Last week I posted ‘The Price of Prodigious Ability‘, which discussed the concept of modular intelligence.
Basically, the concept-which I believe modern neuroscience strongly supports- states our brains are made up of many different modules, and each module is responsible for a specific type of intelligence. In other words, while some modules are geared to mainly process language, others are designed to process math. Of course, there are many other types: those that subserve musical intelligence, artistic intelligence, social intelligence, etc…
This concept does away with the notion that intelligence can be summed up with one ‘IQ’ number.
Furthermore, the module idea is not just theoretical: new brain scanning technology enables us to actually see the different physical locations of various modules in action as they’re used.
And we are now beginning to realize that not everyone is created equal as far as these modules are concerned. Genetics, prenatal development, and childhood exposure all contribute to a variable map. Some of us are born with large language modules, while our visual-spatial areas may be quite small. Some of us may have lots of architectural defects in our social regions, while our musical areas may be wired super-efficiently.
This is where the story of Einstein’s brain comes into play.
Overall, there’s not much of a difference between his brain and that of the average person. However, if we look at his inferior parietal lobe, we see that it is huge. Much larger than average. Which is interesting, because this region is thought to be very important for mathematical and spatial intelligence- the essence of Einstein’s genius.
Furthermore, because this area was so much larger than average, something had to give. And in Einstein’s brain, we find that the Peri-Sylvian regions are noticeably smaller.
Why is this important? It turns out these Peri-Sylvian regions are heavily involved in linguistic intelligence. And if we look back at Einstein’s childhood, we find that he didn’t speak until he was 3 years old. Most kids are speaking between the ages of 1 and 2. And at 16 he failed language exams for the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. As an adult, his lecturing ability was said to be horrible. (Reference: Wikipedia)
These unique findings regarding Einstein’s brain reinforce the idea that not only are there many different kinds of intelligence, but that each subtype is determined by the modular nature of the brain.
More importantly, however, this should inspire us all to realize that our inadequacies may actually be the very source of our strengths and talents.
Tags: Einsteins-brain, Genius, intelligence
It wasn’t too...
As a researcher and author of neuroimaging-IQ papers I’m afraid that this article is oversimplified and heavily inaccurate.
1. “each module is responsible for a specific type of intelligence” – the main neuroimaging-IQ articles have argued the exact opposite of this, e.g.
Gray, J. R., Chabris, C. F. and Braver, T. S. (2003). “Neural mechanisms of general fluid intelligence.” Nat Neurosci 6(3): 316-22.
Duncan, J., Seitz, R. J., Kolodny, J., Bor, D., Herzog, H., Ahmed, A., Newell, F. N. and Emslie, H. (2000). “A neural basis for general intelligence.” Science 289(5478): 457-60.
2. It may not be the case that intelligence can be “summed up with one ‘IQ’ number”, but there is a popular theory concerning “general intelligence” that comes out of the empirical result that universal positive correlations come out of a wide range of different cognitive tests, i.e. if you are smart in one field, you are very likely to be smart in another. For instance, Einstein was actually highly articulate, and there are many famous quotes attributed to him.
On a general note about this site, I would strongly recommend a very healthy scepticism about most points. One very important general point to raise is that if there are any genuine reported cognitive enhancement effects, they are very likely limited to the low IQ end of the spectrum, and may not make any difference to people with an above average IQ.
Daniel: I really think you need to go back and carefully re-read the first (and most recent) paper you reference, because in actuality the authors very clearly support what I’m saying in the above post about “modular intelligence”.
The article by Gray, Chabris, and Braver (2003) basically makes the simple point that: Working memory and Attentional control ability (which correspond to gF) localize to a very specific module in the brain: the lateral prefrontal cortex and its connections to the anterior cingulate and the posterior cerebellum.
(Note: gF refers to generalized fluid intelligence. Readers may find the article in its entirety here).
To quote directly from the paper:
“Anatomically, the neural substrate of gF is thought to include portions of the prefrontal cortex. These data suggest a key localization on the mechanism of gF”
To further drive home my point, the authors describe gF (general fluid intelligence) as nothing more than “an important cognitive ability”. It is not the ONLY cognitive ability. I’m not sure you fully understand this concept, Daniel. There are, of course, other abilities, and they will in turn be mediated by other areas of brain real estate-i.e., other brain modules.
You also state “One very important general point to raise is that if there are any genuine reported cognitive enhancement effects, they are very likely limited to the low IQ end of the spectrum, and may not make any difference to people with an above average IQ.”
What about all those bright kids at Harvard popping Ritalin?
Your comment is heavily inaccurate, as there are literally thousands of studies from the most prestigious journals that show how brain function can be improved throughout the lifespan. Many of these key concepts are referenced throughout this site. If you were aware of this very large body of literature, I doubt you’d be making statements like the one above. Actually, what I find most ironic is that the authors of the 1st paper you reference above also disagree with you:
“Finally, it is worth emphasizing that gF and related forms of intelligence are not completely determined by heredity. Behavioral interventions (such as schooling) and other factors can have markedly positive influences on intelligence.”
At the end of your comment, you mention visitors having a “healthy dose of scepticism”, and I encourage the same- no matter what you are reading.
As far as my article being “oversimplified”, I will leave you with a quote by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:
It’s been a while since I’ve been patronised about my own research! Just for the record, I work with people in Gray’s lab, and am an author on the other paper I cited. Yes, the Gray article isolates Gf, but that Gf can be isolated at all goes towards my point. Gf is a theoretical construct reflecting a general cognitive ability, and is the best predictor in psychology of performance on virtually any cognitive task you choose. An assumption of the validity of Gf is also an assumption against the idea of multiple intelligences (at least multiple fluid intelligences – knowledge is something separate and not thought so central to our concept of intelligence). That such a general factor can be isolated to one or a few brain regions suggests that intelligence isn’t split between a huge array of modules (language, music, geography, etc.), but is in fact really one abstract problem-solving process. If you were instead right, Gf really should light up the whole brain, since presumably it is made up of all these different modules. The other paper (Duncan et al – the one I’m an author on) perhaps makes the point even more clearly. There are three different task domains – perceptual, visuo-spatial and verbal, each have in common the fact that there is one task that correlates more highly with Gf, and a matched control that has a lower correlation. For each modality (perceptual, visuo-spatial, or verbal), the prefrontal cortex lights up for the task more related to Gf – again suggesting that general intelligence, is not split up into little domains, but is driven by one major, abstract problem solving process.
I would also point you to the excellent book “IQ and Human Intelligence” by Nick Mackintosh, a world expert in the field. Chapter 10 discusses exactly your question of multiple intelligences and even concludes that emotional/social intelligence hasn’t been shown yet to be independent of academic intelligence.
I’m all for making people feel better about themselves, and the message that if you are bad at one thing that means you are good at another is a sweet one. But I’m more for truth, and what you’ve claimed is far from being established. Perhaps just as nice, yet not nearly as controversial, a claim is that if we have a reasonable intelligence and really dedicate ourselves to some field, obsess over it over months or years, we are quite likely to excel at it. Sportsmen like Tiger Woods and Roger Federer may not have the highest innate skill in the world at their fields. But they both started training very early, and devoted their lives to their sport. If you read about Geniuses like Richard Feynman, his IQ was measured only at 125 (of course, it could have been very badly measured!), but he totally obsessed about maths and physics from an early age, and became one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century! As a general point, ability improvement in really specific fields is absolutely established – it just gets a lot messier when claims are made about general cognitive improvements.
In terms of your alternative suggestion that intelligence is distributed throughout the brain, with different brain regions involved in different aspects of intelligence, I’d love to see the citations for this, if you wouldn’t mind.
In terms of the Harvard kids popping Ritalin, just because they take the drugs, that doesn’t mean they are getting better scores! In fact, they are probably impairing their performance in some ways, if you look at how Ritalin affects different parts of the IQ spectrum! It basically boosts a neurotransmitter called Dopamine in the prefrontal cortex. But dopamine levels here certainly don’t work on a “more-is-better” approach. Bright people already probably have optimal levels anyway, so boosting their dopamine will impair their performance. I’m happy to provide papers about this if necessary. Also, of course, aside from the dangers mentioned on this site, Ritalin is a serious drug with permanent neurochemical changes and significant side-effects, so obviously it is really irresponsible for them to be taking such drugs.
I never disputed that cognitive ability cannot be enhanced in various ways throughout the lifespan, and think this site is great to get people asking the questions of themselves about how they can get the most out of their mental abilities and perhaps even protect those abilities from degrading as they age. I was merely trying to suggest that readers of this site have a healthy, scientific scepticism of some of the claims, as any effects reported might not yet have been properly shown scientifically, be limited to specific processes, or to specific sub-sections of the population.
In terms of your second quote, I wasn’t aware that I’d said the opposite of this! Obviously Gf is generated by both genes and environment. And I never disputed that things like schooling, diet or many other interventions can have a positive influence on intelligence. But many people looking at this site may have had good schooling, good diet, and might even be quite bright already. Ritalin (the main suggestion from your comment) is a case in point for where intervention may actually make things worse.
In terms of my comment about simplicity, I was trying to point out that a lot of these results are complex, with caveats all over the place, and simplifying such results is misleading. It’s important that people realise that science really is complicated and confusing – and there are always doubts! The results readers get from the newspapers or this site are sometimes likely to leave out vital pieces of information – and always leave out the uncertainties!
Daniel, you raise some very good points. Furthermore, your work in functional neuroimaging is not only interesting, it is vitally important to further unlocking the secrets of the brain. A revolution in brain science is dawning thanks this new way of looking at the brain.
We can probably go back and forth quite a few more times on the issue of multiple/modular intelligences; however, since my hours here are so limited, that would take away from my ability to update the rest of the website. I apologize. From time to time, however, I’ll try to insert a new post on issues that relate to Gf and intelligence(s). And certainly, if you come out with any new publications, I’d love to hear! Thanks for stopping by