Intelligence linked to ability to ignore distractions
 

I've noticed that guys distracted by news stories, pending disasters, social unrest and shit like that don't do well... know a few guys like that... never could get their biz up and running because they were always reacting to shit on the news.... would you be surprised to find a few on GFY??? don't think I would be...

-------------------------------

People with higher IQs are slow to detect large background movements because their brains filter out non-essential information, say US researchers.

Instead, they are good at detecting small moving objects.

The findings come in a study of 53 people given a simple, visual test in Current Biology.

The results could help scientists understand what makes a brain more efficient and more intelligent.

In the study, individuals watched short video clips of black and white bars moving across a computer screen. Some clips were small and filled only the centre of the screen, while others filled the whole screen.

The participants' sole task was to identify in which direction the bars were drifting - to the right or to the left.

Participants also took a standardised intelligence test.

The results showed that people with higher IQ scores were faster at noticing the movement of the bars when observing the smallest image - but they were slower at detecting movement in the larger images.

Michael Melnick of the University of Rochester, who was part of the research team said the results were very clear.

"From previous research, we expected that all participants would be worse at detecting the movement of large images, but high IQ individuals were much, much worse.

The authors explain that in most scenarios, background movement is less important than small moving objects in the foreground, for example driving a car, walking down a hall or moving your eyes across the room.

A woman focusing on reading a book while people rush around her People with higher IQs appear to be able to concentrate better
As a person's IQ increases, so too does his or her ability to filter out distracting background motion and concentrate on the foreground.

In an initial study on 12 people, there was a 64% correlation between motion suppression and IQ scores. In this larger study on 53 people, a 71% correlation was found.

In contrast, previous research on the link between intelligence and reaction times, colour discrimination and sensitivity to pitch found only a 20-40% correlation.

But the ability to ignore background movements is not the only indicator of intelligence.

"Because intelligence is such a broad construct, you can't really track it back to one part of the brain," says Duje Tadin, who also worked on the study.

"But since this task is so simple and so closely linked to IQ, it may give us clues about what makes a brain more efficient, and, consequently, more intelligent.

"We know from prior research which parts of the brain are involved in visual suppression of background motion.

"This new link to intelligence provides a good target for looking at what is different about the neural processing, what's different about the neurochemistry, what's different about the neurotransmitters of people with different IQs."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22639039

I found the length of your post distracting.

hey look..... a dog walked by a tree...

Where ?!

53 people is not enough for valid statistical results. A 100 is the minimum for a statistical population. This is just a statistical coincidence.
Ds

"People with higher IQs are slow to detect large background movements because their brains filter out non-essential information, say US researchers."

All of our brains filter out and delete a great deal of information. This is an essential part of thinking and processing everything around us.

Your brain deletes, distorts and generalizes information. Everyone's mental filters are in tune to their own understanding and internal representation of the world (how one understands things and the model one has constructed in ones brain to represent his/her understanding of "reality").

A difference between people in this respect is in a better ability to filter out/delete more information that is less useful. All information that you are consciously aware of has already been filtered through your own mental filters before you are aware of it. We ultimately pay attention to what we believe is useful information. The difference between people in this regard is in discerning what is and isn't useful. One might notice a great deal of detail another doesn't. One might add a great deal of meaning where there isn't any and focus on useless information. For example, a meaningless event could be perceived by most to be just that and ignored where someone suffering from paranoid delusions might not only find significant meaning in it (create the meaning, significantly distorting the meaning/significance etc). That doesn't mean that a mentally disturbed person can't be extremely intelligent.

Furthermore, the data size is far too small to determine anything at all. Flipping a coin 58 times and getting heads 64% of the time doesn't tell you anything useful and even less when you understand that it takes many millions of coin flips to get to 50%.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Einstein once said he's not smarter than anyone else, that he just works the problem longer. my IQ is 140, I can work 14-18 hours without distraction. I know a guy with 172 IQ, he can work about 30 hours non stop

oh crap a bird... look

Yeah, i am not sure this study makes any sense at all. Forgetting about all the variances in how people perceive, process and interpret things and their significance or lack thereof, you can put any two random variables against each other with a limited data sample, look at correlations and proclaim a winner... hardly a great way to draw conclusions about a 6 Billion strong species.

IQ's are overrated....

I'll be the first to admit I've got a very short attention span. Always have and can see the negatives.

it sounds to me like the results from teh study are going to be used as a starting point to do more brain research going in a particular direction, they aren't making a conclusion.

I wonder why they chose such a small sample. I've only taken an intro to statistics course, but even we weren't allowed to perform an experiment that involved less than 100 people, chosen at random. A sample size of 12, and then 53 seems unlikely to be considered valid.

Even though I did quite well in college, I was distracted by this story, and therefore hang my head in shame.

there are many possible reasons, financial, available subjects, pre-existing theory, a hunch, the 2ns set is 5x bigger than the 1st set and confirms results, etc.



"This new link to intelligence provides a good target for looking at what is different about the neural processing, what's different about the neurochemistry, what's different about the neurotransmitters of people with different IQs."

just speaking about my personal experience with IQ and concentration...

Ironically, this is a common feature of ADD as well. ;)

They can obsess 100% and work long days, completely focused on what they are interested in. That behavior does not necessarily denote intelligence. Should intelligence and that behavior co-exist, that does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship between intelligence and ones ability to focus. Children focus intensely on anything and can play intensely for hours and have much lower IQ's than adults.

by a tree!!!!

I wouldn't call working 30 hours non-stop a sign of intelligence.

I would call your weighing in on the matter, ironic.

^ Well I can't pretend you've ever struck me as someone who understands the meaning of simple words.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I apologize, i always confuse you with that pornstar69 guy. My bad.

Was that really funny? Or are you just being your usual simple minded and pathetic douche bag who is wholly incapable of actually forming a coherent sentence, making a point and defending it, self?

Too bad you don't get paid for asking short, safe and rhetorical questions and/or piggy backing the arguments of others or posting smiley faces like you have something to say or you actually understand a discussion. You'd at least actually have something you could then call "success" in your life.

^
^Just for that I'm not apologizing.

No worries. I don't like _Richard_ because he is an useless turd. It has nothing to do with you. I'm sure that both you and I will find a way to carry on. :)

I thought it was quite funny, and it was meant purely as a light hearted remark. But if you want to take it seriously, and I know this was not what Grapesoda was saying, what's 'intelligent' about working 30 hours straight?

I agree with you. I also made that point. It could be a manic behavior, ADD people are quite capable on intense focus on things they are interested in, it could be the result of a wide range of mental disorders unrelated to intelligence. Drug addiction. Anxiety. etc etc etc.

Almost all successful people are usually focused, hard working and totally fucked in the head in one way or another which is what drives them to begin with.

FWIW, I can't think of a single person here I seriously dislike, regardless of what they post, or what I post to them (which should never be taken 'seriously', or personally). And some people who other people seem to hate, including banned people, I don't mind at all, or actually quite like.

I agree its not a healthy thing at all. I also just watched a commercial about Dragon Naturally Speaking on tv which was not to explain how people with disabilities could work more efficiently... but a bunch of fully functional morbidly obese white women happily explaining that they no longer need to burn the calories it takes to type. It's been a confusing afternoon for me so far on a few levels.

Sounds like the year 5555.

get a room you two.

what's up with everybody today? out to a late lunch? that's some funny stuff!

thesquealer can rip your face off in a single post and helterskelter808 can troll you so hard you'll fuck up and say something wrong and they are hugging it out right here!

Thanks to my "In The Year 2525" reference, I'm now hard at work listening to music on Youtube.

i single task too!

dang, the squealer split. i like that guy...... he's prolly writing up a post in word doc........

I remember being 4 yrs old and seeing re-runs of that show Space 1999. I thought i would celebrating new years in 1999 on a spaceship. I was kinda pissed when it didn't happen.

See avatar :)

we should all get back to arguing

harumph harumph.

No we shouldn't.

http://i.imgur.com/1tlbzom.gif

tbh, i didn't get the "in the year of 2525" year 5555 references? maybe i'm losing my grip on pop culture........

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

he did spell your name properly, so you got that going for you.

it's true. always looking up :)

ok, back on topic, i meant that single tasking comment, i think multi-tasking is overrated & over-hyped.

a lot to be said for not being distracted.

focus is definitely one thing.. but if one is able to 'multi focus' the same, on several different 'tasks'.. isn't that a better example of intelligence?