ARRSE is supported by the advertisements on it, so if you use an adblocker please consider helping us by starting an Ad-Free subscription.

IQ is Mainly Inherited According to Recent Genome Studies

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by AndyPipkin, Aug 10, 2017.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Caecilius

    Caecilius LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    We must be talking about different studies. I'm referring to the one in the first link, which is a nature genetics letter.
     
  2. That's the one which dealt only with European-descent subjects.

    Edited to add: Almost 80,000 of them.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017
  3. So should those of us with a high IQ advertise the fact to the opposite sex?
     
  4. 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?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. 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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Momba Womba

    Momba Womba On ROPs

    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?
     
  7. Women love a man who tells them how smart he is, reet gets them frothing at the gash
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. "Alright love - wanna have clever kids?"
     
  9. 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.
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. Interesting article on genetic regression to the mean:

    Regression to the Mean

    and a long read on the interesting life and discoveries of Francis Galton:

    Measure for Measure

    Regression only applies at the outer tails of the bell curve, as I understand it, and then it is to the mean of the group, not the human race as a whole.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. Apologies, quoting gone awry. I was replying to Andy Pipkin's post which did mention large sample size.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. 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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. YarS

    YarS On ROPs

    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.