This is really interesting to me. I've always associated rationality with intelligence. Naturally this leads me to wonder how people with high intellectual aptitude have strangely inconsistent opinions.
But after reading this article, intuitively it makes sense to me. I'm eager to read the linked study for further study. I feel as though the researcher's holistic approach to quantifying rationality (decoupling rationality into IQ and "RQ") is more precise than assuming the two correlate together.
One of the things I'd be very curious about, assuming this study reproduces well, is whether or not it can be reproduced for other aptitude tests. We already have EQ, which will make three measures if this catches on. Can we keep decoupling traits from intelligence to measure them more granularly and accurately? What else could we move into its own category?
The capacity to abstract thought and the decision to classify it are two different concepts, but easy to conflate. As we form classifications our mylenic sheaths form around our neurons and abstracting concepts - even if apparent to others - becomes more challenging.
"Myelin is a fatty white substance that surrounds the axon of some nerve cells, forming an electrically insulating layer. It is essential for the proper functioning of the nervous system."
Further
"Myelination continues through the adolescent stage of life."
And finally
"The main purpose of a myelin layer (or sheath) is to increase the speed at which impulses propagate along the myelinated fiber"
I'd say myelin is a pretty good thing.
Pat Wolfe, in "Brain Matters: Translating Research into Classroom", goes on...
"Neurons in the frontal lobe receive a myelin sheath late in development, as evidenced by the increased ability of children to engage in higher-level and more abstract thinking."
I'm really stretching to understand how to interpret the conjunctive here
Mylenation is a double edged sword. We see in judo subjects the dramatic increase in reflexes and competetive advantage after substantial practice. On the other hand similar repetition in other areas can lead to difficulty construing other pathways. I also believe mylenation is responsible for the gradual decrease in appreciation of ones favourite songs.
In other words it can make things faster, but limit capacity for change and reduce broader neurological firing.
Sorry I haven't explained it very well - on the run with a phone.
I would strongly encourage a read of Pocket Guide To Interpersonal Neurobiology by Daniel Siegel, who touches on the neurobiology and broader aspects of the impact in an accessible narrative.
The kernel of what I seem to recall driving my original comment was that mylenation occurs at deep levels, during what we call the formative years, but if not adequately developed people can be or become susceptible to various negative psychological traits such as addiction, susceptibility to brainwashing, poor decision making, lack of critical thinking. As Max Planck put it - people don't change their mind to accept an idea, rather people die and everyone that's left just accepts the idea as true. A large part of what he was getting at is, I believe, a direct consequence of mylenation - namely the formation of faster but hard to change pathways in the brain.
But after reading this article, intuitively it makes sense to me. I'm eager to read the linked study for further study. I feel as though the researcher's holistic approach to quantifying rationality (decoupling rationality into IQ and "RQ") is more precise than assuming the two correlate together.
One of the things I'd be very curious about, assuming this study reproduces well, is whether or not it can be reproduced for other aptitude tests. We already have EQ, which will make three measures if this catches on. Can we keep decoupling traits from intelligence to measure them more granularly and accurately? What else could we move into its own category?