Raising the World’s I.Q. with Micronutrients

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/opinion/04kristof.html?_r=1

by MikeCapone • 18 years ago

53 32 18 years ago

jrp• 18 years ago

This is a serious problem and it's good to see people working on nutrition in poor countries - we hear "poor nutrition" and think of too much sugar and fat, but it can get a lot worse.

That said, IQ is normalized and there won't be any global raising: world_iq = 100*population

bdr• 18 years ago

Sure, but any given test is normalized to a particular population, not to the whole world.

sethg2• 18 years ago

15 or 16 points, depending on what IQ test you are using, is one standard deviation of whatever the "raw" test score is.

aaronblohowiak• 18 years ago

Many people use IQ when in fact they just mean I(ntelligence.)

(reminder) IQ = 100 * mental age / chronological age

petercooper4• 18 years ago

When people are suffering physically from the effects of lack of iodine, isn't it rather Western to consider raised intelligence the most talkworthy improvement!? Iodized water should be used to make people's lives better and reduce their pain - not to increase their intelligence by some token amount. Increasing intelligence is a weird motivation to help people in dire straits - how about helping people because it's the decent, human thing to do?

  An educated guess is that iodine deficiency results in a 
  needless loss of more than 1 billion I.Q. points around
  the world.

The prevalence of TV and gossip magazines in our culture are responsible for a lot more than that. I don't see a big crusade to fix that.

The point this article makes is as meaningless as Shirky's assertions that our "cognitive surplus" equates to a million Wikipedias we haven't written or whatever. If billions of people in the developing world gain some intelligence, great, but I doubt it'll be as much use as making their lives better and more pain free so they can use the plentiful intelligence they already have (I don't subscribe to the argument that the poor are any less intelligent - they just have fewer opportunities).

_h4xr4• 18 years ago

isn't it rather Western to consider raised intelligence the most talkworthy improvement!?

I assume you're using "Western" to mean something very racist and vile, like "analyzing the data rationally and coming to the most sensible conclusion." You are unfairly assuming that only Europeans can look at the correlation between IQ and income, or IQ and crime, or whatever. Obviously, the Japanese (IQ 105, crime 5% to 10% of that in the US) or South Koreans (IQ 106, crime rate about 15% of what it is in the US) can look at these data, too, and hope that the rest of the world catches up.

The prevalence of TV and gossip magazines in our culture are responsible for a lot more than that. I don't see a big crusade to fix that.

Probably because you haven't read about how hard it is to change IQ. Nutrition is one of the only things that can measurably affect IQ in the long run. The other one -- the big one, accounting for 40-80% of all IQ variation -- is genetics.

On the other hand, stupid but happy people are probably easier to control.

petercooper4• 18 years ago

You assume wrong. I did not make the assertions or assumptions you assume.

How is "Western" racist? People of all races (except for, perhaps, those of certain indigenous peoples) make up the West and hold Western opinions. And since when were all Western people "European"?

It's disturbing that HN has gotten to the point where people are unfairly assumed to be making "racist and vile" statements with nothing to back it up. Shame on you.

randomwalker2• 18 years ago

Individual IQ is heavily affected by genetics, and this fact has been well established. So far, the evidence that population IQ -- which is what is at issue here -- is influenced by genetics is far more sketchy. The distinction is rather important, because of the sensitivity of the issue of racial IQ differences.

newsycaccount• 18 years ago

Because having higher I.Q.'s via Iodine couldn't possibly allow them to get more doctors per capita and reduce pain and suffering that way. Let me guess, you didn't get much Iodine as a kid.

Prrometheus• 18 years ago

It may be that social institutions are shaped by the intelligence of the people who form them and control them.

All else being equal, having a higher IQ population is probably a good thing. It probably leads to more long-term planning, capital investment, and other good things.

Helping people in most ways are not mutually exclusive.

randomwalker2• 18 years ago

If only you'd spent half the time RTFA'ing as you did arguing.

The goal is to prevent mental retardation, not create Einsteins. They're measuring success in terms of increase in IQ.

Or are you actually claiming that preventing mental retardation is not important?

MikeCapone3• 18 years ago

If you want to help, here's the Canadian non-profit he talks about:

http://www.micronutrient.org/english/view.asp?x=1

cabalamat2• 18 years ago

> The goal is to prevent mental retardation, not create Einsteins.

I think it will do both, because iodine deficiency probably works across the board: Someone who would otherwise be a genius may be reduced, by iodine deficiency, to being merely quite bright. Someone who would be quite bright is reduced to merely average. And someone who would be a bit thick is reduced to being retarded.

So by preventing mental retardation, they're also creating Einsteins. A win-win situation.

nazgulnarsil4• 18 years ago

because raising overall intelligence is the only long term solution to the problems of the world.

nazgulnarsil4• 18 years ago

It is the only time that violating the prime directive is good because raising intelligence is a universal good. there is no way for raising intelligence to backfire that I can think of....I guess the atomic bomb would be one argument, but we already have those.

MikeCapone3• 18 years ago

Why is this even controversial?

Fetuses, babies, and children need certain nutrients to grow healthy. Vitamin A, Zinc, Iron, Folic Acid, etc.. Iodine has to do with good brain development, vit A with eyes (among other things), etc.

What's the problem? It's elitist and western to think that people should have a chance to grow up healthy? And to think that this will lead to better outcomes on average?

cabalamat2• 18 years ago

> When people are suffering physically from the effects of lack of iodine, isn't it rather Western to consider raised intelligence the most talkworthy improvement!? Iodized water should be used to make people's lives better and reduce their pain - not to increase their intelligence by some token amount

If it was just a "token amount" I'd agree with you. But it isn't. Half a billion people in India suffer from Iodine deficiency (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_deficiency#Local_impact )

If half a country's population have reduced intelligence of about 10 IQ points because of this, then obviously that country's economy will suffer. If India had had no iodine deficiency since independence in 1948 it might be as rich as South Korea today -- it would certainly be richer than it is.

People in poor countries have IQ scores (as callibrated using Western norms) of 70 or so. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_race#Worldwide )

Partly this is due to social differences, i.e. growing up in an environment where there are less problems like IQ tests.

But partly also it is genuinely due to lower intelligence. If in those countries you ended chronic undernutrition, ended lack of micronutrients, ended cousin marriages, improved sewers, hygeine and basic healthcare, these people would grow up with IQs similar to those in the western world. This would lead to their economies becoming richer.

So it isn't just a "token amount" it's a big fucking deal.

sethg2• 18 years ago

I'm sure there is at least one imam who read that article and thought, "If the Muslims of the Third World didn't have such nutritional deficiencies, then they could learn more of the Quran."

RobertL• 18 years ago

Better idea might be to just fire all the koolaid drinking college professors.

rbanffy• 18 years ago

Well... I see making people smarter _is_ both a contraceptive _and_ reduces the number of religious nuts.

That messes with a lot of interests...

Raising the World’s I.Q. with Micronutrients

Related Stories