10 ms·

Neuroscientists use maps of people’s brains to predict reasoning ability

70 points by klunger 11y ago

johnchristopher 11y ago
tldr; “It’s not wrong to say there are weird ethical implications to this,” Finn says, “but we’re still a long way from doing this with enough accuracy to apply in the real world.” Neuroscience will be waiting for its sorting hat for a while yet.
- panglott 11y ago
  '"In this study, the researchers predicted how well people would do on a cognitive test by analyzing fMRI scans of 126 subjects in the Human Connectome Project, a five-year initiative to map how areas of the human brain communicate with each other. The subjects performed motor, memory, and intelligence tests, including a pattern completion test that measured abstract reasoning—what neuroscientists call fluid intelligence. Their connectomes, it turned out, had a lot to do with how well they scored. ...A strong connection between the frontal and parietal lobes, especially, meant a high fluid intelligence score.' This is an interesting result as well, that connection between different areas of the brain predict abstract reasoning ability.
mrdrozdov 11y ago
I wouldn't consider a measurement of a brain's mapping any different than the measurement of a person's height. Someone taller probably has a better chance of being a good basketball player, but there are plenty of basketball players who are excellent and not of exceptional height. The article makes it seem as though there are absolute measurements being made of certain elements in the brain, but it's almost more than certain to be pattern matching or machine learning that is being done. You find some people that are good at doing X and have them take a test. Then you take new people, have them perform the same test, and if their scans are similar to the scans of the initial people, then you say these new people are pre-disposed to do X well.
- NickM 11y ago
  I agree with you, though I'm not sure if height is even the best metaphor: our brains are remarkably changeable based on how we use them, so a better comparison might be measuring an athlete's muscle mass in different parts of the body.
  - Menge 11y ago
    > our brains are remarkably changeable based on how we use them, so a better comparison might be measuring an athlete's muscle mass in different parts of the body. Yes, I immediately thought of the motor skills experiments[1] that raised brain density in the relevant regions. I think the first half of the article was too sensational and brave new world oriented given that the explanation for the differences in regional brain densities and contentedness would mostly be from the home environment of a young child. It was a bit like predicting the availability of hearing tests will lead us to build classrooms of super hearers instead of intervene to address hearing issues before children fall behind. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18648501 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18648501
- papapra 11y ago
  "and not of exceptional height" but you still have to pass some mark to be competitive and I think this is important. You have to take in account that the job market is competitive, meaning that some people would have an intrinsic advantage over others.
klunger 11y ago
I wonder how future research will be affected by this. Say every child gets their connectome mapped when they start school to get placed in the best type of learning environment for them (auditory, visual etc.). Presumably, within the data of that same scan, there will also be information about whether that kid is violent etc. This will simply not be part of the analysis for learning environment matching. But, the information will be there as soon as the research to figure out what types of connectome patterns indicate a pre-disposition to X is peer reviewed and published. So, do we choose not to conduct research on certain subjects so that this process can be safely used for more benign purposes? Or, do we have really strict rules about what types of analyses can be done with a given scan? With attending rules about deleting scan data after it has been analysed for the intended purpose? Or something else entirely?
- gwern 11y ago
  > Say every child gets their connectome mapped when they start school to get placed in the best type of learning environment for them (auditory, visual etc.). There is no reason whatsoever to do this. Aside from the issue that 'multiple intelligences' has not held up and has been abandoned, if you want to measure their intelligence, it's unlikely that brain scans will anytime in the foreseeable future outperform simply giving a child a 10-minute pencil-and-paper IQ test (and highly unlikely that scans will ever be cheaper or easier than a regular IQ test).
  - FranOntanaya 11y ago
    Scans might be easier to sell to parents when putting the child in a different educational path than an IQ test. IQ tests may be perceived as just an individual rating the child, and parents that aren't completely happy with a result will get in the mindset that the tester "rated the child wrong" or "didn't measure the right things." An actual brain scan may be harder to argue and more effective in the end from the parents' point of view.
  - klunger 11y ago
    OK, maybe that was a bad example, but it also wasn't the point. If you do a connectome mapping for one particular purpose, the ability to analyze that mapping data for many other (perhaps more insidious) purpose seems like a real problem. A better example than the kid example I pulled straight from the article: If someone gets their connectome mapped to help select treatment for some kind of mental disorder, it may also be possible to measure if that person is prone to violence etc. All kinds of conclusions can be drawn from the same data set, limited only by the research that has been done to that point.
jbandela1 11y ago
Great xkcd addressing this issue http://xkcd.com/1588/ http://xkcd.com/1588/
- nicklaf 11y ago
  That xkcd is spot on. Alan Kay has said that "point of view is worth 80 IQ points". I don't see how observing internal brain structure is going to reflect the benefit from points of view held, even in the slightest. There could very well be an inverse correlation, in which people having above-average natural ability tend to brute-force their way through problems that could have been avoided entirely with better choices. Just as Gordon Bell said: "The cheapest, fastest, and most reliable components are those that aren't there". You just don't hear about people getting through life, but failing to understand the notion of, say, "not stepping out onto the crosswalk when the street is still busy". Your environment is extrinsic to your internal brain structure, and you encode information about your environment against your own internal system of thought, regardless of its architecture. It's not like people who happen to be "naturally better spatial thinkers" can somehow do a better job at recalling their own beliefs.
anortons 11y ago
"Some brains are better than others at certain things, simply because of the way they’re wired. And now, scientists are closer to being able to determine precisely which brains those are, and how they got that way ... Intelligence research is relatively young." No, it's not. The Eugenic movement started the quest for the "better" brain nearly a century and a half ago, and we all know how that turned out...
- minority-one 11y ago
  The movement for the better brain started much before half a century ago. If you study Jewish history you will find out they have been doing this all along. For instance, as a very literate culture, they would encourage the less capable of learning to leave the faith, much like a Rumspringa without end. This had the effect of culling the less intelligent, which was an effect they understood and seeked purposefully. On the other side of the coin, as opposed to Christianity which discourages its representatives (priests) from reproducing, Rabbis were encouraged to have prolific offspring on account of their being the most educated people, and the community engineering so that there will be more intelligent Jews (sons of cultured Rabbis) than unintelligent ones (those who are encouraged to give up on faith studies). But yes, evil Germans and their eugenics, carry on.
anortons 11y ago
"Some brains are better than others at certain things, simply because of the way they’re wired. And now, scientists are closer to being able to determine precisely which brains those are, and how they got that way ... Intelligence research is relatively young." No, it's not. The Eugenic movement started the quest for the "better" brain nearly a century and a half ago, and we all know how that turned out...
ilaksh 11y ago
But brains form new connections all the time, and some activities result in lots of new connections. So this isn't a static thing that is enitirely inherited.
Nav_Panel 11y ago
I'd like to direct curious readers to my favorite story by Isaac Asimov, called "Profession": http://www.inf.ufpr.br/renato/profession.html http://www.inf.ufpr.br/renato/profession.html It deals with pretty much exactly this topic -- in the story, peoples' professions are determined by brain scans (as in the study), and the requisite professional knowledge is then loaded via a similar device (which seems much further off). The story explores some of the ethical/societal implications of being "exceptional" in terms of brain structure. It's an incredible piece of fiction, and it has stuck with me over years and years even when the appeal of stories like "The Last Question" have somewhat worn off for me.
- josinalvo 11y ago
  Spoiler and a question in rot13 1.V nz obgurerq sbe guvf vf irel htyl-qhpxyvat-vfu 2.Jul QB gurl pnyy gurz Bylzcvpf?
SilasX 11y ago
One step closer to physically realizing Newcomb's problem?
plg 11y ago
did they do their due diligence in preventing overfitting? I suppose I should read the paper and see for myself
prodmerc 11y ago
Brains rewire all the time. It's our number 1 feature, adaptability. A good musician can become a good sharpshooter, a good programmer can excel at architectural engineering. Being a good writer - what does that mean? Someone who has had some real, interesting experiences may be a better writer than someone who is wired to tell good stories. Physical features also matter - a lot. Your brain may be perfect for a nuclear physicist, but you're no good if you're gonna have a stroke or heart attack suddenly on the job. And, of course, nurture over nature - people's background, how they grew up, how they were educated from their first year to now, matters way more than genetics. If you don't/can't account for all of that (and more) when deciding a person's future, then keep this science to yourself.
- minority-one 11y ago
  On the other hand, there's a consensus in the scientific community that IQ is the best predictor of outcome in life, despite the factors you've mentioned. In other words, all being taken into consideration, it turns out IQ has an incredible predicting power regarding the lives of individuals. It's actually better at predicting life outcome than any other factor. > And, of course, nurture over nature [...] matters way more than genetics. That is the opposite of what current research into IQ has shown so far. If you go on YouTube, you can find interviews with Charles Murray, and that will help you understand this better. > A good musician can become a good sharpshooter, a good programmer can excel at architectural engineering. Yes, but it's not likely to happen (or you'd have oodles of examples). Predicting is all about what's more likely, and in this capacity, IQ has proven over and over again to be the single best predictor.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    I'm doubtful of that consensus. Is it a real measured thing, or just 'common knowledge' which adds up to urban legend. I'd understood that the best predictor of success at a job is Conscientiousness. More than test scores, economic class, fancy schools.
    - minority-one 11y ago
cttet 11y ago
When you see the brutal average that people in the "connectome" does for brain signals/images, you will not believe in this line of research too much ...

70 points by klunger 11y ago

tldr; “It’s not wrong to say there are weird ethical implications to this,” Finn says, “but we’re still a long way from doing this with enough accuracy to apply in the real world.” Neuroscience will be waiting for its sorting hat for a while yet.

panglott 11y ago
'"In this study, the researchers predicted how well people would do on a cognitive test by analyzing fMRI scans of 126 subjects in the Human Connectome Project, a five-year initiative to map how areas of the human brain communicate with each other. The subjects performed motor, memory, and intelligence tests, including a pattern completion test that measured abstract reasoning—what neuroscientists call fluid intelligence. Their connectomes, it turned out, had a lot to do with how well they scored. ...A strong connection between the frontal and parietal lobes, especially, meant a high fluid intelligence score.' This is an interesting result as well, that connection between different areas of the brain predict abstract reasoning ability.

mrdrozdov 11y ago

I wouldn't consider a measurement of a brain's mapping any different than the measurement of a person's height. Someone taller probably has a better chance of being a good basketball player, but there are plenty of basketball players who are excellent and not of exceptional height. The article makes it seem as though there are absolute measurements being made of certain elements in the brain, but it's almost more than certain to be pattern matching or machine learning that is being done. You find some people that are good at doing X and have them take a test. Then you take new people, have them perform the same test, and if their scans are similar to the scans of the initial people, then you say these new people are pre-disposed to do X well.

NickM 11y ago
I agree with you, though I'm not sure if height is even the best metaphor: our brains are remarkably changeable based on how we use them, so a better comparison might be measuring an athlete's muscle mass in different parts of the body.
- Menge 11y ago
  > our brains are remarkably changeable based on how we use them, so a better comparison might be measuring an athlete's muscle mass in different parts of the body. Yes, I immediately thought of the motor skills experiments[1] that raised brain density in the relevant regions. I think the first half of the article was too sensational and brave new world oriented given that the explanation for the differences in regional brain densities and contentedness would mostly be from the home environment of a young child. It was a bit like predicting the availability of hearing tests will lead us to build classrooms of super hearers instead of intervene to address hearing issues before children fall behind. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18648501 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18648501
papapra 11y ago
"and not of exceptional height" but you still have to pass some mark to be competitive and I think this is important. You have to take in account that the job market is competitive, meaning that some people would have an intrinsic advantage over others.

klunger 11y ago

I wonder how future research will be affected by this. Say every child gets their connectome mapped when they start school to get placed in the best type of learning environment for them (auditory, visual etc.). Presumably, within the data of that same scan, there will also be information about whether that kid is violent etc. This will simply not be part of the analysis for learning environment matching. But, the information will be there as soon as the research to figure out what types of connectome patterns indicate a pre-disposition to X is peer reviewed and published. So, do we choose not to conduct research on certain subjects so that this process can be safely used for more benign purposes? Or, do we have really strict rules about what types of analyses can be done with a given scan? With attending rules about deleting scan data after it has been analysed for the intended purpose? Or something else entirely?

gwern 11y ago
> Say every child gets their connectome mapped when they start school to get placed in the best type of learning environment for them (auditory, visual etc.). There is no reason whatsoever to do this. Aside from the issue that 'multiple intelligences' has not held up and has been abandoned, if you want to measure their intelligence, it's unlikely that brain scans will anytime in the foreseeable future outperform simply giving a child a 10-minute pencil-and-paper IQ test (and highly unlikely that scans will ever be cheaper or easier than a regular IQ test).
- FranOntanaya 11y ago
  Scans might be easier to sell to parents when putting the child in a different educational path than an IQ test. IQ tests may be perceived as just an individual rating the child, and parents that aren't completely happy with a result will get in the mindset that the tester "rated the child wrong" or "didn't measure the right things." An actual brain scan may be harder to argue and more effective in the end from the parents' point of view.
- klunger 11y ago
  OK, maybe that was a bad example, but it also wasn't the point. If you do a connectome mapping for one particular purpose, the ability to analyze that mapping data for many other (perhaps more insidious) purpose seems like a real problem. A better example than the kid example I pulled straight from the article: If someone gets their connectome mapped to help select treatment for some kind of mental disorder, it may also be possible to measure if that person is prone to violence etc. All kinds of conclusions can be drawn from the same data set, limited only by the research that has been done to that point.

jbandela1 11y ago

Great xkcd addressing this issue http://xkcd.com/1588/ http://xkcd.com/1588/

nicklaf 11y ago
That xkcd is spot on. Alan Kay has said that "point of view is worth 80 IQ points". I don't see how observing internal brain structure is going to reflect the benefit from points of view held, even in the slightest. There could very well be an inverse correlation, in which people having above-average natural ability tend to brute-force their way through problems that could have been avoided entirely with better choices. Just as Gordon Bell said: "The cheapest, fastest, and most reliable components are those that aren't there". You just don't hear about people getting through life, but failing to understand the notion of, say, "not stepping out onto the crosswalk when the street is still busy". Your environment is extrinsic to your internal brain structure, and you encode information about your environment against your own internal system of thought, regardless of its architecture. It's not like people who happen to be "naturally better spatial thinkers" can somehow do a better job at recalling their own beliefs.

anortons 11y ago

"Some brains are better than others at certain things, simply because of the way they’re wired. And now, scientists are closer to being able to determine precisely which brains those are, and how they got that way ... Intelligence research is relatively young." No, it's not. The Eugenic movement started the quest for the "better" brain nearly a century and a half ago, and we all know how that turned out...

minority-one 11y ago
The movement for the better brain started much before half a century ago. If you study Jewish history you will find out they have been doing this all along. For instance, as a very literate culture, they would encourage the less capable of learning to leave the faith, much like a Rumspringa without end. This had the effect of culling the less intelligent, which was an effect they understood and seeked purposefully. On the other side of the coin, as opposed to Christianity which discourages its representatives (priests) from reproducing, Rabbis were encouraged to have prolific offspring on account of their being the most educated people, and the community engineering so that there will be more intelligent Jews (sons of cultured Rabbis) than unintelligent ones (those who are encouraged to give up on faith studies). But yes, evil Germans and their eugenics, carry on.

anortons 11y ago

ilaksh 11y ago

But brains form new connections all the time, and some activities result in lots of new connections. So this isn't a static thing that is enitirely inherited.

Nav_Panel 11y ago

I'd like to direct curious readers to my favorite story by Isaac Asimov, called "Profession": http://www.inf.ufpr.br/renato/profession.html http://www.inf.ufpr.br/renato/profession.html It deals with pretty much exactly this topic -- in the story, peoples' professions are determined by brain scans (as in the study), and the requisite professional knowledge is then loaded via a similar device (which seems much further off). The story explores some of the ethical/societal implications of being "exceptional" in terms of brain structure. It's an incredible piece of fiction, and it has stuck with me over years and years even when the appeal of stories like "The Last Question" have somewhat worn off for me.

josinalvo 11y ago
Spoiler and a question in rot13 1.V nz obgurerq sbe guvf vf irel htyl-qhpxyvat-vfu 2.Jul QB gurl pnyy gurz Bylzcvpf?

SilasX 11y ago

One step closer to physically realizing Newcomb's problem?

plg 11y ago

did they do their due diligence in preventing overfitting? I suppose I should read the paper and see for myself

prodmerc 11y ago

Brains rewire all the time. It's our number 1 feature, adaptability. A good musician can become a good sharpshooter, a good programmer can excel at architectural engineering. Being a good writer - what does that mean? Someone who has had some real, interesting experiences may be a better writer than someone who is wired to tell good stories. Physical features also matter - a lot. Your brain may be perfect for a nuclear physicist, but you're no good if you're gonna have a stroke or heart attack suddenly on the job. And, of course, nurture over nature - people's background, how they grew up, how they were educated from their first year to now, matters way more than genetics. If you don't/can't account for all of that (and more) when deciding a person's future, then keep this science to yourself.

minority-one 11y ago
On the other hand, there's a consensus in the scientific community that IQ is the best predictor of outcome in life, despite the factors you've mentioned. In other words, all being taken into consideration, it turns out IQ has an incredible predicting power regarding the lives of individuals. It's actually better at predicting life outcome than any other factor. > And, of course, nurture over nature [...] matters way more than genetics. That is the opposite of what current research into IQ has shown so far. If you go on YouTube, you can find interviews with Charles Murray, and that will help you understand this better. > A good musician can become a good sharpshooter, a good programmer can excel at architectural engineering. Yes, but it's not likely to happen (or you'd have oodles of examples). Predicting is all about what's more likely, and in this capacity, IQ has proven over and over again to be the single best predictor.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  I'm doubtful of that consensus. Is it a real measured thing, or just 'common knowledge' which adds up to urban legend. I'd understood that the best predictor of success at a job is Conscientiousness. More than test scores, economic class, fancy schools.
  - minority-one 11y ago

cttet 11y ago

When you see the brutal average that people in the "connectome" does for brain signals/images, you will not believe in this line of research too much ...