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
Saturday, February 21, 2015
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)