Inherited Intelligence

[Bill Ellison]

My inlaws have once again confronted me with a topic that I disagree with. Help me with the necessary info I need to debate this one:
Does an person inherit their intelligence from the female, or both the male and female? My inlaws insist that it has been proven and documented that the female alone supplies the genes for intelligence. They cannot supply me with a source, except that their son is a doctor and he told them so. I think that this is mother-in-law sorcery that my father-in-law falls prey to. My wife remains neutral. My doctor brother-in-law lives in Europe so I can't easily ask him. Don't we inherit from each gender, influence depending on which genes in each couple are strongest,or something like that?

------------------

[Rysdad]

To your family, I say:

Phhhtthhbbbbt!

My father was a certified genius (160+ IQ). My mom's IQ might equal room temperature on a warm summer day. My latest test showed 135.

You can inherit brain power from either, both, or neither. Maybe it was your grandparents' genes that combined just right.

[RealityChuck]

There's also the question of whether intelligence is inherited. Theoretical capacity might be, but environment plays a role, too.

------------------
"East is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does." -- Marx

Read "Sundials" in the new issue of Aboriginal Science Fiction. www.sff.net/people/rothman (http://www.sff.net/people/rothman)

[Diceman]

It not even agreed upon that intellegence is an inherited trait. Thus, your mother-in-law's claims are probably self-serving bullshit. That said, I seem to get my intellect from my dad's side of the family (a recent family reunion seems to have confirmed this, as far as my mom, dad, brother & sister are concerned. Who am I to argue?)

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

[Cooper]

It is agreed by pretty much all psychologists that intelligence is an inherited trait. The twin/adoption studies present evidence that is unbelievably compelling (twin correlations top 80%, siblings hover around 50%, adopted twins to different families around 65%).

Anyone not in agreement (in my opinion) is pushing a political agenda unconnected with the facts as they are presently known.

[Moonshine]

And the Nature vs Nurture debate rages on. I am not familiar with where you got those particular numbers from Cooper, but they could quite easily be right. However, it has always been extreemly difficult to seperate the effects of upbringing from the genetic raw materials a person may have. In the case you quote, the correlations are not a powerful statement without knowing the statistical significance of those experiments. In this case, wouldn't the fact that twins who are not brought up together have less IQ in common than those who do indicate that it is a factor of upbringing rather than genetics. If IQ were genetically determined you'd expect the correlation to be equally high, regardless of how much upbringing the twins had shared. Many older twin studies were confounded by the fact that they were based on the large, extended families found nearer the beginning of the century, so when you examined twins that had been seperated near birth, actually they may have only gone down the road to live with some other member of their family as their parents already had too many children to raise, not giving a true change of environment at all.

However, before this thread heads off to Cuba and in response to the OP, I think it is all pretty much accepted that you inherit the capacity for intelligence, how intelligent you actually become is a matter of your upbringing just as much as of your genes. Since it is almost impossible to determine the difference between the "theoretical maximum" IQ your genes give you, and the actual IQ you have, surely it is equally impossible to determine who you got this "theoretical maximum" from?

[glee]

Bill Ellison,

you posted 'Does an person inherit their intelligence from the female, or both the male and female? My inlaws insist that it has been proven and documented that the female alone supplies the genes for intelligence. They cannot supply me with a source, except that their son is a doctor and he told them so... My doctor brother-in-law lives in Europe so I can't easily ask him.'

I have severe problems with this:

- it's difficult to define intelligence, let alone test for it (if you're using IQ tests, I don't think they measure much more than ability at IQ tests!)

- I know the human genome project is going well, but I hadn't heard they'd isolated the 'intelligence gene'

- your inlaws make a 'brave' claim; it's 'proven and documented', but they can't supply the source. Welcome to the Straight Dope, where we like a citation (or two).

- I'm sorry you can't ask your brother-in-law any questions easily because he lives in Europe. Where is he? (I'm posting from Europe and we do have modern communications here, you know!).

------------------
Why doesn't the sun come out at night when the light would be more useful? (Pratchett)

[melanietarrant]

As a mother of bright children, I'd really like to believe the intellegent momma theory.

but sadly, I'm inclined to disagree. (It is only coinedental in our case)



------------------
I'm pink therefore I'm Spam

[Kat]

In the "I read this somewhere" file:

I remember seeing (and discussing with my mother) an article that discussed a study claiming that the (or perhaps, an) "intelligence gene" may be carried on the X chromosome, and thus boys would inherit intelligence solely from the mother and girls from both parents.

Thus, there is at least one source that your inlaws could have gotten that info from. Unfortunately, I don't recall when or where I read it, or whose/what kind of/how reliable a study it was. If the claim turns out to be genuine, I imagine it'll show up again, both in the news and in scientific/medical publications.

[Cooper]

Well uhm, males have an X chromosome as well. The male and female both have two sex chromosomes. Males have an X and a Y, females have an X and an X. They each give one to their child. I guess if it were carried on the X, males could only give intelligence to their daughters. I doubt this.

Also, Moonshine, you are correct. Looking at what I said I realize I stated it very badly (if not completely wrong) and I apologize. Most all psychologists believe that nature and nurture both play a significant role in intellectual development. This is easily demonstrated by feeding someone a poor diet. In another sense, it is also nurture in that cultural and family norms seem to play a significant role as well. However, a 65% correleation is extremely significant (+/- 2.5) - the fact that the correleation is not as strong as with twins raised together (80%, which is almost astounding)is really evidence of how *little* effect nurture can have (assuming a few baseline characteristics, such as good diet, non-abusive parents etc. - adoptions are into statistically more 'healthy' environments to begin with).

As for where these numbers come from - well they were in my Child Psych text book, which was in turn quoting a series of studies. Not as much detail as you might want I agree, but it should be sufficient. Anyone who wants to know more would be advised to go to their local Universities library and check the developmental psychology abstracts.

[Diceman]

the fact that the correleation is not as strong as with twins raised together (80%, which is almost astounding)is really evidence of how *little* effect nurture can have Actually, the 80% figure is seriously skewed. Most of the time, "separated at birth" means that the kids get different custodial parents in a divorce, or that one kid is sent to live with grandma. The upbringing is usually not very different, even if the children don't see each other on a regular basis, because you're still dealing with the same family and society. Therefore, similarities are to be expected. After all, it's not like one kid is being raised in the Midwest while the other gets shipped off to Uzbekistan.

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

[Triskadecamus]

I will be much more interested in reading explanations for the nature of inheritance of intelligence, and the measure of it, and a thousand other quasi scientific things of that nature when I find a definition of intelligence which everyone in the argument will accept

The greatest failing of most of the "evidence" one can find on what causes, or affects the development of intelligence is a nearly universal failure to be able to define it. Social and species specific measurement is touted to be accurate in three digits. What it is that is measured is a bit more elusive. Psychology is still much an art, and only a little science.

<P ALIGN="CENTER">Tris</P>
------------------
Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction listen to weather forecasts and economists?
--Kelvin Throop, III

[Ike Witt]

You can inherit intelligence? Wow. I was always hoping that my mother would leave me an ivory box in her will, maybe I can get some of her intelligence as well ;)

------------------
See those stars over there? That is the Little Dipper. I'd show you the Big Dipper, but my zipper is stuck.

[Moonshine]

Trisk, I agree, the definition of what intelligence really is is pretty elusive. When I studied psychology (a few years longer ago than I care to admit) the working definition we used was that intelligence was what an IQ test measured. This works just fine for most discussions, as its not intelligence itself that is being discussed, but the differences between people, and between people and animals or computers. An analogy would be seeking the definition of water in a study comparing rainfall in the Amazon with the Sahara. Admittedly this definition doesn't shed any light on the nature of intelligence at all, but it works fine in areas like the Nature vs. Nurture discussion, just as long as we can all agree on the one IQ test of course...

[Jois]

Hi Bill,

Just as it is with a lot of very easy questions, it is easier to ask than answer.

1. I'd agree completely or offer to agree to disagree with the in-laws. Unless they are a one topic couple - move on to something else. I'm sure you've done this!

2. Somehow a lot/most of us are brought up with idea that DOCTORS are something special, and in many ways they are. They are not perfect, they have a very incomplete education, lop sided, not very liberal, whatever... And often know very little beyond their own specialty. (SDMB MAJORMD is rare, extraordinary, unusual, special, and excluded from anything I say here.)

So asking a Doc to explain genetic concepts could very well be like asking your dog. IF you are talking about inherited genetic diseases with a OB-GYN 'cause you pregnant - he should know those things within his specialty.

For much more than that, he reads the papers, when he has time, just like the rest of us.

3. I know I heard/read that same business about IQ from the mother in the press or on TV and (obviously) just ran it out the other ear. I already know it can't be true.

Even the IQ tests (whatever they do test) give information on many brain function or ability areas. Hand to eye, motor skills, memory, reasoning, associations - I don't remember them all. You don't really get a number, you get a group of numbers. And they are averaged into one number - and that's were you get meaninglessness. It's meaningless unless you know what the underlying numbers are and know how to apply them and what to apply them to.... We should do a "What does IQ mean?" thread.

It can't be true because very little of what makes us human is under very simple genetic control. Most of what we are goes under a polygenetic "package program" (my words)that is, several genes control one thing. What we know about intelligence is that it is complicated and it has got to be a polygenetic trait or several polygenetic traits working together.

Now I'm hearing "Boxed _______" or "a ____box" implying more than or stronger bond than even polygenetic.

BTW: I think "they" are up to 1 billion human - what - genomes? now.

[Cooper]

Maybe we should start the other thread - although I really am not interested in a discussion about what intelligence is. Most people can tell when someone is above average intelligence - at least, most people are in agreement with each other as to who is and who is not above average - its not any one thing but an entire set of characteristics that we all exhibit to one degree or another.

The IQ test is relevant to the degree that it conforms with people's opinions. If everyone in class thinks that John is the smartest in class, and John has the highest IQ, the IQ test has been validated. If he has the lowest IQ, the IQ test is probably not very meaningful (unless it is consistently backwards!). A good test then is one that is consistent with vague opinions we have about one another's intelligence.

[Cooper]

Oh, and the 80% is for twins raised together. Siblings raised together only are about 50%.

[glee]

Cooper,

I want to disagree with your last post. (Please don't feel that I'm following you around the board - you just make interesting posts on subjects I like!).

You said '... I really am not interested in a discussion about what intelligence is. Most people can tell when someone is above average intelligence - at least, most people are in agreement with each other as to who is and who is not above average - it's not any one thing but an entire set of characteristics that we all exhibit to one degree or another.
The IQ test is relevant to the degree that it conforms with people's opinions. If everyone in class thinks that John is the smartest in class, and John has the highest IQ, the IQ test has been validated. If he has the lowest IQ, the IQ test is probably not very meaningful (unless it is consistently backwards!). A good test then is one that is consistent with vague opinions we have about one another's intelligence.'

Sorry, but this is terrifyingly vague compared to say height or disease or eye colour inheritance. You can measure height exactly, detect the presence of colour blindness etc.
You don't define intelligence, and you say MOST people can tell if someone is above average OR NOT - this is not scientific evidence!
IQ tests are apparently valid only if they agree with people's preconceptions. What sort of precision is that?!

You might as well try to measure charisma. (Mind you, Salma Hayek's got plenty of that - or is that sex appeal / beauty / charm? Well, you see my point).

------------------
Why doesn't the sun come out at night when the light would be more useful? (Pratchett)

[Shirley Ujest]

I'm going to relay what my coworkers college physcology ( I Think) professor told her about IQ and kids. ( This was after our boss declared one of her sons a genius ( the other is a dope) )
The Coworker went to the professor with this situation and he said,

"Kids are rarely any more than a couple points higher than their parents in IQ tests. It's rare that you'd have a genius with two average parents, very rare."

So, if you believe in hearsay, this works for me.


As I like to say, " I never let my schooling interfere with my education." Mark Twain.

[Jois]

Cooper,

Have you ever wanted to take bets on something when you know you shouldn't?

That's how I used to feel when we got to IQ testing for gifted programs in public schools. The number of times we guessed correctly which kids needed testing for gifted programs was always surprising. If I'd gone ahead and taken bets I'd quote the numbers for you now, darn.

Saying, thinking, wishing and even "knowing" this or that child was gifted did not make a bit of difference. It just doesn't work that way.

Kids who dress well, have manners, are obedient, are clean (you know the drill) are often given better grades and so on, that's true. But changing IQ scores? Not unless the school/test giver is doing something strange.

Because the IQ score is an average of several measurements you (the teacher or the average person) can easily miss children with spiked (extra high) scores in one or two area. The same happens when the child has a few spiked scores and a few low scores. These lopsided children are often told they are dumb/slow/disadvantaged/whatever by nearly everyone who knows them.

Some these variations can also show up in adults - doesn't seem very swift but you find out later they did well at MIT.

[rjk]

I just finished rereading "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould, a discussion of the many problems with IQ testing.

He comes to a couple of relevant conclusions.

First, there doesn't seem to be good evidence for some quality of "general intelligence"; his remarkably clear explanation of factor analysis (the statistical method invented to demonstrate IQ!) shows that a multiple-abilities model is mathematically just as good. What we call IQ may just be an average of many different talents.

Second, he says that the "nature-vs-nurture" debate is pointless because we develop as a result of complex interactions among many genetic and environmental factors, not the simple balance of forces implied by statements like "It's 80% genetic!" or "It's 80% environmental!".



------------------
Bob the Random Expert
"If we don't have the answer, we'll make one up."

[Avumede]

Just a few quick points:

Children whose parents have very low IQ's (70's), can achieve tramatic results (as, IQ's above 100) by being in a very stimulating environment from an early age. The same seems to happen for those with average parents, but to a much less extent.

Also, being in school raises your IQ a few points. IQ will actually tend to drop after a summer vacation. We all know it's true, don't deny it!

[dlv]

I just finished rereading "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould, a discussion of the many problems with IQ testing.


I'm sorry that you wasted your time on this book. Mr. Gould has no credibility. You're better off (re)reading the comic strips.

[rjk]

And of course I should say that many of the posters above raise points mentioned in the book: Diceman, glee, Jois, Moonshine, and Triskadecamus.


------------------
Bob the Random Expert
"If we don't have the answer, we'll make one up."

[rjk]

Mr. Gould has no credibility.

Credibility with whom? Can you point us to some critique?



------------------
Bob the Random Expert
"If we don't have the answer, we'll make one up."

[Revtim]

Perhaps the question can be resolved by asking, "are there genes/chromosomes that a child, male or female, always gets from only the mother?"

I would guess no, but I don't really know. (I think the DNA of the cellular mitochodria always comes from the mother, but I seriously doubt that has anything to do with intelligence).

If someone can comfirm that there is no genetic material that always exclusively comes from the mother, then I think that would disprove the idea that intelligence (or anything, for that matter) always comes from the mother.

[ZenBeam]

Any "twins separated at birth" studies still can't differentiate between genetic effects and effects due to the environment in the womb. The September 27, 1999 issue of Newsweek has an article on this, mostly focused on health effects, like how prenatal conditions are associated with diseases later in life.

They only had a little bit on intelligence, beginning with "Research on how life in the womb influences the brain is only beginning."

I also recall reading or seeing on TV recently (sorry, no cite) that childhood (maybe only for girls?) lead exposure can cause depressed intelligence in their children.

Yikes.


------------------
It is too clear, and so it is hard to see.

[Konrad]

It's silly to say intelligence can only be inherited from one parent. There are so many genes that affect how your brain works that it's almost impossible they'd all be on the tail end of the X-chromosome. (The only way something can be only inherited from the mother is if it's located on the X-chromosome).

It's not like genes are that organized in the first place. There's no "thinking department" or "beauty department" in our genes.

It's possible that more of your intelligence comes from your mother but it would have to be something specific, like the development of a certain part of the brain. Maybe something like spatial perception, but even that is unlikely.

What is likely is that many defects that cause mental problems could be coded on the X-chromosome and therefore dependent on the mother. Maybe that's what your doctor friend was talking about.

[dlv]

Can you point us to some critique?


Better yet, I can point you to John B. Watson's Behaviorism (p.104):


Give me a dozen healthy infants, well formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select - doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes. even beggar-man and thief, regadless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going byond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing that for many thousands of years. Please note that when this experiment is made I am to be allowed to specify the way the children are to be brought up and the type of the world they have to live in.


Orthodox Marxists (such as Mr. Gould) are supposed to believe that intelligence is 100% acquired and 0% inherited. Do you believe that?

[tomndebb]

dlv:Orthodox Marxists (such as Mr. Gould) are supposed to believe that intelligence is 100% acquired and 0% inherited. Do you believe that?
So your critique of Dr. Gould is based on what someone told you his political beliefs are supposed to dictate to him?

Sorry. I have disagreed with several conclusions that Gould has drawn and published, but your statements require something better than a leap from a hypothetical belief of what he should propose to what you want him to have said.

You have stated that he has no credibility. You have provided no clearly erroneous conclusion that he has drawn and no criticism by any authority that can be shown to demolish Gould's positions.

------------------
Tom~

[rjk]

Thanks, Tom, I couldn't have said it better. (OK, probably not half as well!)

In any case, dlv, my post wasn't anything like Watson's claim. Try rereading the second point.


------------------
Bob the Random Expert
"If we don't have the answer, we'll make one up."

[dlv]

This is pointless.

[Cooper]

Glee:

I'm not sure I saw where you disagreed with me. Basically you expressed frustration that what people mean by 'intelligence' is not better understood, defined and articulated. Well, to a degree I share this frustration. If it is your contention that IQ tests do not tell us anything relevant about a person's intelligence, then I disagree.

[NanoByte]

13er, in re the definition of intelligence:

Psychology, by definition, can never be a(n objective) science. The mind is not the brain.

Moonshine, as to same:

. . .the working definition we used was that intelligence was what an IQ test measured. This works just fine for most discussions, . . .

I guess that's why I take "most discussions" with a grain of salt. That's like saying the amount of gasoline in your tank is whatever your gas gauge says. So when you run out of gas, all you have to do is feed the gauge a little more current from your battery, and thereby save money at the pump.

I was a member of for a while. They really believed those tests put them somewhere. I really wasn't convinced; most were pretty phony. Some believed in a mystical [url=http://www.webcom.com/zurcher/thegfactor/about.html]'g' factor (http://www.us.mensa.org/]Mensa[/url). One guy there even designed his own IQ test and got it published in Omni Magazine quite some time ago, thereafter selling results of their mailed-in tests based on it to Omni readers. . .until the USPS got after him for not delivering the test results in a reasonable time. Seems to me those tests mostly measure a sort of ego. . .whatever that is. It's a nice game to play, I guess.

its not intelligence itself that is being discussed, but the differences between people, and between people and animals or computers.

You actually believe existing IQ tests test "the difference" between people, animals and computers? The difference in what? I mean, a camera hooked up to a pattern-recognition program can measure differences in these things, can it not? How does your dog do on the Wechsler or Stanford-Binet anyhow? Which is brighter, a PC or a Mac. . .or a 100-w light bulb? I think the latter could "shed more light". . . I fail to see the difference in the degree of value of IQ tests dependent on whether the test is testing 1) "intelligence" or 2) testing the relative effects of nature versus nurture on intelligence.

Jois:

The subject is intelligence, not how to be politic. Say, BTW, what does your dog charge for medical consultations? I don't have one. ;)

'Intelligence' is a subjective concept, as we apply it to humans; it can't have meaning in the realm of scientific objectivity.

Genome is when you finally get to the end of the Iditarod Trail.

Cooper, as to what intelligence is:

How do you know "John" isn't in a class of mentally challenged folks who experience intelligent people as stupid? Yeah, OK, well, whatever I say here must be "consistent with vague opinions" of somebody. ;)

The one back there who mentioned that the twin didn't go to Uzbekistan:

It seems to me that, if you raise one twin in a very abnormally uninstimulating environment, you're doing a very different test than one in which you raise that one in an equally stimulating but very different environment from the other twin, but I've forgotten what the measure of difference was. Was it only "intelligence", as measured by one or more certain intelligence tests?

glee:

I think you have something to put Mensa out of business -- charisma tests. I mean, the that's more or less what the media operate with, isn't it? If you advertise on them, you can outnumber Mensans overnight!

Shirley Uj:

Well, I never took "physcology", but that word you use, 'coworkers', always bothers me. Nobody ever tells me how one orks a cow. How exactly is that done?

Now, professors. . .if you want to be professed to, OK. . .but the truth may lie elsewhere.

Jois on schooling and testing:

In junior high I once had an English teacher, who, upon finding out that I did well in other subjects, gave me an F for work I would've otherwise been given a C. (Well, having been caught reading a math book in her class once didn't help either.) I had a like regard of history teachers. In high school, I couldn't stand the egotism of one, which upon some clashing, resulted in my advisor substituting study hall for me. English and history teachers are dements, period. ;)

Avumede:

I like your word 'tramatic' -- a cross between 'dramatic' and 'traumatic', I guess.

I used to drop my IQ once in a while. It used to bounce, but the years have now made it a bit soggy.

rjk:

Those who make up the answer don't need any IQ.

I mito- had a -chondria once, but I think I left it in my other jeans.

dlv, on Watson:

So, Watson left out engineers. Doctors and lawyers are not specialists; they're just fast talkers. You can't make inanimate matter do what you want and give you money just by talking to it. (Spoken by an retired engineer.)

Ray (My other self is not a twin.)

[NanoByte]

Damn! I though I could get by with UBB URLs if they were short. No way. Those things are totally fouled up.

In my last post, where there is a long link, there were supposed to be two. They are:

Mensa (http://www.us.mensa.org/)

and

g factor (http://www.webcom.com/zurcher/thegfactor/about.html)

Ray

[Lucretia]

A pschycologist friend of mine once told me about something called "reversion to the mean", where the children of super-intelligent parents tended to be average or only slightly above average in intelligence, instead of overwhelmingly geniuses themselves, as you might expect if intelligence had a major inheritance component to it.

[Jois]

Nanobyte said:In junior high I once had an English teacher, who, upon finding out that I did well in other subjects, gave me an F for work I would've otherwise been given a C.
(Well, having been caught reading a math book in her class once didn't help either.)

Well, teachers of 6th, 7th, & 8th grades often voice the opinion that school should recess after 5th grade and not resume until 9th. There is a certain unloveliness about kiddies that age or so they say.

Gifted teachers for that same age group feel that money and resources could be put to better use, again by omitting services to that age group. However I'm sure you were lovely and quite undeserving of that F.

[NanoByte]

As I recall, my adviser got me out of that one two, I think.

There is a certain unloveliness about
kiddies that age or so they say.

I'd say they end up getting teachers for that age group that are a good match. ;)

Yeah, I wasn't roudy at all, just not a budding author.

Ray (How I Wasted my Summer Vacation on a Dark and Stormy Night)

[NanoByte]

How could I have been rowdy if I couldn't even spell it?

Ray

[dlv]

A pschycologist [sic] friend of mine once told me about something called "reversion to the mean", where the children of super-intelligent parents tended to be average or only slightly above average in intelligence, instead of overwhelmingly geniuses themselves, as you might expect if intelligence had a major inheritance component to it.


The problem with orthodox Marxists (like Mr. Gould) and left-wingers in general is that they prefer to describe about their vision of the world according to their theories/political views, as opposed to pracical experiments and real-world observations.

Numerous studies found a very strong correlation between parents' IQ and children's IQ (even in situations where the children were adopted and raised by adoptive parents with a different IQ). There's also very strong correlation between monozygotic (identical) twins adopted and raised separately. You can find references, e.g., in the infamous Bell Curve.

The PC crowd (such as Mr. Gould) are not happy with these studies primarily because they also showed a material difference in the average IQ of different races (Asians on the average scored higher on IQ tests than whites, who in turn showed higher IQ than blacks). They label these findings "racist" and assert than IQ has nothing to do with "intelligence" and/or that there's no such thing as "intelligence". To paraphrase Mr. Gould and his ilk, since Asians and Whites tend to perform better than blacks at taking IQ tests, such tests can't possibly measure anything significant. Your psychologist friend reminds me of the behaviorist I quoted (and probably agrees with him).

The histrionics of the Gould defenders on this forum remind me of a couple of historical anecdotes.

In the 1930s, mathematicians knew in theory how to build a modern-like computer (Babbage designed one 100 years before) but couldn't get the funding to build one until WW2. Turing showed theoretically that a computer can't answer certain questions. His mathematical proof upset Marxist philosophers who, following Karl Marx, posulated that a Babbage-like computer should be able to solve all problems. The Soviets actually jailed and executed several mathematicians for following Turing and Wiener and embracing the "bourgeois false science of cybernetics". Following WW2, the Soviets' official party line was that the Univac and other early computers were phoney (since they didn't work according to Marxist theory) and there's actually a person hiding inside the box typing out the answers, and throwing the switches than control the blinking lights. In the same timeframe, the Soviets executed several prominent geneticists for following Darwin/Mendel/Morgan's teachings instead of Lamarck's. (Have you ever heard of Trofim Lysenko? If not, do a web search on him. Gould is a Stalinist with about as much ethics/credibility/integrity as Lysenko.) Marxists also denied some aspects of Einstein's relativity theory (and some still do) because it contradicted certain philosophical opinions expressed by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

Aristotle postulated than heavier objects fall to the ground faster than lighter objects. Galileo got into trouble with the Catholic church, among other things, for trying to verify this assertion experimentally: he threw objects from a tower and measured the time it took them to reach the ground. (In case you don't know, he found that the mass made no difference.)

[glee]

Cooper,

You said 'I'm not sure I saw where you disagreed with me. Basically you expressed frustration that what people mean by 'intelligence' is not better understood, defined and articulated....If it is your contention that IQ tests do not tell us anything relevant about a person's intelligence, then I disagree.'

OK, where we disagree is that I say we can't even define intelligence in a way that allows us to measure it. (Same for charisma.)

Is an intelligent person knowledgable?
Is an intelligent person well-organised?
Is an intelligent person accurate?
Is an intelligent person good at decisions?
Is an intelligent person good at scientific discoveries?
Is an intelligent person well educated?
Is an intelligent person sophisticated?

Now most of us are capable at some of the above, but not at others. Some of my friends:

- rather stupid, but with a fantastic memory
- brilliant scientist who is totally disorganised
- great organiser, who can't work a video

And we measure their PRECISE intelligence how?

This leads on to IQ tests. They are the only method of 'measuring' intelligence. How do we know IQ tests work? Well, they have to agree with our 'instinctive' feelings about people. Circular reasoning there - if the test agrees with our preconceptions, it's a good test. Otherwise the test is flawed.

Does a person's IQ change under any circumstances, and if so, what are they? For example, has anyone measured IQ of a control group at different ages? Indeed, has anyone measured the same group twice?
If you do a lot of IQ tests, does your IQ score improve? Does that mean that sitting IQ tests makes you more intelligent?

(In case you think I'm biased, I got an IQ result of 183 at age 8!)

------------------
Why doesn't the sun come out at night when the light would be more useful? (Pratchett)

[glee]

dlv,

I think it's risky to dismiss people because of their views in other fields. Newton believed in astrology, but he still made valid scientific discoveries!

I 'paraphrase' you:

The problem with right-wingers in general is that they prefer to describe their vision of the world according to their theories/political views, as opposed to practical experiments and real-world observations.

Reagan (e.g. on economics), Thatcher (e.g. on the Poll tax), Hitler, etc



------------------
Why doesn't the sun come out at night when the light would be more useful? (Pratchett)

[dlv]

Glee,


I think it's risky to dismiss people because of their views in other fields


I dismiss Gould not because he's an orthodox Marxist (I've known some Marxists who were otherwise reasonable people) but because he misrepresents the facts to fit his politically correct ideology, and has tried to ruin academic careers of those who disagreed with him.

[dlv]

This leads on to IQ tests. They are the only method of 'measuring' intelligence.


Not true. Read Jensen's G factor. He describes many experiments in which, e.g., he injected people with radioactive glucose and measured how long it took it to move around the brain as they solved problems; or measured the speed at which a signal traveled through one's nerves; or analyzed encephalograms.

There are numerous tests that analyze a particular 'kind of intelligence' - Verbal SAT and math SAT are the most familiar example.


How do we know IQ tests work? Well, they have to agree with our 'instinctive' feelings about people. Circular reasoning there - if the test agrees with our preconceptions, it's a good test. Otherwise the test is flawed.


Not true. SATs are an excellent predictor of a student's success in college. IQ scores correlate well with economic success in general, and success in fields that seem to require intelligence.


Does a person's IQ change under any circumstances, and if so, what are they? For example, has anyone measured IQ of a control group at different ages?


Of course they have, and if you don't know this, then you're really showing how much you know about the subject.

IQ in adults does change, and, interestingly, becomes more correlated to their parents IQ as they age.


Indeed, has anyone measured the same group twice?


Of course they have. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

[APB9999]

A useful analogy to intelligence is the idea of "athleticism". Athleticism involves how successfully one uses one's body to cope with a lot of different situations, including some that are novel to one's experience. Intelligence has almost the identical definition for the use of the mind, at least in colloquial English. Well, I don't really want to argue that point, so I'll qualify it more and say that's the definition in my colloquial English.

So is athleticism inherited? Sure. But it is also a function of the training and nutrition a body receives, and it's history (injuries, diseases suffered, etc.) Is intelligence inherited? Of course. Since it requires the functioning of a physical structure, the brain, whose detailed phenotype is at least partly genetically determined, how could it possibly NOT have a genetic component? But as with athleticism, it depends on training and history as well.

As for IQ tests measuring intelligence, imagine trying to create a test that would measure athleticism. You might test strength with, say, the bench press. You might measure coordination with throwing an object at a target, etc. You put someone through such a battery of tests and give a numerical score to the outcome. Is this a legitimate measure of athleticism? Well,...sort of. It's certainly not UNrelated to athleticism, and Michael Jordan would surely score higher than Don Knotts. But is it good enough to adopt as a DEFINITION of athleticism? Probably not. Athletics is too diverse a concept to capture in such a test. Besides, Mr. Jordan would almost certainly score higher than Babe Ruth, too, yet he is nowhere near the baseball player Ruth was; so we are led to the question of what exactly is the point of measuring athleticism this way?

Completely analogous arguments hold for IQ tests. They are certainly not UNrelated to intelligence, but neither do they fully capture what is meant. And since humans use intelligence in so many different ways, what exactly is the point of measuring intelligence this way? With athleticism, there will be correlations between high test scores and performance on the playing field; with IQ there will be correlations between high test scores and performance in actual intellectual work. But they will be correlations only, and of limited use for prediction.

Another good thing about this analogy is that it shows how silly a lot of the criticisms often levelled at IQ tests are: that they are valueless because they are sensitive to education or cultural upbringing, for instance. This is analogous to saying that a test of athleticism is only valuable if it can somehow normalize out any physical training the subject may have done! Of course, we want to include the results of training in any test, right? Well...again, maybe, maybe not. It depends on the purpose of giving the test.

As for the OP, very few traits of the complexity of intelligence are controlled by a single gene. There may be genes that have a strong effect on intelligence, but there must be at least a gene complex influencing this trait. Like athleticism, the idea that intelligence could come from only one parent will not stand up to close scrutiny.

[Billius]

To Glee in response to Pratchett's question: "Why doesn't the sun come out at night when the light would be more useful?" (Pratchett)
Answer: Because it's busy making light somewhere else, where the geese fly high by the sea la de do da...

[glee]

dlv,

you posted 'I dismiss Gould not because he's an orthodox Marxist (I've known some Marxists who were otherwise reasonable people) but because he misrepresents the facts to fit his politically correct ideology, and has tried to ruin academic careers of those who disagreed with him.'

Tell us more!

Also you said 'Jensen's G factor...describes many experiments in which, e.g., he injected people with radioactive glucose and measured how long it took it to move around the brain as they solved problems; or measured the speed at which a signal traveled through one's nerves; or analyzed encephalograms.'

So a faster speed of response shows you're intelligent? Boxers have quick reflexes...

'There are numerous tests that analyze a particular 'kind of intelligence' - Verbal SAT and math SAT are the most familiar example.'

Yes, I'm sure there's a strong correlation between a maths SAT and doing well at maths. But the IQ test claim is that intelligence is ONE NUMBER. How do you assess a powerful mathematician with woeful verbal skills?

'SATs are an excellent predictor of a student's success in college. IQ scores correlate well with economic success in general, and success in fields that seem to require intelligence.'

So intelligence can be measured by economic success? What about William Sidis? (Cecil's column). Also what fields seem to 'require' intelligence? You're saying that IQ scores are a PRECISE indicator of intelligence because of fields that 'seem' to require it?

I asked 'Does a person's IQ change under any circumstances, and if so, what are they? For example, has anyone measured IQ of a control group at different ages?'

You replied 'Of course they have, and if you don't know this, then you're really showing how much you know about the subject.
IQ in adults does change, and, interestingly, becomes more correlated to their parents IQ as they age.'

But if people's IQ changes over time, what do you use as a base for their parent's IQ? (which presumably has also changed over time)

I asked 'Indeed, has anyone measured the same group twice?'

You posted 'Of course they have. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?'

Don't confuse a request for information with stupidity! If, for example, some of the group's intelligence changed considerably and also went both up and down, then what PRECISELY are we measuring?

[dlv]

So a faster speed of response shows you're intelligent?


According to Jensen, there are many factors that contribute to a higher IQ score. One of them is simply the speed at which one's nerves transmit information, which varies among people and can be measured.


But the IQ test claim is that intelligence is ONE NUMBER. How do you assess a powerful mathematician with woeful verbal skills?


IQ is one number. You can devise tests that measure a particular aspect of intelligence. E.g., referring to the OP, women with Turner syndrom (a genetic anomaly) score as well as anyone else on most types of questions, but do terrible on problems that involve spacial skills. One of the many objections to SATs is that they reduce a complicated collection of abilities to too few measurements.


Don't confuse a request for information with stupidity!


There's no confusion in your case. :)

[glee]

dlv,

you don't answer my questions!

You said 'One of the many objections to SATs is that they reduce a complicated collection of abilities to too few measurements.'

And this differs from IQ tests how?

My points again:

- if IQ scores vary with time, how do you compare people? (and their parents)

- there is no standard to measure the result of an IQ test against

What's your IQ? :)

------------------
Why doesn't the sun come out at night when the light would be more useful? (Pratchett)

[Jois]

Teachers, psychologists and like pros to not use IQ as a single number (quoted from above or below:But the IQ test claim is that intelligence is ONE NUMBER. How do you assess a powerful mathematician with woeful verbal skills?

BUT(a big one)a kid with fantastic math skills(160) and woeful verbal skills(90) might not be a valuable to the community as one with flat verbal(140) and math skills(140). What good is a great mathematician who can't express what he has found? Can't read and understand the great work done before him? Can't solve word problems - don't laugh, this is not that uncommon.

------------------
Oh, I'm gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

[dlv]

And this differs from IQ tests how?


IQ is even worse (than SATs) becuse it attempts to aggergate several distinct factors into a single measurement.