Since the reported rise in IQ points was "the big news nobody expected to see", what exactly is the expected payoff driving these experiments?
Hello Buddy. From what I remember there have been many, almost totally unsuccessful, attempts to produce artificial synaesthesates from everything from association to hypnosis. This is the first to succeed. I don't remember what the specific goal of what that study was. It was conducted by the Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science at the University of Essex, where Anil works. Link below:
_http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sackler/
Anil's group in particular studies Synaesthesia. I think the point was to see if it could be induced by training, which it was. How long it lasts I don't know; I emailed him recently, hopefully he'll respond and let me know how things have progressed.
There is considerable debate among researchers as to what IQ really measures and how important it is for life. As regards the traditional 4th Way Work, having a higher IQ could be a help or hindrance. IMO average IQ should be good enough for growth.
There is considerable debate. Nonetheless IQ is strongly linked to everything from future income to crime rates to high/low time preferences. It seems to me a very important factor.
As to whether high IQ is a help or a hindrance, I totally agree: It COULD be a hindrance, but almost always it's a help. Whereas IQ is a proxy for mental ability, we can use general fitness to be a proxy for physical ability. We could say that fitness could be a hindrance, but no one would say it would be better to be unfit than fit, even from the standpoint of the work. The Work concerns itself with Objectivity, and there are Objective Goods for human beings like healthy mental and physical functioning.
Likewise increased IQ, if only as a proxy measuring more specific traits (like motivation or Grit), probably has a lot of value.
The financial gain point is a good one; It could be a confounding factor. But (I think) all subjects were adults, and adult IQ scores tend to be fairly stable over time. For example, various 'brain training' apps and programs seem to create few or no gains IQ wise despite hours of training.
I'm very curious about the data in the article. Did the meta-analysis include only adult participants or children as well, children being notoriously variable in score? Has anyone here read that study and the IQ literature, like the Bell Curve, and other related material? I've read into parts of the literature, but not as much as I'd like.
How important is IQ really? Did the participants in this experiment experience any significant life improvement from this boost? Were they able to accomplish anything they weren't able to accomplish previously with an IQ that was 12 points lower?
These are the million dollar questions. From all the correlations with General Life Success and IQ, it seems important. Obviously it's not sufficient for success in aim alone, as grit/motivation plays a huge part.
We could look at this backwards; Do we have record of astounding scientific breakthroughs or amazing works of art, literature, or otherwise, by people of average IQ, or lesser IQ? Genius biographies are plentiful and I don't think that's a coincidence.
Regardless I'm inquiring into all your questions Odyssey. Maybe the IQ gains don't last, or maybe the gains and Synaesthesia together have a detrimental, rather than positive, effect on subjects lives. I don't know. I suspect they don't either yet, but its worth asking about.
PS. My assumption here, so that they are crystal clear, are based on my own research, discussions, and experiences with IQ as a subject. My assumption is, as described above, is that IQ is a proxy for having a better functioning mental engine, which is why I think this study was worth my interest.