6 ms·

C) you don’t even have to know which genes boost intelligence to know that kids from smart parents are more likely to be intelligent. Akademgorodok was a concen

C) you don’t even have to know which genes boost intelligence to know that kids from smart parents are more likely to be intelligent. Akademgorodok was a concentration of very smart Russian scientists and turned into an (accidental?) eugenics program producing a new generation of smart kids. Some of the smartest people I’ve ever met were born there. But once IQ boosting genes are known they can be selected for by sequencing embryos, I.e. pick the smartest 2 embryos from a candidate pool of 100. An average couple with average variance could still produce 130 IQ kids.

narag 4y ago
I won't be the one to disagree on the effectivity of that approach, but not sure what would be the goal. To ellaborate: aren't there unintended consequences of very high intelligence?
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  I would prefer to live in a society with more intelligent people.
  - narag 4y ago
    That reminded me of Groucho: "I drink to make other people interesting" :)
tsimionescu 4y ago
IQ is much more a measure of prosperity/conformity than anything else, past 90-100.
- mlyle 4y ago
  This isn't really true. The heritability of IQ is pretty high. We know this from twin studies. Beyond this, adopted siblings, have a very low correlation coefficient of IQ by adulthood, but genetic siblings have a very high one.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- citrus1330 4y ago
  Found someone with 90-100 IQ
dwringer 4y ago
Genes don't even have to boost intelligence for kids from smart parents to be more likely to be intelligent. Just think of a kid adopted out of the nursery by two smart parents. Is that kid: A) more likely to score higher on tests, B) more likely to score lower on tests, or C) exactly as likely to score high/low on tests no matter who his adoptive parents are?
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  Unfortunately intelligence is mostly genetic, look it up... Edit: This is my opinion on what I consider a fact based on a fair bit of research and first hand observation. People are free to disagree with this but if they've made it to this point still holding that opinion then I think it's unlikely anything I could say would change their minds.
  - dwringer 4y ago
    Are you suggesting, then, that the answer is C? I would hypothesize A is more likely, even assuming intelligence is genetic. Thus, my only point was there's a confounding variable if we try to use the relative tested levels of intelligence between parents an children as a basis to say whether intelligence is genetic. That's not to say there aren't potentially ways around that by designing studies carefully.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    If you want to make a claim, source it. Given the difficulty of defining an objective measure for intelligence and the confounding factors of upbringing, I think it is almost impossible to find a good source on this sort of thing. Why should we go on a snipe hunt to prove your point?
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > difficulty of defining an objective measure for intelligence IQ is not a perfect metric, but it is a decent predictor of many outcomes. > the confounding factors of upbringing This is why you do twin studies and studies using adoption as a control. We have quite a wealth of them. A good critical review of the evidence on both sides is here: https://humanvarietiesdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/the-effects-of-shared-environment-on-adult-intelligence-a-critical-review-of-adoption-twin-and-mza-studies.pdf https://humanvarietiesdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/the... * Identical twins have a much higher correlation coefficient of intelligence than fraternal twins (table 5). * Identical twins raised apart have a correlation coefficient for intelligence of around .73 (MZA studies). * Correlation coefficients of IQs of biologically unrelated siblings raised in the same adoptive environment are approximately 0. There are obvious confounds the paper mentions: * Fraternal twins may not have identical environments. * Adoptive environments may not represent typical parenting environments. * Some of these studies have had poor controls and practices. * Distribution of results from studies looks bimodal which indicates something weird is going on. Still, even if you take the most critical view I think you have to accept that there is still substantial heritability of intelligence. These results cannot be convincingly explained any other way.

narag 4y ago

I won't be the one to disagree on the effectivity of that approach, but not sure what would be the goal. To ellaborate: aren't there unintended consequences of very high intelligence?

cjbgkagh 4y ago
I would prefer to live in a society with more intelligent people.
- narag 4y ago
  That reminded me of Groucho: "I drink to make other people interesting" :)

tsimionescu 4y ago

IQ is much more a measure of prosperity/conformity than anything else, past 90-100.

mlyle 4y ago
This isn't really true. The heritability of IQ is pretty high. We know this from twin studies. Beyond this, adopted siblings, have a very low correlation coefficient of IQ by adulthood, but genetic siblings have a very high one.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
citrus1330 4y ago
Found someone with 90-100 IQ

dwringer 4y ago

Genes don't even have to boost intelligence for kids from smart parents to be more likely to be intelligent. Just think of a kid adopted out of the nursery by two smart parents. Is that kid: A) more likely to score higher on tests, B) more likely to score lower on tests, or C) exactly as likely to score high/low on tests no matter who his adoptive parents are?

cjbgkagh 4y ago
Unfortunately intelligence is mostly genetic, look it up... Edit: This is my opinion on what I consider a fact based on a fair bit of research and first hand observation. People are free to disagree with this but if they've made it to this point still holding that opinion then I think it's unlikely anything I could say would change their minds.
- dwringer 4y ago
  Are you suggesting, then, that the answer is C? I would hypothesize A is more likely, even assuming intelligence is genetic. Thus, my only point was there's a confounding variable if we try to use the relative tested levels of intelligence between parents an children as a basis to say whether intelligence is genetic. That's not to say there aren't potentially ways around that by designing studies carefully.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  If you want to make a claim, source it. Given the difficulty of defining an objective measure for intelligence and the confounding factors of upbringing, I think it is almost impossible to find a good source on this sort of thing. Why should we go on a snipe hunt to prove your point?
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > difficulty of defining an objective measure for intelligence IQ is not a perfect metric, but it is a decent predictor of many outcomes. > the confounding factors of upbringing This is why you do twin studies and studies using adoption as a control. We have quite a wealth of them. A good critical review of the evidence on both sides is here: https://humanvarietiesdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/the-effects-of-shared-environment-on-adult-intelligence-a-critical-review-of-adoption-twin-and-mza-studies.pdf https://humanvarietiesdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/the... * Identical twins have a much higher correlation coefficient of intelligence than fraternal twins (table 5). * Identical twins raised apart have a correlation coefficient for intelligence of around .73 (MZA studies). * Correlation coefficients of IQs of biologically unrelated siblings raised in the same adoptive environment are approximately 0. There are obvious confounds the paper mentions: * Fraternal twins may not have identical environments. * Adoptive environments may not represent typical parenting environments. * Some of these studies have had poor controls and practices. * Distribution of results from studies looks bimodal which indicates something weird is going on. Still, even if you take the most critical view I think you have to accept that there is still substantial heritability of intelligence. These results cannot be convincingly explained any other way.