Survival of the Adequate

[painted wolf]

Is there something distasteful to you about intelligence being genetically determined? Is there some reason why when the data seems to point this way your reaction shifts rather dramatically?

I find that intelligence is often a term that is poorly measured and poorly understood... to the point of being virtually useless to measure.

EDIT: And I trust I won't see you link to any Wiki articles in the future?

You can trust that I will never cite wiki as a source for the 'best data' on anything.

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

I find that intelligence is often a term that is poorly measured and poorly understood... to the point of being virtually useless to measure.

Ah, so your assertion "Intelligence is mostly a product of culture, education and nutrition. Genetics has a minor role to play" was virtually useless. Understood.

You can trust that I will never cite wiki as a source for the 'best data' on anything.

Or anything contained therein?

 

[lunamoth]

JF, Maybe there is a certain distaste with the idea because of past studies that tried to correlate race and intelligence.

Myself, I don't see how genetics could not be playing some important role in the potential for intelligence, which is then realized (or not) due to environmental factors.

2c

 

[painted wolf]

Understood

I doubt it.

Or anything contained therein?

Wiki has it's uses... but not as a source of "best data". I prefer to point people to primary literature for "best data".
I use Wiki as a dictionary and little more.

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

JF, Maybe there is a certain distaste with the idea because of past studies that tried to correlate race and intelligence.

Yup. I've found that surprisingly numerous people who are usually objective on most subjects, become quite emotionally subjective regarding subjects such as this one.

Myself, I don't see how genetics could not be playing some important role in the potential for intelligence, which is then realized (or not) due to environmental factors.

Agreed.

 

[Jose Fly]

I doubt it.

Well which is it? If "intelligence is virtually useless to measure", then your assertions about its causes and the relevant studies must logically also be "useless", right? But if your assertions are to have any merit, then "intelligence" (the key word your assertions hinge upon) must be meaningful, right? So which is the case?

Wiki has it's uses... but not as a source of "best data". I prefer to point people to primary literature for "best data".
I use Wiki as a dictionary and little more.

Well, I suppose it's a good thing that's exactly what I did.

 

[ragordon168]

im doing this kind of thing in my teaching course, do you split classes up into the smart, normal and dummy groups? is intellegence related to wealth or genetics.

a poor family who only have a high school education will (usually) have children who have similar levels of inteligence. is this because they are genetically programmed that way or is it because they are raised thinking there is no point in trying?

below is a link to one of the first papers on inteligence, its a bit long but is quite interesting especially the comparison of the descendants of a smart and 'feeble' minded woman.
Classics in the History of Psychology -- Terman (1916) Chapter 1

 

[painted wolf]

Well which is it? If "intelligence is virtually useless to measure", then your assertions about its causes and the relevant studies must logically also be "useless", right? But if your assertions are to have any merit, then "intelligence" (the key word your assertions hinge upon) must be meaningful, right? So which is the case?

What genes are involved... what are their loci? Are they dominant or recessive alleles?
What tests are used to identify the them... how many genes make up this polygenic trait?
What animal models have been used... are there mutation studies?

What scientific evidence supports the genetic tie? Correlation does not prove causation.
Give me primary literature that supports your position in experimental genetics.

Well, I suppose it's a good thing that's exactly what I did.

Actually it is... you quoted Wiki and then said that it was "the best data we have".... Unless you didn't mean it after all.

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

What genes are involved... what are their loci? Are they dominant or recessive alleles?
What tests are used to identify the them... how many genes make up this polygenic trait?
What animal models have been used... are there mutation studies?

What scientific evidence supports the genetic tie? Correlation does not prove causation.
Give me primary literature that supports your position in experimental genetics.

So you're saying that unless you can identify all the specific loci associated with a trait, you cannot say there is a genetic component? If so, then you're throwing out all measures of heritability, across the board.

Actually it is... you quoted Wiki and then said that it was "the best data we have".... Unless you didn't mean it after all.

LOL! Wow, I never thought you'd do such a thing...of all people. Despite our occasional minor differences, I do respect you, being a colleague. But this? Come on.

If you'll notice, the portion of the Wiki article I posted contains a number of citations to, and quotations from the primary literature. I also specifically stated that the Wiki article "seems to provide a decent summary". My statement about "the best data we have" never even mentioned Wiki.

I have to say PW, I'm rather disappointed. I always expect better from you.

 

[painted wolf]

I didn't just mention loci....and certainly not all. Just some solid molecular genetic evidence.
Again correlation does not equal causation. There are a lot of powerful factors and biases to account for.

wa:do

 

[Gabethewiking]

I am completely against the "IQ" test factor as a test for intelligence. Simple because you can study for a IQ test, just as for any test, if you do not understand certain questions, you can study them, and hence, Raise your IQ meaning the test is useless.

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't just mention loci....and certainly not all. Just some solid molecular genetic evidence.
Again correlation does not equal causation. There are a lot of powerful factors and biases to account for.

A study on the correlation between IL1RAPL1 and human cognitive ability

A high density of X-linked genes for general cognitive ability: a run-away process shaping human evolution?

Heck, a simple PubMed or Google Scholar search turns up thousands of published articles on the link between mutations and cognitive ability (both good and bad).

Obviously this is a rather touchy subject with you, and it appears the data is pointing in a direction you strongly wish it wouldn't. That would explain your uncharacteristic behavior in this discussion. I mean, I showed you where and how I characterized the Wiki article, and the context in which I made my "best data available" comment, and rather than admit your error and apologize, you chose to simply ignore it, and apparently hope I would too.

Oh well...I guess we all have our blind spots and weaknesses.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am completely against the "IQ" test factor as a test for intelligence. Simple because you can study for a IQ test, just as for any test, if you do not understand certain questions, you can study them, and hence, Raise your IQ meaning the test is useless.

Not all IQ tests are the same. There are some that account for this via more "intuitive" type questions. I agree that IQ scores aren't always reliable in all circumstances, and their ability to inform is relative. But that doesn't make them completely useless either. For general, broad-scale questions like this one, they can serve a purpose.

 

[painted wolf]

A study on the correlation between IL1RAPL1 and human cognitive ability

Very interesting, it looks like this gene has the same kind of role in cognition that FOXp2 has in language. One of a suite of genes that has influence but not direct control.

It's still doesn't support the "bubba" concept or the idea of breeding for intelligence.

A high density of X-linked genes for general cognitive ability: a run-away process shaping human evolution?

Naturally a mutation that alters the linkages within the brain (and often a suite of other physical characteristics) influence cognition. Again, it doesn't support the "bubba" concept.

My issue is with the concept that there are discrete measurable allele based intelligence phenotypes. And that some sort of eugenic effect can produce "smart" people.

Neither of the two papers provides any evidence to change my stance.

I am glad that you are using actual research rather than anecdotal evidence to back yourself up.
If I misinterpreted you use of "best evidence" I apologize.

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

Very interesting, it looks like this gene has the same kind of role in cognition that FOXp2 has in language. One of a suite of genes that has influence but not direct control.

Agreed.

It's still doesn't support the "bubba" concept or the idea of breeding for intelligence.

Agreed. FYI, I've never advocated anything of the sort.

Naturally a mutation that alters the linkages within the brain (and often a suite of other physical characteristics) influence cognition.

Agreed.

Again, it doesn't support the "bubba" concept.

Nope.

My issue is with the concept that there are discrete measurable allele based intelligence phenotypes. And that some sort of eugenic effect can produce "smart" people

I agree.

Neither of the two papers provides any evidence to change my stance.

I posted them in response to your demand for "solid molecular evidence" that genetics are involved in intelligence and that there is a "genetic tie" between the two.

I am glad that you are using actual research rather than anecdotal evidence to back yourself up.

I have posted citations to and direct links to the published literature throughout. I only referred to any anecdotal evidence one time.

If I misinterpreted you use of "best evidence" I apologize.

Thanks.

 

[logician]

A new species develops sort of using numerical analysis. If follows the "whatever works" strategy in its environment, and then start honing in on those traits that make it work better and better. If the environment changes significantly, then it must adjust or go extinct.

 

[painted wolf]

A new species develops sort of using numerical analysis. If follows the "whatever works" strategy in its environment, and then start honing in on those traits that make it work better and better. If the environment changes significantly, then it must adjust or go extinct.

actually those traits don't need to become "better and better".... They just have to do an adequate job.
"Better" is a mistaken notion when discussing evolution.
Evolution works as a mosaic... different parts change based on the influence of the environment but they do not become 'better' or 'worse' through that process.

Indeed, honing certain traits too much can make you more prone to extinction. Generalists who do nothing "better" than other species often fair the best in terms of avoiding extinction.

wa:do

 

[henjon22]

By definition the "fittest" will win out over the "adequate" in competition for whatever vital needs are in short supply. This does not guarantee that the "fittest" will ever gain perfection.