Study Links Genetic Diseases to Intelligence 689
FleaPlus writes "The Economist, Sun-Sentinel, and FuturePundit report on a controversial study by Gregory Cochran and others which proposes a link between certain genetic conditions and above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews. The 40-page study, published in the Journal of Biosocial Science, analyzes data on unusual patterns of genetic disease and relates it to a number of intelligence metrics. Although the intelligence data have traditionally been attributed to cultural factors, Cochran proposes that due to the unusual selection pressures the Ashkenazi faced between 800 and 1600AD certain genes developed which promote intelligence as single copies, but lead to particular diseases when somebody inherits two copies. According to Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, "It would be hard to overstate how politically incorrect this paper is... [though] it's certainly a thorough and well-argued paper, not one that can easily be dismissed outright.""
Reason (Score:2, Insightful)
2) Geeks sit in front of computers or large machines which go 'bang'
3)
4) Cancer!
Re:Reason (Score:2)
at least we now know what 4 is!
Dismissed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dismissed (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the correlation the author tried to present had two variables that may be related but don't necessarily relate one for one.
Well it doesn't really matter what you think, because this guy actually researched it. His research is more important than your uninformed opinion. Not saying you're wrong, but I'm saying you don't know, so you cannot dismiss it.
Re:Dismissed (Score:2)
Well it doesn't really matter what you think
So the paper isn't up for discussion? Then lets just assume that all papers are correct - I think not. You know
Let me clarify. If there is a group that seems to be high in intelligence yet has a history of health problems, would you:
A) Assume that health problems are from being smart
B) That the group of people that had health problems figured out how to survive
See research made the correlation t
Re:Dismissed (Score:4, Informative)
The authors also addressed the "bottleneck" theory (a group of people who had genes for these diseases just happened to survive by chance). This is the leading theory today as to why Ashkenazik Jews have such a high prevalence of numerous genetic diseases. In my opinion, they did a very good job of disproving that theory. Bottlenecks lead to severe decreases in genetic variability, and they demonstrate that Ashkenazik Jews are similar in variability to other populations including Europeans in general.
Here is my summary of the paper.
They demonstrate evidence that:
1) Ashkenazik Jews have higher IQ's as a group, but only in the mathematical and verbal subportions of IQ tests. They score lower than average on the visuospatial portions. This difference may be disappearing in recent times.
2) Post-Diaspora Jews were often persecuted and restricted to occupations that the majority (whether Christian or Islam) wouldn't do. In Christian lands, this included lending money for interest, whereas in Islamic areas, this avenue wasn't available, and only the most menial jobs were available to Jews there.
3) A very high percentage (up to 85 percent of adult males) were involved in a very narrow occupation range, mainly that of moneylender or other occupation that involved complex transactions involving money.
4) Those of higher intelligence got richer in these narrow range of occupations.
5) The richer you were the more children survived to adulthood.
6) Ashkenazik Jews were genetically isolated from the surrounding population by self selection.
7) Many of the genetic diseases that are at high incidence among Ashkenazik Jews cluster into only a few "types".
8) Two of these "types" (the sphingolipid storage type and the DNA repair type) are known to have positive effects on neural proliferation and growth.
Thus their conclusion is that these genetic mutations increase intelligence and the situation with Ashkenazik Jews is that the selective pressure towards intelligence was more than enough to outweigh the deleterious effect that these genes have on fitness otherwise. They suggest as a test for their theory, within Ashkenazik populations, heterozygotes for these genes should show increased intelligence relative to those who are not carriers.
It bothers me somewhat that this paper comes out of a Department of Anthropology. When addressing genetics, the quality of researchers in this area can be very widespread. However, I don't see that they have made any errors with respect to the genetics or the neurobiological aspects. It is very common to see in populations that a strong selective pressure at first yields mutations that are negative in some other way, but whose benefit outweighs the negative aspects. Subsequent selection yields compensating mutations (typically in other genes) that temper or eliminate the negative aspects.
In this case, the selection pressure has been removed, Jews are no longer restricted in their choice of profession, so it is likely that the negative aspects of these genes will push back and their incidence among Ashkenazik Jews will diminish, especially if carriers of the most devastating genes (such as Tay-Sachs) choose not to have children at all or fewer of them (such as couples who are both carriers and who have one healthy child deciding not to push the odds with more).
I find it interesting that because of the need for social and verbal ability among financiers, the other sorts of genes related to autism that also often increase intelligence weren't selected for among Ashkenazik Jews.
Re:Dismissed (Score:3, Insightful)
It used to be that a high degree of physical fitness, resistance to disease and genetic fitness was necessary to survive. Now, intelligence (IMO) is supplanting those requirements.
Where even just decades ago, certain genetic defects/diseases meant an early death, these days a person with the same affliction can live a long lifespan, including reproducing. Diseases that used to wipe out "the weak" are now treated with a drug.
Seems we are now able to
Tay-Sachs != Crippled (Score:5, Informative)
The selection would only apply to people who are heterozygous for Tay-Sachs, i.e. they are carriers of the gene. Infants who are born homozygous, with two copies of the gene, only live a few years. All die by age 5. There is no cure.
So, as you can see, there wouldn't be a whole lot of people crippled with Tay-Sachs running away from the Cossacks....
Re:Dismissed (Score:2)
Let's see. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
However, when a paper is presented which says that jews and palestinians are genetically the same [guardian.co.uk], that's a bad thing.
If the paper had said that this subset of the jewish religion was dumber than others due to genetics would people still have the same reaction or would they have dismissed it as anti-semitic?
Re:Let's see. . . (Score:2, Interesting)
>the same, that's a bad thing.
No, the author used an interesting choice of words to describe the current situation in Israel/Palestine:
--------
He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to criticism. There is one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the Gaza strip, and another that refers to Palestinian people living in 'concentration' camps.
'Perhaps I should have used the words settlers instead of
Re:Let's see. . . (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't write off science so easily. The article on Jews vs. Palestinians wasn't pulled because it reported an unpopular result. From the article:
In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region.
Instead the editor yanked it because it was written in an unobjective and politically c
Re:Let's see. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
So challenging a claim which basically says "we're better than you, because our moms and dads were better than yours and you can never be as good as us" is politically incorrect?
Re:Let's see. . . (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, it is tracked through the bloodline, but many other religions are also traced this way for the simple fact that people of a certain religion tend to bring up their children to hold their same beliefs. But make no mistake - just because something is passed down through parents does NOT mean that Jewish people claim RACIAL superiority.
For example, I am jewish, but not by blood...converted when I was quite little, actually. But even without that genetic trace, I've never been treated any differently, and I'm able to participate fully in all of the rites that all jewish people are. It's not a genetics/race thing, it's a beliefs thing, and it's common with a large number of religions.
Re:Let's see. . . (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let's see. . . (Score:5, Informative)
in modern usage, ashkenazis come from europe. Sephardic jews come from the near/middle east.
the definitions are a little different though. Ashkenazis are, by definitions, supposed to be jews whos family came from germany or eastern europe. sephardics, oddly enough, are supposed to be descended from families from spain or portugal.
the latter makes a little more sense, though. a lot of iberian jews were expelled during the spanish inquisition. many fled to the near east.
Re:Let's see. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
So, to be prefectly blunt, we study this population because they are massively inbred in a particularly interesting way.
Cool.
Re:Let's see. . . (Score:3, Informative)
The argument in a nutshell (Score:5, Interesting)
it goes like this. In medieval times jews were not allowed to own land, grow crops, or compete in the labor force. Thus you starved to death and could not support a family unless you are able to work in a management job or as an advisor. In some places, handling loans was considered un-christian and this was relegated to jews. So in other words there was a huge premium of basic survival for above well above average intelligence (that is most people are laborers so to be a manager chosen based on merit--since people did not particularly like jews--you had to have added value not just seniority to be manager.)
Thus we have an extraordinary selective pressure for intelligence. But this arose over a very short time on human reproductive cycles so nature could not be too selective about picking the best solution from a longevity standpoint. Of course, long term diseases like cancer dont affect reproductive success either. So the Jews got a gene that confers intelligence at the expence of people getting teo of these genes dieing off. Not a bad trade from a speicies point of view. Not so good for 1/4 of the individuals in a gene rich population.
So you can now see that Palestinian semetics were not subject to this selective pressure precisely because they were not jeweish. Its not the semetic heritage but the jewish religion that was persecuted.
Okay nice theory but are there other explanations. Perhaps the disease conferred a genetic advantage to some dread disease like say plague. Well first no such disease has been identified. But more significantly, jews were not an isolated population they were integrated into the general population. Therefore the selective pressure of a pathogen would have affected the general population just as much as the jews.
Okay then what about a founders effect, wherein a population is winnowed down to a few individuals creating a genetic bottleneck in which defects of those individuals are carried into the general population even if they have no benefit. They argue there is no basis for this in the genetic record.
The selective pressure that differentiated jews from anyone else was cultural.
Or so the theory goes.
Re:The argument in a nutshell (Score:3, Interesting)
How would YOU suppose that the Ashkenazi Jews came to have a higher average IQ than the general population?
I am reminded of the fact that ALL of Einstein's children are a very insignificant proportion of ANY population.
Re:Let's see. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
The stereotype is that Jews are victimized. This time by 'God', 'Mother nature', and/nor 'selection'.
The racist outlook is that Jews are naturally more intelligent than non-Jews, therefore superior racially.
Re:Let's see. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
How about none, zip, zero.
In the US there is no basis for suing someone who insults your race or religion. First of all, it's simply not a claim; slander or libel do not apply to huge groups of people. Second of all, the constitution prevents it.
A French Jewish organization discovered this a few years ago when it sued Yahoo! for selling Nazi paraphernalia. The Jewish group won in the French courts, but Yahoo! had no assets in France. A federal court in the US refused to enforce the French judgment because it said that to do so would violate the First Amendment.
You still have freedom of speech. Political correctness is just other people reacting to your speech, which they also have the freedom to do. That's not a legal problem per se. It's more of a social and cultural problem.
Einstein's brain was flawed, too... (Score:5, Interesting)
"His brain was preserved in a jar by Dr. Thomas Stoltz Harvey, the pathologist who performed the autopsy on Einstein. Harvey found nothing unusual with his brain, but in 1999 further analysis by a team at McMaster University revealed that his parietal operculum region was missing and, to compensate, his inferior parietal lobe was 15% wider than normal. The inferior parietal region is responsible for mathematical thought, visuospatial cognition, and imagery of movement."
Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too... (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, these kind of things disturb me when I read them (what the quote said, not what the poster said). It implies that intelligence cannot be achieved through hard work, which is totally wrong. The brain is like any other muscle and the brain bearer can develop it, just like any other muscle. They don't need a genetic defect to outdo Einstein, they need courage and the willingness
Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too... (Score:4, Insightful)
But seriously, Einstein was just one man. Yes, he was a genius, but just one of many geniuses we've had over the years. I'm not sure how much we can learn just by looking at his brain in a pickle jar. And whatever this defect was, they missed it the first time -- I wonder if they (the people who look at his brain in the pickle jar) are just finding what they wanted to find?
So what? I don't let what is PC dictate my actions. If you want to, that's fine, but I don't. (I do try and let courtesy dictate my actions, but that's different.)In any event, it's relatively scientifically established that fat people don't live as long. Is stating that or researching that politically incorrect?
Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too... (Score:3, Informative)
Slightly OT but important.....
That's a superficial and flawed reading of the evidence. First of all, behavior genetic studies typically show that the heritability of intelligence is about .50, which means that about 50% of the population variance is attributable to genetic differences. The rest -- the other half -- is environment, mostly nonshared environment (i.e., unique individual experience).
However, what most people do not reali
Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too... (Score:4, Funny)
Eventually your skul will break and your brains pop out if you think often.
Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too... (Score:3, Informative)
I've met plenty of people who did very well academically but were incapable, or at least at the age I knew them at, were unable to deploy that knowledge in
Its not as simple as you claim (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't tell me you've never seen someone who regularly goes to the gym yet their body remains flabby. I have. I've also seen people who lo
Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Only it's not a muscle, and that's why you are wrong. It is ridiculous to disregard genetic differences as potential causes for physical and behavioral differences in people. Mozart was composing symphonies at age five. Do you think that was only a product of hard work? There have been numerous writings about Asperger's Syndrome [slashdot.org] and certain types of intelligence. [slashdot.org] It's just called genetic variance, don't
Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Great resource! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
A genetic variation does not necessarily constitute a "defect." Are blue eyes a defect? Generally, the term defect is used when there is some kind of significant pathological consequence.
Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would class this as a genetic variation rather than a defect, because there is no pathological consequence.
The point is j
Because something is politically incorrect... (Score:3, Interesting)
According to Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, "It would be hard to overstate how politically incorrect this paper is... [though] it's certainly a thorough and well-argued paper, not one that can easily be dismissed outright."
Am I reading this wrong, or is this implied in his statement (i.e. we might not be able to dismiss it outright, but it will eventually be disproven because it is politically incorrect and, therefore, cannot be correct).?
Re:Because something is politically incorrect... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Because something is politically incorrect... (Score:5, Informative)
Turns out that Pinker was one of the defenders of President Summers' comments concerning gender. From the Harvard Crimson [thecrimson.com]:
Re:Because something is politically incorrect... (Score:3, Informative)
Steven Pinker is the LAST person to imply that because something is politically incorrect, it's flat-out wrong. You're right, that quote might sound like it, but I think it's just a bad quote.
It's possible (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying that it's that way, but it's definitely within the realm of possibility. But, if you want to get shut down, just mention that you think that it's a possibility.
Sometimes the truth just is what it is, and not what we want it to be.
Re:It's possible (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's possible (Score:3, Funny)
True, I'm way smarter than any of you. We should accept that openly.
Re:It's possible (Score:3, Informative)
More likely, though, intelligence is controlled by at least a handful, if not a multitude of genes. In this case, even smaller populations will average ou
Re:It's possible (Score:3, Insightful)
The basis of prejudice (Score:3, Insightful)
Being a Jew ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Its about time (Score:2, Insightful)
Non-PC Studies (Score:3, Insightful)
But they will not see the light of day due to the politically correct, media-charged world we live in today. Such a study would be be spun into outrage by minority or activist groups, calling the researchers racist or worse, regardless if they are correct.
Re:Non-PC Studies (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, there's a straightforward way to get such studies published, used by many researchers in the past. You simply express your ideas in turgid, jargon-laden terms that are impenetrable by all but specialists.
If this paper gets more attention, it's probably a sign that it was written too clearly. Maybe the author should take a course in scientific obfuscation.
Maybe he actually wan
Careful, there. (Score:3, Funny)
For what it's worth, I am curious what the comparison would be based on party affiliation within the same ethnic/racial group.
--grendel drago
politically incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:politically incorrect (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a very idealistic view of science. Politics has always governed to a large extent what is permissible within science. To go against the grain is to put your career at stake; in earlier times not only your career but also your life (e.g. Copernicus). Most often though, your work just won't get funded (e.g. Nasa) or see publication. "Truth" in science is what is useful for maintaing the poli
Re:politically incorrect (Score:2)
Science must never be politically incorrect. It should be the truth, nothing more and nothing less.
Fair enough.
If you start to use political correct terms you water down the meaning.
but theres no need to use incorrect terms (AKA African-American if you're not from Africa) to please some minority
Oh yeah, the term "black" was so much more accurate to use when describing the group of Americans with African ancestry. Or "negro": black in French or Spanish -- that's so much better!
Re:politically incorrect (Score:2)
I am Canadian (born and lived for 31 years), if I move to the US, do I become a Canadian-American ?
NO. I will always be a Canadian, regardless of where I live.
Re:politically incorrect (Score:2)
Re:politically incorrect (Score:2)
"oh it's not true lets lie, fire people at the BBC for telling the truth, then admit it was illegal"
I'm looking at you government...
Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Is there any benefit to having an appendix? Other than your 1 in 700 shot of having acute Appendicitis, which was deadly before modern medicine? Or any advantage of having tonsils, which are prone to infection?
Or what about the genetic predisposition to certain cancers that this study talks about? Could it be that they weren't selected out because a) most people didn't tend to live long enough for the cancer to manifest itself, or b) the cancer manifested its
Confounding factors? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Confounding factors? (Score:2)
If you're a just a Tay-Sachs gene carrier, it's invisible - there's no physical effect whatsoever.
Politically incorrect, Humbug (Score:5, Insightful)
I never did well in art classes, even though I tried harder in that class than others. Other kids just dominated in those classes, yet my teachers claimed that it was all about how hard you worked. Bull Crap! We are each born with a range of potential abilities in each area, and our effort/training determine where in that range we land. We have limits, and we are all different. Some of us just will never be able to draw, and some of us will never be able to handle geometry. Accepting this is critical to helping kids achieve greatness.
Also, when kids fail or really stink at a content area, we need to let them know that they suck! Instead many people want us to give them empty praise, over inflating their ego. Then, later in life, they find out that they cannot achieve anything, and they are not perfect (their peers will point this out). Soon they can be found plotting harm to their peers, and suffering from depression. Hmmm, could it have something to do with their self-image, which our culture and schools built for them?
No spelling and grammar neve were my strong suite either. Sorry for becomming slightly off topic, but I hate political correctness.
Re:Politically incorrect, Humbug (Score:5, Insightful)
Jeez. Slashdot and it's intellectual elitist, reductionism. You've got to love it.
Re:Politically incorrect, Humbug (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying that it's right or effective to shove kids onto whatever career track they seem cut out for at the age of five, but your example
Re:Politically incorrect, Humbug (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe then we can get past the "everyone is equal" and "anyone can achieve anything" crap which has been holding Americas schools back.
I have never met a single person who believes that everyone has exactly the same innate intelligence, musical ability, etc. Everyone knows that different people have different talent.
Some of us just will never be able to draw, and some of us will never be able to handle geometry. Accepting this is critical to helping kids achieve greatness.
Sorry, now you're the one spouting bullshit. Of course you may never be able to draw like Leonardo Da Vinci. But with time and effort you can learn to draw to some level better than you do today. Similarly, except for actually disabled children, anyone can learn some geometry. I don't think it is politically correct to point out that the human brain is specifically designed to allow people to acquire new skills and that neither drawing nor geometry are outside the normal range of learnability. Maybe you hate drawing, as I do, and therefore don't want to put in the effort to achieve even minimal skills. Or maybe your teacher taught it incorrectly (I'm told that there is a very good technique for teaching non-drawers to look beyond objects at shapes) but you could learn it if you felt it important.
I don't find the rest of your rant compelling at all. Most people who are depressed are so because of biochemical imbalances and not because their teachers overpraised them as children.
Specious reasoning (Score:4, Insightful)
Depression is correlated with biochemical changes, right enough. Depressive states are accompanied by changes in serotonin & norepinephrine levels. You can induce depression with oxotremorine, for instance.
But correlation does not imply biochemical "imbalance" naturally causes depression. It's just as likely that depression causes the biochemical imbalance.
Many cases of chronic unipolar depression (and bipolar mania / depression) may very well be tied to genetics or long-term chemical changes in the body. In non-genetic cases, what caused the imbalance in the first place? Could it not be a chemical dependency caused by long-term situational depression (that is, the body just gets used to the chemical state of being depressed)?
Most cases of depression (and the ones generally referred to by the root post) are not necessarily caused by some physical problem.
Don't believe me? How many times has a perfectly good mood been changed by an outside event? Why is there such a high rate of depression in veterans? Why did we have an increase in depression after 9/11/2001?
Praise from teachers is important. The praise should be balanced with expectations, though. I loved art class; not that I was any good, but the important thing wasn't the finished product, it was the process. I learned an appreciation for great art through my understanding (not mastery) of the process.
Unfortunately, in geometry, understanding and mastery are tied together. And there are many, many people who are incapable of understanding geometry. This doesn't make them worse than those of us who *do* get geometry; it just means they'll never design bridges or houses, or teach geometry. (Okay, they *might* teach geometry.)
So? (Score:2)
And talking about "intelligence" without breaking it down to memory, logical reasoning, creativity, inferential reasoning, empathic ability, etc. is a little like talking about "IP" without patents, copyrights, trademarks, contracts, licenses, or trade secrets.
Wait you mean the egalitarian myth is a lie? (Score:2)
Its fascinating this story didn't become public until it pointed to the supposed superiority of Jewish intellectual abilities.
If this same study had come out saying White Europeans are smarter than Black Africans because of some genetic reason the authors would be shot.
The hypocrisy!
Re:Wait you mean the egalitarian myth is a lie? (Score:2, Insightful)
There are brilliant people that are not Jewish. There are stupid people that are.
We need to stop wanting to lump people in groups to judge. That is bigotry.
I frankly I see more of that on Slashdot that just about any where else.
Deep implications (Score:3, Funny)
Great. So they're saying I should have children by girls just for their big tits and tight pussies? Damn my Askenazic heritage. Theres quite a lot of Sephardic in there too, maybe I'd be allow to try for girls who can read.
Political correctness (Score:3, Informative)
I'm Not Much of a Geneticist, But (Score:2)
(a) a few hundred or thousand years of persecution can accelerate genetic evolution quickly enough to provide increased intelligence? Obviously I must have been wrong, but doesn't evolution require many many generations (thousands? I dunno) to fully play out?
(b) just the Jews (and not even all of them...just one segment of the Jewish population?) have this apparent "improvement" over everyone else? Jew jokes notwithstanding, but they have been far from the only persecuted race in human
Re:I'm Not Much of a Geneticist, But (Score:3, Interesting)
Even worse, at the same time, many countries made it a crime for Jews to
Come on, Steven. (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't have anything to do with politics... the point is that anyone can develop these particular traits, provided that they carry and propogate these particular genes. It's only because of their isolation that the differences are great enough to be significant.
It's like saying that it's politically incorrect to ask new mothers whether they have Jewish ancestry, and give them lots of extra tests if they do. It's just science... a particular population has a greater incidence of certain genetic traits, some of which are diseases, and one of which happens to be that they tend to score better on IQ tests. The politically incorrect thing here would be to make out of this something it's not.
Re:Come on, Steven. (Score:4, Informative)
Don't believe me? Arthur Jensen [barnesandnoble.com], an intelligence researcher who started talking about a genetic component for intelligence back in the 60s, received death threats for his work. Pinker outlines in his most recent book, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature [barnesandnoble.com], how much grief and ostracism other researchers have suffered for any implication that intelligence is not 100% environmental.
I just got a Master's in gifted education, and when I interviewed for a PhD program in Learning Sciences I had at least two different professors tell me (very enthusiastically) "Giftedness! That's so politically incorrect! I love it, we need someone who's brave enough to study that here! You know everyone's going to hate you, don't you?" And that's just for implying that smart people have different educational needs than other people, not even saying that it's innate. My professor in gifted ed here spends a lot of her time defending herself in the media, a lot more time than someone researching, say, reading would have to spend.
If you think this isn't a horrifically politically charged issue, you obviously haven't been anywhere near the field.
Summary of paper. (Score:3, Insightful)
Conclusion: A cultural/historical created selection of a certain genetic trait over others may be a bad thing[tm].
News of the century! (Score:2)
Small, isolated (due to culture or due to geology) groups tend to have similar DNA. This fact, I don't think I was taught until high school biology.
That one of these small, isolated groups would have higher than average intelligence is hardly surprising.
A politically incorrect opinion. (Score:2)
-The level of intelligence can be influenced by genes (this has been proven by comparing separated-at-birth identical twins amongst other research).
-Genetic diseases are causes by genes. (try to refute that one!
Than wouldn't it be logical that a link between genetic diseases and intelligence is possible?
Down Syndrome is evidence that a link between lowered mental abilities and health issues can be caused by a single genetic mutation.
So wh
I don't buy it (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a bogus study trying to link the two together.
Re:I don't buy it (Score:3, Funny)
OK! I am now offended! As a person of Irish descent, how can you say that the Irish aren't smarter! Who else has a holiday where you can go out and get drunk just because of your heritage, huh? And who invented the potato, after all? Damn it, I have half a mind to go out and get drunk now. Now stop insulting me and let me go get pissed.
The real problem with this study... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The real problem with this study... (Score:2)
Thats not what the paper says.. it says the opposite. Please read the paper or check my summary of it a couple posts down.
Smart Pills (Score:5, Informative)
Bigger Implication (Score:2)
I don't think it's been proven yet that higher intelligence of homo sapiens is a sustainable trait in the long run.
And if that's not enough of a downer for you, then consider the possibility that what we call intelligence, all the higher thinking that has allowed us to consider mathematics and science, might just be an artifact of an evolutionary development of deviousness and deception (the back door man).
Have a nice day.
Interview with Greg Cochran (Score:3)
Interview [typepad.com] Interview Extras [typepad.com]
You can ask him at Baen Books (Score:2)
or
http://bar.baen.com:8080/ [baen.com]
In the "The New Guy" conference. This requires registration prior to access.
He's not much on talking about his work. I'm surprised he finally published. I suspect he's gotten a patent on the IQ boosting drug he's stated he's been working on.
He did post a link to the NY Times article on the 7th.
NY Times article [nytimes.com]
The effect of culture on IQ (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead what they say in the study basically and with a lot of hand waving is we couldn't think of anything which might be causing this culturally and wouldn't know how to measure it anyway so it must be biological.
Mathematically speaking (Score:3, Interesting)
Based on what I know about Jewish culture, I don't think genetic factors influencing social fitness (intelligence --> status) would have a great influence on reproductive rates. First, you encourage all of your children to marry and bang out as many children as possible, not just the smart handsome ones you are most proud of. Second the community takes care of its own, especially under pressure. These practices tend to mitigate any reproductive disadvantages of particular genes.
None of which doesn't mean that Jews aren't smarter than the rest of us on average. But if the reason is genetic, it's more likely to be the operation of chance than natural selection. Likewise, appeals to natural selection aren't needed to explain why diseases become common in inbred populations. In fact they're quite dubious in a population this size over the time scale we're talking. If any single gene or small set of genes present in our core population cause a disease, we'd see that disease fairly often in our modern population of Jews.
It would be very interesting indeed if we could show that the sphingolipid disorders in question coudl account for the difference in intelligence between Jews and the general population. It's possible of course. But even if so the prevalence of these disorders has nothing to do with natural (or in this case social) selection.
In short, this strikes me as some rather dubious speculation that has a few interesting bits in it, but otherwise wouldn't attract much attention apart from its political in-correctness.
Re:Political correctness is destroying scholarship (Score:2)
The paper presented the findings using phrases with politically overt connotations, rather than using a scholarly tone and remaining distinct from politics. The paper seems to have been written with a particular political slant in mind, rather than the impartiality one would expect from academic research.
The results of the paper are sensitive enough without adding political overtone within the paper itself. If a researcher wishes others to take his
It's all about the measuring stick (Score:5, Insightful)
which discusses exactly this. Plus I have some real-life experience.
The biggest problem is that, independant of what point you wish to argue (group X is abnormally intelligent, group Y is sub-par) it's so bloody hard (if not well-nigh impossible) to actually measure intelligence. Even something as simple as measuring brain size turns out to be fraught with difficulties.
But IQ tests in particular suffer from no end of problems, especially on the lower end of the scale. Did person X score low because they lack intelligence, or because they lack education (not the same thing) or because of other factors.
I went to a Canadian Military College, which had very high standards of admission. Part of the admissions process was an IQ test of sorts (I don't know if it attempted to generate a classic IQ number, but the questions on it were of the classic "IQ" type)
As you can imagine, given that 1) I didn't know how much weight this test had on my admission and 2) my whole future depended on getting admitted, taking this test was pretty stressful. I did not do well at all, came close to panic several times during the test, and didn't come close to finishing.
Happily, I was admitted after all. About a month or two after arriving, we were given the test again. (The local psych department LOVED to give us tests; we were a population tailor-made for testing all sorts of theories) This time, we were told that we were being retested as a way of checking the validity of the test.
Well after two months of military boot camp, my stress tolerence was much higher. Furthermore, I knew that the results of the test would have no impact on my career. And taking the test was a lot more relaxing than marching around the parade square.
End result? I aced it. Finished with time to spare. No problem at all. And my peers all reported the same thing.
Now one could look at the "before" and "after" scores on this test, and conclude that military boot camp raised intelligence, often spectacularly. And you'd be wrong. I and my peers didn't get more intelligent; we got better at handling the stress associated with the test.
I have serious doubts that intelligence can ever be successfully measured in a rigourous, scientific manner - and that means ANY theory of genetic intelligence, be it high or low, pro or con, can ever be proven out.
DG
Or you prove the point (Score:3, Interesting)
to make an analogy, imagine you were fastest runner in your tribe except when stressed
Re:Or you prove the point (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to this particular definition ("intelligence is measured by its expression") because I have experience with this too: I drive a race car. My success at any given event is in very large part an expression of my performance at that event. Some days, I'm so good I'd make you weep at the sheer beauty of it. And other days I couldn't drive sheep.
It's hard to boil this down into a single "talent" number to compare against other drive
Re:It's all about the measuring stick (Score:3, Interesting)
This makes a nice point: single-test evaluations are unscientific. I always remember a prof talking to a group of first years in a lab. He was a Chinese guy with a very direct approach, and he told them: "You got this desk. I ask you how wide it is. You t
Fails a trivial reality check... (Score:3, Interesting)
Your argument is that too many factors influence testing.
Consider... if someone is e.g. ill, then all tests will fail. So your argument "proves" that also tests of physical strength are equally impossible!
Obviously, your argument is wrong. You can measure random factors statistically.
Well, that argument fails, but your thesis might be true? It needs that
Re:It's all about the measuring stick (Score:3, Insightful)
The lack of motivation can certainly keep someone with an IQ of 150 from becoming one, though.
Re:It's all about the measuring stick (Score:3, Interesting)
Give me a problem including a load a number sequences and I can solve it by arithmetic means. Give me a problem involving shapes and I can solve it by scrawling notes.
Give me a problem involving how to move half a tonne of wooden poles with 2 lengths of rope and a group of teenagers and not only can I form a plan in a minute or two, but I can do it safely and quickly. This isn't tested in a classic IQ test, so there
Mr. Spock would be wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
Also, the difference between some groups is not just 5 points on the test; I understand that it is closer to 20 points between different ethnic groups in the USA alone.
Re:Oh, really? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that I think that's what happened, just saying...
Re:The top is not an issue (Score:3, Interesting)
Alternatively, the opposing view would be that
Racial intelligence and Equal Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, light eyed people generally have worse reflexes than darker-eyed people. No baseball recruiter bases their picks on eye-color, they base it on the player's statistics, since it's already factored in. In the same way, if a person from the group with the average lower intelligence got a higher SAT score, higher grades, etc. than someone from the group with "better" genetic intelligence background, the person with the higher scores/grades should to be admitted to college/given the job/etc, just as in the baseball example (note that this decision only depends, like the baseball example, on the desire of the institution to be better, not because of a gov't program or equality concerns).
Just because a group on average happens to be better than another group, it says nothing determinate about any one member of either group. The group with the lower average intelligence may even have the smartest person as a member and the group with the higher average may the twenty dimmest.
The only reason a study like this would make a difference this would make is that from a population standpoint, people from one genetic group may have different jobs/salaries/etc than people from another genetic group. While this is trivially true right now, I don't think genetics is necessarily the explaination (or even part thereof). Probably heavily cultural. But how can we know if we don't study it?
If I say black people are generally taller than Chinese people, that's pretty non-controversial, but any other tests, people are likely to blame the ruler I'm using.
I still wonder . . . (Score:2)
Or is it drams in a VAST?
Perhaps, VASTs in a firkin?
I can never figure it out.