• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Relationship(s) between Intelligence / IQ and Health / Longevity

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
29,622
Location
Out of Bounds
NOTE: Yes, there is a related 2005 thread:

Suicide by Men May Be Associated With Intelligence

... but this article has a broader scope, is based on considerably more data, and suggests we could use a more general thread for related discussion and content.

Anyway ... This new study is remarkable for the links it suggests between childhood IQ and purely somatic causes of death.

Higher IQ in childhood is linked to a longer life
Summary:
Higher intelligence (IQ) in childhood is associated with a lower lifetime risk of major causes of death, including heart disease, stroke, smoking related cancers, respiratory disease and dementia, finds a new study.
FULL STORY: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170628200012.htm
 
IQ > Intelligence > Better Decision Making > Longevity.

Also, the study was conducted in Scotland, which is thankfully atypical.

I haven't read the whole thing, but I assume there is more to it.
 
IQ > Intelligence > Better Decision Making > Longevity. ...
I haven't read the whole thing, but I assume there is more to it.

This study essentially goes no farther than illustrating an end effect (and then only in terms of coarse-grained correlation). At this point, I don't think it's reasonable to hypothesize any causal connection beyond 'Better Decision Making' as the key element.

Further research will be necessary to establish anything more than this. IMHO this study's results are sufficiently suggestive to warrant follow-on work.

I agree with the authors when they conclude:

"It remains to be seen if this is the full story or if IQ signals something deeper, and possibly genetic, in its relation to longevity."

Now I'm interested in seeing whether the popular press disseminates news of this study, and how much spin they put on it ... :cool:
 
NOTE: Yes, there is a related 2005 thread:

Suicide by Men May Be Associated With Intelligence

... but this article has a broader scope, is based on considerably more data, and suggests we could use a more general thread for related discussion and content.

Anyway ... This new study is remarkable for the links it suggests between childhood IQ and purely somatic causes of death.

FULL STORY: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170628200012.htm
I really don't think this is a big story. As already said IQ > Intelligence > Better Decision Making > Longevity.

I'd interject:

IQ = General problem solving Intelligence > Better on average Decision Making > Higher income and socio-economic status on average > better mental an physical health >Longevity.

There are a few large and long running studies of the effect of socio-economic status on health and well being. I see this paper as the type of research someone does because they've got to come up with something 'new' after reading a butt-load of studies that already show the same thing.

Meh frankly.
 
IQ = General problem solving Intelligence > Better on average Decision Making > Higher income and socio-economic status on average > better mental an physical health >Longevity.

There are a few large and long running studies of the effect of socio-economic status on health and well being. I see this paper as the type of research someone does because they've got to come up with something 'new' after reading a butt-load of studies that already show the same thing.

Meh frankly.

I was careful not to mention the IQ > Wealth step that you have, owing to the following statement in the summary of the report:

After taking account of several factors (confounders) that could have influenced the results, such as age, sex and socioeconomic status, the researchers found that higher childhood intelligence was associated with a lower risk of death until age 79.

They've attempted to statistically filter out wealth and class from the findings. I just think higher IQ means better decisions based risk assessment, cause and effect perception etc.
 
I was careful not to mention the IQ > Wealth step that you have, owing to the following statement in the summary of the report:

After taking account of several factors (confounders) that could have influenced the results, such as age, sex and socioeconomic status, the researchers found that higher childhood intelligence was associated with a lower risk of death until age 79.

They've attempted to statistically filter out wealth and class from the findings. I just think higher IQ means better decisions based risk assessment, cause and effect perception etc.
I put that in as IQ does broadly speaking predict career success (better than any other single factor), and in the Western world that equals relatively higher wealth, which in turn provides better diet, better healthcare etc.
 
I put that in as IQ does broadly speaking predict career success (better than any other single factor), and in the Western world that equals relatively higher wealth, which in turn provides better diet, better healthcare etc.

I agree with you, but the people who did the survey have found the correlation between IQ and longevity exists in those of all socioeconomic statuses, so those whose IQ brought wealth as well as those whose IQ didn't.
 
I agree with you, but the people who did the survey have found the correlation between IQ and longevity exists in those of all socioeconomic statuses, so those whose IQ brought wealth as well as those whose IQ didn't.
You're right, I read the abstract and jumped to a conclusion.
*downloads paper*
Having whipped fairly briskly through the paper, they've compensated for the childhood background socio-economic status, but there doesn't seem to be anything on socio-economic trajectory after childhood and the background status was a proxy measure based on school attended. There was one adustment specifically for smoking and socio economic status. I kind of feel the paper hasn't quite made it's case otherwise (although I'm now biased...), although there's some interesting pointers in the discussion section that might cover that.
 
Back
Top