10 ms·

There is a very strong correlation between cavities and IQ, as well - suggesting that high-IQ peeps are "gas-guzzlers" who prioritize getting more energy in. Ha

There is a very strong correlation between cavities and IQ, as well - suggesting that high-IQ peeps are "gas-guzzlers" who prioritize getting more energy in. Having a network that burns less (because fewer connections) might be the other half of that equation. The source is Vernon's old book from decades back, he dismissed a lot of science using this factoid as a counterexample; to him, this was a proof that looking for correlations was pointless. I find it more significant. Someone who didn't want to go to the front in WWII occupied himself by going through all American recruits' data and looking for correlations in order to look too busy to be reassigned to combat. The largest correlation they found, as I remember, with tested IQ was number of cavities (more, better.)

perl4ever 8y ago
Maybe there is a particular gut biome that produces both cavities and smarts. Recently there's been various news stories about how such microbes mediate Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and maybe other things. And it's been known for a long time that many psychotropic drugs lead to diabetes and weight gain, so metabolism and sugar seem like they are related to everything.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  Great article re that: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7342#affil-auth https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7342#affil-auth and choline (see above URL) matters for the brain: The Case for Choline The nutrient is essential for brain development and much more, but most Americans get nowhere near enough. By Hara Estroff Marano, published on January 3, 2017 - last reviewed on March 6, 2017 https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201701/the-case-choline?destination=node%2F1099765 https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201701/the-case-cho... BUT - the modern diet produces more cavities, the ancient diet more choline (better for brain development.) So more work is needed for this hypothesis than what I've cited above. The bug that causes cavities from sucrose exposure (and you're right, there is a specific one) might have an IQ effect too. Certainly not impossible.
stevesimmons 8y ago
Correlation isn't causation! WW2 recruits in 1940s would have been teenagers in the 1930s, a time when eating habits and especially consumption of sugary snacks, was very different from today. Maybe: Not poor => Better educated => Higher IQ scores Not poor => Family can afford sugary snacks => More cavities
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  High correlations with immense statistical significance don't imply any one path of causation, but they do imply causation is involved. That doesn't mean A causes B, it may mean D causes A and B, etc. But mere coincidence isn't plausible when your statistical base number in the millions and the effect is large (as this was.) We agree that correlation and causation aren't the same word or concept - I never said anything different, nor would. I'm proposing a possible explanation (as you have also done!), not claiming proof; you seem to be confusing a claim of evidence (which may indeed be false or misleading, but remains evidence) with a claim of proof. These are different things, esp in Science post-Popper, although conflating the two is very popular, even by scientists, today! I haven't said other explanations are impossible. That's always so. But you might want to argue for your view by finding other supporting evidence. For example, pro your view, a much better argument on your side is that there was no possibility in those days of controlling for fetal alcohol syndrome - it hadn't been discovered yet. In fact Vernon's studies of Aboriginal IQs also preceded that discovery and FAS turned out to explain most of the lower IQs effect he measured amongst Native populations. I've added an unecessary "!" here just 'cause you did.

perl4ever 8y ago

Maybe there is a particular gut biome that produces both cavities and smarts. Recently there's been various news stories about how such microbes mediate Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and maybe other things. And it's been known for a long time that many psychotropic drugs lead to diabetes and weight gain, so metabolism and sugar seem like they are related to everything.

Nomentatus 8y ago
Great article re that: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7342#affil-auth https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7342#affil-auth and choline (see above URL) matters for the brain: The Case for Choline The nutrient is essential for brain development and much more, but most Americans get nowhere near enough. By Hara Estroff Marano, published on January 3, 2017 - last reviewed on March 6, 2017 https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201701/the-case-choline?destination=node%2F1099765 https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201701/the-case-cho... BUT - the modern diet produces more cavities, the ancient diet more choline (better for brain development.) So more work is needed for this hypothesis than what I've cited above. The bug that causes cavities from sucrose exposure (and you're right, there is a specific one) might have an IQ effect too. Certainly not impossible.

stevesimmons 8y ago

Correlation isn't causation! WW2 recruits in 1940s would have been teenagers in the 1930s, a time when eating habits and especially consumption of sugary snacks, was very different from today. Maybe: Not poor => Better educated => Higher IQ scores Not poor => Family can afford sugary snacks => More cavities

Nomentatus 8y ago
High correlations with immense statistical significance don't imply any one path of causation, but they do imply causation is involved. That doesn't mean A causes B, it may mean D causes A and B, etc. But mere coincidence isn't plausible when your statistical base number in the millions and the effect is large (as this was.) We agree that correlation and causation aren't the same word or concept - I never said anything different, nor would. I'm proposing a possible explanation (as you have also done!), not claiming proof; you seem to be confusing a claim of evidence (which may indeed be false or misleading, but remains evidence) with a claim of proof. These are different things, esp in Science post-Popper, although conflating the two is very popular, even by scientists, today! I haven't said other explanations are impossible. That's always so. But you might want to argue for your view by finding other supporting evidence. For example, pro your view, a much better argument on your side is that there was no possibility in those days of controlling for fetal alcohol syndrome - it hadn't been discovered yet. In fact Vernon's studies of Aboriginal IQs also preceded that discovery and FAS turned out to explain most of the lower IQs effect he measured amongst Native populations. I've added an unecessary "!" here just 'cause you did.