{"id":4010,"date":"2013-11-03T12:00:25","date_gmt":"2013-11-03T11:00:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/?p=4010"},"modified":"2014-10-09T18:50:39","modified_gmt":"2014-10-09T17:50:39","slug":"review-the-raising-of-intelligence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/2013\/11\/review-the-raising-of-intelligence\/","title":{"rendered":"Review: The raising of intelligence"},"content":{"rendered":"

https:\/\/www.goodreads.com\/book\/show\/17772014-raising-of-intelligence-the<\/a><\/p>\n

Spitz, Herman H. The raising of intelligence: A selected history of attempts to raise retarded intelligence<\/em>. 1986.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
http:\/\/bookos.org\/book\/2175637\/d00805<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

Very useful book. I had read about it in multiple sources. It is a history of attempts to cure the retarded and in general raise intelligence. The answer to the question “how much can we boost intelligence?” is still, as Jensen gave in 1969 (!) “not much”.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

—<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In 1962 a little-known chemist, Nikolai Fedyakin, working in a small techno\u00ad<\/span><\/p>\n

logical institute in an isolated region of Russia, produced from ordinary <\/span><\/p>\n

water a fluid that had some extraordinary properties (my discussion of this <\/span><\/p>\n

incident is drawn from Franks\u2019s [1981] fascinating book, Poly water). While <\/span><\/p>\n

studying liquids sealed in very narrow glass capillaries, Fedyakin discovered <\/span><\/p>\n

that after a few days a small amount of liquid separated from the rest of the <\/span><\/p>\n

liquid, and over a period of about a month this secondary column of liquid <\/span><\/p>\n

grew to about 1.5 mm in length. This new liquid had a higher density than <\/span><\/p>\n

the presumably pure liquid from which it had spontaneously separated, and <\/span><\/p>\n

it had other remarkable properties as well.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

After Fedyakin had published his finding we hear little more about him. <\/span><\/p>\n

A well-known Russian scientist, Boris V. Deryagin, took over Fedyakin\u2019s <\/span><\/p>\n

work and published a number of additional experiments describing this <\/span><\/p>\n

remarkable new anomalous water, or polywater (a polymerized form of <\/span><\/p>\n

water), which was said to be a new and more stable form of water; for even <\/span><\/p>\n

when removed from the capillary tube, polywater continued to exhibit its <\/span><\/p>\n

peculiar properties and somehow must have retained its unusual molecular <\/span><\/p>\n

structure. It did not boil at 100\u00b0C, solidification did not occur until -3 0 \u00b0C , <\/span><\/p>\n

and the solid that did form was not ice. One possibility that was repeatedly <\/span><\/p>\n

raised was that impurities\u2014from the glass capillary, for example\u2014modified <\/span><\/p>\n

the composition of the water and consequently this was not a new form of <\/span><\/p>\n

water at all. But Deryagin and others were extremely careful and dismissed <\/span><\/p>\n

the idea that the results were due to impurities. From 1962 to 1966 Deryagin <\/span><\/p>\n

and his colleagues published 10 papers, refining their methods and using <\/span><\/p>\n

quartz capillary tubes to assure the water\u2019s purity.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

When in 1966 Deryagin presented his findings to international societies, <\/span><\/p>\n

scientists outside the Soviet Union began to show greater interest, and <\/span><\/p>\n

additional mysterious results were reported. One scientist called the find\u00ad<\/span><\/p>\n

ings the most important physical-chemical discovery of the century, and <\/span><\/p>\n

many agreed. A letter published in the prestigious British journal Nature <\/span><\/p>\n

helped to spread the word, and by 1968 the mass media had been infected, <\/span><\/p>\n

first in Germany, then in Great Britain and the United States.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The structure of this new form of water was heatedly debated. Confirming <\/span><\/p>\n

experiments indicated that the spectra of anomalous water were different <\/span><\/p>\n

than those of ordinary water. The U.S. Office of Naval Research, sensing <\/span><\/p>\n

an important area of research (think of the military applications), contrib\u00ad<\/span><\/p>\n

uted financial support, and many scientists shifted their line of research in <\/span><\/p>\n

order to study polywater, frequently with support from various federal <\/span><\/p>\n

granting agencies. In 1969, a publication in Science, the American equiva\u00ad<\/span><\/p>\n

lent of Nature, confirmed the existence of this newly found substance, and <\/span><\/p>\n

spectroscopic analysis gave no evidence for any contamination from the <\/span><\/p>\n

capillary tubes or by oils or greases. Heated debate and increased activity <\/span><\/p>\n

ensued, and the Western press hastened to claim American priority for this <\/span><\/p>\n

revolutionary discovery. A warning was published in Nature that polywater <\/span><\/p>\n

was extremely dangerous because once it is dispersed in the soil it will be <\/span><\/p>\n

too late; the more stable poly water will grow at the expense of ordinary <\/span><\/p>\n

water. In time, all water will be converted into polywater! This in spite of <\/span><\/p>\n

the fact that by 1969 a great deal of effort had managed to produce only a <\/span><\/p>\n

few millionths of a gram. Nevertheless, the popular press underscored the <\/span><\/p>\n

dangers, and entire scientific meetings were given over to the subject. <\/span><\/p>\n

Elaborate theories were introduced to explain the structure of polywater.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The publication list was substantial. From 1962 to 1974, in the United <\/span><\/p>\n

States alone there were 115 research publications and 112 popular articles, <\/span><\/p>\n

comments, and reviews, and there were 285 polywater-related publications <\/span><\/p>\n

in other countries. The peak years were 1969 to 1972, with a precipitous <\/span><\/p>\n

decline after that.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Inevitably, the truth won out. In late 1969, in an article in Nature, the <\/span><\/p>\n

suggestion was again raised that polywater was nothing more than water <\/span><\/p>\n

contaminated by soluble components of the glass or quartz capillaries <\/span><\/p>\n

despite the great care taken to keep the water pure. Because there were <\/span><\/p>\n

never more than a few micrograms of polywater available it was very <\/span><\/p>\n

difficult to analyze, but a 1970 paper in Science reported that polywater <\/span><\/p>\n

contained a number of inorganic substances, including 20- to 60% sodium, <\/span><\/p>\n

as well as potassium, chloride, sulfate, and traces of other elements. An <\/span><\/p>\n

international conference on polywater was called in 1970, for by now <\/span><\/p>\n

almost every issue of Science and Nature contained something about <\/span><\/p>\n

polywater. At the conference, Deryagin maintained that careless work <\/span><\/p>\n

accounted for the presence of contaminants, but many scientists who had<\/span><\/p>\n

defended the existence of polywater began to recant. In 1973, Deryagin <\/span><\/p>\n

finally agreed that the strange properties of anomalous water were due to <\/span><\/p>\n

impurities rather than to polymeric water molecules.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Very cool story bro. The book is here: https:\/\/www.goodreads.com\/book\/show\/4930040-polywater<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

–<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Of the 107 comparisons on Raven\u2019s test, 5 significant differences favored <\/span><\/p>\n

Follow Through groups, 11 favored non-Follow Through groups, and in 91 <\/span><\/p>\n

there were no reliable differences. It is very clear that experience in Follow <\/span><\/p>\n

Through programs had no effect on intelligence, as measured by the <\/span><\/p>\n

Coloured Progressive Matrices Test.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Assessment of the \u201cplanned variation\u201d aspect of Project Follow Through <\/span><\/p>\n

also produced unexpected results. A major goal was to compare the <\/span><\/p>\n

effectiveness of different educational models, but the results indicated <\/span><\/p>\n

that differences between sites using the same model were much greater <\/span><\/p>\n

than differences between the models! Apparently our theories are rela\u00ad<\/span><\/p>\n

tively insignificant compared with the practical effects of the inter\u00ad<\/span><\/p>\n

action of particular children with particular teachers in particular school <\/span><\/p>\n

settings.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

An analogy of the https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dodo_bird_verdict<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The reason for it is the same: the theories these educational ideas were based on were mostly wrong, just like in psychotherapy. If a true theory turns up, it shud have differential validity (just like CBT for psychotherapy).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

–<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In their follow-up through ages 14 and 15, the project workers obtained <\/span><\/p>\n

IQs on 89% of the original sample. The results are shown in Figure 1, where <\/span><\/p>\n

apparently the \u201cwaves\u201d have been combined. The IQs at ages 3 to 10 are <\/span><\/p>\n

derived from the Stanford-Binet, 1960 form, whereas at age 14 they are <\/span><\/p>\n

from the WISC. These results are typical of the course of IQs in many early <\/span><\/p>\n

intervention programs: There is a sharp initial rise in IQ for the preschool <\/span><\/p>\n

children, followed by a gradual decline until there are no longer any <\/span><\/p>\n

differences between control and experimental groups. Notice that here, as <\/span><\/p>\n

in the Early Training Project, the experimental\/control difference begins to <\/span><\/p>\n

diminish when the children enter first grade. Differences vanish by age 8. <\/span><\/p>\n

At age 14, both groups have a mean IQ of about 81, which should be <\/span><\/p>\n

adjusted upward because the WISC generally measures lower than the<\/span><\/p>\n

Stanford-Binet, by about 5 IQ points (Flynn, 1984). In view of this, there <\/span><\/p>\n

would appear to be a leveling off of both groups from around 9 or 10 years <\/span><\/p>\n

of age.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Good figure to refer to. Compare with the know well known fact that heritability increases with age.<\/p>\n

Figure below from:<\/p>\n

– Bouchard Jr, Thomas J. “Genetic influence on human intelligence (Spearman’s g): How much?.” Annals of Human Biology<\/em> 36.5 (2009): 527-544.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

–<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It is when some psychologists (along with some workers in other disciplines) <\/span><\/p>\n

leap beyond their data to make exorbitant claims, that the entire field of <\/span><\/p>\n

psychology is embarrassed. Psychology is not a hard science, although <\/span><\/p>\n

some areas of psychological research are \u201charder\u201d than others. Certain <\/span><\/p>\n

domains of psychology, interested in preventing and improving retarded <\/span><\/p>\n

intelligence, have received substantial funding, commensurate with the <\/span><\/p>\n

human importance and difficulty of their mission. But their publications <\/span><\/p>\n

indicate that, in this area at least, we are still in the dark ages, and dark ages <\/span><\/p>\n

are ruled by witches and gurus who prove their beliefs by suggestion and <\/span><\/p>\n

persuasion.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Great quote.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

https:\/\/www.goodreads.com\/book\/show\/17772014-raising-of-intelligence-the Spitz, Herman H. The raising of intelligence: A selected history of attempts to raise retarded intelligence. 1986. http:\/\/bookos.org\/book\/2175637\/d00805 Very useful book. I had read about it in multiple sources. It is a history of attempts to cure the retarded and in general raise intelligence. The answer to the question “how much can we boost […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1839,2591],"tags":[1067],"class_list":["post-4010","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-psychometics","category-intelligence-iq-cognitive-ability","tag-review","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4010","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4010"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4010\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4375,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4010\/revisions\/4375"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4010"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4010"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4010"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}