tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5569204670532907965..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Is There a Genetic Component to "Intelligence"?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61121198300814038762010-06-22T23:20:58.691-04:002010-06-22T23:20:58.691-04:00Based on my personal experience, I would say that&...Based on my personal experience, I would say that's probably likely. I've seen some very intelligent people of mostly African descent.virus classificationhttp://www.virusclassification.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84745978682497899892007-10-27T14:29:00.000-04:002007-10-27T14:29:00.000-04:00No, the case of Amala and Kamala is actually pret...No, the case of Amala and Kamala is actually pretty well documented.<BR/><BR/>http://niewyjasnione_zjawiska.w.interia.pl/muzyka/146t.jpgA. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60136377081219294172007-10-27T12:38:00.000-04:002007-10-27T12:38:00.000-04:00Wait, people were actually raised by wolves? I tho...Wait, people were actually raised by wolves? I thought that was a figure of speech derived from Romulus/Remus stories and such.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590604089043425452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68678340513884628642007-10-27T10:42:00.000-04:002007-10-27T10:42:00.000-04:00The human brain obviously has a potential to be us...The human brain obviously has a potential to be used far beyond what it may actually end up being used. There is a spark of truth in these affirmations that we use "only a small percentage" of our brain. After all, small kids can loose substantial portions of their brain tissue and still develop normal cognitivie abilities.<BR/>Remember how Wallace was so impressed a savage could learn to sing or play sophisticated western music, despite he would never face that challenge in the jungle?<BR/>There is a fairly interesting case, I think 1920's, of 2 girls raised by wolves rescued in india which includes some photographs of the girls running on all fours. I remeber they said they never were able to train them to walk at all times bipedal and they only learned a few words. <BR/><BR/>I think the human brain is similar to the lung or to the liver, where you have way more alveoli or cells than you will probably ever use in your live. It is a hypertrophied organ; but that does not mean it will actually get used. <BR/><BR/>Note that "overadaptations", like neutral and negative traits, also escape from the easy logic of the adaptationistA. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37725486380435957092007-10-23T15:08:00.000-04:002007-10-23T15:08:00.000-04:00"An analogy of how different alleles and physiolog..."An analogy of how different alleles and physiological differences could result in differences in a global metric like "intelligence""<BR/><BR/>I meant to write "result in similarities," - the opposite - as in similar distributions between populations.<BR/><BR/>TupaiaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55869171296481460442007-10-23T13:49:00.000-04:002007-10-23T13:49:00.000-04:00An analogy of how different alleles and physiologi...An analogy of how different alleles and physiological differences could result in differences in a global metric like "intelligence":<BR/><BR/>Consider height. It seems simple and straightforward. But think of its components. Start with lengths of body segments, including leg length and trunk length. Given a certain height, if trunk length is as shorter as leg length is longer, the outcome - height - will be the same. Now consider the physiological components: insulin receptors, calcium metabolism, cytokines involved in osteoblast proliferation, thyroxine binding proteins and so on. Finally, there are the alleles of the various loci that affect these processes. Variants in some can result in the same outcomes if there are corresponding differences in others, just like leg length and trunk length can vary and produce the same outcomes - as long as these changes are compensatory. Therefore, different populations can have different allele frequencies for the multiple loci involved in height yet have similar height distributions. <BR/><BR/>The genes is unit of selection, but the individual is the level of selection. Selection operates not on alleles, but on traits (in the context of an organism, so-called "interactors") - which impacts allele frequencies. If selection is the primary determinant of allele frequencies in large populations within a species, then similar selective environments will give rise to similar phenotypic outcomes even if allele frequencies vary between populations. <BR/><BR/>If drift is more important in determining alleles involved in brain function then this not necessarily the case. Certainly the frequency of alleles involved in neutral phenotypic variants is determined by drift. But intelligence is not selectively neutral. Drift could also have a strong influence on non-neutral variants in small, isolated populations. However, while neutral and even some non-neutral variants were largely determined by drift, intelligence is unlikely to be among them.<BR/><BR/>TupaiaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88494721585648785072007-10-23T12:22:00.000-04:002007-10-23T12:22:00.000-04:00I think it is incorrect to presume that any extrao...I think it is incorrect to presume that any extraordinary ability is due to some genetic cause (the "evolutionary psychology" perspective of genotype=phenotype). Life history can explain many abilities, motivations...<BR/><BR/>I am willing to make bets with anyone, that training for IQ tests produces an increase many times that ever argued to be produced by an "intelligence gene". <BR/><BR/>I think we already have the evidence that differences in environment are much greater than genetically produced differences. So if I were asked if I endorsed an eugenics program for improving intelligence, no. It would be ineffective. Although I have no doubt they would succeed selecting "downwards", toward dumb. That's where all the big effect genes are. <BR/>To elevate IQ scores, my recommendation would be to focus on EDUCATION.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20747424351534407212007-10-23T10:31:00.000-04:002007-10-23T10:31:00.000-04:00One more comment from me, people often underestima...One more comment from me, people often underestimate the tremendous complexity of language, but it is indeed remarkably difficult to analyze (say) with computer programs.<BR/><BR/>Now this extraordinary ability for language, extraordinary in and of itself, is present in all groups of people, and so this can show how an extraordinary ability can be present in all groups--where also some in each group do not have facility in language.<BR/><BR/>Now some do have unusual ability in this area, and may become philologists, or know a dozen languages or more, but the point remains that a remarkable ability--though most might think it unremarkable--is present across the board.lee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47260391948986980462007-10-22T14:26:00.000-04:002007-10-22T14:26:00.000-04:00Another thing you may want to go over, Larry, is w...Another thing you may want to go over, Larry, is what Lewontin says about how different reaction norms for different genotypes have radically different shapes, and are not simply higher and higher curves, piled one over the other, as is assumed if you want to argue that some people could just "genetically better" at learning than others, despite the fact that the environment affects the trait. Such an arrangement is almost never found in real biology, when we do controlled measurements with organisms of the reaction norms for diferent environmentally sensitive traits.<BR/><BR/>Compare figure 1.6 vs figure 1.8 in Lewotin's "triple helix" book.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38901514832008599962007-10-22T14:23:00.000-04:002007-10-22T14:23:00.000-04:00From what I've read, he had some difficulty in sch...<I>From what I've read, he had some difficulty in school, and was only "intelligent" in subjects that interested him. Certainly he was a unique thinker and "well-adapted" to survive in a university physics environment, but outside of his domain in physics, was he really that much smarter than the rest of us? Was he a universal genius? (if there is such a thing).</I><BR/><BR/>Einstein was no slouch. If you read Abraham Pais definitive scientific biography <I>'Subtle is the Lord...' The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein</I> you never the less get insight into Einstein's skills in other areas. The related 'difficulties' seems to be an urban legend, Einstein did very well but wasn't interested in excelling in areas outside physics. <BR/><BR/>He had certainly a knack for both philosophy (arguing with Bohr about the basis for quantum physics) as well as engineering (<A HREF="http://gtalumni.org/news/magazine/sum98/einsrefr.html" REL="nofollow">co-inventing a series of gas-absorption refrigerators (ie without moving parts and silent) with Leó Szilárd</A>. (Admittedly, Einstein may have only helped with the paperwork as he had been a patent clerk. Then again, that is a certain skill set as well.) <BR/><BR/>At the time of Einstein it was already too late to be a universal genius, as science had expanded much. I think you have to go back to Gauss to find the latest such.Torbjörn Larssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02022193326058378221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32022896056032630842007-10-22T12:51:00.000-04:002007-10-22T12:51:00.000-04:00Different combinations of alleles could well resul...Different combinations of alleles could well result in functionally equivalent reaction norms for "intelligence." A key part of my argument is that selective forces involved in intelligence are roughly uniform between human populations due to the primary selection pressure being other human minds in a kind of Red Queen effect (limited by universal constraints, including pelvic dimension). <BR/><BR/>Within populations, frequency-dependent selection for a continuum of ecological strategies maintains a degree of genetic variation in intelligence potential. However, most variation in intelligence within populations is nongenetic and due to developmental plasticity. <BR/><BR/>One reason why different allelic combinations can result in functional equivalence is because the brain is genetically canalized (though I would not go as far as Greg Laden or Sanders) yet environmentally sensitive. This is due in part to somatic selection process within the brain. <BR/><BR/>Here is an example of a clear group difference in brain development-linked genes and hormones, brain morphology (white vs gray matter, corpus callosum), brain size (both absolute and relative), and specific information processesing tasks (e.g. object rotation) - yet resulting in roughly equivalent intelligence: men and women. While male intelligence distribution has more variance, with greater representation in both the upper and lower ends, the means are about the same.<BR/><BR/>Nongenetic inheritance: Without getting into redefinitions of evolution, this is of particular interest in regard to the human brain. Uterine environment, epigenetic inheritance, maternal immunoglobins, maternal pathogens, modeled behaviors, symbolic-linguistic transmission, and constructed environment are crucial to the generation of differential outcomes in intelligence. <BR/><BR/>----------------<BR/><BR/>General references for this discussion:<BR/><BR/>Loci involved in neurodevelopmental disorders (not normal variation)<BR/>http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v7/n1/fig_tab/nrg1747_T1.html<BR/><BR/>The search for QTLs in intelligence<BR/>http://www.scq.ubc.ca/?p=292<BR/><BR/>review of The Gene Illusion<BR/>http://www.human-nature.com/nibbs/03/jjoseph.html<BR/><BR/>TupaiaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53811493698373408562007-10-22T12:15:00.000-04:002007-10-22T12:15:00.000-04:00do you think einstein would have com up with ralti...do you think einstein would have com up with raltivity if he was born the hilton heiress, Larry?<BR/>cheesy rhetoric is easyA. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1506226722108398252007-10-22T12:08:00.000-04:002007-10-22T12:08:00.000-04:00einstein was way better than simply "smart" (as de...einstein was way better than simply "smart" (as defiend by IQ scores)<BR/>he was creative and an independent thinkerA. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83683916056707253792007-10-22T11:41:00.000-04:002007-10-22T11:41:00.000-04:00BTW, larry, about your dogs comment, do you have a...BTW, larry, about your dogs comment, do you have any idea what domestication and artificial selection usually do to "IQ"? <BR/>How dramatic do you think are the differences within the original wild dog?A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21933129844576589172007-10-22T11:28:00.000-04:002007-10-22T11:28:00.000-04:00Do you believe that Albert Einstein was no smarter...<I>Do you believe that Albert Einstein was no smarter than all the rest of us—he just had a good upbringing?</I><BR/><BR/>It all depends on what you mean by "smart". Would Einstein have been a champion chess-player? A top business executive? An artistic genius? Intelligence and mental ability can take many forms.<BR/><BR/>From what I've read, he had some difficulty in school, and was only "intelligent" in subjects that interested him. Certainly he was a unique thinker and "well-adapted" to survive in a university physics environment, but outside of his domain in physics, was he really that much smarter than the rest of us? Was he a universal genius? (if there is such a thing).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38047455188495917492007-10-22T11:26:00.000-04:002007-10-22T11:26:00.000-04:00I agree with your defintion but I'd prefer to conc...I agree with your defintion but I'd prefer to concentrate on phenotypic, organismic changes rather than populational; and I would be careful to understand that the environment is part of inheritance (repetition of a phenotype). That is inheritance=genes is not true.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34016622863503858692007-10-22T11:25:00.000-04:002007-10-22T11:25:00.000-04:00Tupaia says,It only means that we should expect th...Tupaia says,<BR/><BR/><I>It only means that we should expect that genetic substrate of intelligence to provide for highly similar distributions in intelligence across populations. Some genes, and especially gene combinations, will be functionally equivalent in regard to "intelligence" ("g") to others within the context of the developmental system of the human brain. Perhaps specific morphological parameters or cognitive functions will differ, yet generalized "intelligence" will be the same.</I><BR/><BR/>We have a situation where there are distinct differences in intelligence between individuals within a deme. These within-deme differences have to be due to a number of alleles that are segregating within a population. <BR/><BR/>But somehow there's a special buffering system that prevents allele differences between demes, right?<BR/><BR/>How, exactly does this work? When one of the alleles in a given deme drops in frequency—say by random genetic drift—is there some kind of signal sent to the other deme to make an adjustment? :-)<BR/><BR/>Do you see the problem? As long as there are differences between individuals then it follows that these difference are due to differences in allele frequencies. (Assuming a genetic component.) <BR/><BR/>This means that there are a finite number of alleles segregating within the population. As long as that's the case then it's practically impossible for any two demes to have exactly the same frequency of alleles.<BR/><BR/>Hence, if there's a genetic component to intelligence then different demes will almost certainly differ in the distribution of the phenotype manifest by the intelligence alleles.<BR/><BR/>The only way to avoid this unpleasant conclusion is to advocate that there is no genetic component to intelligence and everyone has exactly the same potential to be as smart as Albert Einstein or as stupid as Paris Hilton.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35317278914130586592007-10-22T11:17:00.000-04:002007-10-22T11:17:00.000-04:00Larry, I am simply pointing out to the fact that t...Larry, I am simply pointing out to the fact that the mutations for intelligence are big-sclae downwards shifts, never upwards.<BR/>Think about the relation of thsi observation to the experimental evidence for the riole of learning in the development of the brain.<BR/>I am not saying there is NO influence of genes on IQ variations among "normal" people; I'm saying that the EVIDENCE until know suggests that it is negligible. So YEAH, i you experiment, if environmentla conditions were absolutely equal, there could be some miserable differences in IQ. <BR/><BR/>Other thn that I am demanding somethign perfectly logical: traits are suposed to be "inheritable" and "geetic" when they come up regardless of environment. OR do you think that peopel with Down syndrome can somehow environmentally avoid their conditon? Only so far. the gentic alteration makes its contribution, o matter what. In fact to say in any significant way that intelligence is genetic, the intelliegence genes must be able to make a contribution, even if slight, with independence from the environment. We know sverla genes that are like this; but no genes like this that just make people smarter. <BR/><BR/>What happens is that this trait is simpy not heavily determined by genes, which is what I've been saying all along....A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75802932916587972152007-10-22T11:06:00.000-04:002007-10-22T11:06:00.000-04:00Certainly larry, you need to update yourself on th...Certainly larry, you need to update yourself on the role of non-genetic change in evolution. The fact that any trait has evolved does not mena thta it has doen so involving ony genetic changes.<BR/>I'll leave it there, since the literature about the evolutionary relevance of non-genetic change is abundant enough already. You've got homework.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49589345121748265352007-10-22T11:04:00.000-04:002007-10-22T11:04:00.000-04:00sanders says,Now if we are going to say in any mea...sanders says,<BR/><BR/><I>Now if we are going to say in any meaningful way that the differences of IQ among "normal" people are determined by differences in genetic composition, we INDEED are implying that genes, rather than the environment, are resposible for phenotypic differences (an absurd in the light of the evidence, but whatever). That is, the genes must be powerful enough to have a reliable effect on the phenotype (IQ), REGARDLESS of environmental-educational differences. They must be "sufficient" to consistently produce an increase in IQ.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know if you're deliberately trying to mislead us or if you really think that the genetic component of intelligence has to trump environment all the time.<BR/><BR/>I'll assume ignorance, rather than maliciousness.<BR/><BR/>When you're dealing with an imprecise variable like intelligence it's difficult to sort out the nature vs. nurture contributions. We all know that differences in scores on IQ tests can easily be due to environment so that someone whose genes should give them an advantage can be outscored by someone who has an advantage in environment. <BR/><BR/>I hope you understand this and I hope you appreciate that the rest of us do as well.<BR/><BR/>I believe that there's a genetic component to intelligence such that given exactly the same environment some people will be more intelligent than others because of the genes they inherit from their parents.<BR/><BR/>Sanders, do you believe that some breeds of dogs are more intelligent than others or are those perceived differences all due to environment? Do you believe that Albert Einstein was no smarter than all the rest of us—he just had a good upbringing?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54836863429021013032007-10-22T10:49:00.000-04:002007-10-22T10:49:00.000-04:00sanders says,BTW, those who know me perhaps can im...sanders says,<BR/><BR/><I>BTW, those who know me perhaps can imagine the chuckles I get over this argument that "if it evolved....it is genetic"</I><BR/><BR/>I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion. I certainly get lots of chuckles over your comments.<BR/><BR/>BTW, the definition of evolution that I use is "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations." [<A HREF="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-is-evolution.html" REL="nofollow">What Is Evolution?</A>]. Perhaps you could tell us your definition?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44936218615500688332007-10-22T10:45:00.000-04:002007-10-22T10:45:00.000-04:00jud says,When folks aren't tremendously knowledgea...jud says,<BR/><BR/><I>When folks aren't tremendously knowledgeable about a topic, they tend to oversimplify. I usually find this blog on the side of the thorough, complex answer. This time, I fear the discussion is headed toward oversimplification.</I><BR/><BR/>Sometimes there are people who make simple things complicated in over to avoid unpleasant implications. The reference you pointed us to does exactly that. <BR/><BR/>We all know about the difficulties with IQ tests. But don't let those difficulties blind us to the possibility that there's a genetic component to intelligence. That's what Cosma Shalizi is doing. The arguments are convoluted and almost impossible to follow. I strongly suspect that this obfuscation is motivated by an honest desire to promote peace and harmony between blacks and whites but bias is bias no matter how pure your motives.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30730570443293385362007-10-22T10:32:00.000-04:002007-10-22T10:32:00.000-04:00martinc says,It might be a mistake to assume that ...martinc says,<BR/><BR/><I>It might be a mistake to assume that 'intelligence', however you measure it, should be equated with genetic fitness.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree. If there were strong selection for intelligence then people would be a lot smarter than they are. (Assuming, of course, that there is a genetic component to intelligence.)<BR/><BR/>I suspect there might have been selection for increases in intelligence in the past.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45641529855589087452007-10-22T07:34:00.000-04:002007-10-22T07:34:00.000-04:00When folks aren't tremendously knowledgeable about...When folks aren't tremendously knowledgeable about a topic, they tend to oversimplify. I usually find this blog on the side of the thorough, complex answer. This time, I fear the discussion is headed toward oversimplification.<BR/><BR/>To counteract that tendency, let me highly recommend two posts on "intelligence" and the measurability and inheritability thereof, from Cosma Shalizi's very fine blog, which can be found at http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/ . The dates of the posts are October 18 (earlier of the two posts of that date), and September 27th.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39769761799215163002007-10-22T01:18:00.000-04:002007-10-22T01:18:00.000-04:00Here's an abstract on presciptive information in b...Here's an abstract on presciptive information in biopolymers-DNA. Its really the leading edge in science...<BR/><BR/>Peer-reviewed and accepted July 2006<BR/>Physics of Life Reviews<BR/><BR/>Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models<BR/><BR/>by David Abel and Jack Trevors<BR/><BR/>Self-ordering phenomena should not be confused with self-organization. Self-ordering events occur spontaneously according to natural "law" propensities and are purely physicodynamic. Crystallization and the spontaneously forming dissipative structures of Prigogine are examples of self-ordering. Self-ordering phenomena involve no decision nodes, no dynamically-inert configurable switches, no logic gates, no steering toward algorithmic success or "computational halting".<BR/><BR/>Hypercycles, genetic and evolutionary algorithms, neural nets, and cellular automata have not been shown to self-organize spontaneously into nontrivial functions. Laws and fractals are both compression algorithms containing minimal complexity and information. Organization typically contains large quantities of prescriptive information. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces nontrivial optimized algorithmic function at its destination. Prescription requires choice contingency rather than chance contingency or necessity. Organization<BR/>requires prescription, and is abstract, conceptual, formal, and algorithmic. Organization utilizes a sign/symbol/token system to represent many configurable switch settings. Physical switch settings allow instantiation of nonphysical selections for function into physicality. Switch settings represent choices at successive decision nodes that integrate circuits and instantiate cooperative management into conceptual physical systems. Switch positions must be freely selectable to function as logic gates. Switches must be set according to rules, not laws. Inanimacy cannot "organize" itself. Inanimacy can only self-order. "Self-organization" is without empirical and prediction-fulfilling support. No falsifiable theory of self-organization exists. "Self-organization" provides no mechanism and offers no detailed verifiable explanatory power. Care should be taken not to use the term "self-organization" erroneously to refer to low-informational, natural-process, self-ordering events, especially when discussing genetic information.<BR/><BR/>Platolivesplatoliveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15807443937032135065noreply@blogger.com