Biology of genius

[Otto Kretschmer]

Have any studies been done on individuals with very high ontelligence?

How exactly are the brains of guys like Terence Tao or Ed Witten different from an average brain that makes them so smart?

Is it about brain size? Size of some brain areas? Some unusual synaptic properties? Whatever? 

 

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Have any studies been done on individuals with very high ontelligence?

Yes. So many that you need to be more specific about what you're looking for.

18 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Is it about brain size? Size of some brain areas? Some unusual synaptic properties? Whatever? 

From what I've read, size is only a small factor. The way the various regions are "wired", and the ways the regions communicate with each other is much more important.

[iNow]

The type of size measurement considered is also relevant. Overall volume seems to be less important than total surface area and complexity of the folds and convolutions, etc. 

Also, "intelligence" is a highly variable and oftentimes nebulous concept. Artists are often intelligent in different ways than mathematicians and plumbers are often intelligent in different ways from chefs or chemists, for example. 

[CharonY]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

Also, "intelligence" is a highly variable and oftentimes nebulous concept.

Well, it is a question what is being measured, isn't it? There is the concept of the savant syndrome, where folks can perform astonishing tasks in one particular area. Others do not excel in any one area but have massive breadth. 

That all being said, I think the biggest factor for any smart brain is training. 

[Otto Kretschmer]

16 hours ago, CharonY said:

Well, it is a question what is being measured, isn't it? There is the concept of the savant syndrome, where folks can perform astonishing tasks in one particular area. Others do not excel in any one area but have massive breadth. 

That all being said, I think the biggest factor for any smart brain is training. 

You're sure of that? 

Most people struggle with high school math. At the same time Terence Tao was already learning university level math by the time he was 9 years old and had a PhD at 21 and a professorship at 24. 

Those people simply are different from an average person.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

You're sure of that? 

Most people struggle with high school math. At the same time Terence Tao was already learning university level math by the time he was 9 years old and had a PhD at 21 and a professorship at 24. 

Those people simply are different from an average person.

But do you think Terrence Tao could have accomplished the same without the training and support he received at a young age? You claim he's different than average, but how much of that difference was because his father was a doctor and his mother was a maths and physics teacher?

[Otto Kretschmer]

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

But do you think Terrence Tao could have accomplished the same without the training and support he received at a young age? You claim he's different than average, but how much of that difference was because his father was a doctor and his mother was a maths and physics teacher?

Having support and tailor made education certainly helped him realize his potential. But it did not create it - he showed extreme math aptitude since age 2-3 so his brain somehow has to be wired differently... 

If education and support was the key here then the same pattern of lifetime achievement would repeat itself in other children. Yet there are thousands of math or physics teachers' kids who don't achieve nowhere near as much as Tao.

[Phi for All]

14 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Having support and tailor made education certainly helped him realize his potential. But it did not create it - he showed extreme math aptitude since age 2-3 so his brain somehow has to be wired differently... 

Or his parents inclinations and methods weren't standard and their child benefitted from the focus. I'm not saying the "wiring" aspect isn't correct, but it seems like it's arguing more for "nature" and less for "nurture", and it's almost certainly quite a bit of both.

[Otto Kretschmer]

On 1/26/2024 at 3:41 PM, Phi for All said:

Or his parents inclinations and methods weren't standard and their child benefitted from the focus. I'm not saying the "wiring" aspect isn't correct, but it seems like it's arguing more for "nature" and less for "nurture", and it's almost certainly quite a bit of both.

Any evidence that his parents' methods were non standard? To my knowledge little is known about his early life other that he showed extraordinary mathematical ability from an early age. 

I'm not saying nurture did not contribute to his success. But my reasoning tells me that in his case nature was the dominant factor.

 

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

my reasoning tells me that in his case nature was the dominant factor

You misspelled imagination 

[sethoflagos]

1 hour ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

But my reasoning tells me that in his case nature was the dominant factor.

Reasoning in the absence of supporting evidence is just wishful thinking.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Any evidence that his parents' methods were non standard?

Is having a doctor and a maths/physics teacher as parents "standard" by the definition you're using?

[StringJunky]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Is having a doctor and a maths/physics teacher as parents "standard" by the definition you're using?

That's helluva start in terms of initiating productive thinking strategies.

[sethoflagos]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Is having a doctor and a maths/physics teacher as parents "standard" by the definition you're using?

And not just any old doctor - a paediatrician no less: a professional specialising in child development.

[Sensei]

A lot depends on oxygenation of the brain (CMRO2 - "Cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen")..

https://www.google.com/search?q=relationship+of+oxygenation+of+the+brain+and+intelligence+study

On 1/25/2024 at 3:26 PM, Otto Kretschmer said:

Some unusual synaptic properties? Whatever? 

Also: "training makes master"..

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, Sensei said:

A lot depends on oxygenation of the brain (CMRO2 - "Cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen")..

https://www.google.com/search?q=relationship+of+oxygenation+of+the+brain+and+intelligence+study

Indeed, but a lot depends on being alive... 😉

[joigus]

From what I've read, neuronal migration, glial growth, etc are perhaps the identifiable biological factors at work when the frontal cortex is developing (up until about 25 yo in most individuals) that are very much affected by the environment. Nurture and nature are both part of Nature because, as George Carlin once pointed out, Nature includes everything, including the oft-misused and abused figure of speech involved in the dichotomy nature/nurture. Developmental processes don't occur in a Petri dish.

So I agree with most people's observation here, if I understood correctly: Remove the nurture factor and the genius disappears. 

[TheVat]

The strong dependence on nurture is underscored by the studies of families (cognitive tests) which show a regression to the mean, in children.  

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but a lot depends on being alive... 😉

*sigh* ..reread the title of the thread.. "biology of genius".. so it implies that the discussion here is about biological intelligence, not artificial intelligence..

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, joigus said:

From what I've read, neuronal migration, glial growth, etc are perhaps the identifiable biological factors at work when the frontal cortex is developing (up until about 25 yo in most individuals) that are very much affected by the environment. Nurture and nature are both part of Nature because, as George Carlin once pointed out, Nature includes everything, including the oft-misused and abused figure of speech involved in the dichotomy nature/nurture. Developmental processes don't occur in a Petri dish.

So I agree with most people's observation here, if I understood correctly: Remove the nurture factor and the genius disappears. 

Especially when it comes to the brain. As we know, deprivation inhibits neuronal development.

[Otto Kretschmer]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Especially when it comes to the brain. As we know, deprivation inhibits neuronal development.

Deprivation of what? Nutrition or information? Is this the case in developed countries? 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Deprivation of what? Nutrition or information? Is this the case in developed countries? 

Well nutrition too of course. But things like sensory input and training. Early studies in the 40s have shown that children with less social interaction (in an orphanage) developed slower and exhibited reduced intellectual (and physical) development. The famous (and cruel) study by Harlow on macaques showed how social deprivation resulted in behavioural issues.

In other words, the brain requires stimulation to develop. This  not really new and on the neurological levels we also know that neural pathways and connections are formed because they are used (and trimmed when not). So the brain does need a sufficiently stimulating environment to fully blossom. And yes, that can be a problem in developed countries, if, say children do not interact enough with other folks, for example. And I am also a bit curious what effects the use of electronics, such as tablets and cell phones have in childhood. They are certainly stimulating in some ways but are also potentially limiting in others.

[iNow]

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

I am also a bit curious what effects the use of electronics, such as tablets and cell phones have in childhood.

Deficits in social skills and coping strategies plus spikes in anxiety and depression… IMO

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Deficits in social skills and coping strategies plus spikes in anxiety and depression… IMO

Looking at my students. Hrrmm.

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Sensei said:

*sigh* ..reread the title of the thread.. "biology of genius".. so it implies that the discussion here is about biological intelligence, not artificial intelligence..

Another point well missed.

A genius is an outlier, it takes a combination of unusual circumstances for a genius to have any meaning at all, and even then some of them can't be trusted to cross the road safely.