Hi All,
Wow, what a semester! Three and a half months ago, I didn't quite know what to think when walking to the young center for the first time! We had our first talk on race and IQ which was interesting, but I still didn't know what to make of the course. After a few classes or so I really began to enjoy the in class discussion component. I really appreciated that Dr. Pretz didn't lecture the entire time and she allowed for more of a dialog about the material to unfold. I thought this was vastly more helpful than a traditional lecture as it helped me manipulate the material while I was learning it. Also hearing other individuals and their impressions on the material was helpful and it began to challenge my initial impressions on whichever study topic. The debates were interesting, but at times I wished they were more dynamic. It would have been cool to integrate some additional neuroscience into the course. What brain regions are associated with creativity etc. However, the papers we read this semester were interesting in their own right.
I felt the PDQ's to be immensely helpful in staying up with course content and thinking deeper about the concepts. The text books for the course were short and easy to navigate as well. My favorite highlight of the course was the paper and doing my own debate. I must admit that the debate was my first since freshmen year! I feel this experience is invaluable to have. Also, since my paper topic was near and dear to my heart (biology-inspired) I felt obliged to make it the best I could! I feel the current edition of it is almost perfect, and will be ready for submission before Thursday.
This has been a absolute fantastic experience--especially for a second semester senior! Thanks again for reading my blog posts.I really enjoyed reading my classmates--some of them had really interesting takes on course content! Although my blogging may cease for this topic, does not mean I have finished philosophizing about intelligence and creativity!
Thanks again,
Ryan
Saturday, May 2, 2015
Mental Illness and Creativity
Hi All,
This debate was interesting in that both sides did a fantastic job advocating for their view points! However, I wish the debate topic should have been qualified with a specific disease such as schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or seasonal affective disorder. This would have provided the audience with more details and would have focused the debate more.
Questions I had entering the debate: What kind of disorders? What were the mechanisms underlying this decrease in creativity? For the later I could imagine a disease such as depression which may inhibit creativity due to compulsive thoughts occupying a patients mind. Also, I could also see a scenario where depression may predispose a person to be isolated, which would allow them more alone time to potentially think creatively.
So I have come o the conclusion that a mental illness effects on creativity is dependent on how the illness effects the individual! This would explain some of the discrepancies the debaters had between themselves and why some mental diseases promote creativity, while others do not. There may be in fact more variability to this question than previously thought!
Also a question that interest me is what neuroscience is involved in these illnesses that may enhance creativity? For instance, the debaters pointed out that many artist tend to be in a depressed state during the genesis of their best work. How can this be? Perhaps the inhibition of certain neural networks which regulate the "creative" networks result in the expression of greater creative prowess. Or maybe the induction of depression up regulate neural tracts responsible for the feelings of depression, yet the same tract being unregulated increases creativity. Or for a third option, maybe being depressed changes your interpretation of the world, so that you see experiences differently in comparison to non-disease states and therefore produce different creative products.
Regardless, this was a great debate which got me thinking! Please comment on your thoughts and impressions. I will post once more before the end of the semester.
Until my next post.
Ryan
This debate was interesting in that both sides did a fantastic job advocating for their view points! However, I wish the debate topic should have been qualified with a specific disease such as schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or seasonal affective disorder. This would have provided the audience with more details and would have focused the debate more.
Questions I had entering the debate: What kind of disorders? What were the mechanisms underlying this decrease in creativity? For the later I could imagine a disease such as depression which may inhibit creativity due to compulsive thoughts occupying a patients mind. Also, I could also see a scenario where depression may predispose a person to be isolated, which would allow them more alone time to potentially think creatively.
So I have come o the conclusion that a mental illness effects on creativity is dependent on how the illness effects the individual! This would explain some of the discrepancies the debaters had between themselves and why some mental diseases promote creativity, while others do not. There may be in fact more variability to this question than previously thought!
Also a question that interest me is what neuroscience is involved in these illnesses that may enhance creativity? For instance, the debaters pointed out that many artist tend to be in a depressed state during the genesis of their best work. How can this be? Perhaps the inhibition of certain neural networks which regulate the "creative" networks result in the expression of greater creative prowess. Or maybe the induction of depression up regulate neural tracts responsible for the feelings of depression, yet the same tract being unregulated increases creativity. Or for a third option, maybe being depressed changes your interpretation of the world, so that you see experiences differently in comparison to non-disease states and therefore produce different creative products.
Regardless, this was a great debate which got me thinking! Please comment on your thoughts and impressions. I will post once more before the end of the semester.
Until my next post.
Ryan
Creative Project Reflection
Hi All,
This weeks creative project was interesting, in that it allowed the class to reflect on course content and put into practice some theory discussed in the course. I was most impressed by the song that Andrew made! It was very creative and it was aesthetic as well. He incorporated dialog to his song and had a soundtrack to his speech. I was also impressed by the play that Mary came with, as it had a unique conflict, yet addressed all components to her paper topic.
Being biased, I must admit I was a fan of my creative project! I feel showing the sad video from 'up' and having my classmates experience my paper topic was valuable to their understanding. I asked "will you be sad about this video next week?" They answered no! Why? Since humans have developed cognitive mechanisms over the course of our evolutionary history, we have become experts at rationalizing feelings in order to live more productive lives. This experiment is helpful in that it it has the audience see the real life practical application of my paper.
Also--I must admit, although mine was cool, Tatum's was even cooler as it incorporated video interviews of us fellow students and professors alike! Her project was on the creativity of lying! More importantly--I was featured in the video! From the video I was able to see real life examples of creative lying from people that I knew! This really resonated with me and showed me not only first hand examples of creative lies, but the thought process of the creative lair. One thing I noticed from each liar in the video is that they played on there environment and modified their lie based on the situation.
For instance, Dr. Roy was lying about his age in order to buy alcohol, and he modified his lie based on what the cashier was asking him. In my case, I lie to women about having my heart on the right side of my chest. I give them pseudo-medical details and eventually flexing my right pectoral to provide them the evidence they are seeking. This lie is perfect, as there is a dialogue with the girl, there is usually laughter involved, and I get to show off my pec-flexing skills!
All of the projects were fantastically done and provided insight to each individuals paper topics. This exercise was fun and should absolutely be replicated in future years! I feel this is a efficient way to cover a lot of topics while maintaining interest. Be sure to comment on your personal favorites.
Until my next post,
Ryan
This weeks creative project was interesting, in that it allowed the class to reflect on course content and put into practice some theory discussed in the course. I was most impressed by the song that Andrew made! It was very creative and it was aesthetic as well. He incorporated dialog to his song and had a soundtrack to his speech. I was also impressed by the play that Mary came with, as it had a unique conflict, yet addressed all components to her paper topic.
Being biased, I must admit I was a fan of my creative project! I feel showing the sad video from 'up' and having my classmates experience my paper topic was valuable to their understanding. I asked "will you be sad about this video next week?" They answered no! Why? Since humans have developed cognitive mechanisms over the course of our evolutionary history, we have become experts at rationalizing feelings in order to live more productive lives. This experiment is helpful in that it it has the audience see the real life practical application of my paper.
Also--I must admit, although mine was cool, Tatum's was even cooler as it incorporated video interviews of us fellow students and professors alike! Her project was on the creativity of lying! More importantly--I was featured in the video! From the video I was able to see real life examples of creative lying from people that I knew! This really resonated with me and showed me not only first hand examples of creative lies, but the thought process of the creative lair. One thing I noticed from each liar in the video is that they played on there environment and modified their lie based on the situation.
For instance, Dr. Roy was lying about his age in order to buy alcohol, and he modified his lie based on what the cashier was asking him. In my case, I lie to women about having my heart on the right side of my chest. I give them pseudo-medical details and eventually flexing my right pectoral to provide them the evidence they are seeking. This lie is perfect, as there is a dialogue with the girl, there is usually laughter involved, and I get to show off my pec-flexing skills!
All of the projects were fantastically done and provided insight to each individuals paper topics. This exercise was fun and should absolutely be replicated in future years! I feel this is a efficient way to cover a lot of topics while maintaining interest. Be sure to comment on your personal favorites.
Until my next post,
Ryan
Friday, April 24, 2015
Debate Reflection: Should Creativity be Used in Admissions?
Hi All,
After a riveting debate in my PSY327 class concerning creativity in admissions decisions, I came to the following personal conclusion: We all evaluate someones merits when interviewing them. Just because I actually don't test a persons creativity doesn't mean I'm not subconsciously assessing it. Suppose I had a applicant come in and he described himself as a in-the-box thinker, then I would likely develop a immediate bias against him. So then I thought, then perhaps its to the benefit of the institution to test creativity too remove bias? Two problems with that: 1) All test have bias to them 2) Creativity it not equally important for all majors. So then perhaps for the admissions process tests could be given to fit a certain intended major. The Affirmative team used the example that accounting probably requires less creativity than theater so acting majors should be subject to creativity tests. The issue then is how do you deal with changes in majors? Would the student have to reapply to the college? Of course not! Here is my solution: Have applicants be tested for competences that are specific to college! For instance: Evaluate motivation! This can probably be done via a simple assessment. What are your thoughts? How do you think you would do on a test of motivation? What other factors could be tested? Love to hear your thoughts!
Until my next post,
Ryan
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Creative Panel Reflection
Hi All,
This past week in PSY327 we had Dr. Greenberg and Dr. RohrKemper come to our class and discuss creativity! I must say--I was impressed with both of their enthusiasm throughout the discussion. However, I was surprised how little they previously philosophized over the concept of creativity. From Dr. Greenbergs comments it seemed apparent that he considered creativity as a product based entity. But throughout the talk he mentioned how looking at creativity as a process was appealing to him. Dr. RohrKemper seemed to think more deeply about creativity, likely because of the nature of his work.
This discussion perfectly illustrates how the actual philosophy and science of creativity can be included in a variety of fields. I feel that studying the process of creativity in isolation would immensely benefit students of a given field. I would love to follow up with our two speakers and see if their new outlook on the creative process has benefited their work or altered the way they approach teaching their classes.
Questions: Would you prefer if a professor taught creativity in the context of their subject? If so, how much of a course should be dedicated to this? Should a student be graded on their creative product?
Until my next post,
Ryan
This past week in PSY327 we had Dr. Greenberg and Dr. RohrKemper come to our class and discuss creativity! I must say--I was impressed with both of their enthusiasm throughout the discussion. However, I was surprised how little they previously philosophized over the concept of creativity. From Dr. Greenbergs comments it seemed apparent that he considered creativity as a product based entity. But throughout the talk he mentioned how looking at creativity as a process was appealing to him. Dr. RohrKemper seemed to think more deeply about creativity, likely because of the nature of his work.
This discussion perfectly illustrates how the actual philosophy and science of creativity can be included in a variety of fields. I feel that studying the process of creativity in isolation would immensely benefit students of a given field. I would love to follow up with our two speakers and see if their new outlook on the creative process has benefited their work or altered the way they approach teaching their classes.
Questions: Would you prefer if a professor taught creativity in the context of their subject? If so, how much of a course should be dedicated to this? Should a student be graded on their creative product?
Until my next post,
Ryan
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Mcarthur Genius Grant
Hi All,
Today, I'm blogging about Lee Ann Newsom, the recipient of the 2002 Mcarthur Genius Grant. She studies the evolutionary biology of plants (paleoethnobotanist) in the context of the Caribbean, Did the tobacco mosaic virus cause the drastic increase in conifer growth 3000 years ago? Or was it because of the harsh flood? She would not only have to use the paleontological evidence to combine a vision of the ancestral Caribbean plant flora, but also develop reasonable explanatory hypotheses that would match these observations. This is not only creativity, but its problem solving with creativity! This would allow you to practice your creativity but evaluate its plausibility. I feel she would otherwise be very creative in other fields due to how much she is practicing her creative process. Also, while reading her bio I noted that after her graduation from University of Florida, she acted as a curator at a archaeological which undoubtedly build her expertise. This would also be an advantage in terms of developing creativity.
Thinking about my own creativity and field of biology, I feel I have the capacity to be creative by virtue of my interests. Without my interests I would never have the chance to be creative. What do you feel could have been molding to a youth that grows up to receive this genius reward? What is unique about their disposition? Can this experience be systematized? Give me your thoughts!
Until my next post,
Ryan
Today, I'm blogging about Lee Ann Newsom, the recipient of the 2002 Mcarthur Genius Grant. She studies the evolutionary biology of plants (paleoethnobotanist) in the context of the Caribbean, Did the tobacco mosaic virus cause the drastic increase in conifer growth 3000 years ago? Or was it because of the harsh flood? She would not only have to use the paleontological evidence to combine a vision of the ancestral Caribbean plant flora, but also develop reasonable explanatory hypotheses that would match these observations. This is not only creativity, but its problem solving with creativity! This would allow you to practice your creativity but evaluate its plausibility. I feel she would otherwise be very creative in other fields due to how much she is practicing her creative process. Also, while reading her bio I noted that after her graduation from University of Florida, she acted as a curator at a archaeological which undoubtedly build her expertise. This would also be an advantage in terms of developing creativity.
Thinking about my own creativity and field of biology, I feel I have the capacity to be creative by virtue of my interests. Without my interests I would never have the chance to be creative. What do you feel could have been molding to a youth that grows up to receive this genius reward? What is unique about their disposition? Can this experience be systematized? Give me your thoughts!
Until my next post,
Ryan
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Paper Topic
Hi All,
I'll keep this brief!--I have been brainstorming ways to best organize my term paper, and I thought blogging about it may help by creative process! Sooooo....here is my hypothesis: Organisms with greater diversity of emotions are more likely to have higher ordered intelligence. My reasoning lies in the assumption that emotions were the major evolutionary prerequisite for a theory of mind (TOM), which is a major component of social intelligence, ultimately leading to evolutionary by-products such as proficiencies in math, language, and abstract thinking. TOM has been established as a prerequisite for social intelligence and emotion interpretation have been previously identified as a component of TOM; however, never before has the diversity of emotions been addressed in the context of TOM and subsequently intelligence. The burden is on me to provide evidence which supports this. One type of evidence is to provide association between a organisms emotional diversity and perceived intelligence. I can do this by inferring emotional diversity by using markers such as facial expression diversity (eg a snake has relativity not expression compared to an great ape. Therefore the ape would be expected to have greater emotional diversity). However, this assumes there is no purpose for emotion if you cant express it, which may not necessarily be true ( ex fear. you don't need to express fear in order to act on it and escape from a predator). Considering this, I'll need to couple these observations with cognitive neurobiological data. Also, I can use other non facial ques such as complexity of speech or body language since since emotion can be expressed via these means as well. Throughout all of this I will need to provide parameters of intelligence and frame my argument in a evolutionary context.
Any ideas how to better organize this?
Pass them on!
Until next time,
Ryan
I'll keep this brief!--I have been brainstorming ways to best organize my term paper, and I thought blogging about it may help by creative process! Sooooo....here is my hypothesis: Organisms with greater diversity of emotions are more likely to have higher ordered intelligence. My reasoning lies in the assumption that emotions were the major evolutionary prerequisite for a theory of mind (TOM), which is a major component of social intelligence, ultimately leading to evolutionary by-products such as proficiencies in math, language, and abstract thinking. TOM has been established as a prerequisite for social intelligence and emotion interpretation have been previously identified as a component of TOM; however, never before has the diversity of emotions been addressed in the context of TOM and subsequently intelligence. The burden is on me to provide evidence which supports this. One type of evidence is to provide association between a organisms emotional diversity and perceived intelligence. I can do this by inferring emotional diversity by using markers such as facial expression diversity (eg a snake has relativity not expression compared to an great ape. Therefore the ape would be expected to have greater emotional diversity). However, this assumes there is no purpose for emotion if you cant express it, which may not necessarily be true ( ex fear. you don't need to express fear in order to act on it and escape from a predator). Considering this, I'll need to couple these observations with cognitive neurobiological data. Also, I can use other non facial ques such as complexity of speech or body language since since emotion can be expressed via these means as well. Throughout all of this I will need to provide parameters of intelligence and frame my argument in a evolutionary context.
Any ideas how to better organize this?
Pass them on!
Until next time,
Ryan
Saturday, March 21, 2015
Creativity? Rethinking the definition...
Hi All,
Well this post will be a little philosophical...so please excuse me! I've been rethinking the definition of creativity since the recent class discussions we have had. I pose the question: Is it possible to be creative without background in a subject? The reason I ask this is because I wounder if an idea can come from nothing, or are all novel ideas just combinations of unrelated concepts? If it is truly the later then could a computer theoretically be creative? If not then what ideas do come from a combination of previous ideas. Consider the invention of the wheel. I'm assuming that a individual who conceived the wheel had the concept of a circle and a stone rolling down a hill. The combination of these ideas would lead someone to think of a wheel. However, are their any alternative interpretation of this combination? E.g could this individual have been lead to an alternative solution given both ideas of the stone and circle? I'll give the example of Darwin's discovery of evolution. Numerous other zoologist's have analyzed the diversity of life and have come to different conclusions than Darwin; however, it was Darwin's solution which was the most reasonable and novel compared to his peers. Therefore perhaps there is a interpretation/analysis component to creativity. You not only need to combine ideas put organize them in a logical fashion. Hence, it may be that intelligence can influence creativity. The question is: what allows individuals to have superior powers at combining seemingly unrelated ideas together? Perhaps those who can store more information can therefore have a greater repository to draw ideas from. Then could it be that hippocampus size has influence on creativity? No doubt there are brain structural features associated with the construct of creativity, perhaps elucidating them would help us generate a more refined definition of creativity.
Give me your thoughts!
Until next time,
Ryan
Well this post will be a little philosophical...so please excuse me! I've been rethinking the definition of creativity since the recent class discussions we have had. I pose the question: Is it possible to be creative without background in a subject? The reason I ask this is because I wounder if an idea can come from nothing, or are all novel ideas just combinations of unrelated concepts? If it is truly the later then could a computer theoretically be creative? If not then what ideas do come from a combination of previous ideas. Consider the invention of the wheel. I'm assuming that a individual who conceived the wheel had the concept of a circle and a stone rolling down a hill. The combination of these ideas would lead someone to think of a wheel. However, are their any alternative interpretation of this combination? E.g could this individual have been lead to an alternative solution given both ideas of the stone and circle? I'll give the example of Darwin's discovery of evolution. Numerous other zoologist's have analyzed the diversity of life and have come to different conclusions than Darwin; however, it was Darwin's solution which was the most reasonable and novel compared to his peers. Therefore perhaps there is a interpretation/analysis component to creativity. You not only need to combine ideas put organize them in a logical fashion. Hence, it may be that intelligence can influence creativity. The question is: what allows individuals to have superior powers at combining seemingly unrelated ideas together? Perhaps those who can store more information can therefore have a greater repository to draw ideas from. Then could it be that hippocampus size has influence on creativity? No doubt there are brain structural features associated with the construct of creativity, perhaps elucidating them would help us generate a more refined definition of creativity.
Give me your thoughts!
Until next time,
Ryan
Destroying Psychology Books!
Hi All,
Interesting title right....? Well that's exactly what we did in my last PSY327 class in the name of creativity! To preface this post, let me begin by giving you all some background. Our instructor introduced us to the show craft corner showdown, which pits experienced craftsmen and women against each other in the context of who-can-make-the-best-craft duel. The only constraints applied were the materials they could use as well as a ungenerous ten minute time limit. Our instructor thought it would be a good exercise to replicate this in the context of our class--by using none other than old psychology text books, yarn and paper clips ! I must admit ripping Freud's face apart was very hard considering my adornment for him. Either way--we began the challenge by brainstorming in groups what the most creative structure would be make considering our materials and our limited diversity of materials.
Immediately, we thought of making a paper bouquet of flowers using the different the colors of paper. We then transitioned to considering making making a boat, with the yarn being the rope of the boat sail. Then we thought of designing a house. However, I then thought, we are only suggesting things within one category--physical structures in our outside world. What were other categories?? Then I thought--how about structures that are abstract or ones that we don't typically see. Then I thought--A BRAIN. We could make a brain from the crumbled psych books, make the sulci and gyri from the yarn and hold it together with the paper clips! It would also be metaphorical since we would be making a model brain from the materials used to understand a brain (psych textbooks). We committed to this idea due to its novelty and went forth to make it with 20 minutes left!
We finished--even with enough time to add a brain stem! I was impressed with our teams collaboration and creative process under pressure. Only one other groups project stuck out to me--the ones who made a costume from the psych books! This functional approach to creativity was interesting and absolutely demonstrated the groups divergent thinking. All in all this activity was a fantastic experience and left me thinking, what exactly are the ideal conditions to facilitate creativity? Give me your thoughts!
Until my next post,
Ryan
Interesting title right....? Well that's exactly what we did in my last PSY327 class in the name of creativity! To preface this post, let me begin by giving you all some background. Our instructor introduced us to the show craft corner showdown, which pits experienced craftsmen and women against each other in the context of who-can-make-the-best-craft duel. The only constraints applied were the materials they could use as well as a ungenerous ten minute time limit. Our instructor thought it would be a good exercise to replicate this in the context of our class--by using none other than old psychology text books, yarn and paper clips ! I must admit ripping Freud's face apart was very hard considering my adornment for him. Either way--we began the challenge by brainstorming in groups what the most creative structure would be make considering our materials and our limited diversity of materials.
Immediately, we thought of making a paper bouquet of flowers using the different the colors of paper. We then transitioned to considering making making a boat, with the yarn being the rope of the boat sail. Then we thought of designing a house. However, I then thought, we are only suggesting things within one category--physical structures in our outside world. What were other categories?? Then I thought--how about structures that are abstract or ones that we don't typically see. Then I thought--A BRAIN. We could make a brain from the crumbled psych books, make the sulci and gyri from the yarn and hold it together with the paper clips! It would also be metaphorical since we would be making a model brain from the materials used to understand a brain (psych textbooks). We committed to this idea due to its novelty and went forth to make it with 20 minutes left!
We finished--even with enough time to add a brain stem! I was impressed with our teams collaboration and creative process under pressure. Only one other groups project stuck out to me--the ones who made a costume from the psych books! This functional approach to creativity was interesting and absolutely demonstrated the groups divergent thinking. All in all this activity was a fantastic experience and left me thinking, what exactly are the ideal conditions to facilitate creativity? Give me your thoughts!
Until my next post,
Ryan
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
IQ in Admissions Decisions
Hi All,
This past week we has a debate concerning IQ in college admissions decisions. This class generally felt predisposed to say that IQ test's were not good parameters to measure students by since IQ tests are biased. However, the SAT along with professional exams like the LSAT and MCAT are all indirect measures of IQ. So, using this reasoning it seems that we commonly use indirect measures to asses applicant IQ (even the interview process may indirectly measure reasoning abilities).
So instead of using these variable measures, why not use a well documented process like a IQ test? Hence why I am on the side of administering IQ tests to college applicants. In terms of jobs, I would be hesitant to do the same since all success in jobs may not be implicit on IQ. However, in academia most success is implicit on IQ.
Questions that I have: Should IQ participants with lower IQ's be allowed to retest? How would you determine minimums for various college programs and jobs? What will happen tot he individuals who don't qualify for a college program? How will scholarships be determined under this new paradigm? Let me know your thoughts!
Until my next post,
Ryan
This past week we has a debate concerning IQ in college admissions decisions. This class generally felt predisposed to say that IQ test's were not good parameters to measure students by since IQ tests are biased. However, the SAT along with professional exams like the LSAT and MCAT are all indirect measures of IQ. So, using this reasoning it seems that we commonly use indirect measures to asses applicant IQ (even the interview process may indirectly measure reasoning abilities).
So instead of using these variable measures, why not use a well documented process like a IQ test? Hence why I am on the side of administering IQ tests to college applicants. In terms of jobs, I would be hesitant to do the same since all success in jobs may not be implicit on IQ. However, in academia most success is implicit on IQ.
Questions that I have: Should IQ participants with lower IQ's be allowed to retest? How would you determine minimums for various college programs and jobs? What will happen tot he individuals who don't qualify for a college program? How will scholarships be determined under this new paradigm? Let me know your thoughts!
Until my next post,
Ryan
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Neuroscience of Intelligence
Hi All,
This week in PSY327 we discussed the neuroscientific techniques of elucidating biological mechanisms of intelligence. PET scans and fMRI imaging were brought up as analytic instruments to visualize brain morphology and dynamics. However powerful and high resolution these devices are they fail to reveal the dynamics on the signal neuronal level. All data retrieved from these techniques are markers of neuronal activity rather than neuronal activity itself. Scientist have seemed to disregard this and accept that these are markers of neuron activity for the sake of practicality.
However, I would advocate for mass postmortem anatomical/protein/genetic studies of disease state brains and compare them to relevant clinical data of the live patients. (You could have standards of brain tissue atrophy and develop a predictive system which can decipher the previous in vivo version of the brain). This type of study would reveal structural characteristics of the brain which could be used to predict functional capacities of each brain variant. This type of approach may yield less data than PET and MRI technologies; however, the information gathered will be more powerful in the long term. The current paradigms plaguing neuroscience should be altered and replaced with practical techniques which can have influence on the field of neuroscience.
Thoughts???
Until my next post,
Ryan
This week in PSY327 we discussed the neuroscientific techniques of elucidating biological mechanisms of intelligence. PET scans and fMRI imaging were brought up as analytic instruments to visualize brain morphology and dynamics. However powerful and high resolution these devices are they fail to reveal the dynamics on the signal neuronal level. All data retrieved from these techniques are markers of neuronal activity rather than neuronal activity itself. Scientist have seemed to disregard this and accept that these are markers of neuron activity for the sake of practicality.
However, I would advocate for mass postmortem anatomical/protein/genetic studies of disease state brains and compare them to relevant clinical data of the live patients. (You could have standards of brain tissue atrophy and develop a predictive system which can decipher the previous in vivo version of the brain). This type of study would reveal structural characteristics of the brain which could be used to predict functional capacities of each brain variant. This type of approach may yield less data than PET and MRI technologies; however, the information gathered will be more powerful in the long term. The current paradigms plaguing neuroscience should be altered and replaced with practical techniques which can have influence on the field of neuroscience.
Thoughts???
Until my next post,
Ryan
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Debate Reflection
Hi All,
After participating in Wednesdays debate on fixed vs malleable intelligence, I found myself still in taking a neutral stance that intelligence is malleable to a point (determined by a genetic threshold). So far, the debates seem to be structured such that each debate team is supporting a absolute which is only partially true. After the debate I conceded that while I was on the fixed side of the debate, I do believe intelligence can be improved to s threshold. This debate seemed to undermine the themes of our class, as all previous class conversations have regressed to the genetic basis for intelligence.
As a debater, I am curious of the classes opinion on the debate! What thoughts did my peers have on the MZ twin study which showed significant epigenetic changes do not have significant effects on IQ? This suggest that even significant environmental changes do not have significant effects on IQ. However, does anyone else have any other thought on this?
Also, how does this topic apply to eugenics? If intelligence is truly fixed could medical schools/grad schools assay a persons genes to see if they fit the genetic profile of a successful professional?
Until my next post,
Ryan
After participating in Wednesdays debate on fixed vs malleable intelligence, I found myself still in taking a neutral stance that intelligence is malleable to a point (determined by a genetic threshold). So far, the debates seem to be structured such that each debate team is supporting a absolute which is only partially true. After the debate I conceded that while I was on the fixed side of the debate, I do believe intelligence can be improved to s threshold. This debate seemed to undermine the themes of our class, as all previous class conversations have regressed to the genetic basis for intelligence.
As a debater, I am curious of the classes opinion on the debate! What thoughts did my peers have on the MZ twin study which showed significant epigenetic changes do not have significant effects on IQ? This suggest that even significant environmental changes do not have significant effects on IQ. However, does anyone else have any other thought on this?
Also, how does this topic apply to eugenics? If intelligence is truly fixed could medical schools/grad schools assay a persons genes to see if they fit the genetic profile of a successful professional?
Until my next post,
Ryan
Friday, February 6, 2015
Genetic Basis to Intelligence
Hi All,
This wee in PSY327 we discussed twin studies of MZ and DZ twins. Initially I was unsure as to why anyone would want to use DZ twins in a study of the genetic inheritance of intelligence. However, a peer of mine pointed out that by using MZ and DZ in the same study you can control for epigenetic effects. Speaking of which: I have some questions which maybe a few of you can address in the comments section! If there are statistically significant epigenetics differences between twins are they necessarily biologically significant? For instance, if a twin has significantly more insulin expression than his counterpart does that necessarily mean that the enhanced insulin will have a biologically relevant effect? An analogous example would be height. A 6 foot tall person is significantly taller than a 5 foot tall person; however, is that height significant enough to make the NBA?
I absolutely believe after learning about the 'Jim Twins' and other similar case studies that there is a genetic component to intelligence; however, it is very well possible that these genetic predispositions can be altered by environment induced epigenetic differences. In terms of designing a experiment to answer this, you would need to control for environment and genetics by most likely using MZ/DZ twins. However, you would also need to know how significant epigenetics differences need to be to in order to affect intelligence.
Let me know your thoughts!
Until my next post,
Ryan
This wee in PSY327 we discussed twin studies of MZ and DZ twins. Initially I was unsure as to why anyone would want to use DZ twins in a study of the genetic inheritance of intelligence. However, a peer of mine pointed out that by using MZ and DZ in the same study you can control for epigenetic effects. Speaking of which: I have some questions which maybe a few of you can address in the comments section! If there are statistically significant epigenetics differences between twins are they necessarily biologically significant? For instance, if a twin has significantly more insulin expression than his counterpart does that necessarily mean that the enhanced insulin will have a biologically relevant effect? An analogous example would be height. A 6 foot tall person is significantly taller than a 5 foot tall person; however, is that height significant enough to make the NBA?
I absolutely believe after learning about the 'Jim Twins' and other similar case studies that there is a genetic component to intelligence; however, it is very well possible that these genetic predispositions can be altered by environment induced epigenetic differences. In terms of designing a experiment to answer this, you would need to control for environment and genetics by most likely using MZ/DZ twins. However, you would also need to know how significant epigenetics differences need to be to in order to affect intelligence.
Let me know your thoughts!
Until my next post,
Ryan
Monday, January 26, 2015
Eugenics: Is it still relevant?
Hi all,
Recently in my PSY-327 course we had a discussion about the genesis and popularity of the eugenics movement. We discussed Sir Francis Galton and his paradigm that intelligence is a product of natural selection, has a genetic basis, and has variability in our population. My peers seemed bothered by this notion that human potential is limited by our biology. More-so, when the concept of negative eugenics popped up, the class became especially quiet. Our instructor posed the question of whether or not a prenatal child diagnosed with down syndrome should be aborted. Or consider another case: What if your child were to be born with a destructive disease which would only serve to bring pain to their lives? Would it be responsible for the parent to bring that child into the world? Would it matter when this information is aquired (before first trimester...etc?). And what are the legal repercussions of this logic? Will there come a day where it is illegal to birth a child with a chronic condition if the parents have previous knowledge of the defect prior to the first trimester? How about crack babies?
Also what if a student fails his/her SAT? Is that societies way of saying you are not intelligent, and therefore 'no college for you!'. Isn't this a form of eugenics, in the sense that you are allowing for higher intelligent individuals to prosper and forcing less intelligent ones to be relegated to non-critical thinking oriented careers? We judge peoples intelligence almost daily and choose to associate ourselves with people of similar intelligence (I recall a study that revealed how we marry individuals with similar IQ's). So it may be that we are fine practicing eugenics on the individual level but have disdain for it on the governmental level. This is very interesting and weird to me at the same time. Please comment with your thoughts on this!
Are some people predisposed to certain conditions which could inhibit there cognitive ability? Of course! Think about ADHD, Trisomy 21, Alzheimer's, and many more! Then does this illustrate that intelligence has a genetic component? Well, a specific allele of the ASPM gene strongly dictates brain size which has a slight correlation with cognitive function. So it's not far fetched to say that genes play a significant role in someones cognitive ability. However, the question becomes: It is unethical to knowingly spread these deleterious genes in a population? If so, who should enforce this mandate? These are almost always sensitive questions because people associate these conditions with a persons sense of being. For instance, as a ADHD child I was called special and unique because I always seemed excited. This became part of who I was a youth. This may be why it is hard for us (me as well!) to answer some of the questions associated with eugenics because we have immense empathy and sympathy for children with these deleterious conditions. Please, I would love to hear your opinions on these topics!
Until my next post,
Ryan
Recently in my PSY-327 course we had a discussion about the genesis and popularity of the eugenics movement. We discussed Sir Francis Galton and his paradigm that intelligence is a product of natural selection, has a genetic basis, and has variability in our population. My peers seemed bothered by this notion that human potential is limited by our biology. More-so, when the concept of negative eugenics popped up, the class became especially quiet. Our instructor posed the question of whether or not a prenatal child diagnosed with down syndrome should be aborted. Or consider another case: What if your child were to be born with a destructive disease which would only serve to bring pain to their lives? Would it be responsible for the parent to bring that child into the world? Would it matter when this information is aquired (before first trimester...etc?). And what are the legal repercussions of this logic? Will there come a day where it is illegal to birth a child with a chronic condition if the parents have previous knowledge of the defect prior to the first trimester? How about crack babies?
Also what if a student fails his/her SAT? Is that societies way of saying you are not intelligent, and therefore 'no college for you!'. Isn't this a form of eugenics, in the sense that you are allowing for higher intelligent individuals to prosper and forcing less intelligent ones to be relegated to non-critical thinking oriented careers? We judge peoples intelligence almost daily and choose to associate ourselves with people of similar intelligence (I recall a study that revealed how we marry individuals with similar IQ's). So it may be that we are fine practicing eugenics on the individual level but have disdain for it on the governmental level. This is very interesting and weird to me at the same time. Please comment with your thoughts on this!
Are some people predisposed to certain conditions which could inhibit there cognitive ability? Of course! Think about ADHD, Trisomy 21, Alzheimer's, and many more! Then does this illustrate that intelligence has a genetic component? Well, a specific allele of the ASPM gene strongly dictates brain size which has a slight correlation with cognitive function. So it's not far fetched to say that genes play a significant role in someones cognitive ability. However, the question becomes: It is unethical to knowingly spread these deleterious genes in a population? If so, who should enforce this mandate? These are almost always sensitive questions because people associate these conditions with a persons sense of being. For instance, as a ADHD child I was called special and unique because I always seemed excited. This became part of who I was a youth. This may be why it is hard for us (me as well!) to answer some of the questions associated with eugenics because we have immense empathy and sympathy for children with these deleterious conditions. Please, I would love to hear your opinions on these topics!
Until my next post,
Ryan
Sunday, January 25, 2015
IQ Test's
Hi All,
Recently in PSY 327, we looked at a variety of IQ test's and evaluated the parameters which they use to measure 'g' or intelligence. Questions I had going into this were: Would these test have bias towards certain populations? Do they over-value certain aspects of intelligence? How do IQ test's evaluate people who have practice taking these exams?
As a group we looked at the WAIS, Standford-Binet, and the Wechsler IQ test. I was surprised to find that there were more similarities between tests than there were differences. All test's had a visual component to them (usually making use of shapes to evaluate an individuals visual processing skills). I was surprised to find none of the test had a auditory component to them. I would venture to say that if intelligence has a visual component to it, it would have a auditory component to it as well. On that thought, would it have a touch or physical sensory component to it as well? Perhaps these points are best left for my next blog post on multiple intelligence's. Either way, I felt that the test lacked diversity among the questions which they asked.
Also, someones previous experience could influence their performance on the test. Our instructor mentioned how historic IQ test's had picture of celebrities, and how an individuals knowledge of the celebrity was implicit on answering the question correctly. I could imagine a scenario where some of the modern tests could have biases may influence test performance. Hopefully we will get to a point in science where we can use empirical data to develop our IQ test's and have a biological basis for intelligence.
Until my next post,
Ryan
Recently in PSY 327, we looked at a variety of IQ test's and evaluated the parameters which they use to measure 'g' or intelligence. Questions I had going into this were: Would these test have bias towards certain populations? Do they over-value certain aspects of intelligence? How do IQ test's evaluate people who have practice taking these exams?
As a group we looked at the WAIS, Standford-Binet, and the Wechsler IQ test. I was surprised to find that there were more similarities between tests than there were differences. All test's had a visual component to them (usually making use of shapes to evaluate an individuals visual processing skills). I was surprised to find none of the test had a auditory component to them. I would venture to say that if intelligence has a visual component to it, it would have a auditory component to it as well. On that thought, would it have a touch or physical sensory component to it as well? Perhaps these points are best left for my next blog post on multiple intelligence's. Either way, I felt that the test lacked diversity among the questions which they asked.
Also, someones previous experience could influence their performance on the test. Our instructor mentioned how historic IQ test's had picture of celebrities, and how an individuals knowledge of the celebrity was implicit on answering the question correctly. I could imagine a scenario where some of the modern tests could have biases may influence test performance. Hopefully we will get to a point in science where we can use empirical data to develop our IQ test's and have a biological basis for intelligence.
Until my next post,
Ryan
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Race an IQ? Is there a connection?
Hi All,
For my first official blog entry, I will be commenting on a recent class discussion I had in my Intelligence and Creativity course. We discussed race influences on IQ scoring, in the context of the Ferguson conflict. Questions I had entering this discussion were as follows: Is there morphological diversity among human brains, which correspond to different races? If so, could these differences reflect in different cognitive abilities? For instance, suppose different races had varied pre-frontal cortex size. Would this difference be significant enough to affect an individuals ability to critically think? Also, how about neuron density? How about oligodendrocytes and glial cells? How do the ratios of these cells affect cognitive capacity? And are these factors even affected by race? Or are racial differences only limited to superficial qualities like skin color?
Early 20th century results indicated that IQ differed significantly across race. However, factors like test bias, socio--economical situation, and language barriers prevented different races from preforming equally on the IQ test. Studies which standardized participants SES found no significant differences between African American and Caucasian IQ's. However, differences in the amount of words each parent said to their children varied per race, which could have influence on a child's intelligence. However, this is most likely a product of culture and language, rather than any biological mechanism.
As a class we came to the conclusion that race is not a significant factor that influences intelligence. However, things like SES, and culture (eg. environmental stimuli) do much more so! This makes evolutionary sense, since you would expect to survive human baseline intelligence wouldn't vary (need enough to communicate, work, and live in our dynamic society) ; however, it's ability to be molded by the environment would for the sake of the organisms survival (suppose you are in a society which favors tool building over abstract thought).
Until my next post,
Ryan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)