Posts Tagged ‘IQ’

The Problem Within the Genius Within

December 22, 2018

David Adam is an entertaining writer has written an entertaining book “The Genius Within: Unlocking Your Brain’s Potential.” The primary problem is his preoccupation with IQ. He has written responsibly about how the IQ has been misused and has resulted in gross injustices to entire groups of people. What he does not recognize are the individuals who conclude they are dumb because they have low IQs.

Adam has qualified for and joined Mensa, an organization that requires at IQ of at least 130 to join. But he has met with these people and not found anything outstanding about them. There likely are some members of Mensa who have made significant accomplishments in various field. But the vast majority of successful people do not belong to Mensa and see no point to belonging in Mensa.

HM encourages all readers and anyone who’ll listen to him or read what he writes. Do not let anyone define you. Define yourself and work to your definition. The seminal work by Carol Dweck on growth mindsets is critical here. People with growth mindsets refuse to believe that intelligence is fixed, but can and should grow with lifelong learning. Many healthy memory posts have argued that growth mindsets provide perhaps the best means of building a cognitive reserve and warding off dementia. This is true even if one’s brain becomes infected with the neurofibrillary tangles and amyloid plaque, which are the defining features of Alzheimer’s.

Moreover constant learning also leads to a more fulfilling and meaningful like. Never stop until you breathe your last breath.

As for electronic and other enhancements, it is hoped that they can be used to relieve or remediate pathological conditions. They also might assist in performing specific tasks or learning specific materials. These enhancements need to be tested for any unintended consequences, but if they are safe they can be used for the ends of personal fulfillment.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Advertisements

The Genius Within: Unlocking Your Brain’s Potential

December 17, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of a new book by David Allen. David Allen is a British journalist with a highly entertaining writing style. HM is envious of his writing style. So for a more enjoyable presentation of this material read the book. Much of the book will be ignored. Although it is both interesting and scholarly, it contains many red herrings with respect to genius. Foremost among them is the intelligence quotient (IQ). Mr. Allen is so captivated by IQ that he applied for the high IQ group Mensa. To join Mensa you need to have an IQ of at least 130. About 2% of the population would be eligible. Mr. Adam passed and in an effort to raise his IQ after different training attempts he managed to raise it by one point. This is well within the margin of error of IQ tests. He used the drug modafil, but it didn’t seem to help.

Mr. Allen did not find anything exceptional about members of Mensa. They were doing all right in life, but nothing exceptional. Much research has been done on the size and structure of the brain, but this research has not revealed anything substantive.

Mr. Allen does devote space to the evils of IQ testing. It has been used to disqualify large groups and races as being intellectually inferior. It has been used to justify sterilization and even the killing of what was regarded as inferior populations. To learn more about IQ tests enter “Flynn” into the search block of the healthy memory blog. To learn more about the inadequacy of intelligence tests enter “Stanovich” into the search block of the healthy memory blog.

Perhaps the worse effect of IQ is that it has led people to believe that they are not smart and are unlikely to succeed at anything difficult. What has found to be important for IQ is mindset.[enter “mindset” into the search block of the healthy memory blog] The psychologist Carol Dweck has identified two kinds of mindsets: fixed and growth.  People with a fixed mindset believe that we are who we are, and abilities can only be revealed, not created and developed.  They say things like “I’m bad in math” and see that as a fixed feature like being female or left-handed.  The problem with this mindset is that it has serious consequences because a person who thinks they are poor at math will remain poor at math and won’t try hard to improve; they believe this would be pointless.  Whatever potential these people have will not be realized if they think that these skills are immutable.

However, people with growth mindsets believe that skills can be developed if they are worked at. The growth mindset is the true mindset that allows for personal development.  Fixed mindsets are erroneous mindsets that preclude further development. Dweck has conducted experiments that illustrate and provide insight into this difference.  In one experiment she gave relatively easy puzzles to fifth graders, which they enjoyed. Then she gave the children harder puzzles. Some children suddenly lost interest and declined an offer to take the puzzles home.  Other children loved the harder puzzles more than the easy ones and wanted to know how they could get more of these puzzles.  Dweck noted that the difference between the two groups was not “puzzle-solving talent.”  Among the equally adept children, some were turned off by the tougher challenge while others were intrigued.  They key factor was mindset. In another experiment Dweck found that even when people with the fixed-mindset try, they don’t get as much from the experience as those who believe they can grow.  She scanned the brains of volunteers as they answered hard questions, then were told whether  their answers were right or wrong and given information that could help them improve.  The scans showed that volunteers with a fixed mindset were fully engaged when they were told whether their answers were right or wrong, but that’s all they apparently cared about.  Information that could help them improve their answers didn’t engage them.  Even when they’d  gotten an answer wrong, they were not interested in what the right answer was.  Only people with a growth mindset paid close attention  to information that could stretch their knowledge.  For them, learning was a top priority.

Too many people try something, have difficulty doing it, and then abandon it thinking that pursuing it will be a waste of time. However, there are many people who were not discouraged by their initial failures. Rather they regarded these failures as motivation to succeed and became very successful in their pursuits. Barbara Oakley is a prime example. [Enter “Oakley” into the search block of the healthy memory blog to find relevant posts.] Barbara Oakley is someone who despised mathematics, but who eventually decided that mathematics would be critical to her success. She began work slowly but diligently. And she discovered as her skills improved, she began to increasingly like mathematics, which ultimately led her to becoming a highly successful engineer.

The take away lesson here is not to let any one or any test define you. Define yourself and then work diligently to succeed.

Perhaps more important than professional success is personal success and personal fulfillment. Rather than a number, you want to have personal knowledge and skills that result from growth mindsets.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Emotional Intelligence

March 5, 2018

HM needs to apologize to his readers. “Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ” by Daniel Goleman was published more than 20 years ago. HM did not read it because he was already convinced of the title that emotional intelligence can matter more than IQ. Moreover, HM would have gone further and argued that in most cases emotional intelligence matters more than IQ. A tenth anniversary edition was published in 2005, but HM still didn’t read it.

HM has finally read it and has discovered that the research on emotional intelligence is very rich, and that he was not adequately familiar with it. Moreover, there is much information and many tips as to how one can improve emotional intelligence. The healthy memory blog has many posts on mindfulness and meditation. These are essential for gaining control of one’s attention and emotions. However, these are general exercises. Emotional intelligence has much information as to how one can improve one’s own emotional intelligence, and how emotional intelligence can be fostered among fellow humans.

HM will do his very best to disseminate as much useful information as he can in his posts. However, he realizes that he is not up to this, and although he will do his best, he will still fall short of the mark. So he strongly recommends that you get this book and read it for yourself. Moreover, this is not a book to read and then set aside. It needs to be studied continuously throughout one’s life.

These frequently repeating shooting incidents that are occur throughout the United States and its schools are very worrisome. Coverage of these events is extensive, and solutions have been offered, but HM has yet to hear emotional intelligence in these discussions. This is unfortunate as emotional intelligence is of special importance.

To make this point, please indulge HM in relating a bit of personal history. In the fourth grade, he had many friends, but one was quite special and he spent many free hours together and with others. However, when they moved into the fifth grade they somehow became estranged. Two former close friends became enemies. Enemies to the extent that HM engaged in one of only a few fights. This occurred on the school ground after school. HM was winning at the beginning of the fight, but his former friend eventually achieved the advantage. Fortunately for HM, at this point a teacher intervened and stopped the fight. They remained estranged. It was not until many, many years later that HM asked himself why his friend had changed. HM started to think that perhaps his friend’s family was having problems such as his parents breaking up that caused the change in his personality, and that he had failed to realize this and had failed to come to his assistance. Rather than offering help, he became an enemy and ended up fighting.

At these shooting incidents the mental status of the shooter is at issue. The lack of emotional intelligence is never mentioned. There are likely many others at school, who are short on emotional intelligence and who are leading destructive lives. Then there are the remaining students, faculty, and staff who should witness events and note how certain students are being excluded. So it is not just one individual, but an entire school system that could do with some training and instruction in emotional intelligence. Increases in emotional intelligence will also benefit individuals in helping them live more enjoyable productive lives.

So many posts will follow, but it is still strongly recommended that you purchase, read, and continue to study Goleman’s outstanding work on emotional intelligence.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Does Your Family Make You Smarter?

October 18, 2016

The title of this post is identical to the title of a very important book by Professor James R. Flynn.  The subtitle is ”Nature, Nurture, and Human Autonomy.”  Flynn is the founder of the “Flynn Effect,” which describes the inflation of the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) over time.  This effect has been so large and consistent that the IQ has to have been periodically updated and recalibrate so that the mean would be 100.  Flynn had argued that this must be an artifact as we apparently had not become as smarter as the recalibration of the test indicated.  However, further research and collaboration with his colleague W. T. Dickens led to the conclusion that we were becoming smarter, and an explanation of how we were becoming smarter.

“Does Your Family Make You Smarter” is highly technical.  For those whose area of interest is this topic, then reading is mandatory.  However, this book should be of interest to everyone, so HM shall try to summarize the salient points that are of general interest.

Historically, IQ has been a hot topic with respect to the distinction between genetic and environmental effects.  Although we can distinguish between the two factors with mathematics, it is important to realize that in the real world we cannot view genetic as distinct from environment effects.  HM is reminded of a story, perhaps apocryphal, of an experiment that was done to determine what was the true language for humans.  So the plan was not to interact or speak with a newborn baby.  They thought that when the baby did speak, they would know what the true human language was.  Of course, in this environment the baby would never learn a language and would be severely handicapped.

The truth is that the effects of genes and environment are inextricably intertwined.   Flynn does not even touch the topic of epigenetics, which refers to the information that is read out from the genes.  Recent research has found that the nature of this readout can be beneficial or detrimental depending on the nature of the environment.

Flynn’s colleague Dickens posited that genes and environment become more highly correlated as we age, meaning that their influence was additive.  The potency of the environment was based by combining the two, which erroneously had been ascribed to genes alone in the twin studies.  By the time we reach maturity, current environment has only a feeble memory of past environments except under unusual  circumstances such as brain trauma.

What has been happening is that modernity is causing our habits of processing information to adapt so that we can more readily handle abstract concepts. So most of us have become more intelligent.  There is a social multiplier effect, which is aided and abetted by technology.  The example provided is basketball.  The televising of basketball games enabled everyone to see how the game was played by experts.  Young players try to model on the playground what they saw on television.

There are adverse effects of new technology, such as the spread of misinformation.  But there are also good effects as better ways of thinking and doing things can be readily communicated.

Flynn speaks of family effects.  Family effects include genes and the environment provided by the family.  A family of professionals will have a higher level of communication and will follow more media with better quality information.  These effects continue until the young adult leaves home.  Intelligence should continue to develop depending upon the environments in which she works and plays.  In good environments intelligence should continue to grow.  This growth can stop when people retire unless they continue to foster their cognitive development with mental and social activities that promote continued growth.

Healthy memory readers should immediately recognize that this is in consonance with the message that is repeated over and over in this blog.  Should you not have recognized this consonance, then you have a lot of remedial reading to do.  Start by entering “growth mindsets” into the search block of the healthy memory blog.

Dr. Flynn is 82 years old and provides an ideal individual to try to emulate.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

More On Flynn and the Flynn Effect

July 13, 2016

The Flynn Effect has been discussed on previous healthy memory blog posts.  The Flynn effect refers to the gain in IQs over time.  IQs seem to have risen about 3 points per decade since about 1930. Gains have been larger for fluid than for crystallized intelligence. A wide range of reasons for this increase have been offered to include nutrition, schooling, urbanization, technology, television, the preschool home environment, and so forth.  Originally Flynn did not endorse any of these causes and questioned whether gains in intelligence were real.

From what healthy memory read in “GRIT,” it appears that Flynn has modified his views.    Digging through the raw scores of IQ tests taken over the years, he found that the improvement on some tests were much bigger than others.  The IQ tests had climbed most sharply for scores assessing abstract reasoning.  For example young children today might answer the question, “Dogs and rabbits:  How are they alike? by noting that  both are alive, or that they’re both animals.  These answers would only earn a half credit.  If the child noted that they’re both mammals, she would be awarded a full credit for that insight.  In contrast, young children a century ago might look at you quizzically and note, “dogs have rabbits.”  That response would earn zero points.  So Flynn believes that we are getting better and better at abstract reasoning.

To explain why this improvement might be occurring he told a story about basketball and television.  Flynn played basketball and remembers the game changing even within a few years.  Once television became a fixture in homes and the telecasting of basketball games on television, more kids started playing the game, trying to emulate what they were seeing on television.  The kids started trying left-handed layups, crossover dribbles, graceful hook shots, and other skills that were routine for the star players on TV.  By getting better each kid inadvertently enriched the learning environment for the kids being played against.  One thing that makes a player better at basketballs playing with players who are just a little more skilled.

Flynn calls this virtuous cycle of skill improvement the social multiplier effect, and he used the same logic to explain generational changes in abstract reasoning.  Over the past century more and more of our jobs and daily lives asks to think analytically, logically.  We goto school longer, and in school, we’re asked more and more, to reason rater than to rely on rote memorization.  These effects are multiplied socially, because each of us enriches the environment of all of us.

Stanovich and the Rational Quotient

June 28, 2016

This post is based on a paper, “The Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking” in the January-March 2016 issue of the “Educational Psychologist.”  This paper constitutes the 2013 Thorndike Award Address by Stanovich.  The award was for Stonovich’s work in the areas of reasoning and reading.  Stanovich is the primary author of the Tri-Process Model of Cognition, which is an elaboration of Kahneman’s Two System View of Cognition.

Stanovich has long been of the strong opinion that the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) does not adequately capture intelligence.  He and his colleagues have been working for more than twenty years to compensate for the shortcomings of this quotient.  This work has been most fruitful and Stanovich and his colleagues now have developed a Rational Quotient (RQ).  They have developed a rational thinking assessment instrument called the Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking (CART).  This research is highly technical, but the goal of this post is to provide some flavor for the RQ and to what it captures that is missed by the IQ.

Rationality is a central concept in cognitive science.  Two types of rationality are recognized:  instrumental and epistemic.  The simplest definition of instrumental rationality involves behaving in the world so that you get exactly what you most want, given the resources (physical and mental) available to you.  More technically, instrumental rationality is the optimization of the individual’s goal fulfillment.   Economists and cognitive scientist have refined the notion of optimization goal fulfillment into the technical notion of expected utility.

Epistemic rationality concerns how well beliefs map on to the actual structure of the world. In other words, how much do you really know, how accurate are your beliefs.  Mahketelow has emphasized the practicality of both types of rationality by noting that they concern two critical things:  what is true and what to do.  “For our beliefs to be rational they must correspond to the way the world is—they must be true.  Healthy Memory (HM) feels compelled to note here that our knowledge of the world should always be tentative and that this knowledge should consist of different probabilities of belief.  We only have our internal models of the world to work with, and we should be continuing to update these models based on our experiences and what we learn.  For our actions to be rational, they must be the best means to our goals—they must be the best things to do based on what we know

To be instrumentally rational, one must choose among options based on which option has the highest expected utility.  Decision situations can be broken down into three components:  possible actions, possible states of the world, and evaluations of the consequences of possible actions in each state of the world.  HM must once again make the point that in many, if not most, of the cases, this can be computationally demanding and difficult to do.  Perhaps in the near future there will be apps to help us do this.  But in the meantime, the best we can do is to satisfice.

Rational thinking subsumes critical thinking.  Critical thinking is important, but it is a type of thinking rather than a domain of knowledge.  The best way to assess critical thinking is to assess how well it fosters rationality.  “We value certain thinking dispositions because we think that they will at least aid in bringing belief  in line with the world (epistemic rationality) and in achieving our goals (instrumental rationality).  Critical thinking is important.  Assessing critical thinking along the lines of epistemic rationality and instrumental rationality seem to be good routes for both assessing and developing critical thinking.

HM hopes this post has been helpful.  Perhaps future posts will make it clearer.  The key take away is that CART and the RQ has begun.  It will mature in the future, with the hope that measures of mental ability will improve.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Why Have We Stopped Getting Smarter?

September 10, 2014

“Why Have We Stopped Getting Smarter” is the subtitle of a an article in the NewScientist August 23 2014 titled “Dumbing Down.” I feel compelled to post about this article because it is a likely sign of the ending of, or perhaps even a reversal of, the Flynn Effect. I have written several posts on the Flynn Effect (type “Flynn Effect” into the healthymemory blog search box to find them.). The Flynn Effect is the increase in IQ scores that has been occurring over the past several decades. This has required the repeated re-norming of IQ tests so that the average remains at 100. Well that increase has now stopped and might even be reversing.

The New Scientist article goes into several explanations as to why this has happened. One of them is that smarte r people are having fewer children, so that dumber people are contributing more to the average wih the result that the average IQ has stopped increasing and might even have begun to decrease.. There seems to be a belief among some that we have stopped getting smarter and might even be dumbing down, hence the title and subtitle of the article.

This is ironic because Flynn himself used the effect to argue that IQ tests were not accurately measuring intelligence. He argued that had there been true increases in intelligence, society would have advanced much more than it has, and would be in much less trouble than it is in. So I think he would also argue that the end and possible reversal of the Flynn Effect does not mean that we have stopped getting smarter or that we are dumbing down.

Knowing and believing one’s IQ score can be a problem. Those with high scores might reason that they do not need to learn or apply themselves because they are blessed with so much brain power. On the other hand, those who know and believe their low IQ scores might think that they lack sufficient brain power and concede defeat.

Of course readers of the healthymemory blog should believe that they should use whatever brain power they have to best advantage. Moreover, their goal should be to continue to learn and grow their cognitive capacity as long as they live. They should also know that neurogenesis provides for this growth as long as the maintain their physical health and grow the health of their memories by following some of the activities (there are way to many to follow them all) they find in the healthymemory blog.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Intelligence and the Tri-Process Model of Cognition

November 3, 2013

The immediately preceding post was on the Flynn Effect, which referred to a 3-point increase in IQ scores over the course of each decade since 1930. However, Flynn himself did not think that there had been an actual increase in intelligence over time, but rather an increase in IQ scores. Criticisms of the IQ test are nothing new. Stanovich has been criticizing the IQ test for years and has started research to address this shortcoming (enter “Stanovich” into the healthymemory blog search box to find more posts on Stanovich).

Stanovich (2011) is doing this by building on Kahneman’s Two System View of Cognition (See the healthymemory blog post “The Two System View of Cognition”). System 1 is named Intuition. System 1 is very fast, employs parallel processing, and appears to be automatic and effortless. They are so fast that they are executed, for the most part, outside conscious awareness. Emotions and feelings are also part of System 1. Learning is associative and slow. For something to become a System 1 process requires much repetition and practice. Activities such as walking, driving, and conversation are primarily System 1 processes. They occur rapidly and with little apparent effort. We would not have survived if we could not do these types of processes rapidly. But this speed of processing is purchased at a cost, the possibility of errors, biases, and illusions.

System 2 is named Reasoning. It is controlled processing that is slow, serial, and effortful. It is also flexible. This is what we commonly think of as conscious thought. One of the roles of System 2 is to monitor System 1 for processing errors, but System 2 is slow and System 1 is fast, so errors to slip through.

It is clear that System 2 is very important and covers a lot of territory, but there remains much to be done to develop System 2. This is precisely what Stanovich is doing. He calls System 1 the Autonomous Mind. System 2 is divided into what Stanovich terms the Algorithmic Mind and the Reflective Mind. It is the Reflective Mind that catches errors in System 1 processing. However, the Algorithmic Mind can still commit errors and terminate processing prematurely. The algorithmic mind engages in serial associative cognition. Consider the now famous bat and ball problem. A bat and a ball cost $1.10 total. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? The mind tends to offer the answer $0.10 because the answer seems simple, just the parsing of the $1 from the $0.10 In fact, 50% of Princeton students and 56% of the students at the University of Michigan came up with this answer. But this answer is wrong. If the bat costs $1 more than the ball and the ball costs $0.10, then the bat would cost $1.10, which when added to the ball cost would reach $1.20. The correct answer is $0.05. That would mean that the bat costs $1.05, and the two added together would yield the desired $1.10. Now if the Reflective Mind is on the job, the Algorithmic Mind will run a check and discover that the ball costing $0.10 would yield an erroneous total of $1.20, conduct some mental arithmetic and arrive at the correct answer of $0.05.

Wason’s four card selection task provides another example of how the Tri-Process Model works. A research participant is presented four cards: K, A, 8, and 5. She is told that there is a letter or number on the opposite side of the card. The rule is that if a card has a vowel on its letter side, then it has an even number on its opposite side. The task is to decide which card or cards must be turned over to determine if the rule is true or false. The correct answer is A and 5, the only two cards that could show that the rule is false. However, the majority of research participants typically respond A and 8. So presumably they are engaging the Algorithmic Mind and making choices that would confirm the hypothesis. If the Reflective Mind is doing its job, it will catch this error and engage in simulations of all the possibilities and discover that there could be an even number on the other side of the K. The Reflective Mind might also be aware that a confirmation bias pervades most of our thinking and that we typically look for confirming, not disconfirming information. But it is disconfirmation information that refutes rules or hypothesis.

There is no way I can do justice to the Tri-Process Model of Cognition, but it is fleshing out the Two System View and addressing serious problems in intelligence tests. Perhaps Stanovich can develop a Rational Quotient (RQ) in addition to the IQ, or perhaps a more comprehensive intelligence test can be developed.

Reference
Stanovich, K.E. (2011). Rationality & the Reflective Mind. New York: The Oxford University Press..

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Flynn on the Flynn Effect

November 1, 2013

The Flynn effect refers to the gain in IQs over time.1 IQs seem to have risen about 3 points per decade since about 1930. Gains have been larger for fluid than for crystallized intelligence. A wide range of reasons for this increase have been offered to include nutrition, schooling, urbanization, technology, television, the preschool home environment, and so forth.
However, Flynn himself did not endorse any of these causes.2 He believes that, in some sense, these gains in intelligence are not “real.” Although there were IQ gains, there might not have been intelligence gains. He felt that cultural flowering would have been evident from true increases in intelligence. He noted that “the number of inventions patented in fact showed a sharp decline over the last generation and the Who’s Who books of eminent scientists were not bursting at the seems.
So although IQ tests are measuring something and can predict fairly accurately success in school, they are missing some factor that makes for great science and innovation.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.