Intelligence

Have you ever stopped to wonder how your brain creates the endless stream of thoughts that fill your day? Or why a random memory might suddenly pop into your head without warning? It may seem like pure magic, but the human brain is actually a biological supercomputer, tirelessly working to help you think, learn, and make decisions. As a professor of psychology and neuroscience, I’ve spent almost 20 years studying this fascinating organ. While neurologists, neuroscientists, and neurosurgeons continue to unlock its secrets, we have come to understand that the brain operates much like a busy, bustling city, with messages traveling along vast networks to give rise to everything you think and feel.

For most of us, the days of standardized testing are a distant memory. But for parents and students, the pressure to perform on cognitive ability tests, which are very similar to IQ tests, is a modern reality. Imagine a parent learning their child’s cognitive ability test (Cat) score is below average. Immediately, a cascade of unsettling questions arises: Will this prevent them from getting into a top university or securing a successful career? Amidst this anxiety, a hopeful thought might emerge. If test scores matter so much, can a person’s performance be improved through practice, just like any other skill? Science offers a clear answer: while you can certainly boost your score on these cognitive tests, the practice won’t actually make you more intelligent.

For decades, fluoride has been a cornerstone of dentistry and public health, widely recognized for its ability to protect against tooth decay. In Australia, for instance, more than 90% of the population has access to fluoridated tap water, a program scientifically proven to be safe and effective. However, a recently published meta-analysis has sparked media attention by suggesting a link between higher fluoride exposure and lower intelligence quotient (IQ) in children. This finding has understandably caused concern among the public. But how should we interpret these results? According to Professor Loc Do, an expert in dental public health, a closer look at the data reveals that the findings are not a reason to worry about the fluoride levels in public water supplies. The review is based on a body of research with significant limitations, and its conclusions do not apply to controlled fluoridation programs in developed nations.

In the vast, beautiful landscape of Tasmania, the mountain ash, the world’s tallest flowering plant, stands as a living testament to nature’s ingenuity. These remarkable trees, capable of reaching over 100 meters and living for centuries, are not just silent giants; they are crucial components of their ecosystems. Yet, despite their vital role, their numbers are dwindling due to human activity, highlighting a profound disconnect between our world and the natural one. At the Deep Design Lab, we believe that humans consistently undervalue plants and the powerful lessons they offer. Our research into Tasmania’s ancient eucalypts has revealed a wealth of wisdom for urban planners, designers, and the public. By learning from nature’s brilliant solutions, we can create more resilient, biodiverse, and sustainable living environments.

The question of what age a child should get a smartphone is a common one for both parents and kids. A 2019 report revealed that over half of U.S. children have a smartphone by the age of 11, with some starting much younger. However, according to an expert in media and technology, there is no single right answer to the age question. Instead, the decision should be based on a combination of factors, including a child’s responsibility, safety needs, and social maturity, as well as a family’s ability to set healthy habits.

Boosting a child’s literacy can be as simple as sending their parents a few text messages, but a recent study reveals a surprising finding: the number of messages matters. Researchers at Stanford and Texas A&M conducted a randomized experiment to find the optimal way to use text messaging to improve parental engagement and, in turn, children’s academic performance. Their key finding is that a program that sends three different types of messages per week is the most effective for engaging parents and improving children’s reading skills, proving that a simple, low-cost solution can make a powerful difference.

The debate over whether to allow smartphones in schools has intensified following a new report from UNESCO, which raises concerns about the devices’ disruptive nature and links them to cyberbullying. With some countries already enacting full bans, school leaders are grappling with the issue, weighing potential learning benefits against academic drawbacks and social challenges. In this complex discussion, four scholars offer their expert opinions, highlighting the tension between leveraging technology for education and protecting the classroom from its most harmful effects.

In my classroom, students are quick to offer opinions on whether AI is intelligent. They can assess its ability to analyze, evaluate, and communicate. But when I ask whether AI can truly “think,” I’m often met with blank stares. The two words may seem synonymous, but philosophers have spent millennia drawing careful distinctions between them. While ancient Greek thinkers like Plato and Aristotle never knew of modern technology, their ideas about intellect and thinking offer a powerful framework for understanding what’s at stake with artificial intelligence today.

For the last fifty years, a good education meant preparing kids for high-paying knowledge work in science and technology. But with generative AI now capable of writing code, drafting reports, and analyzing data, those rules may be changing. Teachers and parents alike are now asking what skills children will need in a world infused with AI. The answer isn’t to double down on what machines can do; it’s to focus on what they can’t: the uniquely human attributes we call soft skills. As a professor of education policy and a former teacher, I believe the future of K-12 education lies in teaching emotional awareness, complex problem-solving, and the value of “slow learning.”

The arrival of generative AI has sent shockwaves through academia, sparking familiar debates about cheating and the erosion of critical thinking. But a new study reveals a more complex and troubling story. Research from the University of Pittsburgh shows that beyond the academic concerns, AI is having a significant emotional and interpersonal effect on students, who are feeling anxious, confused, and distrustful in the classroom. The presence of AI is not just changing how students learn; it is fundamentally altering their relationships with their peers and instructors, creating an uncomfortable new reality that students are struggling to navigate with few clear guidelines.