Information

Is High IQ equivalently a disorder like Low IQ

Is High IQ equivalently a disorder like Low IQ

I was reading on the increased likelihood of mental disorders with high IQ. Bad News for the Highly Intelligent. I'm not sure I buy into the arguments completely but it does make me think that High IQ could be a disorder in itself. Assuming an average IQ is the optimum operating condition for a healthy brain, any significant deviation from that would mean the brain is operating outside its "designed" parameters. I imagine it's similar to a cpu running at an increased clock speed. It will be beneficial for in the short term for the user but wear and tear will take its toll eventually.

Furthermore, I would think that brains working at either extremes low and high IQ would have similar predispositions toward mental illness and would differ only in the types of disorders.

My question is, in practice how does High IQ come into play when treating mental illness and diagnosis? Some medication has a negative impact on cognition, does that also help in patients with High IQ?


Contents

There are various types of intelligence. As society became more complex, intellectual competences became more sophisticated. This competence is social intelligence and can be defined as the intelligence that lies behind group interactions and behaviours.

This type of intelligence is closely related to cognition and emotional intelligence, and can also be seen as a first level in developing systems intelligence.

Research psychologists studying social cognition and social neuroscience have discovered many principles which human social intelligence operates. In early work on this topic, psychologists Nancy Cantor and John Kihlstrom outlined the kinds of concepts people use to make sense of their social relations (e.g., “What situation am I in and what kind of person is this who is talking to me?”), and the rules they use to draw inferences (“What did he mean by that?”) and plan actions (“What am I going to do about it?”)

In 2005, business writer Karl Albrecht proposed a five-part model of social intelligence in his book Social Intelligence: the New Science of Success, presented with the acronym "S.P.A.C.E." - 1) Situational awareness, 2) Presence, 3) Authenticity, 4) Clarity, and 5) Empathy.

More recently, popular science writer Daniel Goleman has drawn on social neuroscience research to propose that social intelligence is made up of social awareness (including empathy, attunement, empathic accuracy, and social cognition) and social facility (including synchrony, self-presentation, influence, and concern). ΐ]

Psychotherapy often involves helping people to modify their patterns of social intelligence, particularly those that cause them problems in their interpersonal relations. Some efforts are also underway to use computer-based interventions to help people develop their own social intelligence. Paul Ekman, for example, has created the MicroExpression Training Tool, to allow people to practice identifying the brief emotional expressions that flit across people’s faces. The website MindHabits.com offers a research-based software program with which people learn to modify their mind habits, focusing attention on positive social feedback and inhibiting attention to the social threats and rejections that can cause stress. Other interventions, for example to help autistic individuals develop social perception and interaction skills, are also in development.

Educational researcher Raymond H. Hartjen asserts that expanded opportunities for social interaction enhances intelligence. Traditional classrooms do not permit the interaction of complex social behavior. Instead children in traditional settings are treated as learners who must be infused with more and more complex forms of information. Few educational leaders he adduces have taken this position as a starting point to develop a school environment where social interaction could flourish. If we follow this line of thinking then children must have an opportunity for continuous every day interpersonal experiences in order to develop a keen well developed 'inter-personal psychology'. As schools are structured today very few of these skills, critical for survival in the real world, are allowed to develop. Because we so limit the development of the skills of "natural psychologist" in traditional schools our students as graduates, enter the job market handicapped to the point of being incapable of surviving on their own. In contrast those students that have had an ability to develop their skills as a "natural psychologist" in multiage classrooms and at democratic settings rise head and shoulders over their less socially skilled peers. They have a good sense of self, know what they want out of life and have the skills necessary to begin their quest. Α]


As an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) researcher, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine, the author of Attention Deficit Disorder: The Unfocused Mind in Children and Adults, and as a psychologist helping patients manage their symptoms and reclaim their lives, I have seen ADHD from all sides.

My research into the brain has posited a new model for ADHD. The old model thinks of ADHD as a behavioral disorder. Many adults and children living with ADHD never have had significant behavior problems they have difficulty focusing their attention on necessary tasks and using working memory effectively, making ADHD a cognitive disorder, a developmental impairment of executive functions (EFs) — the self-management system of the brain.

My theory of executive function impairment, or executive function disorder (EFD) has been slow to filter down to family doctors who are making diagnoses and prescribing medication. Too many doctors still think about ADHD in the old way — as a behavior problem accompanied by difficulty in paying attention. They don’t understand that “executive function” is really a broad umbrella. When patients hear the symptoms associated with EFD — finding it hard to get organized or to start tasks, to sustain effort to finish tasks, to hold off instead of jumping impulsively into things, to remember what was just read or heard, to manage emotions — they’ll say, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s me.” A lot of executive function impairment goes beyond the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) criteria for ADHD.

We need to better understand the individual variants of ADHD in adults. Some adults have big problems in school, but once they get out of school, they are able to specialize in something that they’re good at, or take a job where an assistant helps them manage the day-to-day minutia, and they do fine. Other adults manage through school, but they don’t do well at jobs or managing a household. We’re beginning to identify the domains of impairment and to recognize that these difficulties with executive functions not only affect people with academic tasks but also in their ability to maintain social relationships and to manage emotions.

The following six clusters of executive functions tend to be impaired in individuals with ADHD:

Activation: organizing tasks and materials, estimating time, getting started.
Focus: focusing, sustaining focus, and shifting focus between tasks.
Effort: regulating alertness, sustaining effort and processing speed.
Emotion: managing frustration and modulating emotions.
Memory: using working memory and accessing recall.
Action: monitoring/ regulating actions.


The Surprising Quality Of High IQ Brains

People with bigger heads are, on average, more intelligent, new research confirms.

Bigger heads contain bigger brains, which have more neurons (brain cells), which make people smarter.

But wait, that is not the end of the story.

The latest neuroscience research suggests there’s a twist.

When you ‘listen’ electrically to the brain running, the more intelligent ones make less ‘noise’.

It’s like a larger, more powerful engine somehow running quieter.

It turns out that on top of having larger brains, more intelligent people have fewer connections between neurons in the cerebral cortex, research finds.

The reason is that the brains of intelligent people are more efficient — this is known to psychologists as the ‘neural efficiency hypothesis of intelligence’.

The conclusion comes from a neuroimaging study that looked at the brain’s microstructure.

Analysis of the brains of 259 people measured the number of dendrites in their brains.

Dendrites are extensions of brain cells that reach out towards other brain cells, enabling them to communicate with each other.

IQ tests showed that people with fewer dendrites were more intelligent.

It is more than just size that matters, it is how efficiently your brain cells communicate.

With fewer dendritic connections there is less ‘noise’ in the brain and the signal is purer.

Fewer dendrites also consume less energy — hence, a more efficient brain.

Here is the author’s schematic depiction (from Genç et al., 2018):

Dr Erhan Genç, who led the study, said:

“The assumption has been that larger brains contain more neurons and, consequently, possess more computational power.

However, other studies had shown that — despite their comparatively high number of neurons — the brains of intelligent people demonstrated less neuronal activity during an IQ test than the brains of less intelligent individuals.

Intelligent brains possess lean, yet efficient neuronal connections.

Thus, they boast high mental performance at low neuronal activity.”

The study was published in the journal Nature Communications (Genç et al., 2018).


5 There Is No Raging Autism Epidemic

The entire premise of the anti-vaccine nutjobs is that all of a sudden lots of kids have autism, and there has to be a reason, goddamnit! "If it's not the vaccine thing, then is it, what, something in the water? The air? High fructose corn syrup? Video games? The gays?"

Laugh at them all you want, but the fact that autism is suddenly everywhere is undeniable -- your parents and grandparents can tell you that they didn't go to school with a single autistic kid, while these days everyone has at least one friend on the spectrum, along with 50 percent of TV show detectives. It's no wonder sites throw around phrasing like "Autism: The Hidden Epidemic?" and "What if Autism Were Contagious?"

Not so fast, cowboy. What might look like an epidemic at first glance is actually people giving a name to something that's always existed. Researchers don't think that autism itself is on the rise they think parents and doctors are smarter about what it looks like. Your grandma had autistic kids in her neighborhood, but she went to school in an era when they dismissed them as the victims of witch curses.

We're barely exaggerating -- autism didn't even get a name until 1943, and for 20 years after that, the condition was interchanged with schizophrenia and totally blamed on bad parenting. As in, "Your child is 4 years old and hasn't learned to talk? You didn't hold him enough when he was a baby. Boom. Done. NEXT! Kid showing inappropriate reactions to social cues? Well, you clearly didn't spank him enough!"

It wasn't until 1980 that the main guide for mental illnesses, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published the six-point criteria for diagnosing the condition (and none of them were about how crappy your mother was). Finally, kids who once would have been labeled mentally disabled despite high intelligence now had another possible diagnosis. We didn't even start throwing the phrase "autism spectrum" around until the mid-'90s -- meaning doctors on the cutting edge of psychiatry were just waking up to the fact that there's actually a wide range of symptoms of autism at around the same time kids were walking around with one overall strap hanging down and singing Color Me Badd.


Archimedes had his bathtub, Newton had his apple, autism doctors had 90210.

So, yeah, claiming that autism is new is like saying germs didn't exist until we invented the microscope.

Related: Simply Staggering Facts About The Opioid Epidemic


Having a High IQ May Lead to Increased Risk of Mental Illness

There is a plethora of misconceptions and myths when it comes to the topic of mental illness. For example, some people believe that disorders like depression and anxiety are dramatic diagnoses for difficult feelings like sadness or mere nerves. But this is certainly not the case—these conditions and those of the like are real and they’re harmful to those who suffer with them. Another common myth is that people with mental illness are less intelligent but in reality, they’re just as smart as those of us who aren’t diagnosed with a mental disorder.

In fact, they might even be smarter. A new study “High intelligence: A risk factor for psychological and physiological overexcitabilities” published in Intelligence says that extremely intelligent individuals have a much greater risk of suffering from a range of psychological and physiological disorders.

The research team first came up with a “hyper brain/hyper body theory of integration,” which suggests that people with higher cognitive ability react with greater emotional and behavioral response to their environments. And because of their increased awareness, individuals with a high IQ then typically exhibit a hyperreactive central nervous system. For example, “a minor insult such as a clothing tag or an unnatural sound may trigger a low level, chronic stress response which then activates a hyper body response,” Dr. Nicole Tetreault, co-author of the study, explained to NeuroscienceNews.

Then it was time to put their theory to the test. The team surveyed 3,715 members of American Mensa, Ltd., a group of people that share the trait of high intelligence. Each individual reported their experiences with both diagnosed and suspected mental illnesses—such as mood and anxiety disorders (like ADHD)—as well as physiological diseases, like food allergies and asthma. The researchers then took this data and compared it with the statistical national average for each illness.

The results were just as the team expected and in support of their model: those in the Mensa population (or those with exceptional IQs) had significantly higher rates of the varying disorders. For example, over 10% of the US population is diagnosed with some form of anxiety, compared with 20% of Mensans.

While having a higher IQ is generally flaunted and envied, this study shows that there is a big downside, as these individuals possess “unique intensities and overexcitabilities which can be at once both remarkable and disabling on many levels,” lead author of the study Ruth Karpinski explained to NeuroscienceNews. “Our findings are relevant because a significant portion of these individuals are suffering on a daily basis as a result of their unique emotional and physical overexcitabilities. It is important for the scientific community to examine high IQ as being front and center within the system of mechanisms that may be at play in these dysregulations,” she said.

Moving forward, the team hopes that their findings may lead future studies to treat high intelligence as “a potential genetic piece of a psychoneuroimmunological puzzle.” But for now, these findings serve as the perfect debunking means to the common myth that mentally ill individuals aren’t intelligent. They are intelligent—highly intelligent.

Karpinskik, R. I., Kinase Kolb, A. M., Et al. (2017, October 8). High intelligence: A risk factor for psychological and physiological overexcitabilities. Intelligence. Retrieved on October 12, 2017 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616303324

Pitzer College (2017, October 11). Hyper Brain, Hyper Body: The Trouble With High IQ. NeuroscienceNews. Retrieved October 12, 2017 from http://neurosciencenews.com/iq-hyper-brain-body-7720/


Is High IQ equivalently a disorder like Low IQ - Psychology

Higher intelligence has many advantages. Higher IQ is associated with better grades, better jobs, higher pay, and even longer life. However, intelligence has drawbacks too. For example, studies have found that higher IQ is associated with more drug use and earlier drug use. Studies have also found that higher IQ is associated with more mental illness, including depression , anxiety , and bipolar disorder.

One large study led by Ruth Karpinski of Pitzer College surveyed more than 3700 members of Mensa, a society whose members must have an IQ in the top two percent, which is typically about 132 or higher. The team asked about many factors, including mental health. They discovered that mood disorders and anxiety disorders were extremely common among Mensa members. Among the general population, about 10 percent of people have mood disorders and about 10 percent of people have some anxiety disorder, with some degree of overlap between the two. Among Mensa members, those percentages were much higher. About 20 percent reported having been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and nearly 27 percent had been diagnosed with a mood disorder such as major depression or bipolar disorder . [See ‘High intelligence: A risk factor for psychological and physiological overexcitabilities‘ study.]

Karpinski and her team suspect the reason for this high rate of mental illness among Mensa members has to do with psychological overexcitability. Psychological overexcitability includes a greater tendency to ruminate and worry, both of which are common features of mood and anxiety disorders. For example, a very intelligent person may obsessively overanalyze a critical comment from her boss, trying to anticipate the possible consequences it might foretell. While this is an asset when used to plan complex projects or acquire subject matter expertise, when the same tendency is turned toward worry and rumination, the psychological effects can be disastrous. The team also found that Mensa members are physically overexcitable, as indicated by a very high rate of allergies, and this physical overexcitability may play a role in aggravating worry and rumination.

There may, in fact, be many different explanations for this phenomenon in addition to the overexcitability hypothesis, and they may all be relevant to some degree. One possibility is that the genes associated with intelligence also make you more prone to mental illness, but intelligence doesn’t directly increase your risk of mental illness. Another possibility is that people with higher IQs are often more socially isolated, which leads to more anxiety and depression. For example, people with autism spectrum disorders and above-average IQ are at much higher risk for depression. That may also happen to a lesser extent with intelligent people not on the spectrum.

Another possibility is that more intelligent people are more likely to be diagnosed than people of average or below-average intelligence. People who are educated, health-conscious, and generally well-informed are more likely to seek help for mental illness and less likely to be dissuaded by perceived stigma. In other words, part of that higher rate might simply reflect more awareness of mental health and greater access to mental health care.

Origins Behavioral Healthcare is a well-known care provider offering a range of treatment programs targeting the recovery from substance abuse, mental health issues, and beyond. Our primary mission is to provide a clear path to a life of healing and restoration. We offer renowned clinical care for addiction and have the compassion and professional expertise to guide you toward lasting sobriety.

For information on our programs,
call us today: 844-843-8935.


Introduction

Low intelligence is a well-known risk factor for criminal behavior, violence and conduct problems (e.g., Ellis and Walsh, 2003, Hirschi and Hindelang, 1977, Ward and Tittle, 1994, West and Farrington, 1973, Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985). Much less however, is known about a potential protective function of above-average intelligence against other risk factors. A few older studies suggest that good intelligence may buffer family and other social risks (Kandel et al., 1988, Lösel and Bliesener, 1994, Stattin et al., 1997, Werner and Smith, 1982). Other research found a protective function only for specific subgroups or measurements (e.g., McCord and Ensminger, 1997, Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 1993).

Although there are different definitions, dimensional concepts and results on the underlying cognitive components of intelligence (e.g., Gardner, 1999, Sternberg, 2000), a protective function against criminality is theoretically plausible. For example, intellectual ability can partly compensate for background disadvantage in educational and occupational attainment (Damian, Su, Shanahan, Trautwein, & Roberts, 2015), reduce biases in aggression-prone social information processing (Crick & Dodge, 1994), and indicate executive functions that are relevant for planning and self-control (Raine, 2013). Nevertheless, criminological research on the protective effects of intelligence is still scarce. This is surprising as protective effects of personal and social resources currently attract much interest in the academic community and are certainly relevant for prevention and intervention efforts.

Whereas research on risk factors has a long tradition in studies of antisocial behavior, there has been increased interest in recent years in factors that contribute to desirable behavioral outcomes. Various disciplines have driven this change of perspective, including research on resilience (Rutter, 2012), positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), desistance from crime (Kazemian & Farrington, 2015), developmental prevention (Farrington & Welsh, 2007) and offender rehabilitation (Lösel, 2012). Focusing on protective factors and on building resilience is viewed as a more positive approach, and more attractive to communities, than reducing risk factors, which emphasizes deficits and problems (Pollard, Hawkins, & Arthur, 1999).

Although there is much interest in desirable behavioral outcomes, well-replicated results on specific protective factors are still rare. This is partially because of the more complicated conceptual and methodological issues in protective factor research than in traditional risk factor research (Lösel and Farrington, 2012, Ttofi, Bowes, et al., 2014). A criminological risk factor is defined as a variable that predicts a high probability of offending (for issues of causality see Kraemer, Lowe, & Kupfer, 2005). Risk factors are often dichotomized. This makes it easy to study interaction effects, to identify persons with multiple risk factors, to specify how outcomes vary with the number of risk factors, and to communicate results to policy-makers and practitioners as well as to researchers (Farrington & Loeber, 2000). There are also continuous analyses, and the order of importance of risk factors is mostly similar in dichotomous and continuous approaches.

In contrast to the risk concept, the term “protective factor” has been used inconsistently and operationalized in different ways. Some researchers have defined a protective factor as a variable that predicts a low probability of offending, or as the “mirror image” of a risk factor (see Loeber, Farrington, Stouthamer-Loeber, & White, 2008), while other researchers have defined a protective factor as a variable that interacts with a risk factor to nullify its effect (e.g., Rutter, 1987), or as a variable that predicts a low probability of offending among a group at risk (e.g., Werner & Smith, 1982). There are also other concepts of protective factors and mechanisms that may be found in other literatures (e.g., Luthar et al., 2006, Masten and Cicchetti, 2010).

As mentioned, a protective factor is a variable that interacts with a risk factor to nullify its effect (Lösel and Farrington, 2012, Rutter, 1987), or alternatively a variable that predicts a low probability of offending among a group at risk. We will term the former “an interactive protective factor” (or a “buffering protective factor”) and the latter “a risk-based protective factor”. An interactive protective factor is defined as follows: When the protective factor is present, the probability of offending does not increase in the presence of the risk factor when the protective factor is absent, the probability of offending does increase in the presence of the risk factor. An alternative way of interpreting this interaction effect is as follows: When a risk factor is present, the probability of offending decreases in the presence of a protective factor when a risk factor is absent, the probability of offending does not decrease in the presence of a protective factor.

For example, in the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, Farrington and Ttofi (2011) investigated interaction effects among variables measured at age 8-10 in predicting convictions between ages 10 and 50. Among boys living in poor housing, 33% of those receiving good child-rearing were convicted, compared with 66% of those receiving poor child-rearing. Among boys living in good housing, 32% of those receiving good child-rearing were convicted, compared with 30% of those receiving poor child-rearing. Therefore, good child-rearing was a protective factor that nullified the risk factor of poor housing, or conversely (but perhaps less plausibly) good housing was a protective factor that nullified the risk factor of poor child-rearing. In the results section, we provide a graphic presentation of the methodological design for investigating both interactive protective and risk-based protective factors.

Inspired by Sameroff, Bartko, Baldwin, and Seifer (1998), Loeber et al. (2008) proposed that a variable that predicted a low probability of offending should be termed a “promotive factor” (what was later defined as a “direct protective or promotive” factor see Hall et al., 2012). It might be argued that a promotive factor is just “the other end of the scale” to a risk factor, and therefore that calling a variable either a promotive factor or a risk factor is redundant and even misleading. However, this is not necessarily true, because it depends on whether the variable is linearly or nonlinearly related to offending. Loeber et al. (2008) trichotomized variables into the “worst” quarter (e.g., low intelligence), the middle half, and the “best” quarter (e.g., high intelligence). They studied risk factors by comparing the probability of offending in the worst quarter versus the middle half, and they studied promotive factors by comparing the probability of offending in the middle half versus the best quarter. They used the odds ratio (OR) as the main measure of strength of effect.

If a predictor is linearly related to delinquency, so that the percent delinquent is low in the best quarter and high in the worst quarter, that variable could be regarded as both a risk factor and a promotive factor. However, if the percent delinquent is high in the worst quarter but not low in the best quarter, that variable could be regarded only as a risk factor. Conversely, if the percent delinquent is low in the best quarter but not high in the worst quarter, that variable could be regarded only as a promotive factor. Most studies of the predictors of delinquency label them as “risk factors” but researchers should distinguish these three types of relationships. Other ways of testing linearity are available (Cox & Wermuth, 1994).

Loeber et al. (2008) systematically investigated risk and promotive factors in the Pittsburgh Youth Study. For example, in predicting violence at age 20-25 from variables measured at age 13-16, the percent violent was 8% for boys with high achievement, 21% for boys with medium achievement, and 21% for boys with low achievement. It was, therefore, concluded that school achievement was a promotive factor but not a risk factor.

Based on these conceptual clarifications, the present article assembles current evidence of a protective effect of intelligence against criminal, delinquent, violent, and other forms of antisocial behavior. Studies will be grouped together based on whether they investigate intelligence as an interactive protective factor, or a risk-based protective factor or a promotive factor. We systematically searched the relevant literature and meta-analyzed data from prospective longitudinal studies. We chose longitudinal studies because a protective factor should operate before or at the same time as a risk factor, and both should, ideally, occur before the outcome. Since intelligence is a complex construct and we had to work with the concepts that have been used in the primary studies, we took a pragmatic approach. Our working definition follows the famous statement of Boring (1923) that intelligence is what the tests of intelligence measure (because there is a common factor in many abilities). Major prospective longitudinal studies measure IQ based on what could be described as ‘first generation’ intelligence tests (Naglieri, 2015) and our meta-analytic findings are limited by this fact. We concentrate on traditional cognitive test measures of general intelligence. Because of a lack of differentiated primary studies, we will not investigate sub-factors such as fluid and crystallized intelligence, or reasoning, perception, fluency, or (working) memory. We will concentrate on direct test measures of intelligence and exclude proxy variables such as school achievement.


Stuttering: Myth vs. Fact

Stuttering specialist Catherine Montgomery had a blind patient who stuttered. Someone once asked him which was more difficult to deal with in life &mdash blindness or stuttering.

&ldquoThe man thought for a moment,&rdquo Montgomery recalls. &ldquoThen he replied, &lsquoStuttering &mdash because unlike my blindness, people don&rsquot understand that stuttering is beyond my control.&rsquo&rdquo

&ldquoInteresting, isn&rsquot it?&rdquo she says. &ldquoYou&rsquod never think of saying to a blind person, &lsquoSlow down and you&rsquoll be able see,&rsquo or &lsquoIf you just tried a little harder you could see.&rsquo But most of us think if a stutterer just relaxed and tried a little harder, he could speak fluently. That&rsquos not the case,&rdquo says Montgomery, M.S., CCC-SLP, executive director and founder of The American Institute for Stuttering in New York City, N.Y.

Stuttering is a chronic dysfluency or break in fluent speech. It&rsquos characterized by sound, syllable, word or phrase repetitions hesitations, fillers (um, ah) and revisions in word choices. It can also include unnatural stretching out of sounds and blocks in which a sound gets stuck and just won&rsquot come out. Stuttering may be accompanied by muscle tension, facial tics and grimaces.

No one really knows for sure exactly what causes it, but researchers believe there&rsquos a neurological basis with a strong genetic component. Currently, the medical community categorizes stuttering as a psychiatric disorder &mdash just like they do schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

&ldquoThere are probably multiple factors that can cause stuttering,&rdquo says Gerald Maguire, M.D., assistant clinical professor and director of residency training in the department of psychiatry at the University of California at Irvine. &ldquoThere is a strong genetic component &mdash stuttering does run in families. But it may be a combination of genetics, something neurological and something environmental. Since about 99 percent of all stutterers develop the disorder in childhood &mdash usually before age 9 or 10 &mdash it indicates that something occurs in the developing brain.&rdquo

&ldquoThe idea that stuttering is a brain disorder in the same category as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder is very controversial,&rdquo says Maguire, a stutterer. In fact, there has been a push to recategorize stuttering as something other than psychiatric. &ldquoSome feel it attaches a stigma to a disorder that&rsquos already very misunderstood by most,&rdquo Maguire said.

Among the things researchers do know about stuttering is that it&rsquos not caused by emotional or psychological problems. It&rsquos not a sign of low intelligence. The average stutterer&rsquos IQ is 14 points higher than the national average. And it&rsquos not a nervous disorder or a condition caused by stress. &ldquoIf stress caused stuttering, we&rsquod all be stutterers,&rdquo says Montgomery. Stuttering can, however, be made worse by anxiety or stress. And anxiety and stress can be a product of stuttering.

Two Layers to Stuttering

Stuttering really has two layers, says Montgomery.

&ldquoThere&rsquos the neurological-genetic-environmental layer and then there&rsquos the part that goes on inside your head layer, the conditioned or learned response,&rdquo Montgomery said. &ldquoFor example, on the first day of preschool, Mommy takes little Michael by the hand to meet his teacher. Smiling, the teacher asks Michael, &lsquoWhat&rsquos your name?&rsquo And even though he&rsquos never stuttered before, he says, &lsquoM-M-Michael.&rsquo And he sees a response &mdash maybe the teacher stops smiling for a minute or Mommy tightens her grip on his hand. Consciously or unconsciously, he may think, &lsquoI have trouble saying my name.&rsquo

&ldquoSo the next time someone asks his name, he has a memory flash of that first time he had trouble saying his name, which sets up a fight or flight response and he stutters over his name,&rdquo says Montgomery.

The pattern can continue without intervention. Studies show by age 7 children begin to develop attitudes and feelings about their speech difficulties, and by age 12 speech patterns are set &mdash which makes it difficult to overcome stuttering.

&ldquoLots of kids go through stuttering as a period in their development &mdash and that&rsquos OK for most kids,&rdquo says Scott Yaruss, Ph.D., an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh, clinical research consultant at Children&rsquos Hospital of Pittsburgh and co-director of the Stuttering Center of Western Pennsylvania.

In fact, researchers say one in four American preschoolers stutter at some point. Only one in 30 in older children, however, actually develop real stuttering problems, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

&ldquoMost get better &mdash but some get worse,&rdquo Yaruss adds. &ldquoThe problem is, at this time it&rsquos difficult to tell who is stuttering normally in their development and who is at risk for problems. For years, the advice was to do nothing. Ignore it and it&rsquoll probably go away. That&rsquos not true anymore. Today, the best advice is to have your child evaluated by a speech language pathologist who specializes in stuttering.&rdquo

Speech language pathologists who are certified by the American Speech-Hearing-Language Association (that&rsquos the equivalent of the American Medical Association for speech pathologists) have the letters CCC-SLP after their name. They mean &ldquoCertificate of Clinical Competence &mdash Speech Language Pathologist.&rdquo

Most experts agree your child should be evaluated if he begins to demonstrate a physical awareness of his stuttering. Does he become frustrated, distressed or anxious? Does she become tense or tighten her muscles when she has trouble getting the words out?

The second signal is family history. &ldquoNot every child of a stutterer will become a stutterer,&rdquo says Yaruss. &ldquoBut since stuttering runs in families, there&rsquos no reason to wait.&rdquo

Children don&rsquot learn to stutter from a parent, researchers say. But they may learn the frustration that comes with stuttering from the parent.

Treatment usually varies according to the age of the stutterer, says Yaruss. And different therapies work for different children. A speech language pathologist who specializes in stuttering can match your child with the right therapy.

To treat a very young child, the speech pathologist usually works with the family to help stack the deck in the child&rsquos favor to be as fluent as possible. This may include encouraging parents to create a calm setting for conversation, ensuring that only one person talks at a time and making sure the child doesn&rsquot feel rushed to speak. &ldquoAs the child approaches age 7, we begin to work more with the child and less with the family,&rdquo he says. &ldquoWe encourage the child to speak more slowly and help shape the child&rsquos speech with specific therapies.&rdquo

In adults, the approach may include a three-pronged approach of cognitive-behavioral therapy (to help weaken the connection between stuttering and your reaction to it, and to help change your thinking patterns about what makes you feel badly about stuttering), speech therapy and medication.

At UC Irvine, Maguire is currently conducting clinical trials in adults on a new generation of drugs used to treat schizophrenia and Tourette&rsquos Syndrome. These drugs &mdash risperidone (Risperdal) and olanzapine (Zyprexa) &mdash are dopamine blockers. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter chemical that sends messages from one cell to the next.

Research indicates that stutterers may have dopamine levels that are too high in one area of the brain. The drugs are designed to block the impulses that encourage stuttering. Maguire, who is also a participant in the trials, says the outcomes have been very positive.

But for now, Maguire says, the best bet in beating stuttering is early intervention. &ldquoThe earlier the therapy occurs, the better the results in resolving stuttering,&rdquo he says.

Yaruss agrees. &ldquoThe key is to catch the disfluency before it becomes ingrained and the child begins to believe &lsquoI&rsquom not good at talking.&rsquo But it&rsquos also important to know this: A person who stutters can still do anything in the world that a non-stutterer can,&rdquo he adds.

Fast Facts about Stuttering

  • Stuttering affects more than 3 million Americans.
  • The exact cause of stuttering is still unknown, but researchers believe it is neurologically based with a strong genetic component.
  • One in 30 American children stutters. About 75 percent of them will outgrow it.
  • Males are four times more likely to stutter than females.
  • The average IQ of people who stutter is 14 points higher than the national average.
  • Early intervention is critical. Research shows the likelihood of total recovery significantly diminishes as the child grows older.
  • Parents should contact a specialist in stuttering treatment if their child shows signs of stuttering as early as age two.

Sources: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, The National Stuttering Association and The American Institute for Stuttering.

More Information, Please . . .

In addition to valuable nuts-and-bolts information, many organizations offer resources like referrals to speech language pathologists who specialize in stuttering, and support groups for stutterers and parents of stutterers. Want to learn more? Consider the following Web sites:


What services are available for people with intellectual disability?

For babies and toddlers, early intervention programs are available. A team of professionals works with parents to write an Individualized Family Service Plan, or IFSP. This document outlines the child’s specific needs and what services will help the child thrive. Early intervention may include speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, family counseling, training with special assistive devices, or nutrition services.

School-age children with intellectual disabilities (including preschoolers) are eligible for special education for free through the public school system. This is mandated by the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Parents and educators work together to create an Individualized Education Program, or IEP, which outlines the child’s needs and the services the child will receive at school. The point of special education is to make adaptations, accommodations, and modifications that allow a child with an intellectual disability to succeed in the classroom.


Is High IQ equivalently a disorder like Low IQ - Psychology

Higher intelligence has many advantages. Higher IQ is associated with better grades, better jobs, higher pay, and even longer life. However, intelligence has drawbacks too. For example, studies have found that higher IQ is associated with more drug use and earlier drug use. Studies have also found that higher IQ is associated with more mental illness, including depression , anxiety , and bipolar disorder.

One large study led by Ruth Karpinski of Pitzer College surveyed more than 3700 members of Mensa, a society whose members must have an IQ in the top two percent, which is typically about 132 or higher. The team asked about many factors, including mental health. They discovered that mood disorders and anxiety disorders were extremely common among Mensa members. Among the general population, about 10 percent of people have mood disorders and about 10 percent of people have some anxiety disorder, with some degree of overlap between the two. Among Mensa members, those percentages were much higher. About 20 percent reported having been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and nearly 27 percent had been diagnosed with a mood disorder such as major depression or bipolar disorder . [See ‘High intelligence: A risk factor for psychological and physiological overexcitabilities‘ study.]

Karpinski and her team suspect the reason for this high rate of mental illness among Mensa members has to do with psychological overexcitability. Psychological overexcitability includes a greater tendency to ruminate and worry, both of which are common features of mood and anxiety disorders. For example, a very intelligent person may obsessively overanalyze a critical comment from her boss, trying to anticipate the possible consequences it might foretell. While this is an asset when used to plan complex projects or acquire subject matter expertise, when the same tendency is turned toward worry and rumination, the psychological effects can be disastrous. The team also found that Mensa members are physically overexcitable, as indicated by a very high rate of allergies, and this physical overexcitability may play a role in aggravating worry and rumination.

There may, in fact, be many different explanations for this phenomenon in addition to the overexcitability hypothesis, and they may all be relevant to some degree. One possibility is that the genes associated with intelligence also make you more prone to mental illness, but intelligence doesn’t directly increase your risk of mental illness. Another possibility is that people with higher IQs are often more socially isolated, which leads to more anxiety and depression. For example, people with autism spectrum disorders and above-average IQ are at much higher risk for depression. That may also happen to a lesser extent with intelligent people not on the spectrum.

Another possibility is that more intelligent people are more likely to be diagnosed than people of average or below-average intelligence. People who are educated, health-conscious, and generally well-informed are more likely to seek help for mental illness and less likely to be dissuaded by perceived stigma. In other words, part of that higher rate might simply reflect more awareness of mental health and greater access to mental health care.

Origins Behavioral Healthcare is a well-known care provider offering a range of treatment programs targeting the recovery from substance abuse, mental health issues, and beyond. Our primary mission is to provide a clear path to a life of healing and restoration. We offer renowned clinical care for addiction and have the compassion and professional expertise to guide you toward lasting sobriety.

For information on our programs,
call us today: 844-843-8935.


Stuttering: Myth vs. Fact

Stuttering specialist Catherine Montgomery had a blind patient who stuttered. Someone once asked him which was more difficult to deal with in life &mdash blindness or stuttering.

&ldquoThe man thought for a moment,&rdquo Montgomery recalls. &ldquoThen he replied, &lsquoStuttering &mdash because unlike my blindness, people don&rsquot understand that stuttering is beyond my control.&rsquo&rdquo

&ldquoInteresting, isn&rsquot it?&rdquo she says. &ldquoYou&rsquod never think of saying to a blind person, &lsquoSlow down and you&rsquoll be able see,&rsquo or &lsquoIf you just tried a little harder you could see.&rsquo But most of us think if a stutterer just relaxed and tried a little harder, he could speak fluently. That&rsquos not the case,&rdquo says Montgomery, M.S., CCC-SLP, executive director and founder of The American Institute for Stuttering in New York City, N.Y.

Stuttering is a chronic dysfluency or break in fluent speech. It&rsquos characterized by sound, syllable, word or phrase repetitions hesitations, fillers (um, ah) and revisions in word choices. It can also include unnatural stretching out of sounds and blocks in which a sound gets stuck and just won&rsquot come out. Stuttering may be accompanied by muscle tension, facial tics and grimaces.

No one really knows for sure exactly what causes it, but researchers believe there&rsquos a neurological basis with a strong genetic component. Currently, the medical community categorizes stuttering as a psychiatric disorder &mdash just like they do schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

&ldquoThere are probably multiple factors that can cause stuttering,&rdquo says Gerald Maguire, M.D., assistant clinical professor and director of residency training in the department of psychiatry at the University of California at Irvine. &ldquoThere is a strong genetic component &mdash stuttering does run in families. But it may be a combination of genetics, something neurological and something environmental. Since about 99 percent of all stutterers develop the disorder in childhood &mdash usually before age 9 or 10 &mdash it indicates that something occurs in the developing brain.&rdquo

&ldquoThe idea that stuttering is a brain disorder in the same category as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder is very controversial,&rdquo says Maguire, a stutterer. In fact, there has been a push to recategorize stuttering as something other than psychiatric. &ldquoSome feel it attaches a stigma to a disorder that&rsquos already very misunderstood by most,&rdquo Maguire said.

Among the things researchers do know about stuttering is that it&rsquos not caused by emotional or psychological problems. It&rsquos not a sign of low intelligence. The average stutterer&rsquos IQ is 14 points higher than the national average. And it&rsquos not a nervous disorder or a condition caused by stress. &ldquoIf stress caused stuttering, we&rsquod all be stutterers,&rdquo says Montgomery. Stuttering can, however, be made worse by anxiety or stress. And anxiety and stress can be a product of stuttering.

Two Layers to Stuttering

Stuttering really has two layers, says Montgomery.

&ldquoThere&rsquos the neurological-genetic-environmental layer and then there&rsquos the part that goes on inside your head layer, the conditioned or learned response,&rdquo Montgomery said. &ldquoFor example, on the first day of preschool, Mommy takes little Michael by the hand to meet his teacher. Smiling, the teacher asks Michael, &lsquoWhat&rsquos your name?&rsquo And even though he&rsquos never stuttered before, he says, &lsquoM-M-Michael.&rsquo And he sees a response &mdash maybe the teacher stops smiling for a minute or Mommy tightens her grip on his hand. Consciously or unconsciously, he may think, &lsquoI have trouble saying my name.&rsquo

&ldquoSo the next time someone asks his name, he has a memory flash of that first time he had trouble saying his name, which sets up a fight or flight response and he stutters over his name,&rdquo says Montgomery.

The pattern can continue without intervention. Studies show by age 7 children begin to develop attitudes and feelings about their speech difficulties, and by age 12 speech patterns are set &mdash which makes it difficult to overcome stuttering.

&ldquoLots of kids go through stuttering as a period in their development &mdash and that&rsquos OK for most kids,&rdquo says Scott Yaruss, Ph.D., an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh, clinical research consultant at Children&rsquos Hospital of Pittsburgh and co-director of the Stuttering Center of Western Pennsylvania.

In fact, researchers say one in four American preschoolers stutter at some point. Only one in 30 in older children, however, actually develop real stuttering problems, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

&ldquoMost get better &mdash but some get worse,&rdquo Yaruss adds. &ldquoThe problem is, at this time it&rsquos difficult to tell who is stuttering normally in their development and who is at risk for problems. For years, the advice was to do nothing. Ignore it and it&rsquoll probably go away. That&rsquos not true anymore. Today, the best advice is to have your child evaluated by a speech language pathologist who specializes in stuttering.&rdquo

Speech language pathologists who are certified by the American Speech-Hearing-Language Association (that&rsquos the equivalent of the American Medical Association for speech pathologists) have the letters CCC-SLP after their name. They mean &ldquoCertificate of Clinical Competence &mdash Speech Language Pathologist.&rdquo

Most experts agree your child should be evaluated if he begins to demonstrate a physical awareness of his stuttering. Does he become frustrated, distressed or anxious? Does she become tense or tighten her muscles when she has trouble getting the words out?

The second signal is family history. &ldquoNot every child of a stutterer will become a stutterer,&rdquo says Yaruss. &ldquoBut since stuttering runs in families, there&rsquos no reason to wait.&rdquo

Children don&rsquot learn to stutter from a parent, researchers say. But they may learn the frustration that comes with stuttering from the parent.

Treatment usually varies according to the age of the stutterer, says Yaruss. And different therapies work for different children. A speech language pathologist who specializes in stuttering can match your child with the right therapy.

To treat a very young child, the speech pathologist usually works with the family to help stack the deck in the child&rsquos favor to be as fluent as possible. This may include encouraging parents to create a calm setting for conversation, ensuring that only one person talks at a time and making sure the child doesn&rsquot feel rushed to speak. &ldquoAs the child approaches age 7, we begin to work more with the child and less with the family,&rdquo he says. &ldquoWe encourage the child to speak more slowly and help shape the child&rsquos speech with specific therapies.&rdquo

In adults, the approach may include a three-pronged approach of cognitive-behavioral therapy (to help weaken the connection between stuttering and your reaction to it, and to help change your thinking patterns about what makes you feel badly about stuttering), speech therapy and medication.

At UC Irvine, Maguire is currently conducting clinical trials in adults on a new generation of drugs used to treat schizophrenia and Tourette&rsquos Syndrome. These drugs &mdash risperidone (Risperdal) and olanzapine (Zyprexa) &mdash are dopamine blockers. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter chemical that sends messages from one cell to the next.

Research indicates that stutterers may have dopamine levels that are too high in one area of the brain. The drugs are designed to block the impulses that encourage stuttering. Maguire, who is also a participant in the trials, says the outcomes have been very positive.

But for now, Maguire says, the best bet in beating stuttering is early intervention. &ldquoThe earlier the therapy occurs, the better the results in resolving stuttering,&rdquo he says.

Yaruss agrees. &ldquoThe key is to catch the disfluency before it becomes ingrained and the child begins to believe &lsquoI&rsquom not good at talking.&rsquo But it&rsquos also important to know this: A person who stutters can still do anything in the world that a non-stutterer can,&rdquo he adds.

Fast Facts about Stuttering

  • Stuttering affects more than 3 million Americans.
  • The exact cause of stuttering is still unknown, but researchers believe it is neurologically based with a strong genetic component.
  • One in 30 American children stutters. About 75 percent of them will outgrow it.
  • Males are four times more likely to stutter than females.
  • The average IQ of people who stutter is 14 points higher than the national average.
  • Early intervention is critical. Research shows the likelihood of total recovery significantly diminishes as the child grows older.
  • Parents should contact a specialist in stuttering treatment if their child shows signs of stuttering as early as age two.

Sources: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, The National Stuttering Association and The American Institute for Stuttering.

More Information, Please . . .

In addition to valuable nuts-and-bolts information, many organizations offer resources like referrals to speech language pathologists who specialize in stuttering, and support groups for stutterers and parents of stutterers. Want to learn more? Consider the following Web sites:


Having a High IQ May Lead to Increased Risk of Mental Illness

There is a plethora of misconceptions and myths when it comes to the topic of mental illness. For example, some people believe that disorders like depression and anxiety are dramatic diagnoses for difficult feelings like sadness or mere nerves. But this is certainly not the case—these conditions and those of the like are real and they’re harmful to those who suffer with them. Another common myth is that people with mental illness are less intelligent but in reality, they’re just as smart as those of us who aren’t diagnosed with a mental disorder.

In fact, they might even be smarter. A new study “High intelligence: A risk factor for psychological and physiological overexcitabilities” published in Intelligence says that extremely intelligent individuals have a much greater risk of suffering from a range of psychological and physiological disorders.

The research team first came up with a “hyper brain/hyper body theory of integration,” which suggests that people with higher cognitive ability react with greater emotional and behavioral response to their environments. And because of their increased awareness, individuals with a high IQ then typically exhibit a hyperreactive central nervous system. For example, “a minor insult such as a clothing tag or an unnatural sound may trigger a low level, chronic stress response which then activates a hyper body response,” Dr. Nicole Tetreault, co-author of the study, explained to NeuroscienceNews.

Then it was time to put their theory to the test. The team surveyed 3,715 members of American Mensa, Ltd., a group of people that share the trait of high intelligence. Each individual reported their experiences with both diagnosed and suspected mental illnesses—such as mood and anxiety disorders (like ADHD)—as well as physiological diseases, like food allergies and asthma. The researchers then took this data and compared it with the statistical national average for each illness.

The results were just as the team expected and in support of their model: those in the Mensa population (or those with exceptional IQs) had significantly higher rates of the varying disorders. For example, over 10% of the US population is diagnosed with some form of anxiety, compared with 20% of Mensans.

While having a higher IQ is generally flaunted and envied, this study shows that there is a big downside, as these individuals possess “unique intensities and overexcitabilities which can be at once both remarkable and disabling on many levels,” lead author of the study Ruth Karpinski explained to NeuroscienceNews. “Our findings are relevant because a significant portion of these individuals are suffering on a daily basis as a result of their unique emotional and physical overexcitabilities. It is important for the scientific community to examine high IQ as being front and center within the system of mechanisms that may be at play in these dysregulations,” she said.

Moving forward, the team hopes that their findings may lead future studies to treat high intelligence as “a potential genetic piece of a psychoneuroimmunological puzzle.” But for now, these findings serve as the perfect debunking means to the common myth that mentally ill individuals aren’t intelligent. They are intelligent—highly intelligent.

Karpinskik, R. I., Kinase Kolb, A. M., Et al. (2017, October 8). High intelligence: A risk factor for psychological and physiological overexcitabilities. Intelligence. Retrieved on October 12, 2017 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616303324

Pitzer College (2017, October 11). Hyper Brain, Hyper Body: The Trouble With High IQ. NeuroscienceNews. Retrieved October 12, 2017 from http://neurosciencenews.com/iq-hyper-brain-body-7720/


What services are available for people with intellectual disability?

For babies and toddlers, early intervention programs are available. A team of professionals works with parents to write an Individualized Family Service Plan, or IFSP. This document outlines the child’s specific needs and what services will help the child thrive. Early intervention may include speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, family counseling, training with special assistive devices, or nutrition services.

School-age children with intellectual disabilities (including preschoolers) are eligible for special education for free through the public school system. This is mandated by the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Parents and educators work together to create an Individualized Education Program, or IEP, which outlines the child’s needs and the services the child will receive at school. The point of special education is to make adaptations, accommodations, and modifications that allow a child with an intellectual disability to succeed in the classroom.


Contents

There are various types of intelligence. As society became more complex, intellectual competences became more sophisticated. This competence is social intelligence and can be defined as the intelligence that lies behind group interactions and behaviours.

This type of intelligence is closely related to cognition and emotional intelligence, and can also be seen as a first level in developing systems intelligence.

Research psychologists studying social cognition and social neuroscience have discovered many principles which human social intelligence operates. In early work on this topic, psychologists Nancy Cantor and John Kihlstrom outlined the kinds of concepts people use to make sense of their social relations (e.g., “What situation am I in and what kind of person is this who is talking to me?”), and the rules they use to draw inferences (“What did he mean by that?”) and plan actions (“What am I going to do about it?”)

In 2005, business writer Karl Albrecht proposed a five-part model of social intelligence in his book Social Intelligence: the New Science of Success, presented with the acronym "S.P.A.C.E." - 1) Situational awareness, 2) Presence, 3) Authenticity, 4) Clarity, and 5) Empathy.

More recently, popular science writer Daniel Goleman has drawn on social neuroscience research to propose that social intelligence is made up of social awareness (including empathy, attunement, empathic accuracy, and social cognition) and social facility (including synchrony, self-presentation, influence, and concern). ΐ]

Psychotherapy often involves helping people to modify their patterns of social intelligence, particularly those that cause them problems in their interpersonal relations. Some efforts are also underway to use computer-based interventions to help people develop their own social intelligence. Paul Ekman, for example, has created the MicroExpression Training Tool, to allow people to practice identifying the brief emotional expressions that flit across people’s faces. The website MindHabits.com offers a research-based software program with which people learn to modify their mind habits, focusing attention on positive social feedback and inhibiting attention to the social threats and rejections that can cause stress. Other interventions, for example to help autistic individuals develop social perception and interaction skills, are also in development.

Educational researcher Raymond H. Hartjen asserts that expanded opportunities for social interaction enhances intelligence. Traditional classrooms do not permit the interaction of complex social behavior. Instead children in traditional settings are treated as learners who must be infused with more and more complex forms of information. Few educational leaders he adduces have taken this position as a starting point to develop a school environment where social interaction could flourish. If we follow this line of thinking then children must have an opportunity for continuous every day interpersonal experiences in order to develop a keen well developed 'inter-personal psychology'. As schools are structured today very few of these skills, critical for survival in the real world, are allowed to develop. Because we so limit the development of the skills of "natural psychologist" in traditional schools our students as graduates, enter the job market handicapped to the point of being incapable of surviving on their own. In contrast those students that have had an ability to develop their skills as a "natural psychologist" in multiage classrooms and at democratic settings rise head and shoulders over their less socially skilled peers. They have a good sense of self, know what they want out of life and have the skills necessary to begin their quest. Α]


As an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) researcher, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine, the author of Attention Deficit Disorder: The Unfocused Mind in Children and Adults, and as a psychologist helping patients manage their symptoms and reclaim their lives, I have seen ADHD from all sides.

My research into the brain has posited a new model for ADHD. The old model thinks of ADHD as a behavioral disorder. Many adults and children living with ADHD never have had significant behavior problems they have difficulty focusing their attention on necessary tasks and using working memory effectively, making ADHD a cognitive disorder, a developmental impairment of executive functions (EFs) — the self-management system of the brain.

My theory of executive function impairment, or executive function disorder (EFD) has been slow to filter down to family doctors who are making diagnoses and prescribing medication. Too many doctors still think about ADHD in the old way — as a behavior problem accompanied by difficulty in paying attention. They don’t understand that “executive function” is really a broad umbrella. When patients hear the symptoms associated with EFD — finding it hard to get organized or to start tasks, to sustain effort to finish tasks, to hold off instead of jumping impulsively into things, to remember what was just read or heard, to manage emotions — they’ll say, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s me.” A lot of executive function impairment goes beyond the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) criteria for ADHD.

We need to better understand the individual variants of ADHD in adults. Some adults have big problems in school, but once they get out of school, they are able to specialize in something that they’re good at, or take a job where an assistant helps them manage the day-to-day minutia, and they do fine. Other adults manage through school, but they don’t do well at jobs or managing a household. We’re beginning to identify the domains of impairment and to recognize that these difficulties with executive functions not only affect people with academic tasks but also in their ability to maintain social relationships and to manage emotions.

The following six clusters of executive functions tend to be impaired in individuals with ADHD:

Activation: organizing tasks and materials, estimating time, getting started.
Focus: focusing, sustaining focus, and shifting focus between tasks.
Effort: regulating alertness, sustaining effort and processing speed.
Emotion: managing frustration and modulating emotions.
Memory: using working memory and accessing recall.
Action: monitoring/ regulating actions.


5 There Is No Raging Autism Epidemic

The entire premise of the anti-vaccine nutjobs is that all of a sudden lots of kids have autism, and there has to be a reason, goddamnit! "If it's not the vaccine thing, then is it, what, something in the water? The air? High fructose corn syrup? Video games? The gays?"

Laugh at them all you want, but the fact that autism is suddenly everywhere is undeniable -- your parents and grandparents can tell you that they didn't go to school with a single autistic kid, while these days everyone has at least one friend on the spectrum, along with 50 percent of TV show detectives. It's no wonder sites throw around phrasing like "Autism: The Hidden Epidemic?" and "What if Autism Were Contagious?"

Not so fast, cowboy. What might look like an epidemic at first glance is actually people giving a name to something that's always existed. Researchers don't think that autism itself is on the rise they think parents and doctors are smarter about what it looks like. Your grandma had autistic kids in her neighborhood, but she went to school in an era when they dismissed them as the victims of witch curses.

We're barely exaggerating -- autism didn't even get a name until 1943, and for 20 years after that, the condition was interchanged with schizophrenia and totally blamed on bad parenting. As in, "Your child is 4 years old and hasn't learned to talk? You didn't hold him enough when he was a baby. Boom. Done. NEXT! Kid showing inappropriate reactions to social cues? Well, you clearly didn't spank him enough!"

It wasn't until 1980 that the main guide for mental illnesses, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published the six-point criteria for diagnosing the condition (and none of them were about how crappy your mother was). Finally, kids who once would have been labeled mentally disabled despite high intelligence now had another possible diagnosis. We didn't even start throwing the phrase "autism spectrum" around until the mid-'90s -- meaning doctors on the cutting edge of psychiatry were just waking up to the fact that there's actually a wide range of symptoms of autism at around the same time kids were walking around with one overall strap hanging down and singing Color Me Badd.


Archimedes had his bathtub, Newton had his apple, autism doctors had 90210.

So, yeah, claiming that autism is new is like saying germs didn't exist until we invented the microscope.

Related: Simply Staggering Facts About The Opioid Epidemic


Introduction

Low intelligence is a well-known risk factor for criminal behavior, violence and conduct problems (e.g., Ellis and Walsh, 2003, Hirschi and Hindelang, 1977, Ward and Tittle, 1994, West and Farrington, 1973, Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985). Much less however, is known about a potential protective function of above-average intelligence against other risk factors. A few older studies suggest that good intelligence may buffer family and other social risks (Kandel et al., 1988, Lösel and Bliesener, 1994, Stattin et al., 1997, Werner and Smith, 1982). Other research found a protective function only for specific subgroups or measurements (e.g., McCord and Ensminger, 1997, Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 1993).

Although there are different definitions, dimensional concepts and results on the underlying cognitive components of intelligence (e.g., Gardner, 1999, Sternberg, 2000), a protective function against criminality is theoretically plausible. For example, intellectual ability can partly compensate for background disadvantage in educational and occupational attainment (Damian, Su, Shanahan, Trautwein, & Roberts, 2015), reduce biases in aggression-prone social information processing (Crick & Dodge, 1994), and indicate executive functions that are relevant for planning and self-control (Raine, 2013). Nevertheless, criminological research on the protective effects of intelligence is still scarce. This is surprising as protective effects of personal and social resources currently attract much interest in the academic community and are certainly relevant for prevention and intervention efforts.

Whereas research on risk factors has a long tradition in studies of antisocial behavior, there has been increased interest in recent years in factors that contribute to desirable behavioral outcomes. Various disciplines have driven this change of perspective, including research on resilience (Rutter, 2012), positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), desistance from crime (Kazemian & Farrington, 2015), developmental prevention (Farrington & Welsh, 2007) and offender rehabilitation (Lösel, 2012). Focusing on protective factors and on building resilience is viewed as a more positive approach, and more attractive to communities, than reducing risk factors, which emphasizes deficits and problems (Pollard, Hawkins, & Arthur, 1999).

Although there is much interest in desirable behavioral outcomes, well-replicated results on specific protective factors are still rare. This is partially because of the more complicated conceptual and methodological issues in protective factor research than in traditional risk factor research (Lösel and Farrington, 2012, Ttofi, Bowes, et al., 2014). A criminological risk factor is defined as a variable that predicts a high probability of offending (for issues of causality see Kraemer, Lowe, & Kupfer, 2005). Risk factors are often dichotomized. This makes it easy to study interaction effects, to identify persons with multiple risk factors, to specify how outcomes vary with the number of risk factors, and to communicate results to policy-makers and practitioners as well as to researchers (Farrington & Loeber, 2000). There are also continuous analyses, and the order of importance of risk factors is mostly similar in dichotomous and continuous approaches.

In contrast to the risk concept, the term “protective factor” has been used inconsistently and operationalized in different ways. Some researchers have defined a protective factor as a variable that predicts a low probability of offending, or as the “mirror image” of a risk factor (see Loeber, Farrington, Stouthamer-Loeber, & White, 2008), while other researchers have defined a protective factor as a variable that interacts with a risk factor to nullify its effect (e.g., Rutter, 1987), or as a variable that predicts a low probability of offending among a group at risk (e.g., Werner & Smith, 1982). There are also other concepts of protective factors and mechanisms that may be found in other literatures (e.g., Luthar et al., 2006, Masten and Cicchetti, 2010).

As mentioned, a protective factor is a variable that interacts with a risk factor to nullify its effect (Lösel and Farrington, 2012, Rutter, 1987), or alternatively a variable that predicts a low probability of offending among a group at risk. We will term the former “an interactive protective factor” (or a “buffering protective factor”) and the latter “a risk-based protective factor”. An interactive protective factor is defined as follows: When the protective factor is present, the probability of offending does not increase in the presence of the risk factor when the protective factor is absent, the probability of offending does increase in the presence of the risk factor. An alternative way of interpreting this interaction effect is as follows: When a risk factor is present, the probability of offending decreases in the presence of a protective factor when a risk factor is absent, the probability of offending does not decrease in the presence of a protective factor.

For example, in the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, Farrington and Ttofi (2011) investigated interaction effects among variables measured at age 8-10 in predicting convictions between ages 10 and 50. Among boys living in poor housing, 33% of those receiving good child-rearing were convicted, compared with 66% of those receiving poor child-rearing. Among boys living in good housing, 32% of those receiving good child-rearing were convicted, compared with 30% of those receiving poor child-rearing. Therefore, good child-rearing was a protective factor that nullified the risk factor of poor housing, or conversely (but perhaps less plausibly) good housing was a protective factor that nullified the risk factor of poor child-rearing. In the results section, we provide a graphic presentation of the methodological design for investigating both interactive protective and risk-based protective factors.

Inspired by Sameroff, Bartko, Baldwin, and Seifer (1998), Loeber et al. (2008) proposed that a variable that predicted a low probability of offending should be termed a “promotive factor” (what was later defined as a “direct protective or promotive” factor see Hall et al., 2012). It might be argued that a promotive factor is just “the other end of the scale” to a risk factor, and therefore that calling a variable either a promotive factor or a risk factor is redundant and even misleading. However, this is not necessarily true, because it depends on whether the variable is linearly or nonlinearly related to offending. Loeber et al. (2008) trichotomized variables into the “worst” quarter (e.g., low intelligence), the middle half, and the “best” quarter (e.g., high intelligence). They studied risk factors by comparing the probability of offending in the worst quarter versus the middle half, and they studied promotive factors by comparing the probability of offending in the middle half versus the best quarter. They used the odds ratio (OR) as the main measure of strength of effect.

If a predictor is linearly related to delinquency, so that the percent delinquent is low in the best quarter and high in the worst quarter, that variable could be regarded as both a risk factor and a promotive factor. However, if the percent delinquent is high in the worst quarter but not low in the best quarter, that variable could be regarded only as a risk factor. Conversely, if the percent delinquent is low in the best quarter but not high in the worst quarter, that variable could be regarded only as a promotive factor. Most studies of the predictors of delinquency label them as “risk factors” but researchers should distinguish these three types of relationships. Other ways of testing linearity are available (Cox & Wermuth, 1994).

Loeber et al. (2008) systematically investigated risk and promotive factors in the Pittsburgh Youth Study. For example, in predicting violence at age 20-25 from variables measured at age 13-16, the percent violent was 8% for boys with high achievement, 21% for boys with medium achievement, and 21% for boys with low achievement. It was, therefore, concluded that school achievement was a promotive factor but not a risk factor.

Based on these conceptual clarifications, the present article assembles current evidence of a protective effect of intelligence against criminal, delinquent, violent, and other forms of antisocial behavior. Studies will be grouped together based on whether they investigate intelligence as an interactive protective factor, or a risk-based protective factor or a promotive factor. We systematically searched the relevant literature and meta-analyzed data from prospective longitudinal studies. We chose longitudinal studies because a protective factor should operate before or at the same time as a risk factor, and both should, ideally, occur before the outcome. Since intelligence is a complex construct and we had to work with the concepts that have been used in the primary studies, we took a pragmatic approach. Our working definition follows the famous statement of Boring (1923) that intelligence is what the tests of intelligence measure (because there is a common factor in many abilities). Major prospective longitudinal studies measure IQ based on what could be described as ‘first generation’ intelligence tests (Naglieri, 2015) and our meta-analytic findings are limited by this fact. We concentrate on traditional cognitive test measures of general intelligence. Because of a lack of differentiated primary studies, we will not investigate sub-factors such as fluid and crystallized intelligence, or reasoning, perception, fluency, or (working) memory. We will concentrate on direct test measures of intelligence and exclude proxy variables such as school achievement.


The Surprising Quality Of High IQ Brains

People with bigger heads are, on average, more intelligent, new research confirms.

Bigger heads contain bigger brains, which have more neurons (brain cells), which make people smarter.

But wait, that is not the end of the story.

The latest neuroscience research suggests there’s a twist.

When you ‘listen’ electrically to the brain running, the more intelligent ones make less ‘noise’.

It’s like a larger, more powerful engine somehow running quieter.

It turns out that on top of having larger brains, more intelligent people have fewer connections between neurons in the cerebral cortex, research finds.

The reason is that the brains of intelligent people are more efficient — this is known to psychologists as the ‘neural efficiency hypothesis of intelligence’.

The conclusion comes from a neuroimaging study that looked at the brain’s microstructure.

Analysis of the brains of 259 people measured the number of dendrites in their brains.

Dendrites are extensions of brain cells that reach out towards other brain cells, enabling them to communicate with each other.

IQ tests showed that people with fewer dendrites were more intelligent.

It is more than just size that matters, it is how efficiently your brain cells communicate.

With fewer dendritic connections there is less ‘noise’ in the brain and the signal is purer.

Fewer dendrites also consume less energy — hence, a more efficient brain.

Here is the author’s schematic depiction (from Genç et al., 2018):

Dr Erhan Genç, who led the study, said:

“The assumption has been that larger brains contain more neurons and, consequently, possess more computational power.

However, other studies had shown that — despite their comparatively high number of neurons — the brains of intelligent people demonstrated less neuronal activity during an IQ test than the brains of less intelligent individuals.

Intelligent brains possess lean, yet efficient neuronal connections.

Thus, they boast high mental performance at low neuronal activity.”

The study was published in the journal Nature Communications (Genç et al., 2018).