About Rationally Speaking

Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Thursday, May 04, 2006

IQ, again

Yet another controversial study on the Intelligent Quotient (IQ) has just been published by Nature (30 March 2006), and once again I have a hard time seeing what the controversy is all about. The study, by a group led by Philip Shaw at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland, tracked the growth of the brains of 300 children from age 6 to 19. The children were scored for their IQ early on in the study, and divided into three groups according to their IQ score. The researchers noticed that the bottom third of the distribution was also characterized by a thinner cortex (the area of the brain devoted to memory) and especially prefrontal cortex (where reasoning and planning are carried out). Interestingly, however, these children’s cortex eventually caught up with the rest of the group by age 19, recovering normal thickness.

This study indicates that there is some relationship between a measure of cognitive ability (IQ) and some physical characteristic of the brain. While interesting, this should be neither surprising nor controversial: after all, nobody would be shocked by the discovery that someone’s aerobic capacity is a function, among other things, of his lungs’ capacity. Of course mental functioning is related to brain structure: where else would it come from?

Also, the study is entirely agnostic about the nature-nurture controversy: we don’t know if the initial disparity among children was due to genetic or environmental factors (or, more likely, to some complex interaction between the two). Again using the lung-respiration analogy: some people may have larger lungs because of their genetic make-up, though we also know that the environment has a significant effect on shaping lung capacity, because of a widespread phenomenon in the biological world, known as phenotypic plasticity (most of my scientific career has been devoted to that topic, incidentally). Indeed, the fact that the children who started with a low thickness of their cortex caught up by the end of their teenage years seems to indicate a good degree of plasticity in brain growth, and suggests that if we really wish to use IQ for whatever purpose (it is significantly correlated with performance in formal school settings), we ought to measure it repeatedly throughout the growth of an individual and adjust our expectations accordingly.

A long-time critic of IQ studies, Steven Rose (Open University, UK) questioned the study by saying that “performance on cognitive tasks depends on a large number of factors, from emotive state to recall ability, and the IQ approach ignores all of these.” The first part of that statement is certainly true, but then again, it is a bit sterile to argue that one cannot do research because things are just to damn complex. If that attitude were generally adopted by scientists we would have made no progress since the ancient Greeks. The second part of Rose’s criticism misses the point: IQ measures are not meant to pinpoint any particular causal mechanism, they are simply a (probably simplistic) overall measure of a certain type of intellectual performance. Rose is of course countering the equally insane tendency on the other side of the debate, to automatically assume that IQ scores are the result of genetic rather than environmental factors (as in the controversial, and scientifically extremely na├»ve book “The Bell Curve,” by Murray and Herrnstein). IQ is in fact analogous to lung capacity: it measures something (though the latter is a much more straightforward biologically indicator), but it tells us precisely nothing about the causal pathways producing that particular measure. Therefore, studies like the one by Shaw and collaborators should be welcome as tiny steps toward understanding, rather than either embraced or rejected automatically, depending on one’s a priori ideological positions.


  1. Massimo,

    Attentive mothers make a difference in IQ. As I've commented before, my dad's family is just full of inventors. As a matter of fact, one of my cousins had a hydrogen (in place of fuel) gadget up and running in January when I was home.

    In my family, both sides, (one I was raised in anyway) the mom's & women are important, respected and highly attentive to their children. Now and in past generations. But the IQ thing seems mostly to run through the men. Of course, the ratio of men and boys also far out numbers (4.1) the women folk. In ref to that, it comes to my mind that one of our nephews, even at eight, is either a genius or near genius. He seems to know more (reads entire BIG BOOKS) than all the rest of us put together! So I do think that this nurture thing matters more than some care to admit.


  2. Another well-written piece. I really appreciate your fidelity to reason, and the clear-headed way you approach topics so that they are accessible to the scientific "novice", but the sophisticate can still appreciate them as well.

    Perhaps you should teach in a professional capacity, if you don't already.

  3. Thanks. I do teach professionally, biology and philosophy at SUNY Stony Brook on Long Island.

  4. I guess whatever smells like "genetic determinism", even if it's really not (as Massimo pointed out is the case of this interesting study), gets "knee-jerkedly" demonized. Gene-talk always gets associated with gender, race and those politically charged things - therefore, it is sure to be a touchy issue. As the (soon to be former-) president of Harvard can attest to, I guess.

    Which is perfectly understandable given the historical precedents, but bugs me nonetheless. I mean, what if Larry Summers IS right and there are inherent biological reasons, even if minoritary, to the different numbers of men and women in science and engineering? By the little I've read on the subject, and the historical tendency of women ascending in those areas, I'd doubt there is any significant difference biologically, but that's just my oppinion. I don't think we know enough to just discard any possibility completely. Aren't the brain structures of men and women different, period? (now what's the cause of THAT, and whether it would make a difference, that's another level of the same discussion)

    Anyway, the issue might be virtually unsolvable after all, since we can't have much hope of separating the "nature" from the "nurture" well enough to be able to infer their relative contributions to something as complex as human psychologicxal phenomena and things like that. Arabidopsis dry mass versus soil composition is one thing, career choice of social primates versus gender/race/family structure/whatever is quite another. There's only so much "separated identical twin studies" can do, I guess...

    I'm interested in knowing the best science can give us, whether some people like that provisional truth or not.


  5. it's crazy to believe that bible code exist and i think individuals who worry about the bible code should left this issues amd worry more about thier sex life and how wildly they make babies and take planet people gay ......cyberwar44@gmail.com


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.