Intelligence and genetics

[Kingfish]

A title more interesting than the thread contained I must confess, merely relating to an article.

Has anyone else come across this article or study? It makes some very bold claims in relation to the nature vs nurture debate I have a feeling that it might have just been sensationalized by the newspapers to garner attention. The fact that it it actually got attention from some of the larger news sites (and not just the dailymail) however does lead me to believe that it might be far more than just puff.


His latest study – which is yet to be published – analysed the GCSE results of 11,117 twins. It found that children’s genes had a “substantial” bearing on their performance at the age of 16, accounting for 52 per cent of marks in English, 55 per cent in maths and 58 per cent in science.
Across all subjects, inherited ability accounted for around 58 per cent of the variance in scores, while “shared environment” such as the school accounted for about 36 per cent.


The findings suggest that schools in their current form may find it almost impossible to fully close the gaps in results between the brightest and weakest pupils.


“Much more of the variance in GCSE scores can be attributed to genetics than to school or family environment,” Prof Plomin said.
Repeated studies have linked genes with IQ but the latest research suggests that the bond between the two may become more pronounced as people age.


In the interview, Prof Plomin said: “The heritability of IQ goes up lineally across the lifespan. From 30 per cent to 40, 50, 60 – some people say it becomes 80 per cent inheritable…


“It’s probable that little genetic differences become bigger and bigger as you go through life, creating environments correlated with your genotype. The simplest way of saying this is that bright kids read more, they hang out with kids who read more.”


The idea of genetics being even close to environmental effects just doesn't seem reasonable at all.


Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10200429/GCSE-results-influenced-by-childrens-genes-not-teaching.html

BBC reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25337953

[greenforest]

This is why I recommend redistributing student GPA so highest marks are transferred to the GPA of students w/ the lowest marks, resulting in all students having a GPA w/in one standard deviation of the national mean.

Since colleges view GPA over other measurements of performance, this will ensure all students have equal access to university.

[tallguy]

IQ is about 70% or more heritable. The reason is blindingly obvious. Our ape ancestors did not have brains the same as us. Therefore, there had to be a degree of variation in the population, no matter how tiny, all the way from them to us. That variation, as with all things, will still exist.

So what?

IQ is a fantastically narrow and specialised class of cognitive skills that merely happen to suit the fag-end of an industrial civilisation at the beginning of the 21st century. There are many other cognitive skills that are entirely unmeasured by IQ tests that may be as valuable or more valuable in other environmental contexts. Also, these differences, such as they exist, are absolutely minuscule for the most part. They are, however, massively exaggerated in terms of the life-chances of people due to massive disparity of earnings based on such tiny differences.

All of which is not even to to mention epigenetics.

When there is equitable access to resources and no one is allowed to become too rich or too poor, only then I may be interested in a conversation about IQ. Until then, its a bullshit diversion from the stuff that matters.

[Comrade #138672]

I don't buy it.

[helot]

Yeah i'm also sceptical as there'd be a ton of variables that would need to be controlled. Exam results can be affected by loads of stuff not to mention GCSEs aren't even that good an indicator of education let alone intelligence.

[greenforest]

Yeah i'm also sceptical as there'd be a ton of variables that would need to be controlled. Exam results can be affected by loads of stuff not to mention GCSEs aren't even that good an indicator of education let alone intelligence.

What about general intelligence tests that test your ability to remember a series of numbers backwards?

Seems like an odd ability, but there is variability, and this type of test is positively correlated w/ IQ scores.

[tallguy]

What about general intelligence tests that test your ability to remember a series of numbers backwards?

Seems like an odd ability, but there is variability and this type of test is positively correlated w/ IQ tests.
Yeah, IQ tests measure real differences between people and digit spans are a correlate of those differences. If I measure the thickness of people's fingernails, there will be no doubt some variation that can be explained in part by genetics. It may also be the case that tooth length correlates with fingernail thickness.

So what?

If we had built a civilisation where minute differences in fingernail thickness made the difference between someone consuming a massively disproportionately large amount of resource whilst others were forced to live like shit, we might be having a conversation here about how fingernail thickness was an implied indirect measure of someone's economic "worth". As it is, we are having an equally pointless conversation on the back of minuscule differences in something else we have based our current industrial civilisation on; a fantastically narrow and specialised class of cognitive traits known as "IQ".

It's a diversion from the shit that matters. And, it's not even going to serve us in the crisis to come anyway. Or, at least not in the narrow and monotone way it has done for the last two hundred years or so.

See below:

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

[helot]

What about general intelligence tests that test your ability to remember a series of numbers backwards?

Seems like an odd ability, but there is variability and this type of test is positively correlated w/ IQ tests.

I don't understand how that correlates to intelligence. Could you say that someone who suffers from short-term memory loss lacks intelligence because of this?

As for IQ testing i'd also say that doesn't test intelligence but ability to solve spatial-linguistic logic puzzles under exam conditions. It doesn't test anything innate as you of course can improve your IQ score by practising. That is of course at best, there is a long history of IQ testing being incredibly racist. It was afterall created as a tool of eugenics and social darwinism.

[greenforest]

I don't understand how that correlates to intelligence. Could you say that someone who suffers from short-term memory loss lacks intelligence because of this?

As for IQ testing i'd also say that doesn't test intelligence but ability to solve spatial-linguistic logic puzzles under exam conditions. It doesn't test anything innate as you of course can improve your IQ score by practising. That is of course at best, there is a long history of IQ testing being incredibly racist. It was afterall created as a tool of eugenics and social darwinism.

I'm curious what you mean by innate/reified when IQ and brain volume are positively correlated.

I'm not a firm advocate on the elasticity of intelligence. Exercise your brain and become the next Euler, if you can.

Otherwise, my understanding of intelligence/IQ is like height: You can't grow taller than what your genes allow, but you can help ensure you reach that height through your environment.

Another point on intelligence elasticity is that the amount of information you can gather is large, but the rate at which you pick up information - say mathematics - is fixed.

You could, given enough time, earn a math degree, but you're unlikely to learn math at the rate of a top mathematician.

Again, this goes back to general intelligence tests which measure ability over information.

[helot]

I'm curious what you mean by innate/reified when IQ and brain volume are positively correlated.

I'm not a firm advocate on the elasticity of intelligence. Exercise your brain and become the next Euler, if you can.



Like i said IQ testing tests the ability to solve spatial-linguistic logic puzzles under exam conditions. If you accept that IQ testing does actually test intelligence then that must mean you accept the elasticity of intelligence as it's been shown countless times IQ scores improve through practice.

[greenforest]

Yeah, IQ tests measure real differences between people and digit spans are a correlate of those differences. If I measure the thickness of people's fingernails, there will be no doubt some variation that can be explained in part by genetics. It may also be the case that tooth length correlates with fingernail thickness.

So what?

If we had built a civilisation where minute differences in fingernail thickness made the difference between someone consuming a massively disproportionately large amount of resource whilst others were forced to live like shit, we might be having a conversation here about how fingernail thickness was an implied indirect measure of someone's economic "worth". As it is, we are having an equally pointless conversation on the back of minuscule differences in something else we have based our current industrial civilisation on; a fantastically narrow and specialised class of cognitive traits known as "IQ".

It's a diversion from the shit that matters. And, it's not even going to serve us in the crisis to come anyway. Or, at least not in the narrow and monotone way it has done for the last two hundred years or so.

See below:

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

Assuming you believe theoretical physicists are important to society, can you name any w/ extremely low mathematical and verbal reasoning scores?

As for fingernails, I'm all ears as to which profession from which society greatly benefits by having great fingernails.

[helot]

Assuming you believe theoretical physicists are important to society, can you name any w/ extremely low mathematical and verbal reasoning scores?


That's a bit disingenuous though as maths is a tool of physics. That's like asking if there's any bus driver that doesn't know how to use a steering wheel.

[tallguy]

Assuming you believe theoretical physicists are important to society, can you name any w/ extremely low mathematical and verbal reasoning scores?

As for fingernails, I'm all ears as to which profession from which society greatly benefits by having great fingernails.Theoretical physics is important to our society and is only one of many things that are important. I say that as a person who has a massive interest in the subject.

Watch the video I linked to

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yeah i've come across quite a lot of this literature. Twin studies can be remarkably useful, of course, but they can also be unreliable too. It is really fucking difficult to hold ALL other variables constant, and especially within the context of education, to which it is difficult to ascribe a quantitative outcome (for example, testing is only a proxy for aptitude, it is not necessarily an accurate measure of aptitude itself, and so on for other variables such as environment etc.).

One of the more interesting aspects of research into differentials in education outcomes relate to birth month. There has been significant amounts of research that suggest that grouping students according to year (i.e. everyone from September-August are put in the same year), regardless of ability or birth month, can hold students back severely, and that the effects become more pronounced as you head higher up the secondary/high school ladder (i.e. towards leaving age).

There are also other factors which have been shown through research to affect outcomes, many of which are corollaries of poverty or economic development, notably transport links, distance from school etc. It is also of course widely documented that there is a direct link between material poverty and educational attainment.

I would also speculate that the root cause for the link between material poverty and educational attainment may be supplemented by the social effects of poverty - the poverty trap may mean that parents are not (or do not understand how to be) supportive and positive aids to their child's educational path. This can prevent schools, for example, from fully capitalising on its own social capital, for example it can stunt behaviour strategies introduced by the school from achieving their full aims. But this is just what I have observed and have gleaned from talking to educators. I'm not aware of research on this subject, I imagine it would be difficult, politically and logistically, to carry out such a study.

[greenforest]

Theoretical physics is important to our society and is only one of many things that are important. I say that as a person who has a massive interest in the subject.

Watch the video I linked to


Standard IQ tests measure three forms of intelligence: verbal reasoning, mathematical, visio-spatial; there are others, but these are the meat and potatoes of the IQ test.

However, as to what I hinted above, verbal reasoning is increasingly seen as the important area of intelligence for people coming up with news ideas - mathematicians, theoretical physicists, etc., as opposed to experimental physicists (who are stronger in visio-spatial ability).

The video discusses creativity being an important area of intelligence ignored by the school system.

In actuality, I believe verbal reasoning is a major factor for new ideas the author attributes to creativity.

Going back to what you originally mentioned regarding the specific contribution of IQ - I'd ask; find me someone considered a genius, or respected in their profession, whose measured (or estimated) IQ is low in all three traditional areas of IQ.

[the debater]

Judging from personal experience, I don't necessarily hold the opinion that intelligence is genetic. Height, strength, skin color, all those physical traits are most likely genetic. But creativity, personality, and even IQ, I believe come entirely from one's environment. The Colorado Adoption project backs up my belief in personality being 100% environmental. And with studies that do seem to indicate a mostly genetic origin for IQ, such as twin studies, I've heard of there being issues with those studies. Good discussion topic. I have to admit I am rooting for nurture to beat out nature in the great IQ debate, so if I get too biased, someone please warn me.

What are the parental histories of great scientists and thinkers from the past? Ben Carson, the world's former best neurosurgeon, was raised in a poor household and his mother was a third-grade drop out. Not sure about the father.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

As for IQ testing i'd also say that doesn't test intelligence but ability to solve spatial-linguistic logic puzzles under exam conditions. It doesn't test anything innate as you of course can improve your IQ score by practising. That is of course at best, there is a long history of IQ testing being incredibly racist. It was afterall created as a tool of eugenics and social darwinism.

No it wasn't. It was originally invented by a French psychologist to single out children who may have been having trouble in class and organise special educational aides for them.

The IQ test that was brought to America, however, was brought by a eugenicist, who proceeded to use it as an excuse to forcibly sterilise millions of migrants.

[BIXX]

Going back to what you originally mentioned regarding the specific contribution of IQ - I'd ask; find me someone considered a genius, or respected in their profession, whose measured (or estimated) IQ is low in all three traditional areas of IQ.


Well, as far as I know, most respected scientists and Nobel prize winners etc... Are primarily in the 110-130 range. Which, while good, isn't absolutely amazing. Their real abilities tend be be in realizing the significance of patterns.

Plus, think of Einstein. His IQ (estimated) is about 160, but we know he also began thinking of space differently at a young age which could have affected that.

I would be interested in teaching a set of 200 students two different types of spatial thinking, one of the Cartesian and the other being some of the more theoretical frameworks that takes our scientists years to understand properly. My guess? The students who at a young age understand those theoretical types of space would be able to do shit in their heads that we have problems with even with the help of computers. Of course that's just my guess so it should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Firebrand]

Another factor to consider int he unreliability of IQ tests is the fact that an IQ score is an average. Averages can be very misleading, if you had a group of five people, two were 7ft two were 5ft and one was six foot, averaging them would tell you that the group was 6ft tall. Which would tell you absolutely nothing useful about the height of people in the group.
In the same way the IQ score tells you very little of use. If someone is very good at one aspect and very bad at another they will show up as being astonishingly average despite the fact that they may need extra support in one area while being a genius in another. In fact there is research that shows that geniuses are more likely to have uneven scores, in their area of expertise they will be far better than in other areas.
That's why educational psychologists use a series of separate scores for different areas to establish whether a kid is having problems. Since if the kid has a talent for one area it can mask the issues by dragging the average up. (e.g. my extremely high verbal reasoning score masked my serious issues with working memory)

IQ scores oversimplify even within the bounds of what they are designed to show.

[helot]

No it wasn't. It was originally invented by a French psychologist to single out children who may have been having trouble in class and organise special educational aides for them.

The IQ test that was brought to America, however, was brought by a eugenicist, who proceeded to use it as an excuse to forcibly sterilise millions of migrants.


I stand corrected then, i've only studied from the point of the IQ testing in the US onwards.

[greenforest]

Well, as far as I know, most respected scientists and Nobel prize winners etc... Are primarily in the 110-130 range. Which, while good, isn't absolutely amazing. Their real abilities tend be be in realizing the significance of patterns.

Plus, think of Einstein. His IQ (estimated) is about 160, but we know he also began thinking of space differently at a young age which could have affected that.

I would be interested in teaching a set of 200 students two different types of spatial thinking, one of the Cartesian and the other being some of the more theoretical frameworks that takes our scientists years to understand properly. My guess? The students who at a young age understand those theoretical types of space would be able to do shit in their heads that we have problems with even with the help of computers. Of course that's just my guess so it should be taken with a grain of salt.

I couldn't find anything about this online, but that is interesting.

That does show there are other components to achievement and innovation beyond simple IQ - something I am in total agreement with.

I found a longitudinal study of California's school children with the highest IQ that followed them through their lives.

It found that the difference between the highest and lowest achievers was only 7 IQ points (many of the lowest achievers were simply clerks though they were geniuses). What the researchers concluded was that motivation played the most significant role in achievement - sports, extra-curricular activities, skipping grades; all these examples were characteristics of the highest achieving subjects compared to the lowest achieving.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/07/science/75-years-later-study-still-tracking-geniuses.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm