• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

A new survey of intelligence researchers: 90% think international IQ differences are partly due to genetics

untermensche said:
ApostateAbe said:
That doesn't seem to resolve the seeming contradiction, but it only expresses the contradiction more plainly.
Click to expand...

There is no contradiction.

Intelligence is partially due to the expression of genes.

But the genes involved are a random combination from both parents, not a complete copy of either parent.

So the "intelligence" of the offspring is distinct from the "intelligence" of either parent.

Just like many children look nothing like either parent, because the child is not a copy it is a random combination.
Click to expand...
OK, so there is like a causal chain, in which genes are at the top, and they contribute to the intelligence of a parent as one branch, and those same genes also contribute to the intelligence of the child as another branch, but it is misleading to phrase it as a direct link between parent and child. I have no strong disagreement, but it is not a distinction important enough to so carefully parse, in my opinion. It is more informative than misinformative to think of intelligence being passed on from parents to children, in my opinion.
 
ApostateAbe said:
untermensche said:
There is no contradiction.

Intelligence is partially due to the expression of genes.

But the genes involved are a random combination from both parents, not a complete copy of either parent.

So the "intelligence" of the offspring is distinct from the "intelligence" of either parent.

Just like many children look nothing like either parent, because the child is not a copy it is a random combination.
Click to expand...
OK, so there is like a causal chain, in which genes are at the top, and they contribute to the intelligence of a parent as one branch, and those same genes also contribute to the intelligence of the child as another branch, but it is misleading to phrase it as a direct link between parent and child. I have no strong disagreement, but it is not a distinction important enough to so carefully parse, in my opinion. It is more informative than misinformative to think of intelligence being passed on from parents to children, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Since nobody knows how many genes are responsible for "intelligence" and where they are in the genome, and how features of "intelligence" can be effected by recessive pairing, and how regulator genes can effect the process, and how neural migration and neural death during development effects the process, there is really nothing that can be said of inheritance of "intelligence".

But just as we can say the arm is the result of genetic expression we can say that the "intelligence" at least in part is as well. And of course twin studies give evidence to support this.
 
untermensche said:
ApostateAbe said:
OK, so there is like a causal chain, in which genes are at the top, and they contribute to the intelligence of a parent as one branch, and those same genes also contribute to the intelligence of the child as another branch, but it is misleading to phrase it as a direct link between parent and child. I have no strong disagreement, but it is not a distinction important enough to so carefully parse, in my opinion. It is more informative than misinformative to think of intelligence being passed on from parents to children, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Since nobody knows how many genes are responsible for "intelligence" and where they are in the genome, and how features of "intelligence" can be effected by recessive pairing, and how regulator genes can effect the process, and how neural migration and neural death during development effects the process, there is really nothing that can be said of inheritance of "intelligence".

But just as we can say the arm is the result of genetic expression we can say that the "intelligence" at least in part is as well. And of course twin studies give evidence to support this.
Click to expand...
"Since nobody knows..." Would you say the same is true of height, then? There is really nothing that can be said of inheritance of "height"? I don't think so. There is a helluva lot we can say about the inheritance of height, even as we lack the molecular knowledge. I think it would be obscuring more than informing to claim that nothing can be claimed about the inheritance of height or intelligence, and unfortunately obscuring the science of intelligence is a common pattern even within science.
 
ApostateAbe said:
untermensche said:
Since nobody knows how many genes are responsible for "intelligence" and where they are in the genome, and how features of "intelligence" can be effected by recessive pairing, and how regulator genes can effect the process, and how neural migration and neural death during development effects the process, there is really nothing that can be said of inheritance of "intelligence".

But just as we can say the arm is the result of genetic expression we can say that the "intelligence" at least in part is as well. And of course twin studies give evidence to support this.
Click to expand...
"Since nobody knows..." Would you say the same is true of height, then? There is really nothing that can be said of inheritance of "height"? I don't think so. There is a helluva lot we can say about the inheritance of height, even as we lack the molecular knowledge. I think it would be obscuring more than informing to claim that nothing can be claimed about the inheritance of height or intelligence, and unfortunately obscuring the science of intelligence is a common pattern even within science.
Click to expand...

You are claiming the genetic expression of height is similar to the genetic expression of "intelligence".

But you have no evidence of this.

Again.

To know what is happening with genetic transmission of "intelligence" one first has to specifically define what intelligence is anatomically and physiologically, and then know how it is created by genes.

Until then it is speculation.
 
Trausti said:
untermensche said:
You are claiming the genetic expression of height is similar to the genetic expression of "intelligence".

But you have no evidence of this.
Click to expand...

Well . . . http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117295
Click to expand...

Nobody questions that "intelligence" like all features of the human has a genetic component.

But the visual system will not develop if the newborn does not get visual stimulation for an amount of time. It will not develop normally if it's visual information is distorted.

So stimulation influences development. Even though the visual system is the product of genes there is more to the story than genes.

This of course is not news either.

And even if "intelligence" is mostly the product of genetic expression the question of how "intelligence" is inherited is not even addressed by knowing this. Yes, all the genes involved have to be present in the genomes of both parents, but beyond that there is nothing to be known about inheritance until the specific genes responsible for "intelligence" are known.
 
I wonder if thread participants and psychologists have been paying attention to the changing paradigm in genetics and genomics, i.e. that the human body is an ecosystem.

Some other factors besides the genome that can appear to be heritable:
microbiome and microbiota which are also inherited;
bigger than micro- types of pathogens;
the mother's gestational environment including microbiota, diet, drug use, etc.

The microbiome effects traits including behavior. Microbiota are also inheritable. Finally, the human body/ecosystem actually has more dna from the microbiome than it does from the human genome.

Besides that (different topic), studies of Africa and other international differences show a correlation between larger pathogens and IQ differences.
 
I think it is rather simple to make sense of IQ regardless of the scientific studies of genes. As some have already indicated. Levels of IQ is merely the influence of an individual's surounding environment and health.You can't really say its down to genetics because we have enough genes and brain cells in our bodies to be geniuses - if of course we were trully focused and interested in a particular subject of interest to then be experts in. I also believe it is more of a cultural inheritance especially when its is a large group of people.(As indicated by of China post)
Underseer said:
Why isn't China the dumbest nation on the planet?
.
Click to expand...

I doubt it is about genes at all. As long as one is healthy and interested. In all honesty,all that money spent on those studies could have been much well spent somewhere else. Our simple common sense is so underestimated when looked upon as one of the ordinary people who could do better research by simple logic.

If Einstien had a twin and both were seperated at birth. Albert as we know of goes through life as nornal the other, Fredric is raised by a family in Lapland. Is it possible that Fredric would have thought of E=mc squared or similar as his brother Albert ? I doubt it. He would be quite a formidable deer hunter though.

Indeed there are enough genes in your bodies and brain cells to have good IQ's when interested and focused,the willingness to learn coinciding with the understanding that we use only use about 10% brain at one time, as known.

(I must admit. I need a lot of focusing.)
 
Learner said:
You can't really say its down to genetics because we have enough genes and brain cells in our bodies to be geniuses - if of course we were trully focused and interested in a particular subject of interest to then be experts in.
Click to expand...
Regardless of what race one happens to be.
 
I don't understand this at all. The answer should be 100%.

The question is how big the effect is, not if there is an effect.
 
GenesisNemesis said:
From your own link:

Genes were rated as the second most relevant factor but also had the highest variability in ratings. Culture, health, wealth, modernization, and politics were the next most important factors
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
When I said, "...in which genes are at the top...", it had both a different context and different meaning from the meaning and context you intend, so please don't get the wrong idea.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
I don't understand this at all. The answer should be 100%.

The question is how big the effect is, not if there is an effect.
Click to expand...
Yeah, assuming that all academics are realistic, maybe, but there is actually a big academic movement to deny genetic racial differences, and they are present as a minority even in the study of intelligence.
 
untermensche said:
ApostateAbe said:
"Since nobody knows..." Would you say the same is true of height, then? There is really nothing that can be said of inheritance of "height"? I don't think so. There is a helluva lot we can say about the inheritance of height, even as we lack the molecular knowledge. I think it would be obscuring more than informing to claim that nothing can be claimed about the inheritance of height or intelligence, and unfortunately obscuring the science of intelligence is a common pattern even within science.
Click to expand...

You are claiming the genetic expression of height is similar to the genetic expression of "intelligence".

But you have no evidence of this.

Again.

To know what is happening with genetic transmission of "intelligence" one first has to specifically define what intelligence is anatomically and physiologically, and then know how it is created by genes.

Until then it is speculation.
Click to expand...
If all we know about intelligence is that helps people score higher on intelligence tests, then that is enough. We know for damn sure that such measures are highly heritable, as in one identical twin raised apart is far more likely to have a score similar to the other identical twin than some random stranger is. Whatever intelligence is "anatomically and physiologically" is another issue. We know that the measures of intelligence have a relationship with almost everything we typically associate with intelligence, and this is an observable reality. Before the discovery of the double helix, we knew genes as only an abstraction, but we still knew a helluva lot about them through phenotypes, Mendelian theory and Darwinism. You would like to deny the reality of intelligence as we lack the specific molecular knowledge. But, I think we need to make sense of intelligence given what we know, not just blind ourselves to it until everything is broken down to your satisfaction.
 
ApostateAbe said:
If all we know about intelligence is that helps people score higher on intelligence tests, then that is enough.
Click to expand...

A tiny part of human "intelligence" might show itself on some test but not human "intelligence" in full. Many of these tests merely test prior exposure to such tests and the motivation of the test taker on those prior exposures and when taking the test.

We know for damn sure that such measures are highly heritable, as in one identical twin raised apart is far more likely to have a score similar to the other identical twin than some random stranger is.
Click to expand...

"Heritable" means that a person of a certain "intelligence" can somehow pass that "intelligence" to offspring.

Twin studies say nothing about this.

Twin studies show that "intelligence" has a genetic component. This does not mean this component can be passed to offspring, since offspring are not copies they are random combinations. All twin studies show is that two people with an identical genome will have a similar expressions of that genome. Nobody has an identical genome to either parent unless they are a clone.

We know that the measures of intelligence have a relationship with almost everything we typically associate with intelligence, and this is an observable reality.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Probably the most important "intelligence" is "social intelligence". In it's basic form it is the ability to get along with others. At a higher level it is the ability to influence others and get them to do things for you.

These tests say nothing about this.
 
One person scores 110 on a test and some claim this is "intelligence".

Another person scores 160 on the same test and these same people also claim this is "intelligence".

Obviously this word "intelligence" means very little and explains nothing.
 
Perhaps you could respond to whether you know much about the topic in my last post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom