Raising the World’s I.Q. with Micronutrients
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
That said, IQ is normalized and there won't be any global raising: world_iq = 100*population
(reminder) IQ = 100 * mental age / chronological age
An educated guess is that iodine deficiency results in a
needless loss of more than 1 billion I.Q. points around
the world.
The point this article makes is as meaningless as Shirky's assertions that our "cognitive surplus" equates to a million Wikipedias we haven't written or whatever. If billions of people in the developing world gain some intelligence, great, but I doubt it'll be as much use as making their lives better and more pain free so they can use the plentiful intelligence they already have (I don't subscribe to the argument that the poor are any less intelligent - they just have fewer opportunities).
I assume you're using "Western" to mean something very racist and vile, like "analyzing the data rationally and coming to the most sensible conclusion." You are unfairly assuming that only Europeans can look at the correlation between IQ and income, or IQ and crime, or whatever. Obviously, the Japanese (IQ 105, crime 5% to 10% of that in the US) or South Koreans (IQ 106, crime rate about 15% of what it is in the US) can look at these data, too, and hope that the rest of the world catches up.
The prevalence of TV and gossip magazines in our culture are responsible for a lot more than that. I don't see a big crusade to fix that.
Probably because you haven't read about how hard it is to change IQ. Nutrition is one of the only things that can measurably affect IQ in the long run. The other one -- the big one, accounting for 40-80% of all IQ variation -- is genetics.
On the other hand, stupid but happy people are probably easier to control.
You assume wrong. I did not make the assertions or assumptions you assume.
How is "Western" racist? People of all races (except for, perhaps, those of certain indigenous peoples) make up the West and hold Western opinions. And since when were all Western people "European"?
It's disturbing that HN has gotten to the point where people are unfairly assumed to be making "racist and vile" statements with nothing to back it up. Shame on you.
My sub-point was that often the same people uncomfortable with this kind of talk are down on Western culture in particular.
Would you argue, then, that instead of sending food and medical aid to poor countries, we should send teachers?
I'm not buying your argument. Raised IQ does correlate with improved quality of life but the poorest people in the world have more serious problems we could be helping with first such as actually staying alive.
And accusing someone of holding racist and vile views is sarcasm - the lowest form of wit? I wish I could call that a good defense.
Teachers do not raise IQ. Proper nutrition does.
And accusing someone of holding racist and vile views is sarcasm - the lowest form of wit?
Okay, read through the comment I made. I am sorry this is unclear, but I am being very sarcastic. I know you are saying that it is Western to want to raise IQ rather than reduce pain; I am saying that this is, in fact the right thing to do and thus that you are using "Western" to mean "logical and sensible" -- and then I say what I'm guessing you would say to someone who said "His views are very Western -- that is, logical, and sensible, and not driven by emotion or ignorance." That is the joke: that you accidentally said something nice about Western culture, and that had someone else said that to you and meant it, you would likely have been annoyed.
I am sorry about that. Frog dissection, etc.
No, no, no... I'm not saying that! :) That's how you're interpreting it. You are putting words into my mouth which is why the sarcasm made no sense. I do not agree that raising IQ rather than reducing pain is "logical and sensible" at all - and just because you think it is does not make it universally so.
Taking someone else's words and then telling them what they really meant can never be a valid form of discourse. Indeed, that very behavior is "Western" in style because you are assuming that what you think is good is good for everyone else too.
You're almost there. I understand that you, yourself, do not think that raising IQ is rational and sensible -- that if we just give Nigeria a few billion dollars more in aid, it's going to look like Westport, Connecticut. The joke is that when you condemned something as Western, the thing you condemned was actually a pretty good idea, so calling it Western really sounded like Western was a nice thing. Maybe a different example will make it clear. If two American political partisans are arguing, and you hear:
"Raising taxes on the rich is so typical of liberals,"
and then "But when Clinton did it, our economy performed incredibly well. So you must mean that liberals are typically pretty damn awesome!"
You can follow the joke, right? That is the joke I'm making.
Indeed, that very behavior is "Western" in style because you are assuming that what you think is good is good for everyone else too.
I notice it's been pretty good for the rest of the world, actually. Lots of countries have adopted market systems and the rule of law to some extent, and they've really benefitted from it (not to mention Western technological advances -- the West, of course, has done plenty of the same in the other direction). And when we adopt communitarian values, or try to support collectivist compromise over individualism, it tends to lead to stagnation at best and disaster on average.
PS: I know you want to forget about the last 9 years as much as I do but they happened. ;-)
I'm searching for the paper on it but I can't find it. anyone know of a pdf search of some sort?
Did you read your own sentence? You say that raising IQ will improve quality of life, but you don't want to do that right now because it's more important to first raise quality of life.
Hu?
Yes I changed what you wrote. But that's what what you wrote means. You can not keep people alive without simultaneously increasing their quality of life.
That should be obvious: people who can't stay alive are extinct in a generation. People who die after having kids would benefit from increase in quality of life, which pretty much means living longer.
The genetic link has been used by closet and public racists to push their agenda. They also included factors such as sex. Not saying you are one of those people, but it is a slippery slope, we may want to avoid...
All else being equal, having a higher IQ population is probably a good thing. It probably leads to more long-term planning, capital investment, and other good things.
Helping people in most ways are not mutually exclusive.
The goal is to prevent mental retardation, not create Einsteins. They're measuring success in terms of increase in IQ.
Or are you actually claiming that preventing mental retardation is not important?
I think it will do both, because iodine deficiency probably works across the board: Someone who would otherwise be a genius may be reduced, by iodine deficiency, to being merely quite bright. Someone who would be quite bright is reduced to merely average. And someone who would be a bit thick is reduced to being retarded.
So by preventing mental retardation, they're also creating Einsteins. A win-win situation.
Fetuses, babies, and children need certain nutrients to grow healthy. Vitamin A, Zinc, Iron, Folic Acid, etc.. Iodine has to do with good brain development, vit A with eyes (among other things), etc.
What's the problem? It's elitist and western to think that people should have a chance to grow up healthy? And to think that this will lead to better outcomes on average?
If it was just a "token amount" I'd agree with you. But it isn't. Half a billion people in India suffer from Iodine deficiency (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_deficiency#Local_impact )
If half a country's population have reduced intelligence of about 10 IQ points because of this, then obviously that country's economy will suffer. If India had had no iodine deficiency since independence in 1948 it might be as rich as South Korea today -- it would certainly be richer than it is.
People in poor countries have IQ scores (as callibrated using Western norms) of 70 or so. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_race#Worldwide )
Partly this is due to social differences, i.e. growing up in an environment where there are less problems like IQ tests.
But partly also it is genuinely due to lower intelligence. If in those countries you ended chronic undernutrition, ended lack of micronutrients, ended cousin marriages, improved sewers, hygeine and basic healthcare, these people would grow up with IQs similar to those in the western world. This would lead to their economies becoming richer.
So it isn't just a "token amount" it's a big fucking deal.
That messes with a lot of interests...