Image: Aaron Goodman (photoillustration); PASIEKA/SPL/PHOTO Researchers, Inc. (brain images)
In Brief
- Brain structure and metabolic efficiency may underlie individual differences in intelligence, and imaging research is pinpointing which regions are key players.
- Smart brains work in many different ways. Women and men who have the same IQ show different underlying brain architectures.
- The latest research suggests that an individual’s pattern of gray and white matter might underlie his or her specific cognitive strengths and weaknesses.
We all know someone who is not as smart as we are—and someone who is smarter. At the same time, we all know people who are better or worse than we are in a particular area or task, say, remembering facts or performing rapid mental math calculations. These variations in abilities and talents presumably arise from differences among our brains, and many studies have linked certain very specific tasks with cerebral activity in localized areas. Answers about how the brain as a whole integrates activity among areas, however, have proved elusive. Just what does a “smart” brain look like?
Now, for the first time, intelligence researchers are beginning to put together a bigger picture. Imaging studies are uncovering clues to how neural structure and function give rise to individual differences in intelligence. The results so far are confirming a view many experts have had for decades: not all brains work in the same way. People with the same IQ may solve a problem with equal speed and accuracy, using a different combination of brain areas. [For more on IQ and intelligence, see “Rational and Irrational Thought: The Thinking That IQ Tests Miss,” by Keith E. Stanovich]
This article was originally published with the title What Does a Smart Brain Look Like?.
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentI read this report with great interest. I would like to know more about the differences in gray matter and white matter cells. I have googled but gotten nothing particularly helpful. Suggestions of appropriate sites would be welcome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do glial cells fit into all this?
Does anyone know of a site that shows a particularly good mapping of the brain? All the ones that I can find are rather simplistic high school level images.
I am curious as to whether the differences found in this study between brains of men and women are really significant. I have seen many studies before that claim a difference between the genders in certain properties, but when you look at the data more closely, the variance within each gender is much greater than the variance between genders. To put this in a technical way, if you compare the distributions with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the distributions of male and female properties could be drawn from the same parent population, so the difference between genders is not actually significant. I am curious as to what kind of significance tests, if any, they used in this study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat article! If the main stream media (MSM) gave this article the proper exposure that it merits then our public would become more educated & funding would increase. I doubt you'd see these results on Fox News!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to admit that IMHO, parts of this article recalled unpleasant sections of Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World". Another reason we need to remain educated.
"significance" is sophistry. It's just a word you're making up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe male and female brains are wired differently. Fact. (This difference in system builds is genetic and caused by different selection pressures.)
The methodology for detecting these differences was PET, EEG and more.
No more or less "significance" is there.
(What you mean is "shouldn't female humans still be conferred rank in the status hierarchy despite these differences?"
My answer to that is NO, even if males and females don't have systemically different brains. )
"significance" is sophistry. It's just a word you're making up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe male and female brains are wired differently. Fact. (This difference in system builds is genetic and caused by different selection pressures.)
The methodology for detecting these differences was PET, EEG and more.
No more or less "significance" is there.
(What you mean is "shouldn't female humans still be conferred rank in the status hierarchy despite these differences?"
My answer to that is NO, even if males and females don't have systemically different brains.)
http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/
Try this link:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://books.google.com.au/books?id=x9iKhpqm5kIC&dq=neural+function&source=gbs_navlinks_s
You don't have to have a science degree to read this, perhaps a dictionary. Remember the only thing you truly learn at university is how to find information.
@ Bill case;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs my understanding goes (1st year Psychology Student) grey matter gets it's colour from neuron cell bodies, dendrites (neurotransmitter receivers) and unmyelinated axons (connections between cells without a coating of myelin, which speeds up the signal). White matter gets it's colour from the myelinated axons, a thin coating of lipids (fats) that facilitate transmission of an action potential (electrical signal) from the cell body.
I have not been taught anything about glial cells in my studies so far, the primary focus is on neurons, and this disappoints me, as we are missing 90% of the picture. Hopefully in the years to come, research into the functioning of glial cells and how they interact with neurons, and the role they play in the CNS will uncover their mysteries.
As far as specific neural imaging, you would have to look through journal articles of neuro-imaging to get any real detail. I have not learnt about any specific neural patterns, rather the individual areas of the brain and what they do and how they function (eg. amygdala, hippocampus etc).
The book that Scientific earthling suggested looks quite good from first glance
Neuroimaging of various kinds is and will continue to deliver intriguing insights. One thing it will not do is reify an bogus concept, viz. Spearman's 'g'. See Jerome Kagan's book, Three Seductive Ideas, for a devastating refutaion of that delusion. Insidiously, the delusion is ineluctably presented in the guise of helping people, for example, through tailored educational programs. But it invariably ends up being used to restrict resources and opportunties to those less financially useful to society as it's constituted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe simplistic reply is that gray mater (which is actually red when living) is actually the powerhouse or swichboard while the white mater (primarily axons) is the wiring connecting more distant gray mater areas. The white mater is myelinated which greatly accelerates the messages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe simplistic reply is that gray mater (which is actually red when living) is actually the powerhouse or switchboard while the white mater (primarily axons) is the wiring connecting more distant gray mater areas, memory, emotional, and other areas. The white mater is myelinated which greatly accelerates the messages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA brain with a lumpier surface is usually better because it has more surface for the gray mater. Bigger can also be better but it is a balancing act because messages have to travel further too.
As for mapping, only highly specialized areas are mapped mostly sensory and motor stuff. People have huge variability in locations, sizes, and possibly types of other things. And any sort of damage can cause a relocation.
There is a lot of redundancy. many areas can do the same task but whatever area does a function best wins out and eventually wins the job gets more activity, grows and the less competitive areas shrink and wait for their task that they will do better than anywhere else. But once something is specialized it is not interested in other tasks unless it is suddenly thrown into disuse...like you suddenly lost a limb...then things get strange.
Smart brains are more efficient because they have well developed specialized areas so lots of areas are not simultaneously trying to find the answer or appropriate interaction.
Hoffman (Tyranny of Testing) years ago revealed that g is really "iquination", which is the ability to do well on IQ tests.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're welcome!
Of course, the elephant in the room here is the documented cases of men and women with severely damaged or extremely limited amounts of brain tissue leading normal lives with normal IQ scores.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read the entire article, and feel I could write a book in response. The article, and the research it describes are tremendous. I am utterly fascinated by it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I am also concerned.
Clearly, there are many assumptions here, and MUCH more to learn, before we go trying to "boost IQ" with medicine, or determine IQ with a scan.
Most importantly, is that we still don't even agree on what constitutes intelligence! I find it scary to think that we might boost intellect, without boosting emotional intelligence. Or in boosting intellect, find we've also boosted hubris. I'd like to know what the brains of people like Gandhi, MLK Jr, Sister Theresa, etc., look like. I'd like to know what the brains of our best lawyers, judges, and referees look like. I'd like to know what the brains of our most devious criminals look like!
If something as simple as practicing juggling can make such a noticeable difference in brain scans, then taking scans from people of different races, people from different cultures, people from different locations, people with different physical activity...I could go on...do not necessarily prove that any of these groups are "more" or "less" intelligent, but perhaps that they have more or less access or need to perform activities (mental or physical) that cause changes in their brains. Will this problem lead to researchers scanning newborn babies brains?
So far, what we have here is fascinating initial research. Basic research is always important, but the assumptions that this research has found "intelligence" and that "intelligence is always good" are far too many steps beyond the results of less than a few thousand scans in a world with more than six billion people. Especially, since there is no such thing as an international agreement on what IQ or intelligence even is.
I truly love this research, and would love to be part of it. But just like I also find snakes deeply interesting, and have studied them, we must always remember to have tremendous respect not just for the wonderful possibilities such research can offer, but for the damage we can cause by assuming that our expanding knowledge protects us--and others--from harm.
Shulamit Widawsky
www.shulamit.info
I have read the entire article, and feel I could write a book in response. The article, and the research it describes are tremendous. I am utterly fascinated by it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I am also concerned.
Clearly, there are many assumptions here, and MUCH more to learn, before we go trying to "boost IQ" with medicine, or “determine IQ” with a scan.
Most importantly, is that we still don't even agree on what constitutes intelligence! I find it scary to think that we might boost intellect, without boosting emotional intelligence. Or in boosting intellect, find we've also boosted hubris. I'd like to know what the brains of people like Gandhi, MLK Jr, Sister Theresa, etc., look like. I'd like to know what the brains of our best lawyers, judges, and referees look like. I'd like to know what the brains of our most devious criminals look like!
If something as simple as practicing juggling can make such a noticeable difference in brain scans, then taking scans from people of different races, people from different cultures, people from different locations, people with different physical activity...I could go on...do not necessarily prove that any of these groups are "more" or "less" intelligent, but perhaps that they have more or less access or need to perform activities (mental or physical) that cause changes in their brains. Will this problem lead to researchers scanning newborn babies’ brains?
So far, what we have here is fascinating initial research. Basic research is always important, but the assumptions that this research has found "intelligence" and that "intelligence is always good" are far too many steps beyond the results of less than a few thousand scans in a world with more than six billion people. Especially, since there is no such thing as an international agreement on what IQ or intelligence even is.
I truly love this research, and would love to be part of it. But just like I also find snakes deeply interesting, and have studied them, we must always remember to have tremendous respect not just for the wonderful possibilities such research can offer, but for the damage we can cause by assuming that our expanding knowledge protects us--and others--from harm.
Shulamit Widawsky
www.shulamit.info
I 'm afraid "whatsup" got it wrong. The difference between Left and Right political ideologies lie in the the presumed cause of the differences (left = environment, right = genes). So the fact that there are IQ differences between races doesn't mean that genes alone are causing it! It could be the environment! But it's more likely to be a combination of both, right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Gandhi, MLK Jr, Sister Theresa
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey weren't "smart".
If their IQs were above 120, I'd be surprised. (Maybe Ghandi is high 120ish.)
You've confused political mortality[your's] with "intelligence."
Tom S., I had to quit as a school guidance counselor and administrator of all kinds of tests because I believe that the only moral position for allocating tax dollars in the public schools is to spend the same amount on each student.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead, in many schools, we have a huge disparity in the cash spent on each student, often chasing the dream that we can remediate intelligence and curiousity, or intelligence and good work habits, or intelligence and the willingness to actually stay in school and ignore lifestyle distractions.
Is intelligence mutable? Actually, I think maybe so, but it is not that mutable and the changes can come so slow and are so dearly won. I think all human behaviors are mutable, even so-called sexual orientation or the propensity to be a substance abuser. So much depends not only on genetics, but on every stage of the environment, on social brainwashing, on cultural role models, and particularly on what society decides to subsidize. If we put our money into financing welfare moms to stay home in Section 8 housing and raise babies without fathers, that's what we will get more of. If we put our money into internships for girls going into internships in engineering, guess what, they follow the money.
Same with boys, but subsidize, glamorize, and promote the wrong things and you get the wrong things. The brains of boys have a "g" factor mainly stimulated by two things: (1) how do I get sex? and (2) how do I get power, money, and fame? You can show boys pictures of the Apollo astronauts landing on the moon, or even have those aged gentlemen come to school presentations, but unless (1) and (2) get plausibly hooked up to a dream somehow the intelligence of boys is not going to start doing push-ups and getting game ready.
Conservative school counselors like me had a saying. We said that good teaching INCREASES individual differences. If the school goal is to decrease individual differences upon graduation that equality is going to be achieved at a very, very low level and frankly requires ignoring how fast the really top students can go. Fortunately, many high schools now allow students to take college courses and these high schools actually become junior colleges, because universities accept these h.s. credits towards a bachelor's degree.
Junior colleges are tending to become remedial high schools, for all of those who dropped out and only now realize they do need to pass algebra and English II. These students will still need 4 full years of real college level courses to get the bachelors.
Am happy to read such advanced comments however a lot of the work is copyrighted by me several years ago and the original work was researched and written about around 1830.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMona comments is basically correct as there is no difference of any brain as they are all the same but where the difference arrives is how the owner inputs the educated information during the growth stage of life. This is where the differences iis or are input into the brain. Sean MacCloud on 0435PM of 10/29/09 has several good responses to the article. I note many have test that supports their writings but in fact the test only points or clues as to what is goin on but not the final results desired by the researchers.
The truth of the matter remains that some are vastly smarter than others, even in the same species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce sexual differences are clarified, we can move forward.
The important thing in tailoring education to an individual's brain is to let the individual do the tailoring. Instead of grouping people into slow, regular and advanced tracks (which creates inferiority complexes in the "slow" and egotism in the "advanced") every child should determine their own studies. This has been a huge success in the Sudbury Schools (http://sudval.org), where kids do what they want within laws they make democratically. Here's a dramatic example: http://education.change.org/blog/view/simple_math
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this