The claim about babies was startling: A test administered to infants as young as 6 months could predict their score on an intelligence test years later, when they started school.

“Why not test infants and find out which of them could take more in terms of stimulation?” Joseph F. Fagan III, the psychologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland who developed the test, was quoted as saying in an article by Gina Kolata on April 4, 1989. “It’s not going to hurt anybody, that’s for sure.”

In the test, the infant looks at a series of photographs — first a pair of identical faces, then the same face paired with one the baby hasn’t seen. The researchers measure how long the baby looks at the new face.

“On the surface, it tests novelty preference,” said Douglas K. Detterman, a colleague of Dr. Fagan’s at Case Western.

For reasons not quite understood, babies of below-average intelligence do not exhibit the same attraction to novelty.

Dr. Fagan suggested that the test could be used to identify children with above-average intelligence in poorer families so they could be exposed to enrichment programs more readily available to wealthier families.

But his primary motivation, said Cynthia R. Holland, his wife and longtime collaborator, was to look for babies at the other end of the intelligence curve, those who would fall behind as they grew up.

“His hope was always was to identify early on, in the first year of life, kids who were at risk, cognitively, so we could focus our resources on them and help them out,” said Dr. Holland, a professor of psychology at Cuyahoga Community College.

25 YEARS LATER For the most part, the validity of the Fagan test holds up. Indeed, Dr. Fagan (who died last August) and Dr. Holland revisited infants they had tested in the 1980s, and found that the Fagan scores were predictive of the I.Q. and academic achievement two decades later when these babies turned 21.

For the last decade of his life, Dr. Fagan was unexpectedly drawn into the “genes versus environment” debate over intelligence after he found that babies from widely different cultural backgrounds performed equally well on his test. That, he argued, undercut the argument for a biological basis for the stark “achievement gap” between white and black children, or rich and poor.

In a chapter in “The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence”, co-edited by Dr. Kaufman and published in 2011, Dr. Fagan wrote, “A parsimonious explanation for the findings is that later differences in I.Q. between different racial-ethnic groups may spring from differences in cultural exposure to information past infancy, not from group differences in the basic ability to process information.”

Dr. Fagan (who died last August) and Dr. Holland revisited infants they had tested in the 1980s, and found that the Fagan scores were predictive of the I.Q. and academic achievement two decades later when these babies turned 21.

Dr. Fagan wrote, “A parsimonious explanation for the findings is that later differences in I.Q. between different racial-ethnic groups may spring from differences in cultural exposure to information past infancy, not from group differences in the basic ability to process information.”

“Why not test infants and find out which of them could take more in terms of stimulation?”

This

Seems to be at odds with this

... Am I missing something here?

Whoahhhhh-- my daughter, on the other hand, responded SO strongly to over-stimulation that she could not be soothed as a newborn, and was incredibly upset for hours over too much holding, too much visual input, too much light, too much sound, too-much of pretty much anything. Sitting in a cool, quiet, dim room was the only way to shut it off once she got going.

Sensory OE, much? OH YEAH. Evident from birth. Everything was (and has always been) very much on her terms.

My DS7 was a quivering ball of rage as an infant. I once saw him (I kid you not) put another 12 month old in a headlock when he wanted a toy.

My daughter was two weeks old and forcefully lifting her head to look around. I was told by a doctor that babies that young aren't supposed to be able to do that. Where there's a will, there's a way!

In reading the full article, the results are described as being predictive in aggregate, not at an individual level.

The article was a 25-year retrospective on a 2-part test:
1- test of novelty for babies
2- follow-up IQ test at age 21

The results were:
1- The article described that "babies from widely different cultural backgrounds performed equally well on his test."
2- The results of the follow-up IQ test at age 21 describes that results were consistent in aggregate, not at an individual level.

His thoughts penned in 2011 seemed to contemplate why the follow-up test was predictive in aggregate and not at an individual level.

Just my 2 cents.

And to supply a fun anecdote as well, DS2 (2 today!), due to a major birth defect, was born via scheduled C-section and immediately taken away by a pediatric team for medical care. My husband was allowed along and took pictures and a short video. He swears DS2 looked at the camera with interest at the age of 23 minutes. I swear I can see it in the pictures.

And to supply a fun anecdote as well, DS2 (2 today!), due to a major birth defect, was born via scheduled C-section and immediately taken away by a pediatric team for medical care. My husband was allowed along and took pictures and a short video. He swears DS2 looked at the camera with interest at the age of 23 minutes. I swear I can see it in the pictures.

I began reading to my DD each night while she was in the womb, and I always began by saying her name twice, in a particular, sing-song way... We were still in the delivery room... I said her name in that sing-song way. She immediately stopped wailing, and locked her eyes on mine. I was rocking her back and forth, and as she moved, her eyes moved to stay with me. I had read that she shouldn't be able to track moving objects with her eyes for weeks, so that was a shocker.

Yes! This is also supported by research - a baby's development of neural pathways in the brain can be fueled when people talk to and read to the baby.
DOE archive, Read With Me.
NPR article, Baby Talk (Hart & Risley).

There are huge potential personal and societal benefits when parents choose to interact with their babies in this way, even pre-born.

I wonder about this. My wife and I left our children from an early age with a live-in babysitter who was not that well educated. Maybe she talked to them as low-income mother talk to their children.

I wonder about this. My wife and I left our children from an early age with a live-in babysitter who was not that well educated. Maybe she talked to them as low-income mother talk to their children. I don't think this had a long-term detrimental impact on our children, although this is unknown. In general, when well-educated mothers go back to work, they are putting their children in the hands of less-educated women. Otherwise the economics don't work. In the day care setting those women are also caring for more children than a SAHM would be. I don't think the research has found that mothers working hurts the educational attainment of their children.

Could you elaborate on how you think low-income mothers talk to their children? And why you think this might have a long-term detrimental impact on a child?

I began reading to my DD each night while she was in the womb, and I always began by saying her name twice, in a particular, sing-song way... We were still in the delivery room... I said her name in that sing-song way. She immediately stopped wailing, and locked her eyes on mine. I was rocking her back and forth, and as she moved, her eyes moved to stay with me. I had read that she shouldn't be able to track moving objects with her eyes for weeks, so that was a shocker.

And what about all the twice exceptional babies here??? These are the kids who have gross, fine, speech, visual, feeding, or other developmental delays yet end up within the 98-99.9%. How do they factor into this study?

And what about those who are twice exceptional and receive early intervention and others who do not? A lot of variables there, particularly with those on the autism spectrum.

My dad and DH have a simliar story for me and DS.

1. My birth was a medical emergency, and I was inconsolable. After a few minutes of my wailing, my dad demanded to be let into the nursery to comfort me and said, "Aquinas, this is your Daddy." I immediately stopped crying and accepted his finger to suck on while we waited for my mum to be prepared to see me, all the while watching him intently as he cradled me.

2. DS' birth was also a medical emergency (for the same reason), and DH provided kangaroo care for DS while I came out of anaesthetic. Because DH read the same set of stories to DS every night while I was pregnant, he decided to recite a story to DS. DS stopped crying and accepted comforting on dad's warm chest. DS was apparently transfixed with DH's face and seemed to anticipate the funny parts of the story with excitement.

I love my gentle gentlemen!