IQ is Mainly Inherited According to Recent Genome Studies

#42
Most, if not all, veterinarians whom I have known (my father amongst them),have expressed the belief that genomes are a very important influence in animals of all types and sizes.

Furthermore, breeders of livestock attach considerable importance to an animal's ancestry - e.g. Thoroughbred - Wikipedia , The Kennel Club - Wikipedia , and British Cattle Breeders Club

Humans are animals; so I see no reason to believe that we are not also subject to inherited genomes.
On selection for intelligence, see this series of Steven Pinker videos on why Ashkenazi Jesw have high average IQs (and the side effects of same):


One might also posit that the slavery era had a selection effect on the black population of the Americas which in part at least explains their success in various sporting fields, insofar as the strongest and fittest slaves had the best chance of surviving to pass on their genes.

Edited to add: That said, I'm not aware of any studies on this.
 
#43
Regardless of sample size, the survey conflates educational achievement with intelligence when there's no evidence they're more than loosely correlated.

Education is a function of national wealth (how many years of compulsory education can the nation support; how many schools can it maintain; how well-trained are the teachers; etc.) Intelligence is a function of individual ability. They're not the same.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#44
Regardless of sample size, the survey conflates educational achievement with intelligence when there's no evidence they're more than loosely correlated.

Education is a function of national wealth (how many years of compulsory education can the nation support; how many schools can it maintain; how well-trained are the teachers; etc.) Intelligence is a function of individual ability. They're not the same.
I didn't say they have a large sample size. I said that they control for the other factors which have an input. There's a large body of well respected work on this - anything with Plomin is worth a read.
 
#45
Which is why the relevant studies control for that factor.
Yet this one strangely wound up concluding that the areas with lowest investment in education are the areas with lowest average IQs without looking at relevant cross-studies like IQ across an ethic group by national education system.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#46
Yet this one strangely wound up concluding that the areas with lowest investment in education are the areas with lowest average IQs without looking at relevant cross-studies like IQ across an ethic group by national education system.
We must be talking about different studies. I'm referring to the one in the first link, which is a nature genetics letter.
 
#49
So should those of us with a high IQ advertise the fact to the opposite sex?
 
#50
I have always been a bit dubious about this inherited intelligence issue, not least because my mother is an idiot.

The anecdotal evidence is one reason. I know some incredibly intelligent people who didn't move beyond O Levels and some, frankly, morons doing post-graduate studies. I don't believe there is a correlation with education (unless you make it so by using it as a proxy in your methodology).

I have never seen an IQ test that was not in some way culturally specific. Hans Eysenck was probably the worst example of this in using anagrams of British car manufacturers and sports as measures. So LOOP is the answer as it is an anagram of POLO. errrh, what about POOL. And TIAF is the answer because FIAT is not British. Nor is DROF British. Nonsense.

And that's discounting people like Cyril Burt just making up the data.

However, anecdotes are not evidence.

What is evidence is regression to the mean. I would be prepared to accept evidence that intelligence is partially a product of genetics (as obviously all human qualities are) but I wouldn't accept that you can breed for intelligence. Most genetic factors regress to the mean (height for example - two very tall parents usually have normal height children. If they didn't our distribution of height would go up to ten feet).

I haven't read the studies in the OP but will. Hopefully if they are making a very strong statement I would like to see large sample sizes, strong correlations and controlling for factors such as childhood development.

With sufficient convincing I might accept the relationship but I would argue that it is basically a random combination of genes from the parents, childhood development etc.

If it were more deterministic than that all siblings should be equally intelligent, which is patently not true. Or is it?
 
#51
Note the "Forbidden Knowledge " interview with Charles Murray.

Murray was co author of "The Bell Curve", which is widely derided for being a covert piece of racist/ eugenicist propaganda.
 

Momba Womba

On ROPS
On ROPs
#52
One might also posit that the slavery era had a selection effect on the black population of the Americas which in part at least explains their success in various sporting fields, insofar as the strongest and fittest slaves had the best chance of surviving to pass on their genes.

Edited to add: That said, I'm not aware of any studies on this.
One might also suggest that hundreds of thousands of years living next to lions and crocodiles might select for good runners and non swimmers.

Dontcha think?
 
#55
One might also suggest that hundreds of thousands of years living next to lions and crocodiles might select for good runners and non swimmers.

Dontcha think?
Yes but we're all descended from African-Africans. I was talking specifically about African Americans. Anyway, as I said, not much study to support that particular hypothesis.
 
#56
Note the "Forbidden Knowledge " interview with Charles Murray.

Murray was co author of "The Bell Curve", which is widely derided for being a covert piece of racist/ eugenicist propaganda.
Indeed he was. That's the problem with discussing anything to do with genetics and intelligence. Most of that book was ignored whilst argument raged over the 1 chapter about race and intelligence. This furore is one of the subjects he discusses with Sam Harris.
 
#58
I didn't say they have a large sample size.
Apologies, quoting gone awry. I was replying to Andy Pipkin's post which did mention large sample size.
 
#59
At this point we really need to stop arguing with experts (mostly because we're not going to understand the cutting and effective arguments used against us) and start working on how to use this information.

What we need to know are things like "At what ages do the various genes switch on", and "Knowing what is happening when in a child's developmental processes, how do we maximise its potential?"

The problem then becomes that a fair number of knuckle-dragging lefties will be too stupid to come along with the programme, which by necessity will not be a "One size fits almost none of the kids" but will instead have to be a few different programmes designed to maximise the abilities of each group of kids.

One essential element of all of this will have to be social history, in order that our new generation of smarter people do not repeat the mistakes of previous times. So, "Look at how monarchies and dictatorships fail", "Look at how communist systems fail because of human nature" and so on.

First time round the block with the system, I reckon we'll enhance the general intelligence levels quite a bit, and as a minor side effect, reduce the Labour voting contingent by a good 20% or so.
 

YarS

On ROPS
On ROPs
#60
Yes but we're all descended from African-Africans. I was talking specifically about African Americans. Anyway, as I said, not much study to support that particular hypothesis.
May be, may be not. There are many conceptions of anthropogenesis, and both "narrow-monocentric" and "pure policentric" are incorrect, according new genetic studies.
I preffer "stadial" conception.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top