lost points- perhaps due to sports/brain injuries. That leaves 3 or 4 that gained points. That's not a lot of evidence to base much on.
So, if a study is small about fluctuations in IQ in teenaged kids, then IQ is set at five? All I can find says at least IQ stabilizes at puberty. Saying “experts say” doesn’t mean much. I’ve read a lot about brain development in kids and I have never read that. Also, if you have ever hung out with kids, all things develop in spurts, at different rates in different kids. There is the whole idea of a “late bloomer” and the notion that precocious kids are not necessarily geniuses for a reason.