Kate Caraway's Science Blog: February 2012

IQ Varies with Context
Category: Brain and Behavior
Posted on: January 25, 2012 2:27 PM, by Greg Laden

In a very interesting way.
As a regular reader of this blog, you know that IQ and similar measures are determined by a number of factors, and for most "normal" (modal?) individuals, one's heritage (genes) is rarely important. Putting it another way, variation across individuals in IQ and other measures have been shown again and again to be determined by things like home environment, diet and nutrition, and even immediate social context. Here's another finding supporting this:
Our cognitive abilities and decision-making skills can be dramatically hindered in social settings where we feel that we are being ranked or assigned a status level, such as classrooms and work environments, according to new findings from a team of researchers from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and four other institutions.
source
The study is called Implicit signals in small group settings and their impact on the expression of cognitive capacity and associated brain responses and here's the abstract:
Measures of intelligence, when broadcast, serve as salient signals of social status, which may be used to unjustly reinforce low-status stereotypes about out-groups' cultural norms. Herein, we investigate neurobehavioural signals manifest in small (n = 5) groups using functional magnetic resonance imaging and a 'ranked group IQ task' where implicit signals of social status are broadcast and differentiate individuals based on their expression of cognitive capacity. We report an initial overall decrease in the expression of cognitive capacity in the small group setting. However, the environment of the 'ranked group IQ task' eventually stratifies the population into two groups ('high performers', HP and 'low performers', LP) identifiable based on changes in estimated intelligence quotient and brain responses in the amygdala and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. In addition, we demonstrate signals in the nucleus accumbens consistent with prediction errors in expected changes in status regardless of group membership. Our results suggest that individuals express diminished cognitive capacity in small groups, an effect that is exacerbated by perceived lower status within the group and correlated with specific neurobehavioural responses. The impact these reactions have on intergroup divisions and conflict resolution requires further investigation, but suggests that low-status groups may develop diminished capacity to mitigate conflict using non-violent means.
There are two (main) interesting things about this study. First, as already mentioned, it shows that intelligence is an epiphenomenon of brain function in a broader context, including a social or cultural context. This is not a surprise considering that the intelligence-related stuff that happens in the brain occur in the parts of the brain that are only vaguely coded for by genetics and thus can't really carry a heritable signal over generations. Second, and most interesting, is that what we call "intelligence" may (often) be a socio-cultural expression, or signal. This, measuring intelligence differences among people under the assumption that IQ is inherited would be like making a similar assumption while measuring happiness among people, but the people you are observing are all actors playing different roles in different plays. You are not measuring what is there. You are measuring what is being demonstrated.
Yet another nail in the coffin for the concept that intelligence is stable, inherited, and unchangeable.
________________
Kishida, K., Yang, D., Quartz, K., Quartz, S., & Montague, P. (2012). Implicit signals in small group settings and their impact on the expression of cognitive capacity and associated brain responses Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367 (1589), 704-716 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0267

Find more posts in: Brain & BehaviorHumanities & Social Science
TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/165547

Comments
1
Years ago I remember IQ tests being ridiculed as measures of intelligence. An 'urban' IQ test was designed and suburban kids failed it miserably. One question was what is the total of a pair of dice thrown counting both visible top spots and hidden bottom spots. Stuff like that throws the idea of intelligence measurement out the window.

Fourteen.
Posted by: MikeMa | January 25, 2012 3:22 PM
2
"This is not a surprise considering that the intelligence-related stuff that happens in the brain occur in the parts of the brain that are only vaguely coded for by genetics and thus can't really carry a heritable signal over generations. "
Prithee, what parts of the brain are only vaguely coded for by genetics? What determines how they are formed?
Posted by: John | January 25, 2012 4:13 PM
3
John, the cortext is all about adapting to the environment and learning. The brain grows to suit the environment, starting with the body itself, it lives in. The cortext will grow the parts that deal with vision and audition only if the eyes and ears are present, working, and connected with signals coming in, for instance (to cite the most easily grasped and measured examples).
I can recommend some sources on the relevant neurobiology if you like.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 25, 2012 4:16 PM
4
Of course, there are pathological exceptions. However, it is clear than even the way on which the brain develops around exceptions is genetically determined.
The brain consumes 20-25% of the energy used by an average adult. As such it is under enormous selection pressure. Any organ under selective pressure will show hereditary differences.
There are *many* papers on genetic influence in cortex development. There are even papers looking at twin studies, see e.g, (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304394004008985, http://www.pnas.org/content/99/5/3176.short, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.20494/full) which show a significant amount of heritability.
Posted by: John | January 25, 2012 5:28 PM
5
I used to work as an engineer in the graphics chip industry. (These are the specialized computer chips that render images onto your computer screen.) There are usually one or more (but never more than a few) Graphics Gurus at such places; these are people who know the entire top-level design of what, despite their relative cheapness, are very complicated chips. Times may have changed, but when I was in the industry every one of these people I ever met were jerks who liked to put "ordinary" engineers down.
Even knowing this all too well, I could get tongue-tied in their presence. I could walk into a Guru's office to ask a simple question and come out with my head handed to me on a platter for even asking such an obvious question. I could do a perfectly good analysis of a bug, be told by The Guru that it was a ridiculous analysis, and feel embarrassed at my existence. I was not alone. These people were all experts at making others feel stupid, and it's really, really hard to perform well when you feel stupid.
Posted by: Karen | January 25, 2012 7:07 PM
6
I wonder what this means regarding "geniuses". What makes an Einstein or a Hawking?
Posted by: James | January 26, 2012 8:21 PM
7
Post no. 4 rings so true, but this factor is being used by the study and the OP to muddy the waters.
The idea seems to be to conflate performance (in given situations) with ability, and then to pull the rabbit out of the hat: hey, there's no innate contribution to abilities.
The summary of the experiment is replete with subjective terminology, and gives no indication that any objective measurements were used: a typical soft science effort: flaky and tendentious.
Posted by: clausentum | January 27, 2012 2:52 AM
8
clausentum: The way brains work, and develop, forces us to assume that in the absence of evidence to the contrary abilities and performance are both very context dependent.
Very often people have received the "knowledge" somewhere along the way that abilities really really and truly really innate, no kidding. Despite the fact that what we know about neurobiology contradicts this, it is the believe a lot of people come to the table with, and it is a strongly held belief.
This does not rule out innateness, it just requires that the assumption is that variation across humans in ability is not likely genetically determined (though it can be very "hard wired" if we allow for the term "hard wired" to mean things other than "your genes made it happen a certain way."
So, when folks with the received knowledge that "it must be innate" run into evidence that it is not, it seems to be a common thing to see the sort of argument you make pop up.
I don't like what I see so it is flaky. The waters are muddied. It is not objective. The science is soft.
Innatists are so predictable it actually is funny.

Posted by: Greg Laden | January 27, 2012 9:23 AM
9
Greg Laden:
thanks for the reply. I'm happy to have contributed to the gaiety of nations with my note.
To rate your poo-pooing dismissal, innaters have obviously misunderstood something pretty fundamental, so perhaps you can enlighten me about the position of anti-innaters on evolution.
You state:
..variation across humans in ability is not likely genetically determined..

Have you allowed yourself weasel-room in the words "variation " and "determined"? Otherwise it looks like you negate any genetic component to ability.
Do the cognitive differences between us and chimpanzees have nothing to do with genetics?
Is intelligence not adaptive? If it is, how can evolution work on it if there are no genetically determined variations in it? If it isn't, how did it evolve?

I'm beginning to wonder if I've stumbled onto a blog of the Discovery Institute.
Posted by: clausentum | January 28, 2012 9:24 AM
10
Call me crazy, but it seems useful to have an assessment that simultaneously screens for cognitive performance and the silly social anxieties that can interfere with it.
Posted by: Josh | February 4, 2012 11:43 AM
11
Clausentum, you need to learn how to ask your questions more intelligently.
Humans vary in strength. Within a sex, much of that strength is developmental and experiential.
However, chimpanzees and humans vary in strength by an ordre of magnitude greater than the variation among normal humans. This difference is not thought to be developmental.
Humans and walruses vary within species as to how accustom they are to cold. Within humans, comfort level at cold vs warm conditions is known to be experiential. You "set" your range between birth and about age 5.
Walrus can handle much much colder condition than humans. The difference between humans and walrus is not developmental. According to your logic, either human variation IS GENETIC DAMMIT or the human-walrus difference IS NOT GENTIC DAMMIT
Are you starting to get this?
I'm beginning to wonder if I've stumbled onto a blog of the Discovery Institute.
There are no pre-qualifications for commenting on this blog. But if and when you come back with your response, in your case, it needs to be respectful, somewhat apologetic, and you need to demonstrate that you've learned something or your comments won't be appreciated.

Posted by: Greg Laden | February 4, 2012 12:46 PM
Post a Comment
(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Comments: (you may use simple HTML tags for style)