Advertisement
NeuroScientistNews
NeuroScientistNews

Heritability of Intelligence

A new study of thousands of people in Europe quantifies the genetic underpinnings of intelligence, finding that some 50 percent of smarts stems from genes.

By | August 9, 2011

Human fetalj neural stem cellsFLICKR, GE HEALTHCARE

In at least one population, about half of intelligence differences between individuals can be attributed to genetics—specifically, the sum of many small effects from hundreds or even thousands of genes. The study, published today (August 9) in Molecular Psychiatry, is the first to pin down the genetic influence on cognitive abilities.

The value of this paper is that it is the first clear and empirical demonstration that part of intelligence comes down to something which is writ in DNA,” said Patrick Sullivan, a psychiatric geneticist at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, who was not involved in the study.

For decades, scientists have fiercely debated how much of the variation in individual intelligence can be attributed to genes. Studies of identical twins have suggested that 60-80 percent of intelligence comes down to genes, but “the controversy in the past has been, ‘well, maybe there’s just no separating out nature and nurture,’” said study co-author Peter Visscher, a quantitative geneticist at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research in Australia.

In addition, aside from the Alzheimer’s-linked APOE4 gene, researchers who went looking for “intelligence genes” have been unable to find them. Furthermore, many studies purporting to look at the heritability of intelligence have been accused of using faulty methodology or tweaking the data to justify racist beliefs.

To tease out the genetic differences directly, Visscher and his colleagues analyzed roughly 500,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in about 3,500 adults aged 18 to 90 from the United Kingdom and Norway. The subjects took an array of vocabulary, speed of processing, and reasoning tests designed to measure intelligence.

Not surprisingly, they didn’t find any specific genes that were associated with higher cognitive abilities. Given the complexity of the trait, a single gene is unlikely to have a large effect on intelligence, meaning researchers would need a much larger sample size to detect those minute effects.

Instead, they were able to use a statistical technique to analyze the overall effect of genetics on smarts. Specifically, they used all 500,000 SNP locations to determine how genetically similar each subject was to every other individual in the study. They found that people who tested higher on intelligence were more genetically similar to each other than to those who scored lower in intelligence, and that roughly half of the variation in intelligence between individuals could be attributed to underlying genes. The results suggest that hundreds or even thousands of genes may each contribute a small amount to intelligence. But what those genes are remains a mystery.

One way to find those genes would be to increase the sample size by pooling genetic data from all studies on intelligence, Visscher said.

The findings also have a number of other limitations, researchers said. First, the study participants were mostly older adults, born as early as 1921, and thus represented a biased population—those healthy enough to still be alive, said geneticist Dorret Boomsma, who leads the Netherlands Twins Register at the VU University in Amsterdam, and was not involved in the study. The study population is also inherently biased because the selection criteria make it a nonrandom sample.

In addition, some researchers have questioned the statistical methods used, said Greg Gibson, director of the Center for Integrative Genomics at Georgia Institute of Technology who was not involved in the study. Because the researchers sampled only a small subset of the SNPs in the human genome, most of which are not in the actual genes that may affect intelligence, its quantitative estimate is not predictive of the larger population, he said. So even though genetics predicted about half of the variation in intelligence within their sample population, what they found would only predict about 1 percent of the variance in intelligence across the wider population in Northern Europe, Gibson said.

Finally, the study is only applicable to intelligence in populations they studied, Gibson added. “This study says absolutely nothing about differences between groups,” such as people of different ethnicities.

Davies, G., et. al, "Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic," Molecular Psychiatry, doi: 10.1038/mp.2011.85, 2011.


 

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Reginaldbolman

Anonymous

August 9, 2011

Assumptions : Genes influence intelligence

Assumption : IQ test directly shows intelligence

Assumption : Let's measure different populations and if they make the same score, there must be something genetically similar between them..

Problem

If you take a sample from Mexico, of course the populations genetics are similar.  But they would suck at an IQ test as education in mexico is far from compulsive. If you compared that with a population in Europe, you could say ''Aha Mexicans have inferior genetics har har har har''.. But that totally ignores the statistical bias of the population selection itself.

This whole study is just repeating what everyone knows that populations in different parts of the world have different levels of access to education and therefore score crappier on an IQ test.

Avatar of: Reginaldbolman

Anonymous

August 9, 2011

http://iq-test.learninginfo.or...

Contests this articles premise. I suggest everyone read it.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 9, 2011

Assumptions : Genes influence intelligence

Assumption : IQ test directly shows intelligence

Assumption : Let's measure different populations and if they make the same score, there must be something genetically similar between them..

Problem

If you take a sample from Mexico, of course the populations genetics are similar.  But they would suck at an IQ test as education in mexico is far from compulsive. If you compared that with a population in Europe, you could say ''Aha Mexicans have inferior genetics har har har har''.. But that totally ignores the statistical bias of the population selection itself.

This whole study is just repeating what everyone knows that populations in different parts of the world have different levels of access to education and therefore score crappier on an IQ test.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 9, 2011

http://iq-test.learninginfo.or...

Contests this articles premise. I suggest everyone read it.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 9, 2011

Assumptions : Genes influence intelligence

Assumption : IQ test directly shows intelligence

Assumption : Let's measure different populations and if they make the same score, there must be something genetically similar between them..

Problem

If you take a sample from Mexico, of course the populations genetics are similar.  But they would suck at an IQ test as education in mexico is far from compulsive. If you compared that with a population in Europe, you could say ''Aha Mexicans have inferior genetics har har har har''.. But that totally ignores the statistical bias of the population selection itself.

This whole study is just repeating what everyone knows that populations in different parts of the world have different levels of access to education and therefore score crappier on an IQ test.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 9, 2011

http://iq-test.learninginfo.or...

Contests this articles premise. I suggest everyone read it.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

It will eventually be found that genetics will determine the vast majority of intellience, and it will be the environment that will bring that out or not.  Science just needs to keep learning about how all the puzzle pieces fit together.  Everyone who thinks otherwise, build a bridge and get over it.   

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

Later responses demonstrate that critics still object to methodologies and analyses of the new study, suggesting that it in fact does not resolve criticisms of earlier studies, as alleged earlier in the article.  Still, it is consistent with earlier studies, strengthening the case for some role of genes in IQ variation, a position taken by the large majority of scholars in the area.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

Geez, Reggie old chum, perhaps you should have read the article before shooting off your mouth and recommending that the rest of us read an infomercial (work for them, do you?)  The people who did the study didn't compare populations from Europe to populations in third world countries. They did a statistical analysis of basically similar populations in the same part of the world (comparing people within Britain and within Norway). They didn't claim that genetics is the only determinant of intelligence, just that it is a major determinant accounting for about half the variability within those populations. Assigning an individual a low intellectual potential based on a single test carries a grave risk, but assessing the intelligence of segments of a fairly homogeneous population (e.g., in Norway) statistically is valid, even if upsets your PC little self. There is no doubt in the mind of anybody who has ever taught that there is a high correlation between test scores and intellect. You may not like it, but all those kids with 700+ on their SAT tests are smart. Every one. Some people who are highly intelligent don't test well, but that doesn't matter in a statistical study like this. In fact, there may be a genetic component to not testing well that is causing an underestimate in their correlation between genetics and intelligence. Your claim that there was a prior assumption that genes influence intelligence is wrong. In fact, what was shown statistically was a sold correlation between alleles and test scores (solid assuming they did the genotyping and math right). 
Humans are very similar genetically to chimps and bonobos, and we can be viewed as adaptation of those organisms to rapid climate changes in Africa over the last few million years. Would you argue that the intelligence differences between the related species are cultural and have no genetic component? Or perhaps there is no difference in intelligence, which after all can't be measured except by empathetic folks like you. 
Every one of the 'Assumptions' you attribute to the authors of the study is an error on your part, Reg.  (full disclosure- I don't know the authors and had nothing to do with their work. I don't  work on intelligence testing or on the genetic basis of intelligence. I do understand science and mathematics very well). For one thing, you appear not to understand the difference between an assumption and a hypothesis to be tested. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

I think this study goes to show that parents are only responsible for creating half-wits, with the reasonable parts of their offspring being dependent on experience.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

The same can be said for those who must have neatness vs those who can work highly successfully in clutter. Not really dissimilar really, remembering where something is in clutter does take intelligence, the difference is with the ability to be relaxed about it all. I know a family of brilliant designers, engineers, artists who for generations have worked well in the midst of enormous clutter that would drive most nuts. Each successive generation is the same, relaxed within enormous clutter and each brilliantly adding something unique and useful to society. The base factor is the clutter as if it were selected for within them. This is actually a mixed family where half brothers and sisters come from different paternal bases. Those with neatness, demand neatness, those whose paternal basis was into clutter function well, to the disgust of their neat 1/2 siblings.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

An interesting study which bears out anecdotal evidence and common sense.  The study confirms that human intellectual performance on a particular type of task can be predicted by a genetic component.  However, the expression of this genetic predisposition will depend to an extent on the persons' environemnt and developement.  A genetically predisposed genius if dropped on his or her head as a baby is likely to suffer injuries that would constrain their performance of problem solving tasks.  A genetically poorly endowed child will not become a creative and innovative thinker and problem solver solely by exceptional educational and nurturing circumstances.  The message is of couse that there are many children in deprived circumstances in all cultures both east and wes whose innate abilities are never going to be realised without quality educational experiences.  Children don't choose their parents but what nature (genetics) has given them needs to be maximised through quality education.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

A lot of intelligence
types are coexisting in actual human populations. Possibly there are more types
of creative intelligence than human genes. It is incredible that some
scientific studies continue based on simple and clumsy intelligence test yet. Intelligence
must be one of the most problematic concepts for define. The genetics is a
powerful tool in biology, but in psychology….. I maintain a lot of doubts.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

I believe that many traits are genetically linked; specifically, impatience, intelligence, drive, motivation, etc.   

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

They didn't compare different parts of the world.  It says "3,500 adults aged 18 to 90 from the United Kingdom and Norway".  Presumably the education system is relatively consistent throughout the UK (and Norway), though it might have changed over time.  18-90 years of age is quite the gap.
If you've ever attended school, you would have noticed that some people are more academically inclined than others, just like some are more athletic than others.  Why can't some of that variance be due to allelic variation?  Just because it is not politically correct doesn't mean it is not true.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

Later responses demonstrate that critics still object to methodologies and analyses of the new study, suggesting that it in fact does not resolve criticisms of earlier studies, as alleged earlier in the article.  Still, it is consistent with earlier studies, strengthening the case for some role of genes in IQ variation, a position taken by the large majority of scholars in the area.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

Geez, Reggie old chum, perhaps you should have read the article before shooting off your mouth and recommending that the rest of us read an infomercial (work for them, do you?)  The people who did the study didn't compare populations from Europe to populations in third world countries. They did a statistical analysis of basically similar populations in the same part of the world (comparing people within Britain and within Norway). They didn't claim that genetics is the only determinant of intelligence, just that it is a major determinant accounting for about half the variability within those populations. Assigning an individual a low intellectual potential based on a single test carries a grave risk, but assessing the intelligence of segments of a fairly homogeneous population (e.g., in Norway) statistically is valid, even if upsets your PC little self. There is no doubt in the mind of anybody who has ever taught that there is a high correlation between test scores and intellect. You may not like it, but all those kids with 700+ on their SAT tests are smart. Every one. Some people who are highly intelligent don't test well, but that doesn't matter in a statistical study like this. In fact, there may be a genetic component to not testing well that is causing an underestimate in their correlation between genetics and intelligence. Your claim that there was a prior assumption that genes influence intelligence is wrong. In fact, what was shown statistically was a sold correlation between alleles and test scores (solid assuming they did the genotyping and math right). 
Humans are very similar genetically to chimps and bonobos, and we can be viewed as adaptation of those organisms to rapid climate changes in Africa over the last few million years. Would you argue that the intelligence differences between the related species are cultural and have no genetic component? Or perhaps there is no difference in intelligence, which after all can't be measured except by empathetic folks like you. 
Every one of the 'Assumptions' you attribute to the authors of the study is an error on your part, Reg.  (full disclosure- I don't know the authors and had nothing to do with their work. I don't  work on intelligence testing or on the genetic basis of intelligence. I do understand science and mathematics very well). For one thing, you appear not to understand the difference between an assumption and a hypothesis to be tested. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

I think this study goes to show that parents are only responsible for creating half-wits, with the reasonable parts of their offspring being dependent on experience.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

The same can be said for those who must have neatness vs those who can work highly successfully in clutter. Not really dissimilar really, remembering where something is in clutter does take intelligence, the difference is with the ability to be relaxed about it all. I know a family of brilliant designers, engineers, artists who for generations have worked well in the midst of enormous clutter that would drive most nuts. Each successive generation is the same, relaxed within enormous clutter and each brilliantly adding something unique and useful to society. The base factor is the clutter as if it were selected for within them. This is actually a mixed family where half brothers and sisters come from different paternal bases. Those with neatness, demand neatness, those whose paternal basis was into clutter function well, to the disgust of their neat 1/2 siblings.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

It will eventually be found that genetics will determine the vast majority of intellience, and it will be the environment that will bring that out or not.  Science just needs to keep learning about how all the puzzle pieces fit together.  Everyone who thinks otherwise, build a bridge and get over it.   

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

I agree  genes effect the health of people but intelligence  created by genes is doubtful.Why many intelligent people  born in poor family? Why we not consider the effect of  nurture?Recent research in neuroscience tell us child`s brain start to developed from moment he born.We must understand child start to intimating with mother so start to learn with help of his mirror neutron to speak and other  primary activities same time he developed his own software what may he experiences in childhood.I think his intelligences are developed in his software with his  capacities of  learning.I agree genes are help to his health. Healthy child acquire  more knowledge than unhealthy child.Genes are help child indirect way.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

While in the Marines, I was able to see the bloodgroups and other particulars.
I found that people with the Bloodgroup AA   also called 2A or A2 had the highest IQ.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

An interesting study which bears out anecdotal evidence and common sense.  The study confirms that human intellectual performance on a particular type of task can be predicted by a genetic component.  However, the expression of this genetic predisposition will depend to an extent on the persons' environemnt and developement.  A genetically predisposed genius if dropped on his or her head as a baby is likely to suffer injuries that would constrain their performance of problem solving tasks.  A genetically poorly endowed child will not become a creative and innovative thinker and problem solver solely by exceptional educational and nurturing circumstances.  The message is of couse that there are many children in deprived circumstances in all cultures both east and wes whose innate abilities are never going to be realised without quality educational experiences.  Children don't choose their parents but what nature (genetics) has given them needs to be maximised through quality education.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

A lot of intelligence
types are coexisting in actual human populations. Possibly there are more types
of creative intelligence than human genes. It is incredible that some
scientific studies continue based on simple and clumsy intelligence test yet. Intelligence
must be one of the most problematic concepts for define. The genetics is a
powerful tool in biology, but in psychology….. I maintain a lot of doubts.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

I believe that many traits are genetically linked; specifically, impatience, intelligence, drive, motivation, etc.   

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

They didn't compare different parts of the world.  It says "3,500 adults aged 18 to 90 from the United Kingdom and Norway".  Presumably the education system is relatively consistent throughout the UK (and Norway), though it might have changed over time.  18-90 years of age is quite the gap.
If you've ever attended school, you would have noticed that some people are more academically inclined than others, just like some are more athletic than others.  Why can't some of that variance be due to allelic variation?  Just because it is not politically correct doesn't mean it is not true.

Avatar of: Paul Stein

Anonymous

August 10, 2011

It will eventually be found that genetics will determine the vast majority of intellience, and it will be the environment that will bring that out or not.  Science just needs to keep learning about how all the puzzle pieces fit together.  Everyone who thinks otherwise, build a bridge and get over it.   

Avatar of: Jim

Anonymous

August 10, 2011

An interesting study which bears out anecdotal evidence and common sense.  The study confirms that human intellectual performance on a particular type of task can be predicted by a genetic component.  However, the expression of this genetic predisposition will depend to an extent on the persons' environemnt and developement.  A genetically predisposed genius if dropped on his or her head as a baby is likely to suffer injuries that would constrain their performance of problem solving tasks.  A genetically poorly endowed child will not become a creative and innovative thinker and problem solver solely by exceptional educational and nurturing circumstances.  The message is of couse that there are many children in deprived circumstances in all cultures both east and wes whose innate abilities are never going to be realised without quality educational experiences.  Children don't choose their parents but what nature (genetics) has given them needs to be maximised through quality education.

Avatar of: Chdez38

Anonymous

August 10, 2011

A lot of intelligence
types are coexisting in actual human populations. Possibly there are more types
of creative intelligence than human genes. It is incredible that some
scientific studies continue based on simple and clumsy intelligence test yet. Intelligence
must be one of the most problematic concepts for define. The genetics is a
powerful tool in biology, but in psychology….. I maintain a lot of doubts.

Avatar of: Bill Murray

Anonymous

August 10, 2011

I believe that many traits are genetically linked; specifically, impatience, intelligence, drive, motivation, etc.   

Avatar of: Todd

Anonymous

August 10, 2011

They didn't compare different parts of the world.  It says "3,500 adults aged 18 to 90 from the United Kingdom and Norway".  Presumably the education system is relatively consistent throughout the UK (and Norway), though it might have changed over time.  18-90 years of age is quite the gap.
If you've ever attended school, you would have noticed that some people are more academically inclined than others, just like some are more athletic than others.  Why can't some of that variance be due to allelic variation?  Just because it is not politically correct doesn't mean it is not true.

Avatar of: J Clark

Anonymous

August 10, 2011

Later responses demonstrate that critics still object to methodologies and analyses of the new study, suggesting that it in fact does not resolve criticisms of earlier studies, as alleged earlier in the article.  Still, it is consistent with earlier studies, strengthening the case for some role of genes in IQ variation, a position taken by the large majority of scholars in the area.

Avatar of: cborgia

Anonymous

August 10, 2011

Geez, Reggie old chum, perhaps you should have read the article before shooting off your mouth and recommending that the rest of us read an infomercial (work for them, do you?)  The people who did the study didn't compare populations from Europe to populations in third world countries. They did a statistical analysis of basically similar populations in the same part of the world (comparing people within Britain and within Norway). They didn't claim that genetics is the only determinant of intelligence, just that it is a major determinant accounting for about half the variability within those populations. Assigning an individual a low intellectual potential based on a single test carries a grave risk, but assessing the intelligence of segments of a fairly homogeneous population (e.g., in Norway) statistically is valid, even if upsets your PC little self. There is no doubt in the mind of anybody who has ever taught that there is a high correlation between test scores and intellect. You may not like it, but all those kids with 700+ on their SAT tests are smart. Every one. Some people who are highly intelligent don't test well, but that doesn't matter in a statistical study like this. In fact, there may be a genetic component to not testing well that is causing an underestimate in their correlation between genetics and intelligence. Your claim that there was a prior assumption that genes influence intelligence is wrong. In fact, what was shown statistically was a sold correlation between alleles and test scores (solid assuming they did the genotyping and math right). 
Humans are very similar genetically to chimps and bonobos, and we can be viewed as adaptation of those organisms to rapid climate changes in Africa over the last few million years. Would you argue that the intelligence differences between the related species are cultural and have no genetic component? Or perhaps there is no difference in intelligence, which after all can't be measured except by empathetic folks like you. 
Every one of the 'Assumptions' you attribute to the authors of the study is an error on your part, Reg.  (full disclosure- I don't know the authors and had nothing to do with their work. I don't  work on intelligence testing or on the genetic basis of intelligence. I do understand science and mathematics very well). For one thing, you appear not to understand the difference between an assumption and a hypothesis to be tested. 

Avatar of: RichardPatrock

RichardPatrock

Posts: 52

August 10, 2011

I think this study goes to show that parents are only responsible for creating half-wits, with the reasonable parts of their offspring being dependent on experience.

Avatar of: Edo_mcgowan

Anonymous

August 10, 2011

The same can be said for those who must have neatness vs those who can work highly successfully in clutter. Not really dissimilar really, remembering where something is in clutter does take intelligence, the difference is with the ability to be relaxed about it all. I know a family of brilliant designers, engineers, artists who for generations have worked well in the midst of enormous clutter that would drive most nuts. Each successive generation is the same, relaxed within enormous clutter and each brilliantly adding something unique and useful to society. The base factor is the clutter as if it were selected for within them. This is actually a mixed family where half brothers and sisters come from different paternal bases. Those with neatness, demand neatness, those whose paternal basis was into clutter function well, to the disgust of their neat 1/2 siblings.

Avatar of: Guest

Anonymous

August 10, 2011

I agree  genes effect the health of people but intelligence  created by genes is doubtful.Why many intelligent people  born in poor family? Why we not consider the effect of  nurture?Recent research in neuroscience tell us child`s brain start to developed from moment he born.We must understand child start to intimating with mother so start to learn with help of his mirror neutron to speak and other  primary activities same time he developed his own software what may he experiences in childhood.I think his intelligences are developed in his software with his  capacities of  learning.I agree genes are help to his health. Healthy child acquire  more knowledge than unhealthy child.Genes are help child indirect way.

Avatar of: JosephusHap

JosephusHap

Posts: 12

August 10, 2011

While in the Marines, I was able to see the bloodgroups and other particulars.
I found that people with the Bloodgroup AA   also called 2A or A2 had the highest IQ.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

I agree  genes effect the health of people but intelligence  created by genes is doubtful.Why many intelligent people  born in poor family? Why we not consider the effect of  nurture?Recent research in neuroscience tell us child`s brain start to developed from moment he born.We must understand child start to intimating with mother so start to learn with help of his mirror neutron to speak and other  primary activities same time he developed his own software what may he experiences in childhood.I think his intelligences are developed in his software with his  capacities of  learning.I agree genes are help to his health. Healthy child acquire  more knowledge than unhealthy child.Genes are help child indirect way.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 10, 2011

While in the Marines, I was able to see the bloodgroups and other particulars.
I found that people with the Bloodgroup AA   also called 2A or A2 had the highest IQ.

Avatar of: Guest

Anonymous

August 11, 2011

Intelligence never  depend on heritability but flourished intimation.Study the life of Mozart, Beethoven both `s father were unsuccessful musicians from their teaching and mostly intimating both were renown musician.Same true with doctor,businessman and , lawyer.From childhood child  watch the activities of their father . naturally they intimating them and they became successful in that field.For good health genes are effective but not intelligence Why  .again again in western thinker raising the genes and intelligence?Is they disparately want to give proof of white man `s superiority? 

Avatar of: mightythor

mightythor

Posts: 1457

August 11, 2011

I don't come even close to understanding the statistical analysis in this paper. 

But intuitively, it seems to me there would be some problem in making meaningful correlations when there are more than 100 times as many variables (SNPs) as there are members in your population sample. 

At a minimum, I would like to see an actual prediction, that is, take a second population from the same demographic, calculate an appropriate statistical score for each individual, based on his or her SNPs and an algorithm derived from the first study, and predict how each person will perform on an appropriate test.  THEN give them the test, and see how your predictions stand up. 
 

Avatar of: Physiology expert

Anonymous

August 11, 2011

Predict the actions a person can be employed, but the human mind can not be predicted. Features a lot of thought and movement are limited. Non-verbal functions of thought are diverse and unpredictable.

Avatar of: Physiology expert

Anonymous

August 11, 2011

Monozygotic twins are normal natural test for a genetic determination of the properties of the nervous system. The increase in statistical confidence factor more will not make it more likely event.

Avatar of: Physiology expert

Anonymous

August 11, 2011

The predictions were confirmed in tests on the students graduating from school.

Avatar of: DJ@HGEN

Anonymous

August 11, 2011

The point is that in these analyses you are not estimating SNP by SNP how much it is contributing to intelligence. The joint SNPs are used to estimate the level of relatedness among the individuals in the study and this level of relatedness is significantly correlated with IQ.
Interestingly, the idea of using levels of relatedness to estimate what proportion of variation is due to genetic factors is nearly a century old, has been widely used in animal breeding since the sixties and was then 'rediscovered' by human genetics.
Why the human geneticists were (are are) chasing individual SNPs to find causative genes for common diseases, some vey bright sparks (one of them, Mike Goddard, also co-author on this paper) argued it would be much wiser to take all SNPs jointly to derive a genome-wide gentic 'merit' (this was proposed in a breeding context, Meuwissen et al, Genetics 2001)
And @reginaldbolman: this is a prediction within population and says naught about differnces between populations. The authors indicate their SNPs predict only (but significantly) 1% of variation in an unralted sample.

Avatar of: Physiology expert

Anonymous

August 11, 2011

n the studies on monozygotic twins found that short-term memory is inherited. A long-term memory is a combination of short-term memory. Verbal functions of a human genetically determined and depends on the individual characteristics of the nervous system. Non-verbal memory functions are associative and do not depend on the individual characteristics of the nervous system. Non-verbal functions regulate the electrical potential human nervous system.

Avatar of: Physiology expert

Anonymous

August 11, 2011

In the studies on monozygotic twins found that short-term memory is inherited. A long-term memory is a combination of short-term memory. Verbal functions of a human genetically determined and depends on the individual characteristics of the nervous system. Non-verbal memory functions are associative and do not depend on the individual characteristics of the nervous system. Non-verbal functions regulate the electrical potential human nervous system.

Avatar of: Lawrence-Pasadena

Anonymous

August 11, 2011

Paul, without going into allot of detail. It currently appears as if most intelligence may be due to genes that give survival  advantages to  pregnant
females.  Female mammels give up about 40 percent of their blood nutrients to the developing fetus. This in humans translates out in testing of women to generate a 10 point drop in IQ during pregency with almost an entire year for full recovery. Having a higher IQ gives the pregnant female a survival advantage over those without the higher IQ. Since the intellegience quotient is about the quality of memories as defined by how well you pickup  information and can repeat it. This is not total Intelligence at all,  but only a small subset of some of the skills. Women with higher intelligence survive more often in the prehistoric environment. In order for the advantage to be passed on as an advantage it was necessary for the evolutionary intelligence factors to be actually carried to a great extent on the X Chromosone. Those places other that that location are in fact general random factors in the general population.  When following families in geneology over hundreds of years you see an interesting thing. "Smart" women have smart daughters and about half the time smart sons, however men have smart daughters and only average sons given that the other marital partner is of average intellegience. The smart people keep showing up as name changes carried on the womens lines. This creates serious problems for researchers not knowing what to look for as a surname search will not show high intelligence being passed down. Men tend to marry for other than intellectual factors.

When one actually knows some other controversial factors: such as the result of differential absorption rates for critical nutrients and second and third generation
impacts of early dietary trauma to female childrens resulting in subnormal womb effiencies, one knows most of what is actually going on. 

Don't expect to see any major papers soon on these things as there are extremely strong political issues involved. Random occurrence of abilities is much preferred to as a belief over the concept of Alpha's in "Brave New World".

Avatar of: KasaRose

KasaRose

Posts: 1457

August 11, 2011

Or alternatively, having grown up in clutter they handle it well.

Avatar of: Paul Stein

Anonymous

August 11, 2011

Absolutely.  Everything is in the genetic code.  Frankly, I'd like to find the genes that makes me sneeze like my mother, have my father's sense of humor, and have my love of plants make my son to want to be an agronomist.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

Absolutely.  Everything is in the genetic code.  Frankly, I'd like to find the genes that makes me sneeze like my mother, have my father's sense of humor, and have my love of plants make my son to want to be an agronomist.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

Or alternatively, having grown up in clutter they handle it well.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

Intelligence never  depend on heritability but flourished intimation.Study the life of Mozart, Beethoven both `s father were unsuccessful musicians from their teaching and mostly intimating both were renown musician.Same true with doctor,businessman and , lawyer.From childhood child  watch the activities of their father . naturally they intimating them and they became successful in that field.For good health genes are effective but not intelligence Why  .again again in western thinker raising the genes and intelligence?Is they disparately want to give proof of white man `s superiority? 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

I don't come even close to understanding the statistical analysis in this paper. 

But intuitively, it seems to me there would be some problem in making meaningful correlations when there are more than 100 times as many variables (SNPs) as there are members in your population sample. 

At a minimum, I would like to see an actual prediction, that is, take a second population from the same demographic, calculate an appropriate statistical score for each individual, based on his or her SNPs and an algorithm derived from the first study, and predict how each person will perform on an appropriate test.  THEN give them the test, and see how your predictions stand up. 
 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

Predict the actions a person can be employed, but the human mind can not be predicted. Features a lot of thought and movement are limited. Non-verbal functions of thought are diverse and unpredictable.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

Monozygotic twins are normal natural test for a genetic determination of the properties of the nervous system. The increase in statistical confidence factor more will not make it more likely event.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

The predictions were confirmed in tests on the students graduating from school.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

The point is that in these analyses you are not estimating SNP by SNP how much it is contributing to intelligence. The joint SNPs are used to estimate the level of relatedness among the individuals in the study and this level of relatedness is significantly correlated with IQ.
Interestingly, the idea of using levels of relatedness to estimate what proportion of variation is due to genetic factors is nearly a century old, has been widely used in animal breeding since the sixties and was then 'rediscovered' by human genetics.
Why the human geneticists were (are are) chasing individual SNPs to find causative genes for common diseases, some vey bright sparks (one of them, Mike Goddard, also co-author on this paper) argued it would be much wiser to take all SNPs jointly to derive a genome-wide gentic 'merit' (this was proposed in a breeding context, Meuwissen et al, Genetics 2001)
And @reginaldbolman: this is a prediction within population and says naught about differnces between populations. The authors indicate their SNPs predict only (but significantly) 1% of variation in an unralted sample.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

n the studies on monozygotic twins found that short-term memory is inherited. A long-term memory is a combination of short-term memory. Verbal functions of a human genetically determined and depends on the individual characteristics of the nervous system. Non-verbal memory functions are associative and do not depend on the individual characteristics of the nervous system. Non-verbal functions regulate the electrical potential human nervous system.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

In the studies on monozygotic twins found that short-term memory is inherited. A long-term memory is a combination of short-term memory. Verbal functions of a human genetically determined and depends on the individual characteristics of the nervous system. Non-verbal memory functions are associative and do not depend on the individual characteristics of the nervous system. Non-verbal functions regulate the electrical potential human nervous system.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

Paul, without going into allot of detail. It currently appears as if most intelligence may be due to genes that give survival  advantages to  pregnant
females.  Female mammels give up about 40 percent of their blood nutrients to the developing fetus. This in humans translates out in testing of women to generate a 10 point drop in IQ during pregency with almost an entire year for full recovery. Having a higher IQ gives the pregnant female a survival advantage over those without the higher IQ. Since the intellegience quotient is about the quality of memories as defined by how well you pickup  information and can repeat it. This is not total Intelligence at all,  but only a small subset of some of the skills. Women with higher intelligence survive more often in the prehistoric environment. In order for the advantage to be passed on as an advantage it was necessary for the evolutionary intelligence factors to be actually carried to a great extent on the X Chromosone. Those places other that that location are in fact general random factors in the general population.  When following families in geneology over hundreds of years you see an interesting thing. "Smart" women have smart daughters and about half the time smart sons, however men have smart daughters and only average sons given that the other marital partner is of average intellegience. The smart people keep showing up as name changes carried on the womens lines. This creates serious problems for researchers not knowing what to look for as a surname search will not show high intelligence being passed down. Men tend to marry for other than intellectual factors.

When one actually knows some other controversial factors: such as the result of differential absorption rates for critical nutrients and second and third generation
impacts of early dietary trauma to female childrens resulting in subnormal womb effiencies, one knows most of what is actually going on. 

Don't expect to see any major papers soon on these things as there are extremely strong political issues involved. Random occurrence of abilities is much preferred to as a belief over the concept of Alpha's in "Brave New World".

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

Absolutely.  Everything is in the genetic code.  Frankly, I'd like to find the genes that makes me sneeze like my mother, have my father's sense of humor, and have my love of plants make my son to want to be an agronomist.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

Intelligence never  depend on heritability but flourished intimation.Study the life of Mozart, Beethoven both `s father were unsuccessful musicians from their teaching and mostly intimating both were renown musician.Same true with doctor,businessman and , lawyer.From childhood child  watch the activities of their father . naturally they intimating them and they became successful in that field.For good health genes are effective but not intelligence Why  .again again in western thinker raising the genes and intelligence?Is they disparately want to give proof of white man `s superiority? 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

Or alternatively, having grown up in clutter they handle it well.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

I don't come even close to understanding the statistical analysis in this paper. 

But intuitively, it seems to me there would be some problem in making meaningful correlations when there are more than 100 times as many variables (SNPs) as there are members in your population sample. 

At a minimum, I would like to see an actual prediction, that is, take a second population from the same demographic, calculate an appropriate statistical score for each individual, based on his or her SNPs and an algorithm derived from the first study, and predict how each person will perform on an appropriate test.  THEN give them the test, and see how your predictions stand up. 
 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

Predict the actions a person can be employed, but the human mind can not be predicted. Features a lot of thought and movement are limited. Non-verbal functions of thought are diverse and unpredictable.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

Monozygotic twins are normal natural test for a genetic determination of the properties of the nervous system. The increase in statistical confidence factor more will not make it more likely event.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

The predictions were confirmed in tests on the students graduating from school.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

The point is that in these analyses you are not estimating SNP by SNP how much it is contributing to intelligence. The joint SNPs are used to estimate the level of relatedness among the individuals in the study and this level of relatedness is significantly correlated with IQ.
Interestingly, the idea of using levels of relatedness to estimate what proportion of variation is due to genetic factors is nearly a century old, has been widely used in animal breeding since the sixties and was then 'rediscovered' by human genetics.
Why the human geneticists were (are are) chasing individual SNPs to find causative genes for common diseases, some vey bright sparks (one of them, Mike Goddard, also co-author on this paper) argued it would be much wiser to take all SNPs jointly to derive a genome-wide gentic 'merit' (this was proposed in a breeding context, Meuwissen et al, Genetics 2001)
And @reginaldbolman: this is a prediction within population and says naught about differnces between populations. The authors indicate their SNPs predict only (but significantly) 1% of variation in an unralted sample.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

n the studies on monozygotic twins found that short-term memory is inherited. A long-term memory is a combination of short-term memory. Verbal functions of a human genetically determined and depends on the individual characteristics of the nervous system. Non-verbal memory functions are associative and do not depend on the individual characteristics of the nervous system. Non-verbal functions regulate the electrical potential human nervous system.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

In the studies on monozygotic twins found that short-term memory is inherited. A long-term memory is a combination of short-term memory. Verbal functions of a human genetically determined and depends on the individual characteristics of the nervous system. Non-verbal memory functions are associative and do not depend on the individual characteristics of the nervous system. Non-verbal functions regulate the electrical potential human nervous system.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 11, 2011

Paul, without going into allot of detail. It currently appears as if most intelligence may be due to genes that give survival  advantages to  pregnant
females.  Female mammels give up about 40 percent of their blood nutrients to the developing fetus. This in humans translates out in testing of women to generate a 10 point drop in IQ during pregency with almost an entire year for full recovery. Having a higher IQ gives the pregnant female a survival advantage over those without the higher IQ. Since the intellegience quotient is about the quality of memories as defined by how well you pickup  information and can repeat it. This is not total Intelligence at all,  but only a small subset of some of the skills. Women with higher intelligence survive more often in the prehistoric environment. In order for the advantage to be passed on as an advantage it was necessary for the evolutionary intelligence factors to be actually carried to a great extent on the X Chromosone. Those places other that that location are in fact general random factors in the general population.  When following families in geneology over hundreds of years you see an interesting thing. "Smart" women have smart daughters and about half the time smart sons, however men have smart daughters and only average sons given that the other marital partner is of average intellegience. The smart people keep showing up as name changes carried on the womens lines. This creates serious problems for researchers not knowing what to look for as a surname search will not show high intelligence being passed down. Men tend to marry for other than intellectual factors.

When one actually knows some other controversial factors: such as the result of differential absorption rates for critical nutrients and second and third generation
impacts of early dietary trauma to female childrens resulting in subnormal womb effiencies, one knows most of what is actually going on. 

Don't expect to see any major papers soon on these things as there are extremely strong political issues involved. Random occurrence of abilities is much preferred to as a belief over the concept of Alpha's in "Brave New World".

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 12, 2011

Human Intelligence Is Highly Heritable And Polygenic ?

http://the-scientist.com/2011/...
http://www.nature.com/mp/journ...

Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic

 No kidding!

So What else is new?!

It’s culture, reactions to circumstances, that drives genetic changes. NOT vice versa.

Reaction(s)  to circumstances, modified state or behavior, that enhance-increase constrained energy in animate OR inanimate mass format, are retained. This is what evolution is all about. This is what natural selection is. It is postponement of the conversion of mass to energy, to the energy that keeps fueling the universe expansion. The expansion that will be overcome by gravity when most mass is reconverted to the energy that moves on the galaxies clusters. The expansion will then be replaced with gravitational  empansion back to singularity…

The RNAs, Earth’s primal organisms, retain-constrain evolutionary energy as long as possible. This is what alternative splicing is about, this is what genetic inheritance is all about…

Dov Henis
(comments from 22nd century)

PS: The deceased "the-scientist community forum" posted tens of articles on this general subject…

Also see
http://www.freedolphin.com/?p=...
https://www.economist.com/user...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 12, 2011

Human Intelligence Is Highly Heritable And Polygenic ?

http://the-scientist.com/2011/...
http://www.nature.com/mp/journ...

Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic

 No kidding!

So What else is new?!

It’s culture, reactions to circumstances, that drives genetic changes. NOT vice versa.

Reaction(s)  to circumstances, modified state or behavior, that enhance-increase constrained energy in animate OR inanimate mass format, are retained. This is what evolution is all about. This is what natural selection is. It is postponement of the conversion of mass to energy, to the energy that keeps fueling the universe expansion. The expansion that will be overcome by gravity when most mass is reconverted to the energy that moves on the galaxies clusters. The expansion will then be replaced with gravitational  empansion back to singularity…

The RNAs, Earth’s primal organisms, retain-constrain evolutionary energy as long as possible. This is what alternative splicing is about, this is what genetic inheritance is all about…

Dov Henis
(comments from 22nd century)

PS: The deceased "the-scientist community forum" posted tens of articles on this general subject…

Also see
http://www.freedolphin.com/?p=...
https://www.economist.com/user...

Avatar of: Dov

Dov

Posts: 1457

August 12, 2011

Human Intelligence Is Highly Heritable And Polygenic ?

http://the-scientist.com/2011/...
http://www.nature.com/mp/journ...

Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic

 No kidding!

So What else is new?!

It’s culture, reactions to circumstances, that drives genetic changes. NOT vice versa.

Reaction(s)  to circumstances, modified state or behavior, that enhance-increase constrained energy in animate OR inanimate mass format, are retained. This is what evolution is all about. This is what natural selection is. It is postponement of the conversion of mass to energy, to the energy that keeps fueling the universe expansion. The expansion that will be overcome by gravity when most mass is reconverted to the energy that moves on the galaxies clusters. The expansion will then be replaced with gravitational  empansion back to singularity…

The RNAs, Earth’s primal organisms, retain-constrain evolutionary energy as long as possible. This is what alternative splicing is about, this is what genetic inheritance is all about…

Dov Henis
(comments from 22nd century)

PS: The deceased "the-scientist community forum" posted tens of articles on this general subject…

Also see
http://www.freedolphin.com/?p=...
https://www.economist.com/user...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 16, 2011

That article cites three scientific papers. The earliest is dated 1988.

I suggest you move on. Science certainly has.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 16, 2011

You are predicting what science will determine to be true, and telling people who disagree with you to get over it?

How very unscientific of you!

But I guess I should build a bridge?

Avatar of: Jon Heald

Jon Heald

Posts: 3

August 16, 2011

You are predicting what science will determine to be true, and telling people who disagree with you to get over it?

How very unscientific of you!

But I guess I should build a bridge?

Avatar of: Jon Heald

Jon Heald

Posts: 3

August 16, 2011

That article cites three scientific papers. The earliest is dated 1988.

I suggest you move on. Science certainly has.

Avatar of: catemanhattan

catemanhattan

Posts: 3

August 16, 2011

I do not know of any research that suggests any of the above. References please. So far, it does not sound sound. Genetics averages approximately 50 percent transmission in most studies. I.e., the finding in the reported study is a hohum.

Avatar of: Joe

Anonymous

August 16, 2011

Uhm Ramesh, your post is barely intelligible. Do us all a favour and learn English, i.e. spelling, syntax, grammar, punctuation etc. Thank you.

Avatar of: catemanhattan

catemanhattan

Posts: 3

August 16, 2011

Joe, you are not a scientist from your rude response to Ramesh. Scientists welcome communication across language gaps. I am a scientist. I fully understood what Ramesh said in the post and I unfortunately only speak English. Do all of us a favor: try to be civil.

Avatar of: catemanhattan

catemanhattan

Posts: 3

August 16, 2011

Ramesh, Thank you for your comments. Please accept my apology for Joe's uncivil response. He is obviously not in any way scientifically minded. We welcome comments from people all over the world.

And, you are correct. Euro-North Americans put much effort into studying intelligence, and expend almost no effort in how to develop intelligence. I have long concluded that the goal is, as you said, to prove the superiority of white pigmentation genes. Accordingly, we are not progressing. It would be funny if it wasn't so destructive.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 16, 2011

I do not know of any research that suggests any of the above. References please. So far, it does not sound sound. Genetics averages approximately 50 percent transmission in most studies. I.e., the finding in the reported study is a hohum.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 16, 2011

Uhm Ramesh, your post is barely intelligible. Do us all a favour and learn English, i.e. spelling, syntax, grammar, punctuation etc. Thank you.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 16, 2011

Joe, you are not a scientist from your rude response to Ramesh. Scientists welcome communication across language gaps. I am a scientist. I fully understood what Ramesh said in the post and I unfortunately only speak English. Do all of us a favor: try to be civil.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 16, 2011

Ramesh, Thank you for your comments. Please accept my apology for Joe's uncivil response. He is obviously not in any way scientifically minded. We welcome comments from people all over the world.

And, you are correct. Euro-North Americans put much effort into studying intelligence, and expend almost no effort in how to develop intelligence. I have long concluded that the goal is, as you said, to prove the superiority of white pigmentation genes. Accordingly, we are not progressing. It would be funny if it wasn't so destructive.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 16, 2011

Uhm Ramesh, your post is barely intelligible. Do us all a favour and learn English, i.e. spelling, syntax, grammar, punctuation etc. Thank you.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 16, 2011

Joe, you are not a scientist from your rude response to Ramesh. Scientists welcome communication across language gaps. I am a scientist. I fully understood what Ramesh said in the post and I unfortunately only speak English. Do all of us a favor: try to be civil.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 16, 2011

Ramesh, Thank you for your comments. Please accept my apology for Joe's uncivil response. He is obviously not in any way scientifically minded. We welcome comments from people all over the world.

And, you are correct. Euro-North Americans put much effort into studying intelligence, and expend almost no effort in how to develop intelligence. I have long concluded that the goal is, as you said, to prove the superiority of white pigmentation genes. Accordingly, we are not progressing. It would be funny if it wasn't so destructive.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 16, 2011

I do not know of any research that suggests any of the above. References please. So far, it does not sound sound. Genetics averages approximately 50 percent transmission in most studies. I.e., the finding in the reported study is a hohum.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 16, 2011

You are predicting what science will determine to be true, and telling people who disagree with you to get over it?

How very unscientific of you!

But I guess I should build a bridge?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 16, 2011

That article cites three scientific papers. The earliest is dated 1988.

I suggest you move on. Science certainly has.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 17, 2011

Everyone is interested in the "secrets of success".  Would it be possible to examine this same group for perseverance by administering a nonstrenous physical test that requires repeated tries to succeed?  I would like to see if there is any correlation between final earned income, intelligence and the ability to overcome obstacles. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 17, 2011

Ramesh, you may have reasons to be suspicious, but it's no excuse for misunderstanding and misrepresenting what this study was about. And as others pointed out it was _not_ about differences between races but within the same race.

It is quite possible that genetics differences between races do make for slight difference in median intelligence or such. So perhaps, say Chinese or Indians have a better genetic start than Europeans. So what?  Most likely genetically caused differences in intelligence between races are small compered to environmental factors, better schools, culture of learning, etc.. And we talking here about large numbers of people.

But genetic causes for intelligence differences between two individuals, regardless whether same race or not, could turn out to be significant.  And knowing those can one day allow for specialized teaching programs to allow kids learn more.  

There were times when some people argued that the cause of going bold is because those people washed their hair more often than others.  Like once a month or even more...  Don't be one of those people.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 17, 2011

Everyone is interested in the "secrets of success".  Would it be possible to examine this same group for perseverance by administering a nonstrenous physical test that requires repeated tries to succeed?  I would like to see if there is any correlation between final earned income, intelligence and the ability to overcome obstacles. 

Avatar of: Noneed

Anonymous

August 17, 2011

Ramesh, you may have reasons to be suspicious, but it's no excuse for misunderstanding and misrepresenting what this study was about. And as others pointed out it was _not_ about differences between races but within the same race.

It is quite possible that genetics differences between races do make for slight difference in median intelligence or such. So perhaps, say Chinese or Indians have a better genetic start than Europeans. So what?  Most likely genetically caused differences in intelligence between races are small compered to environmental factors, better schools, culture of learning, etc.. And we talking here about large numbers of people.

But genetic causes for intelligence differences between two individuals, regardless whether same race or not, could turn out to be significant.  And knowing those can one day allow for specialized teaching programs to allow kids learn more.  

There were times when some people argued that the cause of going bold is because those people washed their hair more often than others.  Like once a month or even more...  Don't be one of those people.

Avatar of: Joel Kirschbaum

Anonymous

August 17, 2011

Everyone is interested in the "secrets of success".  Would it be possible to examine this same group for perseverance by administering a nonstrenous physical test that requires repeated tries to succeed?  I would like to see if there is any correlation between final earned income, intelligence and the ability to overcome obstacles. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

August 17, 2011

Ramesh, you may have reasons to be suspicious, but it's no excuse for misunderstanding and misrepresenting what this study was about. And as others pointed out it was _not_ about differences between races but within the same race.

It is quite possible that genetics differences between races do make for slight difference in median intelligence or such. So perhaps, say Chinese or Indians have a better genetic start than Europeans. So what?  Most likely genetically caused differences in intelligence between races are small compered to environmental factors, better schools, culture of learning, etc.. And we talking here about large numbers of people.

But genetic causes for intelligence differences between two individuals, regardless whether same race or not, could turn out to be significant.  And knowing those can one day allow for specialized teaching programs to allow kids learn more.  

There were times when some people argued that the cause of going bold is because those people washed their hair more often than others.  Like once a month or even more...  Don't be one of those people.

Avatar of: RobertD

RobertD

Posts: 1457

August 18, 2011

Cate, as a fellow scientist, I applaud your tolerance for less-than perfect communication skills, but deplore your intolerance for "studying intelligence" rather than "developing intelligence." Attempting to develop intelligence without understanding it seems like a distinctly unscientific approach to me.  I would support the scientific study of anything to which scientific principles can be applied, and playing the race card strikes me as inappropriate.  Again, kudos on the tolerance, however.

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement
NeuroScientistNews
NeuroScientistNews

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist