establishment psycho-bunk 5
what is memory, or intelligence?
|establishment psycho-bunk 1—‘lie detection’||establishment psycho-bunk is a sub-set of documents, within this document set. This document set shows how to apply empiric reasoning to social and psychological problems..|
|establishment psycho-bunk 2 —Ritalin and junk science||psycho-bunk 5 —what is memory, or intelligence? Incautious claims of ‘IQ’ genes|
|establishment psycho-bunk 3 —dyslexia||'intelligence': misuse and abuse of statistics|
|establishment psycho-bunk 4 —the myth of repressed memory||establishment psycho-bunk 4 —repressed memory|
|psycho-bunk 5 —what is memory, or intelligence? Incautious claims of ‘IQ’ genes||Memory, paranoia and paradigms|
|psycho-bunk 6—‘traumatic’ ‘syndromes’ or ‘curing’ P.E.S.Ts||Is Intelligence Distributed Normally? By Cyril Burt, 1963|
|new! establishment psycho-bunk 7 aspergers and autism|
|First, a health warning:
While I have studied IQ extensively, my main area of interest is communication logic, nor am I any sort of geneticist or bio-chemist.
Back to the article:
Over to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
Back to the cited New Scientist item again:
Notice, short-term memory was not effected.
New Scientist article again:
I wonder from what the authors’ motivationometer is built?
And the article once more:
Back to the Enc. Brit.:
A while back there were claims that a genetic marker IGF2R associated with intelligence had been located. That work has not since been replicated as far as I am aware. For more, read chapter 6 of Matt Ridley’s Genome.
Here you can find a recent [October 2003] item that may help an appreciation of the complexity of ‘memory’, while Repressed memory cautions the reader about the incredible lack of reliability of what is laughingly called ‘memory’.
We may be making steady progress understanding links to ‘memory’ and ‘intelligence’, but we still know fearfully little. Consider the gene in question in the (as so often, rather sloppy) cited article from the New Scientist—5HT2a. It is possible such a gene in its supposedly less propitious form will also protect us from aging as fast or some such.
This ‘joke’ can be seen as a way of protecting yourself from over-stress. In lesser form than in the joke, this could allow you a long, steady, productive life, rather than a neurotic life where 5% of people may over-achieve, but 95% may be so inhibited by compulsive checking as to achieve less than does the possibly memory-inhibiting gene.
I repeat, this gene in the sample appeared not to effect short-term memory, but perhaps the ‘automatic?’ laying down of longer-term memories.
To recap, we don't know enough. Like Karl Lashley, our understanding of memory is not great. Our knowledge of ‘intelligence’ is even less. We are making progress, but a great deal of humility and caution would be better at the current state of ‘knowledge’.
Finally, would you prefer a slow computer with an effective, stable programme,or a very fast, high-memory computer programmed by someone who is scatty and incautious, or even written by the author/s of the New Scientist article?
email abelard at abelard.org
© abelard, 2003, 25 october
the address for this document is http://www.abelard.org/briefings/memory_and_intelligence.htm