4 ms·
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
by 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."
- icelancer 14y ago>I call baloney on that, as there is no currently normed, well validated IQ test that yields a score of higher than 160. I know the WAIS caps at 155, but the Stanford-Binet test accomodates 160+, does it not?
- lutusp 14y ago> I know the WAIS caps at 155, but the Stanford-Binet test accomodates 160+, does it not? Maybe, maybe not. Know why there's so much uncertainty? The population of possible subjects is too small. For a population with a mean IQ of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, the proportion above 160 IQ is only 0.003%. For a population of 300 million, that's about 9500 people. And remember that choosing the subjects would be a self-referential quandary -- you need an accurate IQ test even to select the population to submit to the IQ test. So no, there's no basis for asserting accurate measurement in that part of the IQ distribution. Extra credit -- Marilyn Vos Savant is supposed to have an IQ of 228. Oh, really? I'm not disputing that it's possible, only that there's no way to accurately measure an IQ like that. It's not reliable science or statistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant
- icelancer 14y agoI definitely understand your argument and agree with it. Thanks for clarifying; didn't quite get the gist of where you were going with that.