Talk:Health and intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B	This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents 1 WOW! 2 This article requires authentication or verification by an expert. 3 breastfeeding 4 slight clarification 5 A Syntactic/Grammatical Error 6 Comments On the Stress Section 7 Possible split 8 Environmental factors

[edit] 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)

I concur.

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] breastfeeding

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)