Talk:Effect of health on intelligence

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Effect of health on intelligence, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Mercury in fish and confusion

Another study found that pregnant women who consumed 340 grams of low-mercury containing fish with fatty acids per week have benefits that outweigh the risks for mercury poisoning.

Can't they just use substitutes for example omega 3-rich Linseed oil(flax oil)? Then Omega 3 is provided with no mercury exposure.I think this should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.81.69 (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!

This is a great well written, sourced article. It ought to be linked to more pages. I'm going to work on doing that now. futurebird 19:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur.

This article requires authentication or verification by an expert.

This tag should be removed. The article has many solid sources. futurebird 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Futurebird's request on my talk page: To me, the article is, at a first glance, a collection of statements drawn from a variety of sources. It could be argued, that this provides a certain amount of credibility. However, I really prefer to have the article reviewed by a medical expert, since I (and probably no other reader) can easily verify and validate the sources. Let me remind you that scientific articles are also subjected to peer scrutiny. Kai A. Simon 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. How do we find an 'expert' ? (I was also wondering if you had any objections to these findings... recomendadtions for things that need to be better sourced, etc.)futurebird 21:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where to find an expert? Good question! I know a whole bunch of MDs, but I don't know, whether they are prepared to review the article. However, I can ask. I do not object the findins as such, since I cannot really assess them. Several of the statements appear to be totally reasonable. But, as I stated, I prefer a sound scientific review. Maybe this is a professional disease coming from working in a pharmaceutical company. :-)

I have expert knowledge regarding biomedicne. Furthermore, there is no Wikipedia policy requiring that a tag should remain indefinitely until a self-proclaimed expert may or may not look at it. If there are some concrete problems, please state them here.Ultramarine 23:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

breastfeeding

is it spelled breast feeding, breastfeeding, or breast-feeding? the article is breastfeeding. --WD RIK NEW 01:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

slight clarification

What does "Dutch conscripts" mean? In context, I thought at first it must mean Dutch civilians conscripted by the Nazis during the famine. "Draftees" or some other wording is needed to indicate that these intelligence measures pertain to those who were infants or prenatal individuals during the year 1944 but measured when they were conscripted for military service--unless I've guessed wrong about the actual intended meaning. P0M 21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Syntactic/Grammatical Error

"The article notes that children are more vulnerable and argues that new, precautionary approaches that recognise the unique vulnerability of the developing brain are needed for testing and control of chemicals in order to avoid the previous substantial * before starting restrictions on usage."

I believe that there should at least be a couple of words at * (such as the words 'cognitive losses'). I am uncertain that this alteration would make the sentence read better (ie: in context, the sentence *would* make sense, in a sense, though it could still do with more work!

ConcernedScientist 18:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some rewording is recommended in the "Toxins/Alcohol and drugs" subsection, namely the following sentence:

But another study instead looking at the relationship between environmental tobacco smoke exposure, measured with a blood biomarker, and cognitive abilities among U.S. children and adolescents 6–16 years of age, found an inverse association between exposure and cognitive deficits among children even at extremely low levels of exposure.

suggests inverse association between tobacco smoke exposure and cognitive deficits, but the source paper yields instead:

[...] there was a significant inverse relationship between serum cotinine and scores on reading [...], math [...], and block design [...] but not digit span [...].

which strongly suggests inverse association between tobacco smoke exposure and cognitive ability.

In the current state the casual reader could be easily misled, in my opinion.

80.240.162.190 (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Lova Falk talk 07:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments On the Stress Section

The following modifications might be well-placed in order to preserve article objectivity : “A group of largely African American urban first-grade children and their caregivers were evaluated using self-report, interview, and standardized tests, including IQ tests.”, should be converted to : As a example, a group of largely African American urban first-grade children and their caregivers were evaluated using self-report, interview, and standardized tests, including IQ tests.”

There are other possible improvements that could be made within this section. Making a point of the physiological action of the stress-hormone cortisone (I believe that this is the correct term) would provide a scientific basis/rationale for how IQ and intelligence (which are often given as having some sort of underlying physiological basis) can affect intelligence scores and the like. Of course, the brain in a complex entity, so making a point concerning how there may be a complex interaction between the physiological mechanisms of stress and other emotional stimuli would be valid.

I might add that I predict that others will criticise this section for making two specific mentions of one particular ethnic group over another. This might be interpreted as contravening article objectivity (even though they are only examples). Perhaps it would be best to focus on mixed group studies, as it done in relation to reference 59 (which occurs `at' the phrase “and lower IQ in children of all races.”).

ConcernedScientist 18:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible split

"Health" is an overly broad and vague concept. Perhaps this article should be split into "Nutritional Correlates of Intelligence", "Drug Use Correlates of Intelligence", "Disease Correlates of Intelligence" and "Lifestyle Correlates of Intelligence". Each of those articles could be quite large, assuming Naturalism. Jwray (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental factors

Check this site for lots of environmental factors with evidence links: http://iqandenvironment.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.150.215 (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what do you think about merging this article with some of the other articles about IQ on Wikipedia? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same question as before. Who is watching this article, and how does it fit with other articles on related topics? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See no article it could be merged with or why it should be done.Miradre (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving article to new name

See discussion here: [1].

So in order to differentiate it from "Cognitive epidemiology" this article needs a new name. One suggestion is "Impact of health on intelligence.".Miradre (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative is "Health factors affecting intelligence".Miradre (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Impact of health on intelligence" was my proposal, and I stand by that. The other proposal is not good, because, quoting from WP:NAME: "Use nouns: Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech. -- Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Democracy, Integration)"--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. I do not see this as a controversial move but will add a template and wait some time for more possible views.Miradre (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved.Miradre (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I missed this entirely.

I'm not sure the rationale of this name page can be that a page exists on Cognitive Epidemiology. CE studies often consider both directions, and reciprocity. They are also much broader than just IQ, and often consider biology->Health + biology->IQ (with no causal links from health to iq) and other models.

Seems much more helpful to have the link to CE, but keep this page on the specific sub-topic of how and why health and IQ might be linked. Alternatively have a page for H->IQ, another for IQ->H, and another for IQ<->H... seems unnecessary given how little is known.

Thoughts? t

Ian Deary who is the leading researcher in cognitive epidemiology has always defined the field as one that investigates the predictive validity of IQ for health outcomes, trying to find causal links. CE may also consider other sources and directions of influence, but that's only to rule out confounding factors so as to find what the real role of intelligence is.

Even before the recent changes, this article had very little material on IQ as a predictor of health outcomes, so the changes did not really alter the scope of this article. Rather, the article name now matches the content better than before.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Impact of health on intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070129051938/http://www.unu.edu:80/unupress/food2/UID03E/uid03e00.htm to http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID03E/uid03e00.htm#Contents

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Impact of health on intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/685dQ78Wr?url=http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html to http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]