4 ms·

I feel like this is a distinction without a difference. We don't care about the anatomical structure of the brain, we care about measured intelligence, which co

I feel like this is a distinction without a difference. We don't care about the anatomical structure of the brain, we care about measured intelligence, which correlates well with performance on a bunch of important things. You can hypothesize a gene that doubles your IQ, but also deletes your spinal cord, making it impossible to interact with the outside world/take IQ tests. Sure, your IQ is higher, but is it more useful? If your goal is to select for greater intelligence, then genes which prevent the carrier from smoking and dropping their offspring will increase intelligence, which is the point!

skybrian 9y ago
If a gene decreases intelligence indirectly via nearsighted, it would be good to know that so you can get people glasses. (Or, actually, you don't really need to know about the genes in that case.)
RichardHeart 9y ago
Timing. Unique "Better baby raising" genes would make better baby's, however, those genes would help you less if you didn't make babies. Thus, Not all things that make smarter kids, make you smarter.
pavement 9y ago
The counter-point being that you'll have people getting vanity tests, and harping on about their smart genes, even though none of them are the sort of gene that confers actual palpable intelligence. Some of these are not smart genes, if they still result in dimwitted people you'd hate to be trapped in a room with. They may be good genes that promote healthy survival, and statistically stongly correlated with smart people, but if they aren't the crucial genes that result in the sort of person that quickly grasps complex concepts, has nice handwriting and can keep up with high learning curves, then they are helpful health and survival genes, not intelligence genes.
Sharlin 9y ago
I don't think selection by Mendelian breeding is very relevant here. Direct autosomal genetic engineering is. Your designer baby is not going to get an intelligence boost if the gene you modify actually has an indirect confounding effect via a parent's phenotype.
- andai 9y ago
  True, however I think if you're making designer babies you might want to invest in designer parents as well :)
- adrianN 9y ago
  If we were to embrace genetic engineering as a society, such changes would still be beneficial, it would just take another generation for the effects to become visible.
andrewprock 9y ago
An IQ is never a measure of absolute intelligence. Instead it is a measure of relative intelligence. Specifically, there is no such thing as an IQ of 100. Instead, there is a mean score on a test within a population. That score might be 80, or it might be 597, or it might 8. By definition, if your score on the test is identical to the mean, then you have an IQ of 100 relative to that population. If a second population takes the same test, and the mean in that population is different, the score which represents and IQ of 100 is different than the score which represents an IQ of 100 for the first population. So, it is possible for two people to get the same score on an identical test, and be assigned different IQs. Because of this, IQ values do not constitute a metric space, and anyone who tries to use it as such, like these studies do, is building their conclusions upon false premises.

skybrian 9y ago

If a gene decreases intelligence indirectly via nearsighted, it would be good to know that so you can get people glasses. (Or, actually, you don't really need to know about the genes in that case.)

RichardHeart 9y ago

Timing. Unique "Better baby raising" genes would make better baby's, however, those genes would help you less if you didn't make babies. Thus, Not all things that make smarter kids, make you smarter.

pavement 9y ago

The counter-point being that you'll have people getting vanity tests, and harping on about their smart genes, even though none of them are the sort of gene that confers actual palpable intelligence. Some of these are not smart genes, if they still result in dimwitted people you'd hate to be trapped in a room with. They may be good genes that promote healthy survival, and statistically stongly correlated with smart people, but if they aren't the crucial genes that result in the sort of person that quickly grasps complex concepts, has nice handwriting and can keep up with high learning curves, then they are helpful health and survival genes, not intelligence genes.

Sharlin 9y ago

I don't think selection by Mendelian breeding is very relevant here. Direct autosomal genetic engineering is. Your designer baby is not going to get an intelligence boost if the gene you modify actually has an indirect confounding effect via a parent's phenotype.

andai 9y ago
True, however I think if you're making designer babies you might want to invest in designer parents as well :)
adrianN 9y ago
If we were to embrace genetic engineering as a society, such changes would still be beneficial, it would just take another generation for the effects to become visible.

andrewprock 9y ago

An IQ is never a measure of absolute intelligence. Instead it is a measure of relative intelligence. Specifically, there is no such thing as an IQ of 100. Instead, there is a mean score on a test within a population. That score might be 80, or it might be 597, or it might 8. By definition, if your score on the test is identical to the mean, then you have an IQ of 100 relative to that population. If a second population takes the same test, and the mean in that population is different, the score which represents and IQ of 100 is different than the score which represents an IQ of 100 for the first population. So, it is possible for two people to get the same score on an identical test, and be assigned different IQs. Because of this, IQ values do not constitute a metric space, and anyone who tries to use it as such, like these studies do, is building their conclusions upon false premises.