The Listener Before the Song

In a Thai mangrove, fireflies flashed while nearby crickets chirped at almost the same tempo. For a moment it looked like interspecies music: light and sound keeping time. Then the analysis dissolved the romance. The two species were not synchronized. They were not answering one another. They had simply arrived at nearly the same beat.

The ADHD "Natural Fix"

NYT:

Normally, when someone is unfocused and at rest, there is synchrony of activity in brain regions known as the default mode network, which is typically more active during rest than during performance of a task. (In contrast, these brain regions in people with A.D.H.D. appear functionally disconnected from each other.) Dr. Mattfeld found that adults who had had A.D.H.D as children but no longer had it as adults had a restoration of the normal synchrony pattern, so their brains looked just like those of people who had never had it.

WE don’t yet know whether these brain changes preceded or followed the behavioral improvement, so the exact mechanism of adult recovery is unclear.

But in another measure of brain synchrony, the adults who had recovered looked more like adults with A.D.H.D.

In people without it, when the default mode network is active, another network, called the task-positive network, is inhibited. When the brain is focusing, the task-positive network takes over and quiets the default mode network. This reciprocal relationship is necessary in order to focus.

Both groups of adult A.D.H.D. patients, including those who had recovered, displayed simultaneous activation of both networks, as if the two regions were out of step, working at cross-purposes. Thus, adults who lost most of their symptoms did not have entirely normal brain activity.

Intelligence & Genius, cont'd

Nancy Andreasen has a great piece in The Atlantic from a few weeks back, outlining her case that mental illness and creativity are correlated. On the other hand, she establishes that IQ and creativity are not correlated beyond ~120, and using "Terman's termites" and some other studies to support it. This isn't the first time I've pondered the link between genius and depression, and I've been thinking a lot about intelligence, neuroscience and creativity lately. Although gifted is far more PC, I love the word genius, which is apparently akin to the idea of a mental muse.

In that sense, then, you can't be a genius so much as you can have a genius. And having genius, like having depression, must be related to brain function overall. There is some evidence that the right side of the brain is more involved in feelings of unhappiness, while the left side is more involved in feelings of happiness. This comports with the idea that left-handers are overrepresented in creative fields of the arts and music, and some people make the case that left-handedness often associates with intelligence generally.

If you aren't lucky enough to be born left-handed, you could always meet (and marry) the right partner, as the case is often made that creatives require dialectic co-opetition. If you are as lucky as Lolita's author, you can join many creatives in marrying an inspiring partner, like Vera Nabokov. Genius authors like Nabokov generally have to be able to see, to perceive, and to relate that vision through fluent prose and dialog.

I don't know what I aspire to, but I know I have a partner with whom I share the yin-yang sympatico, and she definitely makes me a happier, better person, whose chances at creative output are far, far higher than if I was without her.

Brain Science Stuff

In the NYT's The Trouble with Brain Science, the author repeats some points on complexity that I made in April 2013. For example, the author laments that biology cannot hope for a Grand Unified Theory of neuroscience in the same way that physics can for particles. In going on, the article states:

The appearance of genius

Brooks writes today:

First, awareness of the landscape of reality is the highest form of wisdom. It’s not raw computational power that matters most; it’s having a sensitive attunement to the widest environment, feeling where the flow of events is going. Genius is in practice perceiving more than the conscious reasoning. 

There may be no universally-conceded definition of genius, nor gifted, nor even intelligence. This take on it has a strong ring of truth. Genius is seeing more than knowing.

Brooks has been on a deep kick lately. Trying to reach for a Pulitzer or something?

IQ revisited

I believe I explicitly pointed out once or twice that I don't put much stock in IQ tests in general. Since I've never had my IQ tested, I guess I get to play both sides of the fence on the issue of whether or not cognitive ability can really be measured, and how much it matters. And by matters I mean for 80% of us, not so much for the 10% at the very top and 10% at the very bottom of the scale. Because we all know that if 80% of us want to learn something, and put a lot of effort into it, we probably can. For those other 10%, effort is much less important.

Genius

I found a few interesting resources from this page that I wanted to highlight / bookmark. I am reading through Basic Neurochemistry (Siegel, 8th) right now and am interested as a scientist in the effort to model intelligence based on the brain. There are a lot of variables that people try to plug into equations to predict IQ: brain volume overall, correlations between the amount and/or ratio white matter (myelin sheathing), gray matter, folding, interhemispheric interaction, density, wave patterns...etc.

Now that all this money is supposed to be poured into the Brain Activity Map Project or whatever they'll call it, I just figured I'd put out my prediction:

We tend to think of the brain in computer-related terms. The speed at which it processes information. How its "circuits" are designed and how signals propagate through them. But there is something as a biochemist that leads me to reject the binary on/off nature. Rather than thinking of neurons as in an "on / off" state, and trying to model the brain like a CPU, it is important to realize that the strength of the signal is a function of chemistry. The actual electrochemical potential (voltage) that we are discussing here goes back to the concentration of ions and transmitters. And since this concentration can vary, so can signal strength.

So now imagine trying to model a very simple brain, like C. elegans, studied by Bargmann and others,  with only 300 or so neurons. In the simplest computing model, you would have the firing patterns of the neurons mapped so that, for instance, odor recognition lights up a certain portion of the brain in a certain sequence. But this assumes each of these neurons to be in a true "on/off" state. They are more along a spectrum of signal strength. Let's say for simplicities' sake you round off the observed concentrations into 10 brackets (zero, near-zero...near-maximum, maximum). The complexity inherent in mapping 300 different possibilities is exponentially magnified because it isn't 2^300, but instead it is now 10^300. So now you've gone from 2 * 10^90 to 1 * 10^300 possible "states". And if you aren't mathematically inclined, 10^90 is more than the estimated number of atoms in the universe. You would have to assemble 10^200 universes to approach the number atoms equal to the possible states in C. elegans brain.

Where would we put that kind of map, assuming a computer could draw it for us? ;) And do you think that reading it would be any different than an ant reading Melville?

As I've said before, I don't put too much stock in IQ tests that fall within one standard deviation or so from the mean, but I put a lot more in them when the measurement indicates significant outliers. I put zero stock in the effort to link brain activity meaningfully to behavior or intelligence.

IQ stuff

Kristof writes an interesting piece in the NYT on IQ:

If intelligence were deeply encoded in our genes, that would lead to the depressing conclusion that neither schooling nor antipoverty programs can accomplish much. Yet while this view of I.Q. as overwhelmingly inherited has been widely held, the evidence is growing that it is, at a practical level, profoundly wrong. Richard Nisbett, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, has just demolished this view in a superb new book, “Intelligence and How to Get It,” which also offers terrific advice for addressing poverty and inequality in America.

Professor Nisbett provides suggestions for transforming your own urchins into geniuses — praise effort more than achievement, teach delayed gratification, limit reprimands and use praise to stimulate curiosity — but focuses on how to raise America’s collective I.Q. That’s important, because while I.Q. doesn’t measure pure intellect — we’re not certain exactly what it does measure — differences do matter, and a higher I.Q. correlates to greater success in life.

Intelligence does seem to be highly inherited in middle-class households, and that’s the reason for the findings of the twins studies: very few impoverished kids were included in those studies. But Eric Turkheimer of the University of Virginia has conducted further research demonstrating that in poor and chaotic households, I.Q. is minimally the result of genetics — because everybody is held back.

“Bad environments suppress children’s I.Q.’s,” Professor Turkheimer said.

One gauge of that is that when poor children are adopted into upper-middle-class households, their I.Q.’s rise by 12 to 18 points, depending on the study. For example, a French study showed that children from poor households adopted into upper-middle-class homes averaged an I.Q. of 107 by one test and 111 by another. Their siblings who were not adopted averaged 95 on both tests.

Another indication of malleability is that I.Q. has risen sharply over time. Indeed, the average I.Q. of a person in 1917 would amount to only 73 on today’s I.Q. test. Half the population of 1917 would be considered mentally retarded by today’s measurements, Professor Nisbett says.

Good schooling correlates particularly closely to higher I.Q.’s. One indication of the importance of school is that children’s I.Q.’s drop or stagnate over the summer months when they are on vacation (particularly for kids whose parents don’t inflict books or summer programs on them).

Professor Nisbett strongly advocates intensive early childhood education because of its proven ability to raise I.Q. and improve long-term outcomes. The Milwaukee Project, for example, took African-American children considered at risk for mental retardation and assigned them randomly either to a control group that received no help or to a group that enjoyed intensive day care and education from 6 months of age until they left to enter first grade.

By age 5, the children in the program averaged an I.Q. of 110, compared with 83 for children in the control group. Even years later in adolescence, those children were still 10 points ahead in I.Q.

Professor Nisbett suggests putting less money into Head Start, which has a mixed record, and more into these intensive childhood programs. He also notes that schools in the Knowledge Is Power Program (better known as KIPP) have tested exceptionally well and favors experiments to see if they can be scaled up.

Another proven intervention is to tell junior-high-school students that I.Q. is expandable, and that their intelligence is something they can help shape. Students exposed to that idea work harder and get better grades. That’s particularly true of girls and math, apparently because some girls assume that they are genetically disadvantaged at numbers; deprived of an excuse for failure, they excel.

“Some of the things that work are very cheap,” Professor Nisbett noted. “Convincing junior-high kids that intelligence is under their control — you could argue that that should be in the junior-high curriculum right now.”

The implication of this new research on intelligence is that the economic-stimulus package should also be an intellectual-stimulus program. By my calculation, if we were to push early childhood education and bolster schools in poor neighborhoods, we just might be able to raise the United States collective I.Q. by as much as one billion points.

That should be a no-brainer.

As I've said before, I don't put much stock in basic IQ tests if the results are anywhere between -1.5 to +1.5 standard deviations from the mean. Outside of that, you can probably roughly correlate an IQ test to basic intellectual ability by labeling someone as "bright" or "dim" I guess. My interest in the genetic basis for intelligence is especially acute in these "outliers" as I figure they have the most to show us about differences in brain development and structure. It would be fantastic to learn that a simple drug or developmental program could raise IQ, but my hopes for such genius will probably remain unallayed.

Genius and depression

I've been fascinated with prodigies since I was young. Perhaps it was watching Doogie Howser, Searching for Bobby Fischer and Little Man Tate growing up. Once in high school, after reading Asimov's On Numbers, I remember being frustrated that some of the things I felt (intuited) about mathematics had already been articulated by others, rendering my sense of genius and creativity null and void. In geometry class, I impressed my teacher (James DeBord) by multiplying 500 times any 2-4 digit number faster than he could punch it in on the calculator. Of course, cutting things in half is fairly easy by mental calculation standards. Later, I borrowed a book called, "The Great Mental Calculators" and it set me to rights on how un-prodigious I was with numbers.