• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Toddlers' Junk-Food Diet May Lead to Lower IQ

This did make me curious as to how IQ is measured and just exactly what it means

What is IQ and How it is Measured? - About Intelligence (UK)

Most tests have both overall scores and individual subtest scores, showing an individual’s different performance in different areas. It is interesting to note, however, that because modern IQ tests are based on a normal distribution bell curve, they are really only designed and valid for a certain IQ range. In other words, they cannot accurately measure IQ’s at the extreme low and high ends. It should also be noted that your IQ score may not be consistent over the course of your lifetime.

Like many other areas of the intelligence field, there is controversy over what affects an individual’s IQ score. For example, studies have shown that it does seem to be affected by environmental factors such as childhood nutrition, prenatal exposure to toxins and duration of breast-feeding. Other studies suggest a correlation with parental social status and parental IQ but debate still rages over how much IQ is inheritable and what the mechanisms of inheritance are.

So - it's actually not an accurate or really 'important' test of knowledge, these days.

Which leads me to wonder just WHY they focused on IQ and not "success in school" or "overall improvement in math or phonics" and stuff like that.
 
It wasn't addressed. That's the point. The methodology makes assumptions that aren't tested.
as you acknowledged, it was not addressed. but let's look at you positing this conclusion - one which was NOT made:
Should we assume that the parent who provides mcdonalds and tv dinners nonetheless reads to their child and fosters their intellectual development to the same degree as the parent who provides healthy meals?

Yes, I came up with the comparison, they did not. There are many potential reasons why this correlation exists. They tested only a few, and therefore leave themselves open to criticism.
but you introduced a conclusion of the study which you then attacked, when the study never offered such conclusion. a classic straw man - poorly constructed
"Almost two points" is too small to even be measured reliably, much less describe a meaningful difference in behavior.
i look forward to seeing your mathematical proof which will show us why the measured IQ differential was unreliable and unmeaningful. that should be rich. please do not disappoint us and run away from offering your math
If you're worried about the "iq of the general population," there are a thousand better ways to spend tax dollars.
a decline in the potential IQ by a sizable portion of our population does not strike me as something we would want to ignore
while i am without the evidence to verify it, i do believe that the intelligence of the general population has been in decline over my almost six decades. no need to exacerbate that trend
What you have difficulty understanding is that if the above is true, this particular study provides little or no evidence to support it. To understand this requires not only the ability to comprehend what was written, but to critically evaluate the conclusions drawn from work performed.
good. then disprove the study's results and conclusions. thus far you have only offered up an opinion. a wrong one, weakly articulated
 
A huge reason not to have McDonald's inside school cafeterias, don't you think?

Article is here.

No school cafeteria should ever have a fast-food joint on site. Ever! I'm also against schools have soda vending machines, or candy machines. No school ever had them when I grew up, and I didn't starve.

I'm not against fast-food places. I like some of them. But parents have to be vigilant that the occasional lunch at McD's or Wendy's is a special treat, not a weekly occurrence. Once they're teenagers, though, all bets are off. For the next 10 years, they will party like rock stars, eat everything that would kill a goat, and drink themselves into a stupor the minute they're out of their parents' sight. However, if healthy eating has been stressed during childhood, once they hit 20-something and begin to realize that they didn't really know everything as teenagers, even though they were certain at the time that they did, said young adults are much more likely to revert back to that healthy eating that they learned as kids.

No studies to back this up other than a lifelong membership in the "mothers know this stuff" club. But I'm right anyway. :)
 
It's people?

Yes, Nanny State just loves her little chilruns, huh?

Give me a break.

Sometimes school lunches is the only meal a child will eat that day so yeah we love the childrens.
 
So - it's actually not an accurate or really 'important' test of knowledge, these days.
As far as psychological tests go, intelligence tests are highly accurate. The article is only saying that the tests are not as precise at the upper and lower ends of the spectrum. In other words, it is more precise in distinguishing between students with IQs of 105 and 110 than 140 and 145.

Which leads me to wonder just WHY they focused on IQ and not "success in school" or "overall improvement in math or phonics" and stuff like that.
IQ predicts success in school. It's the primary reason it was developed in the first place. The IQ test is standardized and captures aptitude. Grades are not standardized and comparisons between schools would be meaningless. There are standardized tests of math and phonics, but these measure ability or achievement and are therefore more amenable to change -- which would again muddy the data.
 
Not just protein - that's just one component of a balanced diet.
Agreed, but I would advance that a lack of protein is the most likely explanation for a lack of development for a growing child.
 
Sometimes school lunches is the only meal a child will eat that day so yeah we love the childrens.

Absolutely. I'm a staunch proponent of subsidized school lunches for economically disadvantaged children. We as a nation might be hurting economically, but damn. These are our children, our future, and I for one don't want to see them go hungry because we've got a damned war to fund.
 
as you acknowledged, it was not addressed. but let's look at you positing this conclusion - one which was NOT made:
It's an implicit assumption being made by anyone who thinks this study indicates any sort of causal relationship between processed food and IQ. Once again, there are lots of alternative hypotheses to explain the correlation - that they did "NOT" address them is a weakness in the study.

but you introduced a conclusion of the study which you then attacked, when the study never offered such conclusion. a classic straw man - poorly constructed
Uh... no. A "classic straw man" would be me stating that they made the claim, whereas I explicitly stated they did not - it's one of many things not considered.

i look forward to seeing your mathematical proof which will show us why the measured IQ differential was unreliable and unmeaningful. that should be rich. please do not disappoint us and run away from offering your math
Are you seriously trying to claim that there's a meaningful difference between a person with a measured IQ of 113 and a person with a measured IQ of 114.6?

Seriously?

i look forward to seeing your mathematical proof which will show us why the measured IQ differential was unreliable and unmeaningful.
No need for mathematical proofs, the test provider calculates this information for you, and it's typically presented along with the results. While intelligence tests are quite good in terms of reliability - what you're talking about would require a near perfect test. At best (middle of the distribution), the Wechsler FSIQ composite has a standard error of measurement of around 2.5 or so. That means if you score an average 100...
The 68% confidence interval is 97.5-102.5
The 95% confidence interval is 95-105
The 99% confidence interval is 92.5-107.5
then disprove the study's results and conclusions.
That's not the way it works.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom