Hello,
I've started a couple of new threads latley, so I thought I'll keep up this good habit of mine
I've been experiencing some decline in my mental performance lately. Not that it was good before, but I have a feeling that it's getting worse. I've always been a slow learner (at least that's what I think), and I don't know why. Both understanding information and recalling it, is getting a bigger and bigger challenge
Are there any free online tests through which I can check If my mental / cognitive abilities are of normal level? Free but relatively reliable IQ tests are als good..I've aleready taken a CAT (CT) scan, but nothing was found...
Last year I've taken the mensa IQ test (for the same reason, to check if I'm alright), and scored 110 (bad). If I go to my doctor they'll probably just redirect me to yet another CAT-scan. The reason I'm thinking that something is wrong with me, is that in my new job, in the first 2 weeks there was a training session (to show for new commers how does the system work, and so). And compared to the other new hires I'm lagging way behind! (The work is quite simple: booking invoices in a program). I don't know but I've aleready got feedback that I should "speed myself up". So that's why I think that something's not right. Even at the university I always required more time to study than for example my roommate that time. It's annoying.
Therefore if anyone knows any sites online (free of charge, or not, but the former is preferred) where I can have the mental capabilities assessed, or sites which show ways to make them better (ex. understanding / recalling information), please inform me. (I've aleready found this: http://www.mytherapy.com, but I wasn't satisfyed with the results - the test is too easy).
Possbile reasons exculded for mental decay in my case are:
Stress, sleep disorders, eatig disorders, general tiredness, physical illness, smoking,
drinking alcohol, overwork, lack of focus / concentration, obesity (although I do have mildy high blood pressure), age.
Note: I'm not looking for a complete online mental medical check-up, I just want to know if I'm really loosing it (decay of mental capabilities) or I'm just imagining things....

I thought a score of a 100 on an IQ test was average. Scoring a 110 is in no way bad unless you think you are extraordinary and should be scoring 150 or something.

One thing to pay attention to cause I noticed my memory had seemed to decline. If you sleep odd hours this good be affecting you. If you aren't sleep 7-8 hours a day, then you may be suffering sleep deprivation and that can affect you as well.

vix86 Wrote:I thought a score of a 100 on an IQ test was average. Scoring a 110 is in no way bad unless you think you are extraordinary and should be scoring 150 or something.

IQ tests all have different scales, it's the percentile that counts.

Intelligence is 1% nature 99% nurture and changing constantly and hardly measurable despite plenty of back-patting test correlations (self-fulfilling prophecies), so just exercise your brain, never stop trying to learn, be passionate and curious, etc. I think 'metacognition', thinking about thinking, learning how to learn better, are most important.

Are you going to start a thread about subliminal learning now? ;p

Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm preoccupied at the moment, so I can't really post
a decent reply to everyone, so I'm just gonna demonstrate my current feelings about my
life (the failures, unaccomplished goals, ect.)through a nice video. I do think negative,
and it creates a sort of negative energy, which is still energy,which I try to use to move on, and achieve my goals....if I can. Note that the video only demonstrates my feeling toward myself....nothing more. Enjoy (It's valid until the 0:54 second, after that it doesn't concern me)

Childish? Yes. Analyse

As others have said, IQ is definitely overrated. Don't give it too much thought.

@ruiner - I'd be interested to hear what evidence you have to suggest that IQ and academic performance (I'm assuming that's what you were referring to) were likely correlated due to self-fulfilling prophecy. I've seen studies where a teacher knowing a student's (supposed) IQ caused improved academic performance, but have yet to see one where student's IQs were measured, no one knew the result but the researcher, and the children's academic performance was not significantly correlated with their IQ. Do you know of any studies like this, or something similar that could back up your claim?

Sincerely,
A lazy psych. major trying to leech off the knowledge of others

whitefox Wrote:As others have said, IQ is definitely overrated. Don't give it too much thought.

@ruiner - I'd be interested to hear what evidence you have to suggest that IQ and academic performance (I'm assuming that's what you were referring to) were likely correlated due to self-fulfilling prophecy. I've seen studies where a teacher knowing a student's (supposed) IQ caused improved academic performance, but have yet to see one where student's IQs were measured, no one knew the result but the researcher, and the children's academic performance was not significantly correlated with their IQ. Do you know of any studies like this, or something similar that could back up your claim?

Sincerely,
A lazy psych. major trying to leech off the knowledge of others

I can provide general links as to my thoughts on 'g' and IQ, but what I meant by self-fulfilling prophecy was in regards to arguments that because we can correlate success on various measurements with other measurements, we (ie some people) assume that the cause is genetic or neural, rather than based on the actual environment/education of people as applied to the sorts of cognitive tasks they are tested on. I'll grab some links (this is exhausting ;p)

To put it another way, I see various forms of logical fallacies in this research across the board, from depression and medication* to IQ... that doesn't mean I think they're completely wrong**, but that they are taking too many steps in one direction, as it were:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation..._causation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship

*Not to dredge up an old argument but I want to counterbalance my earlier arguments in another thread while I'm at it, because I think drugs are useful, but more as a general jumpstart: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277931/ ; http://www.psychiatry.info/psychiatrists...psychosis/ ; http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/03/mi...s_031710w/

**Related: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content...859&db=all

Here's where I'm coming from, but looks like this section had been 'spun' a bit by the latest editors... a problem with Wikipedia articles, the more rabid proponents will end up editing the 'criticisms' sections of articles so that 'responses to criticisms' end up overwhelming the criticisms, regardless of the actual research consensus... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_int...enges_to_g

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_neo-Pia..._Demetriou - I didn't know about this person till I read their thoughts on 'self-awareness' which goes in hand with metacognition and the like. To be fair, here's a recent article on intelligence that talks about the biology beneath intelligence, but I think stuff like this emphasizes neural substrates too much (ie not just existing and interacting, but primarily determining) the way people searching for neural correlates of consciousness mistakenly think consciousness must have 'qualia' rather than being 'fame in the brain' - http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4705.full

I have no problem with IQ or 'g' as long as it's understood they're socially constructed measurements and dependent on self-study/education/etc. with obvious physical variables, rather than genetics and suchlike. Most people devising these tests or 'brain training' things, from what I've seen, have really poor insight into domain-specific/PDP cognition and the like, even though they enjoy compartmentalizing tasks into 'math' and 'language', etc, so it's kind of a separate 'design' related problem I have with those types.

http://sciencewatch.com/dr/fbp/2009/09au...ungET1.pdf - Article and peer commentary...

Basically anything that doesn't view metacognition and self-controllable fluidity and constant dynamics as the primary emergentist/embodied aspects and determinants of intelligence, specific or general, then I disagree with it. ;p

Ha, I was just getting ready to argue for this concept of 'g' and the speciousness of measuring it to become more like a dynamic understanding the way some can think of consciousness and how to apply it to new models of education, and I was going to chide Demetriou for not realizing this amidst all their talk of 'Self-awareness in g' (someone have this article, by the way? I can't find) and modularity... then I found this, which argues for a plastic (even down to the brain) notion of general intelligence to be applied... when they put it this way, it reminds me of my own theories about processing vs. retaining information and how to conflate them in the SRS, haha.

Can we be intelligent about intelligence? Why education needs the concept of plastic general ability

Between that and the extensive, what I would call almost 'emergentist' peer commentary referenced in above sciencewatch article, I am feeling mollified but still wary.

Bonus: 'Counterfactual' Thinkers Are More Motivated and Analytical, Study Suggests

"People who boast about their IQ are losers,"

--Stephen Hawking


People praising me for my high test scores have only hindered me in life.

@ ruiner - Thanks for the lengthy response. There were some interesting reads in there. I guess what bugged me in your original statement is what you alluded to in your above post: the very limited understanding we have of how to define intelligence. It's of course therefore very difficult to measure something if you aren't sure what it is.

It would be pretty stupid of me to argue that brain plasticity doesn't play a big role in the brain and that metacognition (I learned a new word today!) can't play a role in this. That being said, to suggest intelligence is only 1% genetic seems very extreme to me (I don't know whether you were exaggerating or not). I can't think of a single physical attribute where genetics does not play a significant (although often not most important) role. To suggest that the brain is somehow an exception to this rule seems unlikely.

I agree with you that searching the brain for intelligence or consciousness are futile efforts, especially when our understanding of both is very limited. However, this does not mean that they don't have a strong biological basis. I don't think it would be ridiculous to suggest that while the brain's plasticity may allow for changes in ability, the extent to which it can change may hinge on genetic factors. No evidence to support this, just conjecture.

One final point:

ruiner Wrote:I have no problem with IQ or 'g' as long as it's understood they're socially constructed measurements...

I agree with this statement. They are socially constructed measurements, but what are they trying to measure? I would argue they are measuring socially constructed phenomenon. As far as our daily lives are concerned, most of our activities are societal constructs. Therefore, to the extent that tests like IQ tests are accurate measurements of societal constructs, it would seem that they would predict success at life (or at least its more superficial components). When people are worried about their intelligence, like the OP, I think their real concern is whether they have the ability to succeed in life (school, career, language learning, etc.). To the extent that these things can be measured by tests (and I believe that to some extent they can) the issue of intelligence becomes irrelevant for these individuals. It really becomes something for the realm of academic interest alone.

I hope this rant made some kind of sense. I can't even remember what point I was trying to make

@whitefox - I think 1% is being generous! If I could go lower without lobotomizing this metaphorical person then I would. And I say that as someone who is purely physicalist and functionalist in their conception of the mind as an emergent property of the brain interacting with environment. Or rather, because I am.

I think tests are relatively 'arbitrated' though they can be useful within particular contexts as such, but ought to be examined in a modular, process-oriented way.

Couldn't find two papers by Demetriou but I did find this while looking for one: http://books.google.com/books?id=3RK1x0W...22&f=false

Edit: Just some updates while still fresh:

Overview on interactionist perspective: http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/wha...usion.html

Dehaene actually wrote something about the limits of the brain and technology in the future: http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_10.html#dehaene - I think by the time we discover the physical constraints of the brain w/ regards to general intelligence at any moment in time--which in my view takes priority over environment/gene influences on its initial development, and can measure such things interacting with environment, nevermind genes, we'll able to make neural adjustments on a more functional intra-individual level...

Another by my man Dehaene: http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_10.html#dehaene

+ Dehaene on 'recyclage' to clear up some previous references and make sure you know not just to think of neuroplasticity when discussing metacognition and neuronal recycling, etc. - Stressing not just plasticity of neural circuits, but actually appropriating older circuits: http://books.google.com/books?id=7xSkrSK...ge&f=false

Mameli and Bateson on the utility of 'innateness' w/ regards to science: http://philpapers.org/rec/MAMIAT

Shenk discussing confusions w/ regards to twin studies and heritability vs. heredity and how it's abused in popsci reporting: http://geniusblog.davidshenk.com/2009/06...uddle.html - On IQ as well though not as important I think, nor as clear as previous link: http://geniusblog.davidshenk.com/2009/07...ut-iq.html

Someone discussing useful issues about twin studies and evolutionary psychology: http://drbeetle.homestead.com/twins.html

Another bit about twin studies: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1519802?cookieSet=1 - Not necessarily saying it's correct, I just want to underscore here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study#Criticism - that it's not like this stuff isn't still of considerable debate and politicization from both sides.

I was reading that only in the past decade or so have we started to clear up prenatal environment issues in twin studies: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v38...468a0.html

David S. Moore wrote a very nice paper on the heritability of IQ and adoption studies: http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u81..._2006_.pdf - Also wrote a book called The Dependent Gene: http://books.google.com/books?id=GkMJDdc...navlinks_s

This notion of 'microgenetics' and intra-individual variability seems interesting and related to metacognition: http://www.educationforthinking.org/V_microgenetic.html and ex: http://cogprints.org/2489/

Personally, if you looked at Demetriou on plastic 'g', cognitive acceleration (which seems to be atypical and similar to: http://forum.koohii.com/showthread.php?p...4#pid90744), specialized intelligences, and how metacognition fits, and factor in what we know of the brain and differing notions of education and how society is structured, I just don't see much utility in trying to isolate genes and tie them to psychological/intellectual attributes, rather than keeping them as nebulously emergentist/interactionist but indirect and originary properties that led to physical foundations that in turn give rise to modules and layers of cognition, subject to agency and countless physical and cultural variables. Makes much more sense I think to work on cogsci and psychology than genetics and psychology, and I think in time everyone will agree with that. ;p I do think genomics has its own utility, just not with 'temperament and cognition' per se, the way people like Pinker think: http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_6.html#pinker (makes decent points otherwise though)

Anyway, I hope that clarifies my coy and vague little remark that I think of the mind as 100% physical but don't think IQ is useful and only attribute 1% to nature/genetics.

These make more sense in context of previous links and thoughts, obviously.

There's also the role of emotional intelligence, affective neuroscience, 'flow', etc. which I'm too lazy to link now but see other threads including HPBK. ;p

More on dynamic models of intelligence, mutualism: http://home.uva.nl/kees-jan.kan/IMPS2008.pdf That and this: http://www.utoronto.ca/jvcourses/Intelligence.pdf explains further the viciously circular nature of correlating statistical measures of intelligence with actual cognitive processes and possible ways out.