7 ms·

A genetic code for genius

47 points by sonabinu 14y ago

batgaijin 14y ago
How did he get that position if he is a dropout? Especially in China where it's metricopia?
capnrefsmmat 14y ago
I'll be curious to see if they pull this off. Finding genetic associations reliably is notoriously tricky, simply because of the enormous potential for false positives. When there are thousands of possible genes to consider, there are thousands of opportunities for a gene to be "lucky" and have a coincidental correlation with intelligence in your sample. Previously published efforts have produced almost entirely false positives: "Most Reported Genetic Associations With General Intelligence Are Probably False Positives" - http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/11/1314 http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/11/1314 Let's hope that BGI doesn't merely torture the data until it confesses, as so many have.
networked 14y ago
If they are successful I assume this will likely not result in a way to improve the intelligence of existing individuals though gene therapy because their brains are already wired a certain way and unlike other cells of the body the neurons in the brain do not regenerate rapidly. Is this a correct assumption?
- xaa 14y ago
  If they find specific genes or non-coding RNAs with relatively strong associations (a big if), drugs could be designed to alter the expression levels of those transcripts. Since it is unclear how much of IQ is determined by the "macro" structure of neurons and synapses and how much is caused by intracellular events, it is really impossible to say how much an intervention could do to increase intelligence. The current state of the nootropics field, however, is not very encouraging. In any case, I would not pin my hopes on gene therapy. The hurdles that would be required for regulatory approval of "cosmetic" gene therapy (as this would be classified) are nearly insurmountable.
  - networked 14y ago
    >"cosmetic" gene therapy (as this would be classified) Since higher IQ (at least up to a point) correlates positively with good health and other desirable characteristics including overall happiness [1] would this really be considered "cosmetic"? [1] https://journals.cambridge.org/action//displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8698047&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0033291712002139 https://journals.cambridge.org/action//displayAbstract?fromP...
    - xaa 14y ago
      Personally, I agree with you, but the NIH does not. So far, "stupidity" is not a disease (nor is aging, for that matter).
SatvikBeri 14y ago
One of the fun facts about IQ is that it seems to be highly genetic, but not particularly hereditary. There's a .76 correlation for identical twins separated at a young age, but only .22 between a parent and child, when the child was lived apart from the parent[1]. Compare this to height, which is much more heritable[2]. So they'll probably need more than the 10,000 samples they needed to find height-related genes. It'll be interesting to see the findings. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Correlations_between_IQ_and_degree_of_genetic_relatedness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Correlations... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study
- xaa 14y ago
  To me, this suggests that the trait is highly combinatorial, involving potentially large combinations of polymorphisms instead of individual loci acting relatively independently (in an "additive" fashion). Of course, such combinatorial traits are much harder to tease out of data.
- goodcanadian 14y ago
  There has been plenty of controversy over the meaning of IQ tests in the first place. One complaint is that they test cultural knowledge more than intelligence itself. Naturally, there will be some correlation between the two, but my point is that a great deal of what IQ tests test may be learned knowledge. While your ability to learn that knowledge may be related to intelligence, it does not follow that all intelligent people will score highly on a particular IQ test. Intelligence may be heritable even if IQ test performance is not.
MichailP 14y ago
When someone reduces human intelligence to one number, that is really a good indicator of that someone's intelligence. We don't know much about intelligence except that it is diverse. There is a bunch of excellent ideas about intelligence, talent and creativity in [1]. I particularly liked a bit where current model of education is compared to strip mining of Earth for commodities i.e. only small fraction of human talents is developed while others are ruthlessly squandered. [1] TED talk by Sir Ken Robinson, "Do schools kill creativity".
- bromang 14y ago
  When someone trots out the same old "multiple intelligences" line, that is a pretty good indicator of their intelligence. or at least their intellectual laziness.
guylhem 14y ago
"Research into the science of intelligence has been used in the past "to target particular racial groups or individuals and delegitimize them,"" says a watchdog group eager for money and public support for its pet cause. WHO CARES? I mean, from what we understand so far of the genetics of IQ, there might be some slight differences based on ethnicity - which is nothing unexpected, as you can see the same variability for blood groups, hair color, HLA, etc. Basically different groups of people have a different distribution of some genes than other groups of people, and therefore a show a difference in the expression of these genes that can be aggregated at the group level to show... a difference in the visible characteristics between groups. Wow, what a shocking discovery. The really interesting thing is these genetic differences between ethnic groups are dwarfed by the difference a good upbringing (alimentation and education) can get. And since there are also promising results about the inheritability of IQ, these inter ethnic group differences might also be dwarfed by INTRA group differences. That is the best argument if this watchdog group really want to disprove that "targetting of particular racial groups" So instead of crying wolf, they should embrace such research- after all, when we have pinned down some alleles that confers good advantages, one can think a drug could be created, or gene therapy, or whatever - in the end, the whole human population would benefit from it. Stop thinking about ethnicity. Only the end result matters. It's a shame people in north america and europe are such crybabies about these issues. Thanks China for taking such an endeavour that might benefit humanity - even today naysayers. (and I say this as someone who does not believe that IQ can be accurately identified or measured with todays techniques, but still there is some noticeable difference between people innate abilities - and trying to understand causes them is a good thing. many genes are likely to be involved, and 10 000 certainly won't be enough, but it's a good start)
- jbattle 14y ago
  I suppose people groups who have had hundreds of years of experience of being oppressed with excuses from the Bible, Social Darwinism or the like might care. As a species we have considerably more experience with racial/ethnic judgement leading to suffering than leading to something beneficial. Not to say that it's impossible, but it strikes me as very reasonable for us to argue very thoroughly about the potential implications of this kind of research. I hope we can find a way to improve life for all people. When vaccines first became available there were probably jerks like me moaning about imagined terrible consequences. But that doesn't mean every change made possible by science would necessarily be as equally beneficial. If we find out that people from East Whateveria have a mean IQ 25 lower than the global target, does that mean we have a right or obligation to "fix" them? What if they don't want to be fixed? I'll attempt stop short of pulling a Godwin, but note that this sort of 'fix defective populations for the benefit of the whole human populations' has a mixed record.
datz 14y ago
This article is not genius - it is nonsense. There is no one "genetic code" for genius - this is polygenic. IQs measured by the stanford-binet or wechsler are actually variable - one can work to bring these scores up dramatically - they are completely game-abale. Furthermore there are many types of intelligence, people with high general intelligences can consciously hone specialty intelligences. Or, people with low general intelligences may possess high specific intelligences. This depends on the structure of the brain from macro to a micro perspectives. Also, intangibles govern the way we interact and as the environment changes around us, as we near a "singularity," "intelligences" we value today may not be the same "intelligences" we value tomorrow. The definition of intelligence will change over time. This article is nonsensical and loserish.
- bromang 14y ago
  Citation needed for the claim that IQ tests are highly game-able. And nobody denies that there are different types of mental abiltiy, so I'm not sure who or what you are trying to argue against.
defen 14y ago
Is anyone at all concerned with a Chinese eugenics program? We already know the extent to which China has gone to produce high-caliber athletes, especially for the Olympics. (Yao Ming is basically their Kwisatz Haderach[1]) Let's say for the sake of argument that there is an identifiable genetic component to genius/IQ/intellectual achievement. Is the following sequence of events particularly outlandish? 1) This study and others like it discover genetic components to intelligence. 2) China conducts large scale genetic analysis of the intelligentsia / upper classes etc. to find carriers 3) Strong incentives provided for couples to use IVF/embryo selection/whatever to produce children with the maximum number of these intelligence genes 4) 25+ years from now China all of a sudden has a lot more smart people than anywhere else does [1] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1126765,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1126765,00....
- riggins 14y ago
  eugenics and the military/economic impact down the road was my first thought.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- ekm2 14y ago
  The evolutionary psychologist Franz Herbert had written a piece about Chinese eugenics some time back http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838 http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838
- bthomas 14y ago
  Yes - (1) and (4) are extremely unlikely, though (2) and (3) are certainly plausible :) More specifically, this study may publish some marginal results about genetics of extreme IQ, but any single effect will likely be so small that nothing actionable will come from it. If (4) is the goal, I suspect they'll have much more success exploring drugs and other cognitive enhancements. What genetics can do is help inform how to discover those drugs - ie. what genes should you study. (Shameless plug: if you like genetics and writing python, drop me an email if you want to work on studies like this!)
tokenadult 14y ago
From the article, which I read in the print edition this afternoon: "The majority of the DNA samples come from people with IQs of 160 or higher." I call baloney on that, as there is no currently normed, well validated IQ test that yields a score of higher than 160. From farther along in the article: "Those samples were obtained through a U.S. project known as the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, now in its fourth decade." There is nothing so amazing about the genes of the participants in the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (one of whom is my immediate descendant, also a participant here on HN) compared to what is amazing about their upbringing, including having the opportunity to take the SAT college admission test before age thirteen as part of regional Talent Search http://cty.jhu.edu/talent/ http://cty.jhu.edu/talent/ to qualify for inclusion in the Study of Exceptional Talent. http://cty.jhu.edu/set/index.html http://cty.jhu.edu/set/index.html As another few replies have already noted, IQ is polygenic, and no one can identify any genes with a strong effect on IQ. But there are plenty of educational practices that spare a minority of United States young people the lousy elementary mathematics instruction that most receive, and the pupils who got a good start in mathematics stand out when they take a mathematics test at an unusual age, if the parents think to arrange the test. A really good bibliography about IQ and human intelligence topics can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/IntelligenceCitations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Intellige... as part of Wikipedia userspace, references to reliable sources that ought to be used by more Wikipedians to update the articles there. Prediction: the study reported on in the article kindly submitted here will not find any genes with strong effect on IQ. The review article Johnson, W. (2010). Understanding the Genetics of Intelligence: Can Height Help? Can Corn Oil?. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 177-182 http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/PSYC621/Johnson%20Current%20Directions%20Psych%20Science%202010%20(G%20and%20E%20in%20IQ).pdf http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/PSYC621/... looks at some famous genetic experiments to show how little is explained by gene frequencies even in thoroughly studied populations defined by artificial selection. "Together, however, the developmental natures of GCA and height, the likely influences of gene-environment correlations and interactions on their developmental processes, and the potential for genetic background and environmental circumstances to release previously unexpressed genetic variation suggest that very different combinations of genes may produce identical IQs or heights or levels of any other psychological trait. And the same genes may produce very different IQs and heights against different genetic backgrounds and in different environmental circumstances. This would be especially the case if height and GCA and other psychological traits are only single facets of multifaceted traits actually under more systematic genetic regulation, such as overall body size and balance between processing capacity and stimulus reactivity. Genetic influences on individual differences in psychological characteristics are real and important but are unlikely to be straightforward and deterministic. We will understand them best through investigation of their manifestation in biological and social developmental processes."
31reasons 14y ago
In future, there won't be any need for interviews and resumes. just send your genome for admission to harvard or a job a google!
davidf18 14y ago
There are those (generally average people) that wish to democratize IQ insisting that unlike beauty and athletic ability that IQ is nurture and not nature. But like beauty and athletic ability high IQ and giftedness in science and the arts is mostly genetic. It should also be noted that IQ tests frequently do not indicate true intelligence -- at least among the truly gifted. For example, Genius Richard Feynman was reported to have an IQ of 125 -- clearly not a true measure of one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. Regarding Ashkenazic Jews (disclosure, I am one) and their high IQ, Jews instituted universal education until 6th grade for all males beginning 2,000 years ago -- about 1,750 years before any other ethnic group. It was required of all Jewish males to study the Old Testament and The Talmud and Jewish law since that time. It was around that time that Jewish males were encouraged to move away from agriculture to occupations that required reading, writing, and math. The Chosen Few: How Education Shaped Jewish History, 70-1492 http://www.amazon.com/The-Chosen-Few-Education-Princeton/dp/0691144877/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Chosen-Few-Education-Princeton/dp/...
- JoeAltmaier 14y ago
  How can you disentangle upbringing from genetics? They are hopelessly intertwined, especially in your example of Ashkenazic Jews. Athletic ability is especially sensitive to nurture as well. Talent is fine; most of accomplishment is application and practice. I can completely believe that Feynman had an IQ of 125. Applied with a depression-generation self-discipline, it can (did) accomplish amazing things. It's disingenious to take a counter-example to an argument and pretend its supporting that argument.

47 points by sonabinu 14y ago

How did he get that position if he is a dropout? Especially in China where it's metricopia?

I'll be curious to see if they pull this off. Finding genetic associations reliably is notoriously tricky, simply because of the enormous potential for false positives. When there are thousands of possible genes to consider, there are thousands of opportunities for a gene to be "lucky" and have a coincidental correlation with intelligence in your sample. Previously published efforts have produced almost entirely false positives: "Most Reported Genetic Associations With General Intelligence Are Probably False Positives" - http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/11/1314 http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/11/1314 Let's hope that BGI doesn't merely torture the data until it confesses, as so many have.

networked 14y ago

If they are successful I assume this will likely not result in a way to improve the intelligence of existing individuals though gene therapy because their brains are already wired a certain way and unlike other cells of the body the neurons in the brain do not regenerate rapidly. Is this a correct assumption?

xaa 14y ago
If they find specific genes or non-coding RNAs with relatively strong associations (a big if), drugs could be designed to alter the expression levels of those transcripts. Since it is unclear how much of IQ is determined by the "macro" structure of neurons and synapses and how much is caused by intracellular events, it is really impossible to say how much an intervention could do to increase intelligence. The current state of the nootropics field, however, is not very encouraging. In any case, I would not pin my hopes on gene therapy. The hurdles that would be required for regulatory approval of "cosmetic" gene therapy (as this would be classified) are nearly insurmountable.
- networked 14y ago
  >"cosmetic" gene therapy (as this would be classified) Since higher IQ (at least up to a point) correlates positively with good health and other desirable characteristics including overall happiness [1] would this really be considered "cosmetic"? [1] https://journals.cambridge.org/action//displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8698047&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0033291712002139 https://journals.cambridge.org/action//displayAbstract?fromP...
  - xaa 14y ago
    Personally, I agree with you, but the NIH does not. So far, "stupidity" is not a disease (nor is aging, for that matter).

SatvikBeri 14y ago

One of the fun facts about IQ is that it seems to be highly genetic, but not particularly hereditary. There's a .76 correlation for identical twins separated at a young age, but only .22 between a parent and child, when the child was lived apart from the parent[1]. Compare this to height, which is much more heritable[2]. So they'll probably need more than the 10,000 samples they needed to find height-related genes. It'll be interesting to see the findings. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Correlations_between_IQ_and_degree_of_genetic_relatedness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Correlations... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study

xaa 14y ago
To me, this suggests that the trait is highly combinatorial, involving potentially large combinations of polymorphisms instead of individual loci acting relatively independently (in an "additive" fashion). Of course, such combinatorial traits are much harder to tease out of data.
goodcanadian 14y ago
There has been plenty of controversy over the meaning of IQ tests in the first place. One complaint is that they test cultural knowledge more than intelligence itself. Naturally, there will be some correlation between the two, but my point is that a great deal of what IQ tests test may be learned knowledge. While your ability to learn that knowledge may be related to intelligence, it does not follow that all intelligent people will score highly on a particular IQ test. Intelligence may be heritable even if IQ test performance is not.

MichailP 14y ago

When someone reduces human intelligence to one number, that is really a good indicator of that someone's intelligence. We don't know much about intelligence except that it is diverse. There is a bunch of excellent ideas about intelligence, talent and creativity in [1]. I particularly liked a bit where current model of education is compared to strip mining of Earth for commodities i.e. only small fraction of human talents is developed while others are ruthlessly squandered. [1] TED talk by Sir Ken Robinson, "Do schools kill creativity".

bromang 14y ago
When someone trots out the same old "multiple intelligences" line, that is a pretty good indicator of their intelligence. or at least their intellectual laziness.

guylhem 14y ago

"Research into the science of intelligence has been used in the past "to target particular racial groups or individuals and delegitimize them,"" says a watchdog group eager for money and public support for its pet cause. WHO CARES? I mean, from what we understand so far of the genetics of IQ, there might be some slight differences based on ethnicity - which is nothing unexpected, as you can see the same variability for blood groups, hair color, HLA, etc. Basically different groups of people have a different distribution of some genes than other groups of people, and therefore a show a difference in the expression of these genes that can be aggregated at the group level to show... a difference in the visible characteristics between groups. Wow, what a shocking discovery. The really interesting thing is these genetic differences between ethnic groups are dwarfed by the difference a good upbringing (alimentation and education) can get. And since there are also promising results about the inheritability of IQ, these inter ethnic group differences might also be dwarfed by INTRA group differences. That is the best argument if this watchdog group really want to disprove that "targetting of particular racial groups" So instead of crying wolf, they should embrace such research- after all, when we have pinned down some alleles that confers good advantages, one can think a drug could be created, or gene therapy, or whatever - in the end, the whole human population would benefit from it. Stop thinking about ethnicity. Only the end result matters. It's a shame people in north america and europe are such crybabies about these issues. Thanks China for taking such an endeavour that might benefit humanity - even today naysayers. (and I say this as someone who does not believe that IQ can be accurately identified or measured with todays techniques, but still there is some noticeable difference between people innate abilities - and trying to understand causes them is a good thing. many genes are likely to be involved, and 10 000 certainly won't be enough, but it's a good start)

jbattle 14y ago
I suppose people groups who have had hundreds of years of experience of being oppressed with excuses from the Bible, Social Darwinism or the like might care. As a species we have considerably more experience with racial/ethnic judgement leading to suffering than leading to something beneficial. Not to say that it's impossible, but it strikes me as very reasonable for us to argue very thoroughly about the potential implications of this kind of research. I hope we can find a way to improve life for all people. When vaccines first became available there were probably jerks like me moaning about imagined terrible consequences. But that doesn't mean every change made possible by science would necessarily be as equally beneficial. If we find out that people from East Whateveria have a mean IQ 25 lower than the global target, does that mean we have a right or obligation to "fix" them? What if they don't want to be fixed? I'll attempt stop short of pulling a Godwin, but note that this sort of 'fix defective populations for the benefit of the whole human populations' has a mixed record.

datz 14y ago

This article is not genius - it is nonsense. There is no one "genetic code" for genius - this is polygenic. IQs measured by the stanford-binet or wechsler are actually variable - one can work to bring these scores up dramatically - they are completely game-abale. Furthermore there are many types of intelligence, people with high general intelligences can consciously hone specialty intelligences. Or, people with low general intelligences may possess high specific intelligences. This depends on the structure of the brain from macro to a micro perspectives. Also, intangibles govern the way we interact and as the environment changes around us, as we near a "singularity," "intelligences" we value today may not be the same "intelligences" we value tomorrow. The definition of intelligence will change over time. This article is nonsensical and loserish.

bromang 14y ago
Citation needed for the claim that IQ tests are highly game-able. And nobody denies that there are different types of mental abiltiy, so I'm not sure who or what you are trying to argue against.

defen 14y ago

Is anyone at all concerned with a Chinese eugenics program? We already know the extent to which China has gone to produce high-caliber athletes, especially for the Olympics. (Yao Ming is basically their Kwisatz Haderach[1]) Let's say for the sake of argument that there is an identifiable genetic component to genius/IQ/intellectual achievement. Is the following sequence of events particularly outlandish? 1) This study and others like it discover genetic components to intelligence. 2) China conducts large scale genetic analysis of the intelligentsia / upper classes etc. to find carriers 3) Strong incentives provided for couples to use IVF/embryo selection/whatever to produce children with the maximum number of these intelligence genes 4) 25+ years from now China all of a sudden has a lot more smart people than anywhere else does [1] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1126765,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1126765,00....

riggins 14y ago
eugenics and the military/economic impact down the road was my first thought.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ekm2 14y ago
The evolutionary psychologist Franz Herbert had written a piece about Chinese eugenics some time back http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838 http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838
bthomas 14y ago
Yes - (1) and (4) are extremely unlikely, though (2) and (3) are certainly plausible :) More specifically, this study may publish some marginal results about genetics of extreme IQ, but any single effect will likely be so small that nothing actionable will come from it. If (4) is the goal, I suspect they'll have much more success exploring drugs and other cognitive enhancements. What genetics can do is help inform how to discover those drugs - ie. what genes should you study. (Shameless plug: if you like genetics and writing python, drop me an email if you want to work on studies like this!)

tokenadult 14y ago

From the article, which I read in the print edition this afternoon: "The majority of the DNA samples come from people with IQs of 160 or higher." I call baloney on that, as there is no currently normed, well validated IQ test that yields a score of higher than 160. From farther along in the article: "Those samples were obtained through a U.S. project known as the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, now in its fourth decade." There is nothing so amazing about the genes of the participants in the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (one of whom is my immediate descendant, also a participant here on HN) compared to what is amazing about their upbringing, including having the opportunity to take the SAT college admission test before age thirteen as part of regional Talent Search http://cty.jhu.edu/talent/ http://cty.jhu.edu/talent/ to qualify for inclusion in the Study of Exceptional Talent. http://cty.jhu.edu/set/index.html http://cty.jhu.edu/set/index.html As another few replies have already noted, IQ is polygenic, and no one can identify any genes with a strong effect on IQ. But there are plenty of educational practices that spare a minority of United States young people the lousy elementary mathematics instruction that most receive, and the pupils who got a good start in mathematics stand out when they take a mathematics test at an unusual age, if the parents think to arrange the test. A really good bibliography about IQ and human intelligence topics can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/IntelligenceCitations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Intellige... as part of Wikipedia userspace, references to reliable sources that ought to be used by more Wikipedians to update the articles there. Prediction: the study reported on in the article kindly submitted here will not find any genes with strong effect on IQ. The review article Johnson, W. (2010). Understanding the Genetics of Intelligence: Can Height Help? Can Corn Oil?. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 177-182 http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/PSYC621/Johnson%20Current%20Directions%20Psych%20Science%202010%20(G%20and%20E%20in%20IQ).pdf http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/PSYC621/... looks at some famous genetic experiments to show how little is explained by gene frequencies even in thoroughly studied populations defined by artificial selection. "Together, however, the developmental natures of GCA and height, the likely influences of gene-environment correlations and interactions on their developmental processes, and the potential for genetic background and environmental circumstances to release previously unexpressed genetic variation suggest that very different combinations of genes may produce identical IQs or heights or levels of any other psychological trait. And the same genes may produce very different IQs and heights against different genetic backgrounds and in different environmental circumstances. This would be especially the case if height and GCA and other psychological traits are only single facets of multifaceted traits actually under more systematic genetic regulation, such as overall body size and balance between processing capacity and stimulus reactivity. Genetic influences on individual differences in psychological characteristics are real and important but are unlikely to be straightforward and deterministic. We will understand them best through investigation of their manifestation in biological and social developmental processes."

31reasons 14y ago

In future, there won't be any need for interviews and resumes. just send your genome for admission to harvard or a job a google!

davidf18 14y ago

There are those (generally average people) that wish to democratize IQ insisting that unlike beauty and athletic ability that IQ is nurture and not nature. But like beauty and athletic ability high IQ and giftedness in science and the arts is mostly genetic. It should also be noted that IQ tests frequently do not indicate true intelligence -- at least among the truly gifted. For example, Genius Richard Feynman was reported to have an IQ of 125 -- clearly not a true measure of one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. Regarding Ashkenazic Jews (disclosure, I am one) and their high IQ, Jews instituted universal education until 6th grade for all males beginning 2,000 years ago -- about 1,750 years before any other ethnic group. It was required of all Jewish males to study the Old Testament and The Talmud and Jewish law since that time. It was around that time that Jewish males were encouraged to move away from agriculture to occupations that required reading, writing, and math. The Chosen Few: How Education Shaped Jewish History, 70-1492 http://www.amazon.com/The-Chosen-Few-Education-Princeton/dp/0691144877/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Chosen-Few-Education-Princeton/dp/...

JoeAltmaier 14y ago
How can you disentangle upbringing from genetics? They are hopelessly intertwined, especially in your example of Ashkenazic Jews. Athletic ability is especially sensitive to nurture as well. Talent is fine; most of accomplishment is application and practice. I can completely believe that Feynman had an IQ of 125. Applied with a depression-generation self-discipline, it can (did) accomplish amazing things. It's disingenious to take a counter-example to an argument and pretend its supporting that argument.