http://news.yahoo.com/new-study--iodized-salt-made-americans-smarter-140609525.html
QuoteIodine appears to have made Americans smarter, the Daily Mail reports.
While the addition of iodine to salt originally was intended to eliminate goiters caused by iodine deficiencies, it appears to have had an unexpected consequence: Americans gained up to 15 IQ points after iodized salt became mandatory in 1924, a new study finds.
The National Bureau of Economic Research recently published a report by economists James Freyer, Dimitra Politi and David Weil that looked at intelligence data from roughly 2 million World War II enlistees born between 1921 and 1927.
The study, which compares the IQ levels of recruits born before 1924 with those born after that year, shows that those who ranked the highest were assigned to the Army Air Forces. Meanwhile, those recruits with lower IQ scores were sent to the Army ground forces.
The economists then researched likely iodine levels in recruits' hometowns based on the occurrence of goiters in those regions, and they discovered that recruits born in low-iodine areas after 1924 were much more likely to be sent to the Army Air Forces than those recruits born before 1924. In fact, the average IQ of those slightly younger recruits was 15 points higher than that of older recruits.
According to the report, the addition of iodine to salt might be one cause behind the Flynn effect, a long-sustained rise in IQ from roughly 1930 to the present.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fos%2Fpublish-images%2Fnews%2F2013-07-25%2F9d6a8e09-be7c-44fa-a84d-d94c8e21f9a5_salt.jpg&hash=95e0709f4e210268903c7c42d22c8868587fec72)
:huh:
Hm.... doesn't this also suggest that people who lived in coastal areas would have been smarter than people who lived inland, assuming they ate a lot of fish as part of their diet?
You know, it's also possible that, for some reason, in 1942 the Army started recruiting from a much broader base than they did prior to that. I wonder what could have happened in late 1941 to cause bright young men to enlist in the army?
This reminds me of a map I saw once that tried to give each nation an IQ score, I think based on the average estimated IQ of its citizens. IIRC China and Japan had the highest scores, and there were some nations in sub-Saharan Africa where the average IQ was in the mentally retarded range. :huh:
Quote from: Neil on July 25, 2013, 10:46:41 AM
I wonder what could have happened in late 1941 to cause bright young men to enlist in the army?
I can't quite recall, but I think it involved John Belushi somehow.
Quote from: Neil on July 25, 2013, 10:46:41 AM
You know, it's also possible that, for some reason, in 1942 the Army started recruiting from a much broader base than they did prior to that. I wonder what could have happened in late 1941 to cause bright young men to enlist in the army?
While that is true that something might have happened in 1941 to change recruiting patterns in 1942, the article and study seems primarily concerned with the changes in 1924; 18 years prior to 1942.
Neil, please eat some salt. :)
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2013, 10:53:04 AM
This reminds me of a map I saw once that tried to give each nation an IQ score, I think based on the average estimated IQ of its citizens. IIRC China and Japan had the highest scores, and there were some nations in sub-Saharan Africa where the average IQ was in the mentally retarded range. :huh:
Intelligence is highly subjective. It can be useful to try to measure for a specific task or related set of tasks(ie executive skills), but trying to reduce general intelligence to a scalar is a fool's game.
Quote from: Jacob on July 25, 2013, 10:55:46 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 25, 2013, 10:46:41 AM
You know, it's also possible that, for some reason, in 1942 the Army started recruiting from a much broader base than they did prior to that. I wonder what could have happened in late 1941 to cause bright young men to enlist in the army?
While that is true that something might have happened in 1941 to change recruiting patterns in 1942, the article and study seems primarily concerned with the changes in 1924; 18 years prior to 1942.
It is concerned with changes in people
born in 1924. When would they be recruited? :hmm:
Ouch. You're good, Neil. Jacob, please eat some salt. :)
Quote from: Maximus on July 25, 2013, 10:59:34 AM
Intelligence is highly subjective. It can be useful to try to measure for a specific task or related set of tasks(ie executive skills), but trying to reduce general intelligence to a scalar is a fool's game.
I was just mentioning that I'd seen it. I place very little value in IQ personally. It seems to not have much correlation with success in life so I'm not sure what value it actually has.
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2013, 11:02:57 AM
I was just mentioning that I'd seen it. I place very little value in IQ personally. It seems to not have much correlation with success in life so I'm not sure what value it actually has.
Really? You know lots of really successful people with 75 IQs?
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2013, 10:53:04 AM
This reminds me of a map I saw once that tried to give each nation an IQ score, I think based on the average estimated IQ of its citizens. IIRC China and Japan had the highest scores, and there were some nations in sub-Saharan Africa where the average IQ was in the mentally retarded range. :huh:
Mentally retarded IQ range is just a proxy. If you have an IQ that's more that two standard deviations below the average, you probably have some handicap that causes both the relatively low IQ and the observable signs of retardation.
From the daily mail article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2377052/How-adding-iodine-salt-America-smarter.html
QuoteThe World Health Organization estimates that two billion people worldwide are at risk of iodine deficiency.
And it's not just a Third World problem - the WHO reports that only 27 per cent of households in Europe have access to iodized salt.
Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2013, 11:04:20 AM
Really? You know lots of really successful people with 75 IQs?
I don't know anyone who claims to have an IQ that low.
Quote from: Neil on July 25, 2013, 10:46:41 AM
You know, it's also possible that, for some reason, in 1942 the Army started recruiting from a much broader base than they did prior to that. I wonder what could have happened in late 1941 to cause bright young men to enlist in the army?
Would that account for why IQ went up in low-iodine areas though? Presumably you'd also get an influx in stupid young men too.
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2013, 11:02:57 AM
I was just mentioning that I'd seen it. I place very little value in IQ personally. It seems to not have much correlation with success in life so I'm not sure what value it actually has.
That wasn't aimed at you in particular, just at the concept of IQ.
That said I don't find it implausible that for example iodine could improve the response times in the brain leading to better results on tests that place a high value on speed (and this could be very useful in the Air Force).
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2013, 11:06:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2013, 11:04:20 AM
Really? You know lots of really successful people with 75 IQs?
I don't know anyone who claims to have an IQ that low.
Probably because having a really low IQ DOES predict that you will probably not be a huge successful in life. But anyway IQ tests test IQ not success in life so I wonder why you think if it does not do that it has no value.
Quote from: Maximus on July 25, 2013, 10:59:34 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2013, 10:53:04 AM
This reminds me of a map I saw once that tried to give each nation an IQ score, I think based on the average estimated IQ of its citizens. IIRC China and Japan had the highest scores, and there were some nations in sub-Saharan Africa where the average IQ was in the mentally retarded range. :huh:
Intelligence is highly subjective. It can be useful to try to measure for a specific task or related set of tasks(ie executive skills), but trying to reduce general intelligence to a scalar is a fool's game.
Well right that is it's entire use: measuring specific tasks and skills. I think way too much gets made of it but it is really useful for what it tests for.
You could be right, but it's hard for me to say because I don't know the IQ of most people I work/associate with, and am not sure if they know their IQs either.
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2013, 11:15:19 AM
You could be right, but it's hard for me to say because I don't know the IQ of most people I work/associate with, and am not sure if they know their IQs either.
I mean generally they are used to determine if children have learning disabilities or impairments and that sort of thing, adults typically do not get IQ tests. Parents, of course, regard their kid having a high score to mean they are some sort of prodigy which is a bit ridiculous...unless it is my kids in which case :nelson:
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2013, 11:02:57 AM
Quote from: Maximus on July 25, 2013, 10:59:34 AM
Intelligence is highly subjective. It can be useful to try to measure for a specific task or related set of tasks(ie executive skills), but trying to reduce general intelligence to a scalar is a fool's game.
I was just mentioning that I'd seen it. I place very little value in IQ personally. It seems to not have much correlation with success in life so I'm not sure what value it actually has.
The IQ test was never meant to test how smart a person was, or how high an IQ could be. It was meant to test how dumb, or retarded, a person was. So basically, yeah, any IQ over 100 is pretty much worthless. It has no real value.
Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 11:21:28 AM
The IQ test was never meant to test how smart a person was, or how high an IQ could be. It was meant to test how dumb, or retarded, a person was. So basically, yeah, any IQ over 100 is pretty much worthless. It has no real value.
Except to parental pride!
But yes the IQ test is supposed to find impaired people so they can get the assistance they need.
Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2013, 11:25:54 AM
Except to parental pride!
But yes the IQ test is supposed to find impaired people so they can get the assistance they need.
Meh. My experience hasn't been so great on that front. My kids were all tested for the Gifted program, which is basically an IQ test, and they all qualified with an IQ over 125, I think. Jeremy's was over 150. The kids took that to mean that they were smart and didn't need to study. So what if they got bad grades? They were smart! They could do anything! So what if they failed classes? They were smart!
Yeah... so smart that the eldest two dropped out of community college without finishing a single class between them. Neither has any plan in life except to work menial jobs to pay the rent.
Brilliant. Fucking brilliant. :glare:
Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 11:31:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2013, 11:25:54 AM
Except to parental pride!
But yes the IQ test is supposed to find impaired people so they can get the assistance they need.
Meh. My experience hasn't been so great on that front. My kids were all tested for the Gifted program, which is basically an IQ test, and they all qualified with an IQ over 125, I think. Jeremy's was over 150. The kids took that to mean that they were smart and didn't need to study. So what if they got bad grades? They were smart! They could do anything! So what if they failed classes? They were smart!
Yeah... so smart that the eldest two dropped out of community college without finishing a single class between them. Neither has any plan in life except to work menial jobs to pay the rent.
Brilliant. Fucking brilliant. :glare:
You sure if they had gotten low scores it would have really lit a fire under their ass? Getting bad grades sure didn't.
In my experience gifted programs are pretty much a waste of time and money. I was in one, and I have at least some idea about how most of the kids in my program have turned out in life (thanks, Facebook!), and I don't really see that we are any more successful than the 'non-gifted' students as a group. The kids in the gifted program who goofed off and didn't work hard are losers today just like the kids who were not in that program, and the kids who worked hard who weren't in that program are equally successful as the kids who were. It seems to me like the proportion of losers to non-losers is pretty much the same whether or not you were in our program, too.
That said, the most successful kids of all in my class and the classes around it were all in the program, unless you count the one kid who is a Hollywood actor now and Kermit Cintron, who is a world champion boxer.
I have been told that IQ tests is a good indicator when hiring people.
Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 11:21:28 AM
So basically, yeah, any IQ over 100 is pretty much worthless. It has no real value.
The good old liberal confusion between statistics and binary math is in play again. If R^2 of predictor variable is not 1, it must be zero. :)
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2013, 11:39:00 AM
In my experience gifted programs are pretty much a waste of time and money. I was in one, and I have at least some idea about how most of the kids in my program have turned out in life (thanks, Facebook!), and I don't really see that we are any more successful than the 'non-gifted' students as a group. The kids in the gifted program who goofed off and didn't work hard are losers today just like the kids who were not in that program, and the kids who worked hard who weren't in that program are equally successful as the kids who were. It seems to me like the proportion of losers to non-losers is pretty much the same whether or not you were in our program, too.
That said, the most successful kids of all in my class and the classes around it were all in the program, unless you count the one kid who is a Hollywood actor now and Kermit Cintron, who is a world champion boxer.
I think the only thing that was useful with regards to gifted programs were that they allowed you to do different things that you wouldn't typically be able to do as a student. So I remember while in 3rd grade getting to go see a Shakespeare play or trying out other interests such a programming in basic in middle school. Kept things a little more interesting.
Yeah, we did stuff like that too. It was fun, but I'm not sure how much it 'helped' us, really.
FUN FACT: My school district had two elementary school gifted teachers, who shuffled around between our seven elementary schools. I found out later in life that they were also a lesbian couple. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2013, 11:55:53 AM
Yeah, we did stuff like that too. It was fun, but I'm not sure how much it 'helped' us, really.
That's fair. If anything it probably underlined how boring traditional school aspects were. :D
That said, I did like being able to use it as a free pass to get out of some class time in elementary/middle school. :D
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 11:49:54 AM
Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 11:21:28 AM
So basically, yeah, any IQ over 100 is pretty much worthless. It has no real value.
The good old liberal confusion between statistics and binary math is in play again. If R^2 of predictor variable is not 1, it must be zero. :)
Ah, good ole' DG condescension is in play again. :rolleyes:
My point was that there is no legitimate value to a high IQ in terms of whether one is a success in life or not. It was created as a tool to help those with low IQs, not to assess those with high IQs, because once you show an IQ in the normal range or higher, you will succeed or not based more on your drive to succeed than on your intelligence.
Yeah the high-IQ failure is about as ubiquitous as it gets. You see them everywhere.
Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 12:10:42 PM
Ah, good ole' DG condescension is in play again. :rolleyes:
I really did try to conceal how poorly reasoned I found your statement to be. Evidently I did not completely succeed. :(
QuoteMy point was that there is no legitimate value to a high IQ in terms of whether one is a success in life or not.
I understood that point, which is why I took exception to it.
QuoteIt was created as a tool to help those with low IQs, not to assess those with high IQs, because once you show an IQ in the normal range or higher, you will succeed or not based more on your drive to succeed than on your intelligence.
Assuming that is true for the sake of the argument, that still in no way supports your argument. Just because there is a more powerful predictor out there does not mean that every other predictor from second-powerful on down is useless.
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2013, 11:39:00 AM
In my experience gifted programs are pretty much a waste of time and money. I was in one, and I have at least some idea about how most of the kids in my program have turned out in life (thanks, Facebook!), and I don't really see that we are any more successful than the 'non-gifted' students as a group. The kids in the gifted program who goofed off and didn't work hard are losers today just like the kids who were not in that program, and the kids who worked hard who weren't in that program are equally successful as the kids who were. It seems to me like the proportion of losers to non-losers is pretty much the same whether or not you were in our program, too.
That said, the most successful kids of all in my class and the classes around it were all in the program, unless you count the one kid who is a Hollywood actor now and Kermit Cintron, who is a world champion boxer.
Yeah, I'd think that besides being smart a person needs to have ambition, focus, and desire towards a goal to be successful, to do well.
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 12:25:43 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 12:10:42 PM
Ah, good ole' DG condescension is in play again. :rolleyes:
I really did try to conceal how poorly reasoned I found your statement to be. Evidently I did not completely succeed. :(
QuoteMy point was that there is no legitimate value to a high IQ in terms of whether one is a success in life or not.
I understood that point, which is why I took exception to it.
QuoteIt was created as a tool to help those with low IQs, not to assess those with high IQs, because once you show an IQ in the normal range or higher, you will succeed or not based more on your drive to succeed than on your intelligence.
Assuming that is true for the sake of the argument, that still in no way supports your argument. Just because there is a more powerful predictor out there does not mean that every other predictor from second-powerful on down is useless.
I would say that I think for the purposes they are being used that there are probably more negatives that stem from IQ tests among those not on the struggling end (people feeling smugly superior and the negative consequences of that) than positive. Not that it has to be that way, but I'm not sure of anything that IQ is used for as a positive indicator on the high end. I don't count MENSA as a positive. :P
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 12:25:43 PM
I really did try to conceal how poorly reasoned I found your statement to be. Evidently I did not completely succeed. :(
That's because it's impossible for you to hide when you're being a dick. :) You've proven that time and again.
QuoteI understood that point, which is why I took exception to it.
Okay.
QuoteAssuming that is true for the sake of the argument, that still in no way supports your argument. Just because there is a more powerful predictor out there does not mean that every other predictor from second-powerful on down is useless.
So how is it that most people have no idea what their IQ is and do just fine? Not only do just fine, but actually thrive and succeed?
And how about the fact that the IQ test is KNOWN to be wildly inaccurate the further from 100 you get? So, you've got this test that no one ever needs to know the results of for any real-life application and that offers wildly inaccurate scores, and you think that it's not uselesss?
It's a number people use to talk about how brilliant they/their spouse/their children are, and nothing more. You feel free to believe whatever you want about it.
Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 02:06:03 PM
So how is it that most people have no idea what their IQ is and do just fine? Not only do just fine, but actually thrive and succeed?
WTF does that have to do with anything? Why do you need to know your own IQ in order for IQ to be predictive of one's success in life? How are the two things related in any way?
QuoteAnd how about the fact that the IQ test is KNOWN to be wildly inaccurate the further from 100 you get?
So? Metrics don't need to be 100% reliable to be useful. And I think the word you're looking for is "imprecise" rather than "inaccurate", and you can leave off "wildly" entirely because it's just fluff.
QuoteSo, you've got this test that no one ever needs to know the results of for any real-life application and that offers wildly inaccurate scores, and you think that it's not uselesss?
Of course it's not useless.
QuoteIt's a number people use to talk about how brilliant they/their spouse/their children are, and nothing more.
A lot of tests are strong proxies for IQ. Like SATs, for example. Those are used somewhere important, I'm sure.
QuoteYou feel free to believe whatever you want about it.
I prefer to reason rather than believe. :) Since studies show correlation between IQ and various metrics that make up one's success in life, I have to reason that it is stupid to claim that IQ is useless. You're free to believe things that are untrue, you've proven yourself more than capable of that time and again, but I'll opt to stick with rational thinking and reason when I can. :)
If I invent a method that gives me a 1% chance every week to predict the lottery numbers, would that be useful or useless?
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2013, 11:00:21 AM
It is concerned with changes in people born in 1924. When would they be recruited? :hmm:
:lol: :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2013, 10:53:04 AM
This reminds me of a map I saw once that tried to give each nation an IQ score, I think based on the average estimated IQ of its citizens. IIRC China and Japan had the highest scores, and there were some nations in sub-Saharan Africa where the average IQ was in the mentally retarded range. :huh:
According to wikipedia, using today's value the IQ of the US in 1932 would have been 80.
It could be that whatever social or environmental factors that have caused the raise in American IQ since then, have simply not yet happened there.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 11:07:05 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 25, 2013, 10:46:41 AM
You know, it's also possible that, for some reason, in 1942 the Army started recruiting from a much broader base than they did prior to that. I wonder what could have happened in late 1941 to cause bright young men to enlist in the army?
Would that account for why IQ went up in low-iodine areas though? Presumably you'd also get an influx in stupid young men too.
See, but the key was the social change. Stupid young men had always joined the army, but it wasn't until the war that educated young men really entered the army en masse, not just in the elite officer corps. That pushes the average up.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that.
QuoteYou sure if they had gotten low scores it would have really lit a fire under their ass? Getting bad grades sure didn't.
This calls for a study!
Lets IQ test a bunch of kids and tell some 150ers their real score and tell some others they scored 90. Then observe and enjoy.
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2013, 10:42:46 AM
:huh:
Hm.... doesn't this also suggest that people who lived in coastal areas would have been smarter than people who lived inland, assuming they ate a lot of fish as part of their diet?
:bowler:
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2013, 08:21:18 PM
I'm not sure I'd agree with that.
In the army immediately prior to WWII, 75% of enlisted men had never finished high school, and 41% had never even attended. So, not the most educated group.