Bring in an article on your topic and break it down according to the four criteria that I
have on the Prezi for the week.
Autistic traits and IQ were tested in 45 twins in Nagoya, Japan. Children were between the ages of 4 and 6. The Childhood Autism Rating Scale was used to measure autism severity. IQ was measured using the Tanika-Binet test (Japanese version of the Stanford-Binet). Genetic correlations between IQ and autistic traits were found to be high regardless of gender. On the other hand, individual environments were also shown to have a moderate effect on IQ. Cholesky structural equation models were used to arrange the correlations into genetic and environmental factors, which were also taken a step further down to sex-specific factors.
This study only looked at the analysis of 45 twins, making it the smallest sample shown thus far. It is very often difficult, however, to obtain a large sample size of pairs of twins in which only one has a disorder, especially given only one country or city to research. Similar to the marijuana study, its results are in the form of a correlation between IQ and autistic traits, which cannot necessarily be taken as causation. However, the methods were sound, and the research used advanced models to measure autistic traits; the IQ test given is known for high reliability. There simply needs to be more research conducted in order for it to be taken as reliable evidence, which is clearly outlined in the discussion
section of the study, showing that the researchers were objective and unbiased.
A dietary supplement called creating that is often advertised as a muscle builder was shown to enhance working memory and intelligence in a 6-week trial. This substance has been found to vary in carnivores depending on the type and amount of the meat that they eat so five milligrams of the substance or a placebo was fed to 45 young adult vegetarians in Australia. An assortment of tests was then given to the subjects
of both groups, on which those given creating scored better. The article concludes that while creating may give subjects improved brain function,
unwanted side effects such as blood sugar imbalance may impose a threat. For this reason, the experiment excluded those with diabetes. Animal studies have also shown that creating may help in the treatment of stroke.
This short article is simply a summary of a more scholarly article in a scientific journal. It states comprehensively what was studied and the results of that study, but it does not show the methods, so it cannot be determined exactly how credible the ascertains are. On the other hand, the sample size is given so one can say that more evidence is needed based on its very small size. Also, it does not give other factors which may have led to increased performance on the test, such as types of food consumed and other supplements the people were taking. The article
obviously shows confirmation bias in how positive the last statement is, neglecting the fact that creating may also cause sugar imbalances. It would be more useful to read the original article sourced from a scholarly journal.
All but one of these articles is complete and from a scholarly journal. The first was very promising, showing the most objective and controlled data, leading to a logical conclusion; the second was objective but was not as controlled, resulting in a more simple correlational study; the third was also correlational, however the research was more objective and controlled, using reliable tests to compare data; the fourth and final article was a simple magazine article, summarizing a more scholarly one for the general public. All of these articles have merit in different forms – even the magazine article is somewhat credible given that it cited its resource. However the most credible was the study of the children in China on drinking water, given that it was the only study to have an experimental and
control group.
I selected intelligence because I was initially interested on the effects of nutrition on intelligence and other factors. I am also interested in intelligence because it has one of the most subjective definitions of everything that could be studied. I was amazed to find out that marijuana did not have such an effect on intelligence as one would think (although these were not conclusive findings). I was not as surprised with the fluoride and drinking water, and I might use that information to challenge toothpaste manufacturers on whether the amount of fluoride they use is safe,what with all of the fluoride obtained already by drinking water. The findings of the creating (while not conclusive, given the credibility of the article) also did not surprise me, given that I hold a strong belief that the omnivorous diet is the most nutritionally appropriate. This is something that I realized about a year ago after reading about the similarities of the diets of the very healthy native cultures, which were all
omnivorous.
This study only looked at the analysis of 45 twins, making it the smallest sample shown thus far. It is very often difficult, however, to obtain a large sample size of pairs of twins in which only one has a disorder, especially given only one country or city to research. Similar to the marijuana study, its results are in the form of a correlation between IQ and autistic traits, which cannot necessarily be taken as causation. However, the methods were sound, and the research used advanced models to measure autistic traits; the IQ test given is known for high reliability. There simply needs to be more research conducted in order for it to be taken as reliable evidence, which is clearly outlined in the discussion
section of the study, showing that the researchers were objective and unbiased.
A dietary supplement called creating that is often advertised as a muscle builder was shown to enhance working memory and intelligence in a 6-week trial. This substance has been found to vary in carnivores depending on the type and amount of the meat that they eat so five milligrams of the substance or a placebo was fed to 45 young adult vegetarians in Australia. An assortment of tests was then given to the subjects
of both groups, on which those given creating scored better. The article concludes that while creating may give subjects improved brain function,
unwanted side effects such as blood sugar imbalance may impose a threat. For this reason, the experiment excluded those with diabetes. Animal studies have also shown that creating may help in the treatment of stroke.
This short article is simply a summary of a more scholarly article in a scientific journal. It states comprehensively what was studied and the results of that study, but it does not show the methods, so it cannot be determined exactly how credible the ascertains are. On the other hand, the sample size is given so one can say that more evidence is needed based on its very small size. Also, it does not give other factors which may have led to increased performance on the test, such as types of food consumed and other supplements the people were taking. The article
obviously shows confirmation bias in how positive the last statement is, neglecting the fact that creating may also cause sugar imbalances. It would be more useful to read the original article sourced from a scholarly journal.
All but one of these articles is complete and from a scholarly journal. The first was very promising, showing the most objective and controlled data, leading to a logical conclusion; the second was objective but was not as controlled, resulting in a more simple correlational study; the third was also correlational, however the research was more objective and controlled, using reliable tests to compare data; the fourth and final article was a simple magazine article, summarizing a more scholarly one for the general public. All of these articles have merit in different forms – even the magazine article is somewhat credible given that it cited its resource. However the most credible was the study of the children in China on drinking water, given that it was the only study to have an experimental and
control group.
I selected intelligence because I was initially interested on the effects of nutrition on intelligence and other factors. I am also interested in intelligence because it has one of the most subjective definitions of everything that could be studied. I was amazed to find out that marijuana did not have such an effect on intelligence as one would think (although these were not conclusive findings). I was not as surprised with the fluoride and drinking water, and I might use that information to challenge toothpaste manufacturers on whether the amount of fluoride they use is safe,what with all of the fluoride obtained already by drinking water. The findings of the creating (while not conclusive, given the credibility of the article) also did not surprise me, given that I hold a strong belief that the omnivorous diet is the most nutritionally appropriate. This is something that I realized about a year ago after reading about the similarities of the diets of the very healthy native cultures, which were all
omnivorous.