Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

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.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study Links Genetic Diseases to Intelligence

Comments Filter:
  • Reason (Score:2, Insightful)

    by madaxe42 ( 690151 )
    1) Intelligence leads to geeks.
    2) Geeks sit in front of computers or large machines which go 'bang'
    3) ....?
    4) Cancer!
  • Dismissed (Score:2, Insightful)

    by stecoop ( 759508 ) *
    I was reading the paper and I read "Bummer dudes". That isn't what I would like to see in a technical paper. As for one thing, the author doesn't investigate (enough) alternative methods of crippled smart people. I would have theorized that during the medieval ages that warriors would have went after healthy combatants instead of slaughtering passive crippled people. If the crippled people were smart enough to survive then the smart people would have carried on. I think the correlation the author trie
    • Re:Dismissed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JaxWeb ( 715417 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:58AM (#12756485) Homepage Journal
      That wasn't the paper, that was an article about the paper. The article is here [nyud.net].

      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.
      • Yes, that is a better paper.

        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 /. we have to dissect everything.

        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)

          by zerbot ( 882848 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @10:31AM (#12758166)
          Except that the authors showed mechanisms whereby the genes that cause these diseases could also cause increased intelligence. The sphingolipid cluster has a side effect of promoting axonal growth and branching as well as dendritogenesis. The DNA repair cluster are involved in regulating the proliferation of neurons during fetal development.

          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)

          by shotfeel ( 235240 )
          Which, IMO, is what is happening now to a certain degree.

          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
    • by Webs 101 ( 798265 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @08:19AM (#12756619) Homepage
      Tay-Sachs does not produce crippled people, so it does not work as you hypothesize.

      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....

  • Let's see. . . (Score:5, Interesting)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:44AM (#12756383) Journal
    This paper says that a subset of a religious group is more intelligent due to genetic factors and that's a good thing.

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      > when a paper is presented which says that jews and palestinians are genetically
      >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)

      by drmarcj ( 807884 )
      However, when a paper is presented which says that jews and palestinians are genetically the same, that's a bad thing.

      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)

        by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @08:21AM (#12756636) Homepage
        In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited.

        So, the issue in that case wasn't whether the article's results were PC. People have reported such results in the past and it was published. The issue was that the authors were using the result to grind their own political - rather than scientific - axes.


        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)

          by cecille ( 583022 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @08:49AM (#12756902)
          Challenging that claim would certainly not be incorrect, but I hardly think that's what judaism claims. There are a lot of religions out there that claim to be chosen by god, and while, yes, it does come across as elitist, it is necessary to realize that it is not in reference to a bloodline or genetics, but a way of life. Similar to most religions, Judaism feels that religion brings them closer to god, and by choosing to follow this religion that they become a part of god's people. This isn't something that is only common to Judaism either.

          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)

          by Surt ( 22457 )
          In all fairness to the Jews, what they actually believe is that they are worse than others, and that God specifically challenges them to behave well, and that when they can all do that for a year, then we all get the benefit of god making everything right on earth.
    • Re:Let's see. . . (Score:5, Informative)

      by dalutong ( 260603 ) <djtansey@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @08:11AM (#12756561)
      It's not a subset of the jewish religion, it is where those jews came from.

      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)

        by PMuse ( 320639 )
        Ashkenazis are, by definitions, supposed to be jews whos family came from germany or eastern europe.

        So, to be prefectly blunt, we study this population because they are massively inbred in a particularly interesting way.

        Cool.
    • by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @08:28AM (#12756707)
      To answer your question you have to understand the thread of the argument.

      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:Let's see. . . (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SpacePunk ( 17960 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @09:32AM (#12757360) Homepage
      The paper is just a way for the Jews, and supporters to perpetuate one stereotype and one racist outlook.

      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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:45AM (#12756390)
    Einstein's brain was actually the product of a genetic defect. From wiki:

    "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."

    • Hey, this explains my GPA then. Of course, none of my lobes got bigger to compensate, but, at least now I have an excuse!

      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
      • by dougmc ( 70836 ) <dougmc+slashdot@frenzied.us> on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @09:04AM (#12757036) Homepage
        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.
        For the record, this is not a well established fact. There have been several studies that show that IQ is mostly genetics (and this seems to be the general belief -- that it's mostly (or at least largely), but not completely, genetics), there have been studies that show that things like education and good nutrition as a child help it, that mental exercise helps build it, etc.
        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 to sweat to build it up.
        Of course, what exactly IQ is is something that seems to change slightly depending on who you ask. And as others have said here, it's not easy to accurately measure, especially in a large group of people. In any event, the brain is pretty much obviously NOT like `any other muscle' (it's not even a muscle) and while I do believe that it can be developed to some degree, it certainly can't be developed quite like a muscle can.
        When people turn around and then say, "Well, you're smart because you're defective," then it diminishes both the person and the journey to become a more intelligent person.
        Well, being rude is being rude. But just how many movies have been made about people who are handicapped in some way, end up overcoming that handicap and end up being the best at what they do? Lots. It's a story that people love to see, a story of people overcoming adversity. But it's generally just a story when somebody goes from having a low IQ (and I don't mean just poorly educated) to being a genius, like in Flowers for Algernon [amazon.com] or Charly [imdb.com].

        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?

        It is still "politically correct" to belittle both intelligent and fat people in today's society too.
        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?

        • Slightly OT but important.....

          There have been several studies that show that IQ is mostly genetics

          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

      • by giel ( 554962 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @09:17AM (#12757183) Journal
        The brain is like any other muscle and the brain bearer can develop it, just like any other muscle.

        Eventually your skul will break and your brains pop out if you think often.

      • You're talking about two seperate things though, intelligence and knowledge. Knowledge is attained through hard work and intelligence applies knowledge for practical reasons. Yes, a greater knowledge base probably includes better techniques of information deployment but reading a book probably isn't going to raise your IQ or improve your Raven scores.

        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
      • You are only half right. Some folks have a greater genetic potential for just about anything, and no amount of hard work by others will ever over come that. People born short for example have a tough time playing basketball. Some folks are born with more fast twitch or slow twitch muscle fibers giving them an advantage in certain sports. The same carries for intelligence.

        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
      • There are genetic components to intelligence just like there are genetic components to athletic ability. Take two people with different genetics and have them follow the same workout. They will not be equal in speed and strength. The same is true with regards to intelligence. You can study and work all you want and chances are there will still be someone smarter than you who may not even have worked as hard.
      • The brain is like any other muscle and the brain bearer can develop it, just like any other muscle.

        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

    • Einstein's brain was actually the product of a genetic defect.

      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.
  • by Ignignokt ( 803398 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:45AM (#12756391)
    it must be wrong?

    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).?
    • No, I think Pinker statement is intended to suggest that because this paper is politically incorrect people will try harder to disprove it, as with numerous other studies linking abilities or disabilities to racial, social or sexual characteristics. If you read his books, it's pretty clear he doesn't have much respect for political correctness, though he does shy away from some of the logical conclusions of his reasoning, IMHO.
    • by Dammital ( 220641 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @08:53AM (#12756943)
      When I first saw the name Harvard associated with the quote, I thought "Sure, the politically correct capital of the world". But I thought I'd give Pinker a fair shake.

      Turns out that Pinker was one of the defenders of President Summers' comments concerning gender. From the Harvard Crimson [thecrimson.com]:

      CRIMSON: Were President Summers' remarks within the pale of legitimate academic discourse?

      PINKER: Good grief, shouldn't everything be within the pale of legitimate academic discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of rigor? That's the difference between a university and a madrassa.

      CRIMSON: Would it be normal to hear a similar set of hypotheses presented and considered at a conference of psychologists?

      PINKER: Some psychologists are still offended by such hypotheses, but yes, they could certainly be considered at most major conferences in scientific psychology.

      CRIMSON: Finally, did you personally find President Summers' remarks (or what you've heard/read of them) to be offensive?

      PINKER: Look, the truth cannot be offensive. Perhaps the hypothesis is wrong, but how would we ever find out whether it is wrong if it is "offensive" even to consider it? People who storm out of a meeting at the mention of a hypothesis, or declare it taboo or offensive without providing arguments or evidence, don't get the concept of a university or free inquiry.

    • You should read some of Pinker's work, and you'd realize that he's on the side of the authors. Try The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature [barnesandnoble.com] and How the Mind Works [barnesandnoble.com].

      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)

    by udderly ( 890305 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:45AM (#12756394)
    This is one of those things that drives me crazy. You have people telling us that we're evolved beings and yet on the other hand it's been taboo to even mention the possibility that an isolated group (or groups) of people may have evolved with more or less intelligence.

    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)

      by zerbot ( 882848 )
      The thing is that intelligence is not a single dimensional quantity like height is. We pretend it is by assigning an IQ value to some measurement of it, but even scientists who study it will tell you that a major problem in the field is a lack of understanding of just what intelligence is.
    • You have people telling us that we're evolved beings and yet on the other hand it's been taboo to even mention the possibility that an isolated group (or groups) of people may have evolved with more or less intelligence.

      True, I'm way smarter than any of you. We should accept that openly.
    • Let's assume that intelligence is controlled by one gene. If that's the case, smaller, isolated groups will likely have higher or lower occurrence of the gene in much the same way that populations can have higher or lower occurrence of sickle-cell anemia or hemophilia. The effect is mitigated in the general population because of a high degree of mixing.
      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)

      by Spy Hunter ( 317220 )
      It's taboo because the differences, if they do exist (which is likely, I admit), are minor enough that they are far overwhelmed by variation in individuals. Pointing out the very slight differences usually does not serve any useful purpose and will only inflame racial discrimination. If people weren't so stupid when it comes to race, then it wouldn't be a problem. But for some reason stupidity becomes rampant when race is an issue. For that reason, it's better to leave it alone.
  • Being a Jew ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by your_mother_sews_soc ( 528221 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:46AM (#12756398)
    This has always been a touchy subject. It does seem that our friends and relatives seem to be pretty smart, but it is something you don't want to raise in public or even among friends, since it smacks of ethnocentrism. But along with the benefits, there seems to be a high prevalence of depression, cancer, and other ills. Whether or not this is true, Hitler, the Moral Majority, and other movements have made it even harder to talk about something sensitive like this that may, in fact, have a scientific basis after all.
  • Its about time (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DigitalOSH ( 884551 )
    I, for one, am glad that there are enough sane people out there to actually have what it takes to put out a paper that singles out a race and shows its genetic differences when compared with the rest of us... But, if we have gathered that there are inherent differences between Ashkenazi Jews and other races, then what are we comparing against? Are some races less intelligent than others? With info like this, you could easily turn around and say that caucasians are (small percentage) less intelligent than th
  • Non-PC Studies (Score:3, Insightful)

    by atlantafatmike ( 853223 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:48AM (#12756409) Homepage
    Their are probably thousands of studies that could be done linking ethnic or social groups with intelligence, physical aptitude, obesity, disease, or just plain bad luck.

    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)

      by jc42 ( 318812 )
      But [such studies] will not see the light of day due to the politically correct, media-charged world we live in today.

      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
  • by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:49AM (#12756411) Journal
    Science must never be politically incorrect. It should be the truth, nothing more and nothing less. If you start to use political correct terms you water down the meaning. I'm not going "Say he's a nigger, you know he is", because that's outright wrong, but theres no need to use incorrect terms (AKA African-American if you're not from Africa) to please some minority who seems to think everyone needs a "nice" label and we can't just ignore that people's skin shade can't be controled and means nothing.
    • Science must never be politically incorrect (sic). It should be the truth, nothing more and nothing less.

      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

    • 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!

    • Something that I have never understood is why the need for the hyphen.

      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.
  • Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)

    by m50d ( 797211 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:51AM (#12756424) Homepage Journal
    If there wasn't any benefit these genes gave, common sense would suggest they'd have died out long ago.
    • Why? (Score:3, Informative)

      by lorcha ( 464930 )
      Be careful there. It's not always so simple.

      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

  • by mrogers ( 85392 )
    This being Slashdot, I haven't read the article, let alone the paper it refers to, but I'm going to throw my hat in the ring anyway. Is it possible that children with genetic disorders are treated differently by their families, or are more likely to focus on activities that don't involve physical exertion? Either of those things could lead to different performance in intelligence tests without there being any direct connection to the genes in question.
  • by BigDogCH ( 760290 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:54AM (#12756452) Journal
    We could use about 100 more such politically incorrect studies to be published, correct or not Maybe then we can get past the "everyone is equal" and "anyone can achieve anything" crap which has been holding Americas schools back.

    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.
    • by Oxygen99 ( 634999 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @08:14AM (#12756586)
      Bleh. So we destroy any kids who don't show immediate aptitude for a particular discipline while at school? Oops. Bye-bye Einstein. How about the kids who love art but, in your phraseology, suck? Did you not get any enjoyment from it? You did? But you suck, ergo, no art for you. Yes, you're right, promoting people above their ability is a bad thing, but history is replete with people who didn't show their true colours until later in life.

      Jeez. Slashdot and it's intellectual elitist, reductionism. You've got to love it.
      • Einstein showed a talent for math and science from a young age. His difficulties as a young student were less severe than commonly assumed, and had more to do with personality conflicts and the soul-killing dullness of German education in that era. He most certainly should not be cited as an example of "dumb kid makes himself smart by trying really really hard".

        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
    • by smallpaul ( 65919 ) <paul&prescod,net> on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @08:15AM (#12756594)

      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)

        by Tony ( 765 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @09:26AM (#12757302) Journal
        Most people who are depressed are so because of biochemical imbalances and not because their teachers overpraised them as children.

        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.)
  • by lheal ( 86013 )
    Wouldn't it me more surprising if there were no statistical links between "intelligence" and genetic diseases?

    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.
  • Intelligence really is a trait related to genetic breeding? Some people in fact really are more stupid than others and that genetics is the reason why?

    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!
    • I am sure that some people are smart than other because of some genetic trait. The problem comes when you take information about a group and apply it to the individual.
      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.
  • by tezza ( 539307 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:54AM (#12756457)
    Some scientists speculate that assortive mating of high IQ people is contributing to a rising incidence of autism and Asperger's Syndrome.

    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.

  • by Jay Maynard ( 54798 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:55AM (#12756464) Homepage
    Sometimes, science will be politically incorrect. That does not mean that it should not be pursued.
  • How can one say that
    (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
  • Come on, Steven. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mogrify ( 828588 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @08:01AM (#12756498) Homepage
    The issue isn't that anyone is more or less intelligent because they are of a particular race, religion, or anything else. The point is that because of the unique genetic circumstances surrounding Ashkenazi Jews, specifically their extended genetic isolation, they have developed particular genetic traits.

    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)

      by porcupine8 ( 816071 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @09:17AM (#12757181) Journal
      The point you're missing is that it's not saying Jews are more intelligent that's politically incorrect - it's implying that intelligence has a significant genetic component, period.

      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)

    by Stalyn ( 662 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @08:07AM (#12756534) Homepage Journal
    Historical conditions created an environment for the Ashkenazi Jews where a higher IQ meant greater reproductive success. Therefore a high IQ became a dominant genetic trait. So much so that the genes linked to higher intelligence would overlap and therefore cause genetic diseases.

    Conclusion: A cultural/historical created selection of a certain genetic trait over others may be a bad thing[tm].

  • Smart people come from people who carry smart people genes. This I've known since elementary school.

    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.

  • I guess most people will accept the following two statements.

    -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)

    by dj28 ( 212815 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @08:08AM (#12756551)
    According to wikipedia, Irish-Americans have the same prevalence of Tay-Sachs as do Jews in America. However, I wouldn't consider Irish-Americans any smarter than the white population in general in America. Furthermore, French Canadians and the Cajun community in Louisiana have the same prevalence as Ashkenazi Jews.

    This is a bogus study trying to link the two together.
    • However, I wouldn't consider Irish-Americans any smarter than the white population in general in America.

      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.

  • ...is that it's just a hypothesis, based on relatively meaningless survey-based data. One of the most important principles of experimental science is that correlation does not imply causation. Just because the people who play violent video games end up committing more violence doesn't mean the games caused the violence; it's just as reasonable to say that violent people like violent games. This "research," if can be so called, basically comes up with an interesting idea, and then never actually tests it. If
    • Ashkenazi Jews have these diseases, Ashkenazi Jews are smart, therefore these diseases have intelligence as a byproduct

      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)

    by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @08:11AM (#12756564) Journal
    I'm friends with Cochran. One of his interests is in using this research to find out methods of copying pharmecutically what these genes are doing naturally. (The genetic disease occurs for most of these genes when a person has two copies of the gene. The intelligence advantage comes from just one.) In other words, he wants to create a "smart pill" to raise IQ.
  • 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.

  • by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @08:14AM (#12756589) Journal
    Here is an interview I had with Cochran about the possibility that homosexuality is caused by a virus:

    Interview [typepad.com] Interview Extras [typepad.com]
  • http://bar.baen.com/ [baen.com]
    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]
  • by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @08:45AM (#12756864)
    I take it that they tooks lots of Ashkenazi Jews out of their natural cultural environment at birth, handed them over to random sections of society at large and then compared the intelligence of the resulting adults with the rest of society in order to rule out cultural effects? Hmm? They didn't?

    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.

  • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @10:16AM (#12757949) Homepage Journal
    if we model the Jewish population as one which mainly inbreeds, it is virtually certain that the ancestry of every Jew alive can be traced to a relatively small subset of the total Jewish population in the era in question. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to invoke genetic fitness to produce this result. The operation of chance is all that is needed to ensure that many lines of descent die out but a few become ubiquitous. Depending on your assumptions about the marginal difference some fitness factor (say intelligence) makes on reproductive success, it is possible (likely) that chance is by far the dominant factor in this.

    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.

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Working...