 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / January 2004Brain Gene Identified!!
From US News & World Report, Jan 26, 2004 (latest issue) pg 55: *************************** exZZZZZZZZerpt *********************** How We Got Smart... Humans' unique intelligence lets us ponder where those smarts came from. A new study credits changes in a single gene...children who have a mutated form are born with abnormally small brains...in a paper published by Human Molecular Genetics... ****************************************************************** Intelligence potential is *GENETIC* -- Now if researchers would only investigate the form of this gene in whites, Asians, and DAFNz, and publish *THOSE* resultz. DAFNz - Genetically created *DUMB* by Mother_Nature... >From US News & World Report, Jan 26, 2004 (latest issue) pg 55: <snip> Cites here need to be to the original study with the actual scientific conclusions, not a newspaper reporter's *interpretation* of what the study actually means. From *a study* published in *,,,,,,,* tells us nothing about what the study actually said. No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. What is disputed is how much malleability that has when environment comes into play and how much differences in intelligence really mean in terms of humans living together in communities. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > >From US News & World Report, Jan 26, 2004 (latest issue) pg 55: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > intelligence really mean in terms of humans living together > in communities. At least get this clarification correct: Genes determine the maximum IQ potential, environment determines the degree to which that potential is realized. If you get the "small brain" retard gene described in the article, no amount of good environment will make you into an Einstein. This is why DAFNz are universally so fkg dumb. They have *LIMITED* genetic potential, on the average. Which is vividly revealed whenever the scorz are published from any head-to-head intellectual competition, e.g.: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/dst2003/2004459.pdf ******************** exZZZZZZZerpt********************************** 2003 NAEP Public Schools Avg Reading Scores Grade 4 Grade8 White IQ-75 DAFN White IQ-75 DAFN LOOZerz LOOZerz ***Nation*** ------> 227 197 270 244 Large Cities 226 193 268 241 Atlanta 250 191 TS 237 Boston 225 202 273 245 Charlotte 237 205 278 247 Chicago 224 193 265 243 Cleveland 208 191 250 238 Dist Columbia 254 184 TS 236 Houston 235 201 270 244 Los Angeles 217 187 266 233 New York City 231 201 270 245 San Diego 231 196 269 236 TS - Sample size too small DAFNz -- What Mother_Nature hath *GENETICALLY* created, **DUMBER** than white people... >> No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. >> What is disputed is how much malleability that has when [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >At least get this clarification correct: >Genes determine the maximum IQ potential, There is no evidence of that, and I'm not sure whether there could be evidence since "maximum IQ potential" is undefined and entirely unquantifiable. lojbab  Signaturelojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org > >> No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. > >> What is disputed is how much malleability that has when [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > lojbab and most probably has an asymptotic relationship. there is no "perfect environment" to develop the mind that is possible. thus, IQ will always lag the theoretical IQ potential, whatever that is for a given individual and we have no way of knowing. as one gets closer to the asymptote, more effort is required for smaller and smaller increments. as i see it whit > -- > lojbab lojbab@lojban.org > Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group > (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) > Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org >>> No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. >>> What is disputed is how much malleability that has when [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > lojbab Hey, Bob, what do you make of this: Correlation of IQ Tests The same person tested twice .87 Genetically Identical twins reared together .86 Genetically Identical twins reared apart .76 Fraternal twins reared together .55 Biological siblings .47 Parents and children living together .40 Parents and children living apart .31 Adopted children living together .0 Unrelated people living apart .0 *Adoptive parent and adopted child .0 Sources of info: http://cmgm.stanford.edu/biochem118/Projects/2003/Redden.pdf *http://info.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/plomdevelop/genetics/99jungen.htm (There are plenty of other sources with this same info.) Please provide your analysis. I could use a chuckle! Who's yer daddy, boy?! King of SCAA >Hey, Bob, what do you make of this: Not much. Correlations tell very little. >Correlation of IQ Tests > >The same person tested twice .87 Shows that IQ isn't a very accurate measure. I daresay that if you measure the temperature outside, with multiple calibrated instruments, you would get a higher correlation. >Genetically Identical twins reared together .86 >Genetically Identical twins reared apart .76 >Fraternal twins reared together .55 >Biological siblings .47 >Parents and children living together .40 >Parents and children living apart .31 Those final two are sufficient to show that intelligence is not completely hereditary. >Adopted children living together .0 >Unrelated people living apart .0 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >http://cmgm.stanford.edu/biochem118/Projects/2003/Redden.pdf >*http://info.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/plomdevelop/genetics/99jungen.htm From the latter: >One of the most interesting findings about g is that heritability > increases steadily from infancy (20%) to childhood (40%) to adulthood > (60%). For example, a recent study of twins aged 80 years and older > reported a heritability of about 60. (Fig. 1) ... >Why does heritability of g increase during the life span? Perhaps ^^^^^^^ (i.e. we don't know) > completely new genes come to affect g as more sophisticated cognitive > processes develop. A more likely possibility is that relatively small > genetic effects early in life snowball during development, creating > larger and larger phenotypic effects, perhaps as individuals select > or create environments that foster their genetic propensities. >There is more, however, to cognitive abilities than g. In the widely ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > accepted hierarchical model of cognitive abilities, specific > cognitive abilities include components such as spatial, verbal, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > specific cognitive abilities, but they also appear to show > substantial genetic influence, although less than g. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ So "g", one component of intelligence, has a heritability that varies over the lifetime, with 40-60% being average. Other components of intelligence are less understood, but apparently are also less genetic. Thus overall heritability of intelligence is lower than the heritability of "g". lojbab Signaturelojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org Said Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> : >>> No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. >>> What is disputed is how much malleability that has when [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >evidence since "maximum IQ potential" is undefined and entirely >unquantifiable. And there's little evidence that IQ means anything real. Alberto. > Said Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> : > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Alberto. rubbish. reverse reification all over again. whit > "maximum IQ potential" is undefined and entirely > unquantifiable. Definition: Max IQ Potential (MIP) -- The IQ a person would have if that person experienced an ideal environment... DAFN MIP -- two-digit for most of them... > > "maximum IQ potential" is undefined and entirely > > unquantifiable. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Max IQ Potential (MIP) -- The IQ a person would have if that > person experienced an ideal environment... and of course "ideal environment" is a theoretical construct. we already have study after study to show factors that do optimize the environment, though. for example, nutrition. poor nutrition, especially in early developmental years will stunt IQ. whit > DAFN MIP -- two-digit for most of them... > > > "maximum IQ potential" is undefined and entirely > > > unquantifiable. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > for example, nutrition. poor nutrition, especially in early developmental > years will stunt IQ. I haven't seen anything indicating that. Post some articles. But even asssuming there is some effect... There is no reason, in the United States, for any fetus or young child to be poorly nourished, other than the IQ-75 pitifful intelligence of the parent(s) deciding what to eat/feed. Further evidence of genetics at work: Dumb_Parentz yield Dumb Kidz. >> > > "maximum IQ potential" is undefined and entirely >> > > unquantifiable. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >pitifful intelligence of the parent(s) deciding what to eat/feed. >Further evidence of genetics at work: Dumb_Parentz yield Dumb Kidz. Inadequate prenatal care is one reason why poor folk have infants with low birth weight. Inadequate nutrition for the mother is another. Better nutrition has resulted in taller, stronger, larger and faster humans around the world; there is no reason to believe that it wouldn't make them smarter as well. After Japan adopted a high-protein Western diet after World War II, the height of their youth shot up in a few generations.) It would be more extraordinary to believe that better nutrition does not improve IQ, rather than it does. The mother's nutritional status affects the birth weight of the child which affects the number of health problems seen in that child as well. Brain growth spurt is the period when the brain is developing most rapidly. This starts during the third trimester and last until about 30 months of age. The first year of life records the greatest growth rate. Brain growth spurt is associated with the rapid growth of new brain structure and function. Approximately 25% of brain matter is formed during the brain growth spurt. Poor nutrition can have both immediate and long term impacts on the cognitive ability and behavior of children. The importance of nutrition for early brain development cannot be over emphasized. Good nutrition is essential during the critical periods of brain growth and development which occur during gestation (before birth) and in the first 24 months of life (Galler, et al., 1997). Research shows that some negative impacts on the brain during this period can be permanent in animals and probably in humans as well (Morgane et al., 1993). One study documented that infants with iron-deficiency anemia were more wary and easily tired. These children were also less attentive and playful, and scored significantly lower on an intelligence test (the mental development portion of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development) than did children without a deficiency. By age 11-14 these same children were found to have significantly lower scores on intelligence and achievement tests (Lozoff et al., 1998). Other studies have shown that children who are malnourished in the first two years of life have IQ's that are on average ten points lower than children who are not malnourished (Grantham-McGregor, 1995). http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0999/7171_317/53459096/p2/article.jhtml?term= In conclusion, we have shown that brief early dietary manipulation in preterm infants has major effects on later cognitive function. The study provides further support for our more general thesis[26] that early nutrition during critical windows in early life may have "programming" effects on long term outcomes and provides some of the first evidence from a strictly randomised, blinded, and long term trial with near complete follow up that early nutrition may have persistent effects on the human brain. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > >> > > "maximum IQ potential" is undefined and entirely > >> > > unquantifiable. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > with low birth weight. Inadequate nutrition for the mother is > another. In today'z society, if you have a low-birth weight baby, whoze fault iz that? There'z plenty of free cradle_to_IQ-75_grave everything for DAFNz. It'z genetic stupidity and irreponsible OOWBreeding. DAFNz are fatter than whites, so they certainly aren't malnourished: http://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/Obesity_Minority_Pop.shtml ************************ exZZZZZerpt **************************** Obesity in Minority Populations Overweight and obesity in the U.S. occur at higher rates in racial/ ethnic minority populations such as African American and Hispanic Americans, compared with White Americans. Asian-Americans have a relatively low prevalence for obesity. Women and persons of low socioeconomic status within minority populations appear to particularly be affected by overweight and obesity.... *********************************************************************** >DAFNz are fatter than whites, so they certainly aren't malnourished: >http://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/Obesity_Minority_Pop.shtml Obesity does not mean good nutritional value. You can be overweight and malnourished because you are not getting enough of the right nutrients even though you are getting plenty of food. Essentially your body can be starving for the vitamins and minerals you need even though you are overweight. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > >DAFNz are fatter than whites, so they certainly aren't malnourished: > >http://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/Obesity_Minority_Pop.shtml [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > plenty of food. Essentially your body can be starving for the > vitamins and minerals you need even though you are overweight. Poor whites do a lot better than poor DAFNz on standardized tests. There can't be that big a difference in po' folkz nutrition. Thanks for playing, better luck next time... > >> > > "maximum IQ potential" is undefined and entirely > >> > > unquantifiable. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > with low birth weight. Inadequate nutrition for the mother is > another. correct. but not the only ones i might add. drug use during pregnancy is a big one. i have a friend who works for CPS. our state is so interested in coddling these mothers, that they will not take proactive steps (which would supposedly violate the mother's 'rights' to prevent fetal damage by drug-using mothers). it's ridiculous. the 'rights' of the mother to abuse drugs WHILE pregnant trump the rights of the fetus to develop without having to metabolize meth or crack. hey, i'm pro-choice. they do(imo) have the option of abortion. but if one is going to bring a baby to term, one has a responsiblity not to do dangerous drugs while pregnant > Better nutrition has resulted in taller, stronger, larger and faster > humans around the world; there is no reason to believe that it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to believe that better nutrition does not improve IQ, rather than it > does. of course it does. > The mother's nutritional status affects the birth weight of the child > which affects the number of health problems seen in that child [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > than children who are not malnourished (Grantham-McGregor, > 1995). http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0999/7171_317/53459096/p2/article.jhtml? term= > In conclusion, we have shown that brief early dietary manipulation > in preterm infants has major effects on later cognitive function. The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > term trial with near complete follow up that early nutrition may > have persistent effects on the human brain. good post whit > -- > Dorothy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The Outer Limits > it's ridiculous. the 'rights' of the mother to abuse drugs WHILE pregnant > trump the rights of the fetus to develop without having to metabolize meth > or crack. The DAFN-white IQ/performance gap has persisted *UNCHANGED* since before crack and meth were invented. Pre-natal drugging is an IQ-75 red herring... ................ >it's ridiculous. the 'rights' of the mother to abuse drugs WHILE pregnant >trump the rights of the fetus to develop without having to metabolize meth >or crack. >hey, i'm pro-choice. they do(imo) have the option of abortion. but if one >is going to bring a baby to term, one has a responsiblity not to do >dangerous drugs while pregnant The present attitude is that the individual cannot be held responsible; it is always the fault of "the company" or "their parents" or "their associates" or "their teachers". This does not mean that SOME of the fault does not lie there, but we need to hold people responsible for what they can do, if allowed and especially if encouraged. If these women are kept from the information, they are not responsible as it cannot be expected that they use what they do not know. However, they are informed, and this makes them culpable. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 >> "maximum IQ potential" is undefined and entirely >> unquantifiable. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Max IQ Potential (MIP) -- The IQ a person would have if that > person experienced an ideal environment... Purely hypothetical, as indeed is the concept of an ideal environment. lojbab Signaturelojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org >>From US News & World Report, Jan 26, 2004 (latest issue) pg 55: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >intelligence really mean in terms of humans living together >in communities. Actually he has been citing studies up the wazoo for months now, and there are still to be a lot of people who deny there is any kind of genetic component to intelligence. > >>From US News & World Report, Jan 26, 2004 (latest issue) pg 55: > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > there are still to be a lot of people who deny there is any kind of > genetic component to intelligence. Most of the studies makemyday has cited have nothing to do with his premise, and those that even approach the subject typically don't support his premise -- some have even countered it (because he doesn't read beyond the headline). In those very few cases where the cites DO support his premise, it has, without fail, been shown that the authors of the proffered material have no peer review and are often associated with groups that have a very specific and obvious racist agenda. See http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/14_01/iq141.shtml Signature"There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield > > >>From US News & World Report, Jan 26, 2004 (latest issue) pg 55: > > >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > have no peer review and are often associated with groups that have a very > specific and obvious racist agenda. Un-peer-reviewed racist study: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/dst2003/2004459.pdf ******************** exZZZZZZZerpt********************************** 2003 NAEP Public Schools Avg Reading Scores Grade 4 Grade8 White IQ-75 DAFN White IQ-75 DAFN LOOZerz LOOZerz ***Nation*** ------> 227 197 270 244 Large Cities 226 193 268 241 Atlanta 250 191 TS 237 Boston 225 202 273 245 Charlotte 237 205 278 247 Chicago 224 193 265 243 Cleveland 208 191 250 238 Dist Columbia 254 184 TS 236 Houston 235 201 270 244 Los Angeles 217 187 266 233 New York City 231 201 270 245 San Diego 231 196 269 236 TS - Sample size too small DAFNz -- What Mother_Nature hath *GENETICALLY* created, **DUMBER** than white people... >>No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. >>What is disputed is how much malleability that has when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >there are still to be a lot of people who deny there is any kind of >genetic component to intelligence. No post I have seen claims that there is NO genetic component. None has claimed "negligible" either. Consensus is that it is around 50/50 heredity and environment. lojbab Signaturelojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org > >>No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. > >>What is disputed is how much malleability that has when [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > lojbab correct. i have seen it range from 40-60 percent. so, on average 50/50 is about the best guess whit > -- > lojbab lojbab@lojban.org > Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group > (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) > Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org > > >>No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. > > >>What is disputed is how much malleability that has when [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > so, on average 50/50 is about the best guess The latest estimate is 85% genetic in adults, in a peer-reviewed article Bob has roundly condemned without even looking at it. The maximum potential IQ is 100% genetically determined (whether or not that upper limit is achieved is the environmental component). For DAFNz, the upper limit potential tends to run in the two-digit realm. All scorz data from head-to-head intellectual competition fit with this TRUTH. Believe it. You could take a million DAFNz, give them the absolute best possible *environment* assuming you knew what that was, and you would never get anything approaching an Einstein, because the genetic potential is not there... > > > >>No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. > > > >>What is disputed is how much malleability that has when [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > never get anything approaching an Einstein, because the genetic > potential is not there... You'd be lucky to get something approaching Byron Canfield! E.B. makemyday@worldnet.att.net wrote in news:4010FE25.761584B1 @worldnet.att.net: >> > >>No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. >> > >>What is disputed is how much malleability that has when [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > never get anything approaching an Einstein, because the genetic > potential is not there... Of course. Our intelligence has to do with how our brains are wired and the amount of brain chemicals we have. Apparently, painting some peeling walls giving people a higher paycheck seems to rewire brains in Bob's world. Who's yer daddy, boy?! King of SCAA > makemyday@worldnet.att.net wrote in news:4010FE25.761584B1 > @worldnet.att.net: > > > >>No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. > > > >>What is disputed is how much malleability that has when [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > The latest estimate is 85% genetic in adults, in a peer-reviewed > article Bob has roundly condemned without even looking at it. i have not condemned or supported the article. i haven't read it. however, we are talking ONE peer reviewed article. without a bit more, i am going to stick to the body of knowledge. maybe the new ESTIMATE is right. but i am not going to jump on the bandwagon because somebody came out with an article that claims other than the bulk of knowledge. when and if i get a chance to read the article (and probably not until i see some of the finding REPEATED for the sake of scientific rigor) will I accept it as "gospel" whit > The maximum potential IQ is 100% genetically determined (whether > or not that upper limit is achieved is the environmental component). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > never get anything approaching an Einstein, because the genetic > potential is not there... >The latest estimate is 85% genetic in adults, in a peer-reviewed >article Bob has roundly condemned without even looking at it. It isn't online, the quoted sections that I've seen haven't supported that figure, and the purported author does not use that figure elsewhere. Therefore the simplest explanation is that you are misunderstanding what you "read". >The maximum potential IQ is 100% genetically determined (whether >or not that upper limit is achieved is the environmental component). There is no such thing as a "maximum potential IQ". >All scorz data from head-to-head intellectual competition fit with this TRUTH. "Truth" only exists for people who make ASSumptions. >You could take a million DAFNz, give them the absolute best possible >*environment* assuming you knew what that was, We don't and can't and life is not a repeatable experiment, so therefore no conclusion is possible based on such an impossible premise. If pigs could fly, ... is an equally meaningless hypothesis. >and you would >never get anything approaching an Einstein, because the genetic >potential is not there... You could take a million "whites" with the same result. It took billions to produce an Einstein. And yet we have no idea if it has anything to do with "genetic potential". lojbab Signaturelojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org > >The latest estimate is 85% genetic in adults, in a peer-reviewed > >article Bob has roundly condemned without even looking at it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > elsewhere. Therefore the simplest explanation is that you are > misunderstanding what you "read". The *SIMPLEST* explanation is that *YOU* haven't read the book. It draws upon several external peer-reviewed references. > >The maximum potential IQ is 100% genetically determined (whether > >or not that upper limit is achieved is the environmental component). > > There is no such thing as a "maximum potential IQ". I claim there is. There must be if environment makes a difference. If so, there would have to be some environment that produces the maximum IQ in a given subject -- the best result. > >You could take a million DAFNz, give them the absolute best possible > >*environment* assuming you knew what that was, > > We don't and can't and life is not a repeatable experiment, That's why, for now, we have to do the best we can with whatever data are available, i.e., all the other bits and pieces of cognitive research I have been citing and you haven't refuted. >> >The latest estimate is 85% genetic in adults, in a peer-reviewed >> >article Bob has roundly condemned without even looking at it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >The *SIMPLEST* explanation is that *YOU* haven't read the book. I'm not planning on it, either. I have several other topics I am more interested in, and I am reading books on them. (Around four college-level or research level texts in progress at the moment spread around my house.) You have misstated information from journals and books before, and are not credible. I suspect that were you got it from is the passage quoted in: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/bgpe.htm which of course does not say what you claim that it does. It says that a particular group of twin studies in Netherlands gave a result of 85% heritability at age 50; it gave HIGHER percentage at a younger adult age. But that is the results of THEIR research only, and the studies mentioned were published about in the literature a few years earlier. Yet those numbers have not been confirmed by others; it is not necessarily accepted by the scientific community. >It draws upon several external peer-reviewed references. Then you should have been able to cite those peer-reviewed references, many of which are online, dummy. >> >The maximum potential IQ is 100% genetically determined (whether >> >or not that upper limit is achieved is the environmental component). >> >> There is no such thing as a "maximum potential IQ". > >I claim there is. Your credentials to make such a claim are: I don't see any peer-reviewed journal in that space, nor a research degree in a relevant field, and I doubt that I will. >There must be if environment makes a difference. Your logic is lacking. >If so, there would have to be some environment >that produces the maximum IQ in a given subject -- the best result. Your logic is lacking. Hint. You are dealing with an infinite set of possible environments. Furthermore, you are dealing with a measurement which as you have noted, produces only a .87 correlation when the same person is retested (and I can't remember whether that was the same test or a different test - we don't even have a single definition of IQ). The holes in your claim are big enough to drive a truck through. lojbab Signaturelojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org Said "terryvohio" <ter@stop.com> : >> >>No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. >> >>What is disputed is how much malleability that has when [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >so, on average 50/50 is about the best guess What I dispute however is that intelligence is a relevant measurement of anything that makes any difference. Alberto. > Said "terryvohio" <ter@stop.com> : > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > What I dispute however is that intelligence is a relevant measurement > of anything that makes any difference. you are falling into the trap, to paraphrase gould, of reverse reification. if you want to live in a little fantasy world that is fine. if you honestly think that there is not a difference in cognition between somebody with an iq of 130 and with an iq of 90, that's great. whit > Alberto. Said "terryvohio" <ter@stop.com> : >if you want to live in a little fantasy world that is fine. Just about everything we do is being replaced by a computer. Are computers more intelligent than us ? Nope - they're just drilled to do it, and they're way faster. So, the more we move on, the less relevant intelligence is. >if you honestly >think that there is not a difference in cognition between somebody with an >iq of 130 and with an iq of 90, that's great. I don't see high iq contributing anything relevant around me, and I see science and technology advancing through gobs of little contributions by gobs of people. Or maybe everyone has an iq of 130 ? Alberto. > Said "terryvohio" <ter@stop.com> : > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So, the more we move on, the less relevant intelligence is. iyo. not in mine. intelligence is still immensely important. as we move more and more towards a service and information economy, the exact opposite is of course true. intelligence is extrmely relevant. however, don't use intelligence and IQ interchangeably. we were just talking about IQ and then you morphed into intelligence. they are not the same thing. > >if you honestly > >think that there is not a difference in cognition between somebody with an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > see science and technology advancing through gobs of little > contributions by gobs of people. that's great. i see high iq contributing lots of relevant things. if you don't think men like feynman et al have high iq's that's your false belief. > Or maybe everyone has an iq of 130 ? no. people have widely varying iq's. as has been demonstrated repeatedly. whit > Alberto. >>>No one disputes that intelligence has a genetic component. >>>What is disputed is how much malleability that has when [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > lojbab It's higher than that, Bob. Look how IQ correlates between adoptive parent and child. Or, should I say, DOESN'T correlate. Correlation of IQ Tests The same person tested twice .87 Genetically Identical twins reared together .86 Genetically Identical twins reared apart .76 Fraternal twins reared together .55 Biological siblings .47 Parents and children living together .40 Parents and children living apart .31 Adopted children living together .0 Unrelated people living apart .0 *Adoptive parent and adopted child .0 Sources of info: http://cmgm.stanford.edu/biochem118/Projects/2003/Redden.pdf *http://info.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/plomdevelop/genetics/99jungen.htm (There are plenty of other sources with this same info.) Now, if IQ between adoptive parent and child, and adopted children living together is random (zero), how strong can the environmental component possibly be??? Also, look at the Genetically Identical Twins reared together and apart. It doesn't appear there is much environmental component at all. Awaiting your analysis, Bob... Who's yer daddy, boy?! King of SCAA Said King IV <a> : >Correlation of IQ Tests > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Unrelated people living apart .0 >*Adoptive parent and adopted child .0 Therefore, we must immediately divide every number by 0.87. This leads us to this: Genetically Identical twins reared together: 98% Genetically Identical twins reared apart: 87% Fraternal twins reared together: 63% Biological siblings: 54% Yet it's a well known thing that even genetically identical twins have vastly different personalities and hence react to influences in very different ways, and often end up in totally different walks of life. Hence: those numbers, cozy as they are, do not reflect reality. [snip...] Alberto. >Said King IV <a> : >>Correlation of IQ Tests [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Therefore, we must immediately divide every number by 0.87. Actually, since correlation is a square, you have to take the square root first, and THEN divide. lojbab Signaturelojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org >Now, if IQ between adoptive parent and child, and adopted children living >together is random (zero), how strong can the environmental component >possibly be??? But it isn't, as numerous analyses have shown. The most startling I can recall was the adoption by well-meaning middle class US parents of Vietnamese orphans, some of whom had already suffered sufficient starvation to have cause what was considered to be irreversible retardation. The adopting parents were not told of this medical history. Perhaps just as well, because under their encouragement these "retards" ended up by showing higher than average IQs and academic performance. The zero correlation you quote comes from studies of changing parents while controlling for family circumstances. It's a deliberate artefact of the experimental method used. -- Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] > >Now, if IQ between adoptive parent and child, and adopted children living > >together is random (zero), how strong can the environmental component [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "retards" ended up by showing higher than average IQs and academic > performance. correct. > The zero correlation you quote comes from studies of changing parents > while controlling for family circumstances. It's a deliberate artefact > of the experimental method used. great post. i 'll excuse the incorrect spelling for artifact, since it was so good. :) whit > -- > Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 > IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK > [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] > > >Now, if IQ between adoptive parent and child, and adopted children living > > >together is random (zero), how strong can the environmental component [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > whit my bad. "artefact" is an acceptable variation. according to my dictionary. i don't think i have ever seen it. but it is correct. humble apologies. (with props to Clockwork Orange) and i learned something. that's a good thing. whit > > -- > > Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 > > IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK > > [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] >Look how IQ correlates between adoptive parent and child. Or, should I >say, DOESN'T correlate. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Sources of info: >http://cmgm.stanford.edu/biochem118/Projects/2003/Redden.pdf Not in the least a peer-reviewed article. It's a multimedia show, and we have no idea if the guy is any more accurate than you are. >*http://info.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/plomdevelop/genetics/99jungen.htm >(There are plenty of other sources with this same info.) > >Now, if IQ between adoptive parent and child, and adopted children living >together is random (zero), how strong can the environmental component >possibly be??? Quite strong. The adoptive parent is not in the same environment as the adoptive child (i.e. living under the same conditions), because the adoptive parent is an adult with control over that environment, while the child is not. The adult has children present, but not parents. The child has parents present, but no children. Meanwhile the parent is already fully developed, having spent most of his life in an environment unlike that of the kid, and hence would be under different conditions for any hypothetical effects of the environment. All in all, a thoroughly specious analogy. There is little reason to expect adoptive parents and their children to have any more similarity in IQ than random people who happen to be given the IQ test in the same room as each other. lojbab Signaturelojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.