Study Links Genetic Diseases to Intelligence

FleaPlus writes "The Economist, Sun-Sentinel, and FuturePundit report on a controversial study by Gregory Cochran and others which proposes a link between certain genetic conditions and above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews. The 40-page study, published in the Journal of Biosocial Science, analyzes data on unusual patterns of genetic disease and relates it to a number of intelligence metrics. Although the intelligence data have traditionally been attributed to cultural factors, Cochran proposes that due to the unusual selection pressures the Ashkenazi faced between 800 and 1600AD certain genes developed which promote intelligence as single copies, but lead to particular diseases when somebody inherits two copies. According to Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, "It would be hard to overstate how politically incorrect this paper is... [though] it's certainly a thorough and well-argued paper, not one that can easily be dismissed outright.""

Comments

Reason

[madaxe42]

1) Intelligence leads to geeks.
2) Geeks sit in front of computers or large machines which go 'bang'
3) ....?
4) Cancer!

Dismissed

[stecoop]

I was reading the paper and I read "Bummer dudes". That isn't what I would like to see in a technical paper. As for one thing, the author doesn't investigate (enough) alternative methods of crippled smart people. I would have theorized that during the medieval ages that warriors would have went after healthy combatants instead of slaughtering passive crippled people. If the crippled people were smart enough to survive then the smart people would have carried on. I think the correlation the author tried to present had two variables that may be related but don't necessarily relate one for one.

Re:Dismissed

[JaxWeb]

That wasn't the paper, that was an article about the paper. The article is here.

I think the correlation the author tried to present had two variables that may be related but don't necessarily relate one for one.

Well it doesn't really matter what you think, because this guy actually researched it. His research is more important than your uninformed opinion. Not saying you're wrong, but I'm saying you don't know, so you cannot dismiss it.

Re:Dismissed

[zerbot]

Except that the authors showed mechanisms whereby the genes that cause these diseases could also cause increased intelligence. The sphingolipid cluster has a side effect of promoting axonal growth and branching as well as dendritogenesis. The DNA repair cluster are involved in regulating the proliferation of neurons during fetal development.

The authors also addressed the "bottleneck" theory (a group of people who had genes for these diseases just happened to survive by chance). This is the leading theory today as to why Ashkenazik Jews have such a high prevalence of numerous genetic diseases. In my opinion, they did a very good job of disproving that theory. Bottlenecks lead to severe decreases in genetic variability, and they demonstrate that Ashkenazik Jews are similar in variability to other populations including Europeans in general.

Here is my summary of the paper.

They demonstrate evidence that:
1) Ashkenazik Jews have higher IQ's as a group, but only in the mathematical and verbal subportions of IQ tests. They score lower than average on the visuospatial portions. This difference may be disappearing in recent times.
2) Post-Diaspora Jews were often persecuted and restricted to occupations that the majority (whether Christian or Islam) wouldn't do. In Christian lands, this included lending money for interest, whereas in Islamic areas, this avenue wasn't available, and only the most menial jobs were available to Jews there.
3) A very high percentage (up to 85 percent of adult males) were involved in a very narrow occupation range, mainly that of moneylender or other occupation that involved complex transactions involving money.
4) Those of higher intelligence got richer in these narrow range of occupations.
5) The richer you were the more children survived to adulthood.
6) Ashkenazik Jews were genetically isolated from the surrounding population by self selection.
7) Many of the genetic diseases that are at high incidence among Ashkenazik Jews cluster into only a few "types".
8) Two of these "types" (the sphingolipid storage type and the DNA repair type) are known to have positive effects on neural proliferation and growth.

Thus their conclusion is that these genetic mutations increase intelligence and the situation with Ashkenazik Jews is that the selective pressure towards intelligence was more than enough to outweigh the deleterious effect that these genes have on fitness otherwise. They suggest as a test for their theory, within Ashkenazik populations, heterozygotes for these genes should show increased intelligence relative to those who are not carriers.

It bothers me somewhat that this paper comes out of a Department of Anthropology. When addressing genetics, the quality of researchers in this area can be very widespread. However, I don't see that they have made any errors with respect to the genetics or the neurobiological aspects. It is very common to see in populations that a strong selective pressure at first yields mutations that are negative in some other way, but whose benefit outweighs the negative aspects. Subsequent selection yields compensating mutations (typically in other genes) that temper or eliminate the negative aspects.

In this case, the selection pressure has been removed, Jews are no longer restricted in their choice of profession, so it is likely that the negative aspects of these genes will push back and their incidence among Ashkenazik Jews will diminish, especially if carriers of the most devastating genes (such as Tay-Sachs) choose not to have children at all or fewer of them (such as couples who are both carriers and who have one healthy child deciding not to push the odds with more).

I find it interesting that because of the need for social and verbal ability among financiers, the other sorts of genes related to autism that also often increase intelligence weren't selected for among Ashkenazik Jews.

Re:Dismissed

[shotfeel]

Which, IMO, is what is happening now to a certain degree.

It used to be that a high degree of physical fitness, resistance to disease and genetic fitness was necessary to survive. Now, intelligence (IMO) is supplanting those requirements.

Where even just decades ago, certain genetic defects/diseases meant an early death, these days a person with the same affliction can live a long lifespan, including reproducing. Diseases that used to wipe out "the weak" are now treated with a drug.

Seems we are now able to trade-in some level of "physical fitness" for intelligence (as a society).

Let's see. . .

[smooth wombat]

This paper says that a subset of a religious group is more intelligent due to genetic factors and that's a good thing.

However, when a paper is presented which says that jews and palestinians are genetically the same, that's a bad thing.

If the paper had said that this subset of the jewish religion was dumber than others due to genetics would people still have the same reaction or would they have dismissed it as anti-semitic?

Re:Let's see. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

> when a paper is presented which says that jews and palestinians are genetically
>the same, that's a bad thing.

No, the author used an interesting choice of words to describe the current situation in Israel/Palestine:

--------
He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to criticism. There is one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the Gaza strip, and another that refers to Palestinian people living in 'concentration' camps.

'Perhaps I should have used the words settlers instead of colonists, but really, what is the difference?' he said.

'And clearly, I should have said refugee, not concentration, camps, but given that I was referring to settlements outside of Israel - in Syria and Lebanon - that scarcely makes me anti-Jewish. References to the history of the region, the ones that are supposed to be politically offensive, were taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and other text books.'
--------

It doesn't appear to be true that it was what he said that was objected to, merely how he said it.

Re:Let's see. . .

[drmarcj]

However, when a paper is presented which says that jews and palestinians are genetically the same, that's a bad thing.

Don't write off science so easily. The article on Jews vs. Palestinians wasn't pulled because it reported an unpopular result. From the article:

In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region.

Instead the editor yanked it because it was written in an unobjective and politically charged style:

In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited.

So, the issue in that case wasn't whether the article's results were PC. People have reported such results in the past and it was published. The issue was that the authors were using the result to grind their own political - rather than scientific - axes.

Re:Let's see. . .

[dalutong]

It's not a subset of the jewish religion, it is where those jews came from.

in modern usage, ashkenazis come from europe. Sephardic jews come from the near/middle east.

the definitions are a little different though. Ashkenazis are, by definitions, supposed to be jews whos family came from germany or eastern europe. sephardics, oddly enough, are supposed to be descended from families from spain or portugal.

the latter makes a little more sense, though. a lot of iberian jews were expelled during the spanish inquisition. many fled to the near east.

Re:Let's see. . .

[mwvdlee]

In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited.

So, the issue in that case wasn't whether the article's results were PC. People have reported such results in the past and it was published. The issue was that the authors were using the result to grind their own political - rather than scientific - axes.

So challenging a claim which basically says "we're better than you, because our moms and dads were better than yours and you can never be as good as us" is politically incorrect?

Re:Let's see. . .

[spiritraveller]

You do have to wonder how much research is never published for fear of a lawsuit....

How about none, zip, zero.

In the US there is no basis for suing someone who insults your race or religion. First of all, it's simply not a claim; slander or libel do not apply to huge groups of people. Second of all, the constitution prevents it.

A French Jewish organization discovered this a few years ago when it sued Yahoo! for selling Nazi paraphernalia. The Jewish group won in the French courts, but Yahoo! had no assets in France. A federal court in the US refused to enforce the French judgment because it said that to do so would violate the First Amendment.

You still have freedom of speech. Political correctness is just other people reacting to your speech, which they also have the freedom to do. That's not a legal problem per se. It's more of a social and cultural problem.

Re:Let's see. . .

[cecille]

Challenging that claim would certainly not be incorrect, but I hardly think that's what judaism claims. There are a lot of religions out there that claim to be chosen by god, and while, yes, it does come across as elitist, it is necessary to realize that it is not in reference to a bloodline or genetics, but a way of life. Similar to most religions, Judaism feels that religion brings them closer to god, and by choosing to follow this religion that they become a part of god's people. This isn't something that is only common to Judaism either.

Yes, it is tracked through the bloodline, but many other religions are also traced this way for the simple fact that people of a certain religion tend to bring up their children to hold their same beliefs. But make no mistake - just because something is passed down through parents does NOT mean that Jewish people claim RACIAL superiority.

For example, I am jewish, but not by blood...converted when I was quite little, actually. But even without that genetic trace, I've never been treated any differently, and I'm able to participate fully in all of the rites that all jewish people are. It's not a genetics/race thing, it's a beliefs thing, and it's common with a large number of religions.

Re:Let's see. . .

[SpacePunk]

The paper is just a way for the Jews, and supporters to perpetuate one stereotype and one racist outlook.

The stereotype is that Jews are victimized. This time by 'God', 'Mother nature', and/nor 'selection'.

The racist outlook is that Jews are naturally more intelligent than non-Jews, therefore superior racially.

Re:Let's see. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't worry much about lawsuits.
On the other hand, if you publish to much "politically incorrect" material, you may find your funding drying up pretty quickly which accomplishes the same thing.

Re:Let's see. . .

[PMuse]

Ashkenazis are, by definitions, supposed to be jews whos family came from germany or eastern europe.

So, to be prefectly blunt, we study this population because they are massively inbred in a particularly interesting way.

Cool.

Re:Let's see. . .

[Ender_Wiggin]

It was mainly the Christians, not the Arabs that did the persecuting at that time. Maimonides studied under Arab rule and did so with relatively less persecution than the Jews in Europe.

Re:Let's see. . .

[Surt]

In all fairness to the Jews, what they actually believe is that they are worse than others, and that God specifically challenges them to behave well, and that when they can all do that for a year, then we all get the benefit of god making everything right on earth.

Re:Let's see. . .

[trixillion]

Actually the paper makes a strong case that they are not inbred. Indeed that is one of the central thesis of the paper. RTFP!

Einstein's brain was flawed, too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Einstein's brain was actually the product of a genetic defect. From wiki:

"His brain was preserved in a jar by Dr. Thomas Stoltz Harvey, the pathologist who performed the autopsy on Einstein. Harvey found nothing unusual with his brain, but in 1999 further analysis by a team at McMaster University revealed that his parietal operculum region was missing and, to compensate, his inferior parietal lobe was 15% wider than normal. The inferior parietal region is responsible for mathematical thought, visuospatial cognition, and imagery of movement."

Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too...

[k96822]

Hey, this explains my GPA then. Of course, none of my lobes got bigger to compensate, but, at least now I have an excuse!

Seriously, these kind of things disturb me when I read them (what the quote said, not what the poster said). It implies that intelligence cannot be achieved through hard work, which is totally wrong. The brain is like any other muscle and the brain bearer can develop it, just like any other muscle. They don't need a genetic defect to outdo Einstein, they need courage and the willingness to sweat to build it up.

When people turn around and then say, "Well, you're smart because you're defective," then it diminishes both the person and the journey to become a more intelligent person. Some people use this excuse to explain away their own laziness or they'll take the smart person's flaws and blow them out of proportion until the smarter person is just bad enough to no longer be superior.

I'm convinced this tendency in people also creates an expectation from people who are intelligent that affects the intelligent's person behavior. "All the world's a stage. And all the men and women merely players", Shakespeare observed. What role we play is often the role we think other expect us to play. So, if a person is intelligent, people expect that person has no social skills, and they live up to expectations because they are looking for clues for how to play their role.

It is still "politically correct" to belittle both intelligent and fat people in today's society too.

Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too...

[tgibbs]

Einstein's brain was actually the product of a genetic defect.

A genetic variation does not necessarily constitute a "defect." Are blue eyes a defect? Generally, the term defect is used when there is some kind of significant pathological consequence.

Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too...

[dougmc]

Seriously, these kind of things disturb me when I read them (what the quote said, not what the poster said). It implies that intelligence cannot be achieved through hard work, which is totally wrong.

For the record, this is not a well established fact. There have been several studies that show that IQ is mostly genetics (and this seems to be the general belief -- that it's mostly (or at least largely), but not completely, genetics), there have been studies that show that things like education and good nutrition as a child help it, that mental exercise helps build it, etc.

The brain is like any other muscle and the brain bearer can develop it, just like any other muscle. They don't need a genetic defect to outdo Einstein, they need courage and the willingness to sweat to build it up.

Of course, what exactly IQ is is something that seems to change slightly depending on who you ask. And as others have said here, it's not easy to accurately measure, especially in a large group of people. In any event, the brain is pretty much obviously NOT like `any other muscle' (it's not even a muscle) and while I do believe that it can be developed to some degree, it certainly can't be developed quite like a muscle can.

When people turn around and then say, "Well, you're smart because you're defective," then it diminishes both the person and the journey to become a more intelligent person.

Well, being rude is being rude. But just how many movies have been made about people who are handicapped in some way, end up overcoming that handicap and end up being the best at what they do? Lots. It's a story that people love to see, a story of people overcoming adversity. But it's generally just a story when somebody goes from having a low IQ (and I don't mean just poorly educated) to being a genius, like in Flowers for Algernon or Charly.

But seriously, Einstein was just one man. Yes, he was a genius, but just one of many geniuses we've had over the years. I'm not sure how much we can learn just by looking at his brain in a pickle jar. And whatever this defect was, they missed it the first time -- I wonder if they (the people who look at his brain in the pickle jar) are just finding what they wanted to find?

It is still "politically correct" to belittle both intelligent and fat people in today's society too.

So what? I don't let what is PC dictate my actions. If you want to, that's fine, but I don't. (I do try and let courtesy dictate my actions, but that's different.)

In any event, it's relatively scientifically established that fat people don't live as long. Is stating that or researching that politically incorrect?

Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too...

[giel]

The brain is like any other muscle and the brain bearer can develop it, just like any other muscle.

Eventually your skul will break and your brains pop out if you think often.

Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too...

[CFTM]

You're talking about two seperate things though, intelligence and knowledge. Knowledge is attained through hard work and intelligence applies knowledge for practical reasons. Yes, a greater knowledge base probably includes better techniques of information deployment but reading a book probably isn't going to raise your IQ or improve your Raven scores.

I've met plenty of people who did very well academically but were incapable, or at least at the age I knew them at, were unable to deploy that knowledge in an effective manner. These were the kids who would spend an entire class period attempting to discern the answer that the teacher wanted on the essay. This is not intelligence, this is knowledge regergitation. Intelligence is taking knowledge and synthesizing it for a greater purpose...two completely different things in my mind.

Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too...

[dreamchaser]

There are genetic components to intelligence just like there are genetic components to athletic ability. Take two people with different genetics and have them follow the same workout. They will not be equal in speed and strength. The same is true with regards to intelligence. You can study and work all you want and chances are there will still be someone smarter than you who may not even have worked as hard.

Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too...

[tgibbs]

How about you are born with a liver that's only half the size, but that could process blood in a different/more efficient manner that compensated for this and also aided in immuno-response. This would be a defect, in that your liver is malformed from the norm, however a result of whatever caused the defect makes your liver still function like a normal one, and has an added benefit.

I would class this as a genetic variation rather than a defect, because there is no pathological consequence.

The point is just that you are born with some mutation, but there is a positive side-effect to the mutation. This effect must happen for evolution to take place.

All differences are the result of mutation at some point in evolution. So I suppose that one could regard a human being as a "defective ape," but that is not how the term is commonly employed. The term "defect" is used for a variation that has some kind of significant pathological consequence.

Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too...

[lp-habu]

Again, I say, the brain can be as tall is it desires to be.

And again you are wrong. Cite any evidence whatsoever for this position. You're stating your heartfelt belief, but your belief is misguided. It has no basis: it's simply a feeling -- or perhaps hope -- that you have and nothing more.

Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too...

[paulsgre]

Detecting macrostructural brain alterations from the norm does not necessarily imply causality. It is well documented that certain parts of the brain can physically grow in size due to usage even in adulthood - in a fairly famous early MRI study, it was shown that a part of the hippocampus of taxi-cab drivers significantly enlarged after a few months of driving, and shrank again if they stopped driving for several months.

More permanent changes can occur if intense use occurs at a young age. In pianists who begin playing by the age of seven, the corpus callosum (the neural bridge between the two hemispheres) was measured to be an average of 30 percent ( ! ) bigger than controls and those who began training after age 10.

Einstein's brain may very well have been structurally different from the norm, but we cannot say that this is due to genetics, as he may have simply nurtured these areas of the brain from a young age.

Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too...

[yali]

Slightly OT but important.....

There have been several studies that show that IQ is mostly genetics

That's a superficial and flawed reading of the evidence. First of all, behavior genetic studies typically show that the heritability of intelligence is about .50, which means that about 50% of the population variance is attributable to genetic differences. The rest -- the other half -- is environment, mostly nonshared environment (i.e., unique individual experience).

However, what most people do not realize is that heritability quotients depend on the population in which they're derived. Most heritability studies have been on middle- to upper-middle class subjects. It turns out that when you look at poorer populations (see original study here), heritability goes way down, and the importance of environment (including shared environment) increases dramatically.

The upshot is that for a poor kid, the expected return on an investment in the environment is huge. For a well-off kid, it's smaller but still real.

Re:Einstein's brain was flawed, too...

[fupeg]

The brain is like any other muscle and the brain bearer can develop it, just like any other muscle.

Only it's not a muscle, and that's why you are wrong. It is ridiculous to disregard genetic differences as potential causes for physical and behavioral differences in people. Mozart was composing symphonies at age five. Do you think that was only a product of hard work? There have been numerous writings about Asperger's Syndrome and certain types of intelligence. It's just called genetic variance, don't be so defensive about it...

Also, the converse of your argument would then be that a lack of intelligence shows a lack of hard work. This is typical Protestant work ethic thinking. It makes it a lot easier to point fingers at poor people and call them lazy.

Because something is politically incorrect...

[Ignignokt]

it must be wrong?

According to Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, "It would be hard to overstate how politically incorrect this paper is... [though] it's certainly a thorough and well-argued paper, not one that can easily be dismissed outright."

Am I reading this wrong, or is this implied in his statement (i.e. we might not be able to dismiss it outright, but it will eventually be disproven because it is politically incorrect and, therefore, cannot be correct).?

Re:Because something is politically incorrect...

[Oxygen99]

No, I think Pinker statement is intended to suggest that because this paper is politically incorrect people will try harder to disprove it, as with numerous other studies linking abilities or disabilities to racial, social or sexual characteristics. If you read his books, it's pretty clear he doesn't have much respect for political correctness, though he does shy away from some of the logical conclusions of his reasoning, IMHO.

Re:Because something is politically incorrect...

[Dammital]

When I first saw the name Harvard associated with the quote, I thought "Sure, the politically correct capital of the world". But I thought I'd give Pinker a fair shake.

Turns out that Pinker was one of the defenders of President Summers' comments concerning gender. From the Harvard Crimson:

CRIMSON: Were President Summers' remarks within the pale of legitimate academic discourse?

PINKER: Good grief, shouldn't everything be within the pale of legitimate academic discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of rigor? That's the difference between a university and a madrassa.

CRIMSON: Would it be normal to hear a similar set of hypotheses presented and considered at a conference of psychologists?

PINKER: Some psychologists are still offended by such hypotheses, but yes, they could certainly be considered at most major conferences in scientific psychology.

CRIMSON: Finally, did you personally find President Summers' remarks (or what you've heard/read of them) to be offensive?

PINKER: Look, the truth cannot be offensive. Perhaps the hypothesis is wrong, but how would we ever find out whether it is wrong if it is "offensive" even to consider it? People who storm out of a meeting at the mention of a hypothesis, or declare it taboo or offensive without providing arguments or evidence, don't get the concept of a university or free inquiry.

Re:Because something is politically incorrect...

[porcupine8]

You should read some of Pinker's work, and you'd realize that he's on the side of the authors. Try The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature and How the Mind Works.

Steven Pinker is the LAST person to imply that because something is politically incorrect, it's flat-out wrong. You're right, that quote might sound like it, but I think it's just a bad quote.

It's possible

[udderly]

This is one of those things that drives me crazy. You have people telling us that we're evolved beings and yet on the other hand it's been taboo to even mention the possibility that an isolated group (or groups) of people may have evolved with more or less intelligence.

I'm not saying that it's that way, but it's definitely within the realm of possibility. But, if you want to get shut down, just mention that you think that it's a possibility.

Sometimes the truth just is what it is, and not what we want it to be.

Re:It's possible

[zerbot]

The thing is that intelligence is not a single dimensional quantity like height is. We pretend it is by assigning an IQ value to some measurement of it, but even scientists who study it will tell you that a major problem in the field is a lack of understanding of just what intelligence is.

Re:It's possible

[nomadic]

You have people telling us that we're evolved beings and yet on the other hand it's been taboo to even mention the possibility that an isolated group (or groups) of people may have evolved with more or less intelligence.

True, I'm way smarter than any of you. We should accept that openly.

Re:It's possible

[phlegmofdiscontent]

Let's assume that intelligence is controlled by one gene. If that's the case, smaller, isolated groups will likely have higher or lower occurrence of the gene in much the same way that populations can have higher or lower occurrence of sickle-cell anemia or hemophilia. The effect is mitigated in the general population because of a high degree of mixing.
More likely, though, intelligence is controlled by at least a handful, if not a multitude of genes. In this case, even smaller populations will average out.
But this assumes that intelligence is unaffected by other factors. We would have to ignore:
a. that intelligence is hard to define
b. intelligence is hard to measure without bias
c. cultural pressures
d. economic pressures
e. educational differences
f. emotional differences
g.....
h....

It's possible that different groups have differences in intelligence, but for now, it's impossible to cut through all the bullshit.

Re:It's possible

[Spy Hunter]

It's taboo because the differences, if they do exist (which is likely, I admit), are minor enough that they are far overwhelmed by variation in individuals. Pointing out the very slight differences usually does not serve any useful purpose and will only inflame racial discrimination. If people weren't so stupid when it comes to race, then it wouldn't be a problem. But for some reason stupidity becomes rampant when race is an issue. For that reason, it's better to leave it alone.

Being a Jew ...

[your_mother_sews_soc]

This has always been a touchy subject. It does seem that our friends and relatives seem to be pretty smart, but it is something you don't want to raise in public or even among friends, since it smacks of ethnocentrism. But along with the benefits, there seems to be a high prevalence of depression, cancer, and other ills. Whether or not this is true, Hitler, the Moral Majority, and other movements have made it even harder to talk about something sensitive like this that may, in fact, have a scientific basis after all.

Re:Being a Jew ...

[animus9]

I never really got this.

You know, I've only talked to a few Jewish people, but they've always drilled me with the whole "Jews are smarter than everyone else" speech. Maybe the reason it 'seems' this way is because Jews are so insecure that they need to find evidence that there's something special about them. If you look hard enough for something, eventually you will find it. Other cultures (that are more secure) don't spend so much time looking for this relationship.

I am Scotch/English, and many of my friends/family are quite intelligent. I just don't think about it as being relative to a certain cultural/religious background. And really, until reading this article/comment I've never felt the need to say it.

I would suggest that it is _much_ harder to say anything that could be interpreted as anti-jewish than the opposite.

I don't think it has anything to do with Hitler, or the moral majority. If you stand up and say "x_group is smarter than everyone else", then you're going to end up with a lot of people that are going to try and prove otherwise. It's nothing personal, there's no hidden agenda, it's just human nature -- when you say how much better you are, it implies someone else is less. If you go around stepping on people's egos you will find that they don't want to be your friends.

Its about time

[DigitalOSH]

I, for one, am glad that there are enough sane people out there to actually have what it takes to put out a paper that singles out a race and shows its genetic differences when compared with the rest of us... But, if we have gathered that there are inherent differences between Ashkenazi Jews and other races, then what are we comparing against? Are some races less intelligent than others? With info like this, you could easily turn around and say that caucasians are (small percentage) less intelligent than the "rest of us" because you are including the more intelligent Ashkenazi Jews. This kind of information needs to be handled delicately, and a proper "anchor point" must be established to create a proper "litmus test" between races. In short, comparing one race or culture against an "average" of all other cultures is dangerous and inaccurate.

Non-PC Studies

[atlantafatmike]

Their are probably thousands of studies that could be done linking ethnic or social groups with intelligence, physical aptitude, obesity, disease, or just plain bad luck.

But they will not see the light of day due to the politically correct, media-charged world we live in today. Such a study would be be spun into outrage by minority or activist groups, calling the researchers racist or worse, regardless if they are correct.

Re:Non-PC Studies

[jc42]

But [such studies] will not see the light of day due to the politically correct, media-charged world we live in today.

Actually, there's a straightforward way to get such studies published, used by many researchers in the past. You simply express your ideas in turgid, jargon-laden terms that are impenetrable by all but specialists.

If this paper gets more attention, it's probably a sign that it was written too clearly. Maybe the author should take a course in scientific obfuscation.

Maybe he actually wants to be understood. But, as this discussion shows, that's often merely an invitation to attack and ridicule. Better he should express his thoughts and results in a way that's comprehensible only to his professional colleagues. That way, he might contribute to scientific comprehension, which might possibly lead to treatments for the genetic problems he's studying.

politically incorrect

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Science must never be politically incorrect. It should be the truth, nothing more and nothing less. If you start to use political correct terms you water down the meaning. I'm not going "Say he's a nigger, you know he is", because that's outright wrong, but theres no need to use incorrect terms (AKA African-American if you're not from Africa) to please some minority who seems to think everyone needs a "nice" label and we can't just ignore that people's skin shade can't be controled and means nothing.

Re:politically incorrect

[mincognito]

Science must never be politically incorrect (sic). It should be the truth, nothing more and nothing less.

This is a very idealistic view of science. Politics has always governed to a large extent what is permissible within science. To go against the grain is to put your career at stake; in earlier times not only your career but also your life (e.g. Copernicus). Most often though, your work just won't get funded (e.g. Nasa) or see publication. "Truth" in science is what is useful for maintaing the political-capitalist status quo (these days that's weapons for govt., new products for consumers). "Pure" science doesn't exist as far as I know.

Makes sense

[m50d]

If there wasn't any benefit these genes gave, common sense would suggest they'd have died out long ago.

Re:Makes sense

[Wabin]

Ugh... this is why evolutionary biology is so misunderstood. Natural selection is not as good as most people think, which is why all these arguments about how things can't have happened by chance are silly. There is an absurd amount of evidence that a large amount of evolution is non-adaptive. If anyone wants references, reply, and I will dive into my reference database. I won't bore the rest of you.

With respect to the specific case here, we will do a bit of common sense for ourselves: imagine a gene that has no effect when heterozygous but is lethal when homozygous. Now when that gene is common, there will be a good number of homozygotes to kill off through selection. Great. But now imagine that it is at low frequency, say 1/1,000. Then the homozygotes will be only at a frequency of 1/1,000,000... So roughly 2 copies of the lethal gene will be eliminated each generation in a population of a million, while there are still 998 copies floating around the population. It will take a very long time to completely eliminate the gene from the population. Random effects will speed up the loss in most cases (and to be clear, most of the time the gene won't even get to the low frequency I hypothesized), but at the same time those random effects can keep the gene around much longer than you would expect in a deterministic case.

Finally, I would also like to point out that this is all a very active area of research. The precise effects of different kinds of selection and random drift under different situations (subdivided populations, bottlenecks, population growth, etc) are still only somewhat known. We are learning a lot, but it takes a lot of time/effort. Common sense is rarely very informative. (Hence the big iron over at the Sanger center that was mentioned a few articles back)

Confounding factors?

[mrogers]

This being Slashdot, I haven't read the article, let alone the paper it refers to, but I'm going to throw my hat in the ring anyway. Is it possible that children with genetic disorders are treated differently by their families, or are more likely to focus on activities that don't involve physical exertion? Either of those things could lead to different performance in intelligence tests without there being any direct connection to the genes in question.

Re:Confounding factors?

[Webs 101]

Not in this case. Tay-Sachs kills kids before age 5.

If you're a just a Tay-Sachs gene carrier, it's invisible - there's no physical effect whatsoever.

Politically incorrect, Humbug

[BigDogCH]

We could use about 100 more such politically incorrect studies to be published, correct or not Maybe then we can get past the "everyone is equal" and "anyone can achieve anything" crap which has been holding Americas schools back.

I never did well in art classes, even though I tried harder in that class than others. Other kids just dominated in those classes, yet my teachers claimed that it was all about how hard you worked. Bull Crap! We are each born with a range of potential abilities in each area, and our effort/training determine where in that range we land. We have limits, and we are all different. Some of us just will never be able to draw, and some of us will never be able to handle geometry. Accepting this is critical to helping kids achieve greatness.

Also, when kids fail or really stink at a content area, we need to let them know that they suck! Instead many people want us to give them empty praise, over inflating their ego. Then, later in life, they find out that they cannot achieve anything, and they are not perfect (their peers will point this out). Soon they can be found plotting harm to their peers, and suffering from depression. Hmmm, could it have something to do with their self-image, which our culture and schools built for them?

No spelling and grammar neve were my strong suite either. Sorry for becomming slightly off topic, but I hate political correctness.

Re:Politically incorrect, Humbug

[Oxygen99]

Bleh. So we destroy any kids who don't show immediate aptitude for a particular discipline while at school? Oops. Bye-bye Einstein. How about the kids who love art but, in your phraseology, suck? Did you not get any enjoyment from it? You did? But you suck, ergo, no art for you. Yes, you're right, promoting people above their ability is a bad thing, but history is replete with people who didn't show their true colours until later in life.

Jeez. Slashdot and it's intellectual elitist, reductionism. You've got to love it.

Re:Politically incorrect, Humbug

[smallpaul]

Maybe then we can get past the "everyone is equal" and "anyone can achieve anything" crap which has been holding Americas schools back.

I have never met a single person who believes that everyone has exactly the same innate intelligence, musical ability, etc. Everyone knows that different people have different talent.

Some of us just will never be able to draw, and some of us will never be able to handle geometry. Accepting this is critical to helping kids achieve greatness.

Sorry, now you're the one spouting bullshit. Of course you may never be able to draw like Leonardo Da Vinci. But with time and effort you can learn to draw to some level better than you do today. Similarly, except for actually disabled children, anyone can learn some geometry. I don't think it is politically correct to point out that the human brain is specifically designed to allow people to acquire new skills and that neither drawing nor geometry are outside the normal range of learnability. Maybe you hate drawing, as I do, and therefore don't want to put in the effort to achieve even minimal skills. Or maybe your teacher taught it incorrectly (I'm told that there is a very good technique for teaching non-drawers to look beyond objects at shapes) but you could learn it if you felt it important.

I don't find the rest of your rant compelling at all. Most people who are depressed are so because of biochemical imbalances and not because their teachers overpraised them as children.

Re:Politically incorrect, Humbug

[An Onerous Coward]

Einstein showed a talent for math and science from a young age. His difficulties as a young student were less severe than commonly assumed, and had more to do with personality conflicts and the soul-killing dullness of German education in that era. He most certainly should not be cited as an example of "dumb kid makes himself smart by trying really really hard".

I'm not saying that it's right or effective to shove kids onto whatever career track they seem cut out for at the age of five, but your example is dead wrong. Further, I think it's absurd and unfair to overinflate kids' expectations of their futures with platitudes about "Einstein was bad at math at your age," or "Michael Jordan got cut from his high school team". Even if both statements completely capture the young situation of two people who went on to excel in their respective fields (they don't), giving kids an expectation of similar performance is nothing but an unnecessary burden.

Deep implications

[tezza]

Some scientists speculate that assortive mating of high IQ people is contributing to a rising incidence of autism and Asperger's Syndrome.

Great. So they're saying I should have children by girls just for their big tits and tight pussies? Damn my Askenazic heritage. Theres quite a lot of Sephardic in there too, maybe I'd be allow to try for girls who can read.

Political correctness

[Jay Maynard]

Sometimes, science will be politically incorrect. That does not mean that it should not be pursued.

Come on, Steven.

[mogrify]

The issue isn't that anyone is more or less intelligent because they are of a particular race, religion, or anything else. The point is that because of the unique genetic circumstances surrounding Ashkenazi Jews, specifically their extended genetic isolation, they have developed particular genetic traits.

It doesn't have anything to do with politics... the point is that anyone can develop these particular traits, provided that they carry and propogate these particular genes. It's only because of their isolation that the differences are great enough to be significant.

It's like saying that it's politically incorrect to ask new mothers whether they have Jewish ancestry, and give them lots of extra tests if they do. It's just science... a particular population has a greater incidence of certain genetic traits, some of which are diseases, and one of which happens to be that they tend to score better on IQ tests. The politically incorrect thing here would be to make out of this something it's not.

Re:Come on, Steven.

[porcupine8]

The point you're missing is that it's not saying Jews are more intelligent that's politically incorrect - it's implying that intelligence has a significant genetic component, period.

Don't believe me? Arthur Jensen, an intelligence researcher who started talking about a genetic component for intelligence back in the 60s, received death threats for his work. Pinker outlines in his most recent book, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, how much grief and ostracism other researchers have suffered for any implication that intelligence is not 100% environmental.

I just got a Master's in gifted education, and when I interviewed for a PhD program in Learning Sciences I had at least two different professors tell me (very enthusiastically) "Giftedness! That's so politically incorrect! I love it, we need someone who's brave enough to study that here! You know everyone's going to hate you, don't you?" And that's just for implying that smart people have different educational needs than other people, not even saying that it's innate. My professor in gifted ed here spends a lot of her time defending herself in the media, a lot more time than someone researching, say, reading would have to spend.

If you think this isn't a horrifically politically charged issue, you obviously haven't been anywhere near the field.

Summary of paper.

[Stalyn]

Historical conditions created an environment for the Ashkenazi Jews where a higher IQ meant greater reproductive success. Therefore a high IQ became a dominant genetic trait. So much so that the genes linked to higher intelligence would overlap and therefore cause genetic diseases.

Conclusion: A cultural/historical created selection of a certain genetic trait over others may be a bad thing[tm].

I don't buy it

[dj28]

According to wikipedia, Irish-Americans have the same prevalence of Tay-Sachs as do Jews in America. However, I wouldn't consider Irish-Americans any smarter than the white population in general in America. Furthermore, French Canadians and the Cajun community in Louisiana have the same prevalence as Ashkenazi Jews.

This is a bogus study trying to link the two together.

Re:I don't buy it

[frank_adrian314159]

However, I wouldn't consider Irish-Americans any smarter than the white population in general in America.

OK! I am now offended! As a person of Irish descent, how can you say that the Irish aren't smarter! Who else has a holiday where you can go out and get drunk just because of your heritage, huh? And who invented the potato, after all? Damn it, I have half a mind to go out and get drunk now. Now stop insulting me and let me go get pissed.

It's all about the measuring stick

[DG]

I just finished reading Stephen J Gould's "Mismeasure of Man" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393 314251/

which discusses exactly this. Plus I have some real-life experience.

The biggest problem is that, independant of what point you wish to argue (group X is abnormally intelligent, group Y is sub-par) it's so bloody hard (if not well-nigh impossible) to actually measure intelligence. Even something as simple as measuring brain size turns out to be fraught with difficulties.

But IQ tests in particular suffer from no end of problems, especially on the lower end of the scale. Did person X score low because they lack intelligence, or because they lack education (not the same thing) or because of other factors.

I went to a Canadian Military College, which had very high standards of admission. Part of the admissions process was an IQ test of sorts (I don't know if it attempted to generate a classic IQ number, but the questions on it were of the classic "IQ" type)

As you can imagine, given that 1) I didn't know how much weight this test had on my admission and 2) my whole future depended on getting admitted, taking this test was pretty stressful. I did not do well at all, came close to panic several times during the test, and didn't come close to finishing.

Happily, I was admitted after all. About a month or two after arriving, we were given the test again. (The local psych department LOVED to give us tests; we were a population tailor-made for testing all sorts of theories) This time, we were told that we were being retested as a way of checking the validity of the test.

Well after two months of military boot camp, my stress tolerence was much higher. Furthermore, I knew that the results of the test would have no impact on my career. And taking the test was a lot more relaxing than marching around the parade square.

End result? I aced it. Finished with time to spare. No problem at all. And my peers all reported the same thing.

Now one could look at the "before" and "after" scores on this test, and conclude that military boot camp raised intelligence, often spectacularly. And you'd be wrong. I and my peers didn't get more intelligent; we got better at handling the stress associated with the test.

I have serious doubts that intelligence can ever be successfully measured in a rigourous, scientific manner - and that means ANY theory of genetic intelligence, be it high or low, pro or con, can ever be proven out.

DG

Re:It's all about the measuring stick

[kfg]

But IQ tests in particular suffer from no end of problems, especially on the lower end of the scale. Did person X score low because they lack intelligence, or because they lack education (not the same thing) or because of other factors.

They suffer from all sorts of problems at the high end as well, losing all real meaning once the score gets above a certain point. Basically, whatever it that they are measuring, and I'm not at all sure what that really is, is some degree of variance from the mean; and the further from the mean you get the less meaningful the measurement is.

Hey, I'm an Ashkenazi Jew, and I have two, two, two fatal genetic diseases as well as a nuerological disability. I'm also really, really smart. Smart enough to be off the meaningful high end of the scale.

And I'll be dead soon.

Somehow I don't find this study very encouraging.

"Hey, you. Yeah, the stupid person. Can you spare a lung? No? Bummer."

"Arrrrrrrrrrgh!"

KFG

Re:It's all about the measuring stick

[m4dm4n]

There are some interesting facts in the article about IQ and other things.

1. The IQ average in the middle of the bell curve wasn't much changed, but in the top end, it was 4/1000 vs 23/1000.

2. 3% of the US population hold 27% of its nobel prizes.

3. An Israeli clinic devoted to treating people with Gaucher's has vastly more engineers, scientists, accountants and lawyers on its books than would be expected by chance.

So here we have 3 ways of measuring "intelligence". IQ, exceptional achievement, and occupation. Now the paper was trying to make a link between the genetic diseases and intelligence, and while there is no direct proof that these diseases increase intelligence, the numbers do tend to indicate it.

I don't think this paper has gone out to say that and entire race is superior to another, and I don't think you can say they based all their ideas on IQ tests alone.

And yes, as long as people try to define intelligence in hundreds of different ways, it will be impossible to call a paper like this conclusive proof.

Re:It's all about the measuring stick

[porcupine8]

All the drive and ambition in the world is not going to turn someone with an IQ of 100 into a successful scientist.

The lack of motivation can certainly keep someone with an IQ of 150 from becoming one, though.

Re:It's all about the measuring stick

[radtea]

Well after two months of military boot camp, my stress tolerence was much higher. Furthermore, I knew that the results of the test would have no impact on my career. And taking the test was a lot more relaxing than marching around the parade square.

This makes a nice point: single-test evaluations are unscientific. I always remember a prof talking to a group of first years in a lab. He was a Chinese guy with a very direct approach, and he told them: "You got this desk. I ask you how wide it is. You take tape measure and measure it like this. You write down number. You hand it in. You do that, I fail you. You never measure anything just once."

Re:It's all about the measuring stick

[jacksonj04]

IQ tests don't actually test intelligence though. They test your ability to solve problems.

Give me a problem including a load a number sequences and I can solve it by arithmetic means. Give me a problem involving shapes and I can solve it by scrawling notes.

Give me a problem involving how to move half a tonne of wooden poles with 2 lengths of rope and a group of teenagers and not only can I form a plan in a minute or two, but I can do it safely and quickly. This isn't tested in a classic IQ test, so therefore because I can't 'just do' the maths puzzle without resorting to stepping through the solution I'm less intelligent.

IQ tests don't really give any kind of indication of intelligence in situations it may be useful.

Disclaimer: My tested IQ is 143, and so far I've been overseeing the lifting of heavy pioneering poles for 4 years with only one casualty (a rope burn).

The real problem with this study...

[rdwald]

...is that it's just a hypothesis, based on relatively meaningless survey-based data. One of the most important principles of experimental science is that correlation does not imply causation. Just because the people who play violent video games end up committing more violence doesn't mean the games caused the violence; it's just as reasonable to say that violent people like violent games. This "research," if can be so called, basically comes up with an interesting idea, and then never actually tests it. If they conduct a study where they compare the presence of the relavent genes to the IQs of subjects, then maybe they'll have a case. But merely saying, "Ashkenazi Jews have these diseases, Ashkenazi Jews are smart, therefore these diseases have intelligence as a byproduct" is a false (in the sense of not actually true) conclusion.

Smart Pills

[Henry V .009]

I'm friends with Cochran. One of his interests is in using this research to find out methods of copying pharmecutically what these genes are doing naturally. (The genetic disease occurs for most of these genes when a person has two copies of the gene. The intelligence advantage comes from just one.) In other words, he wants to create a "smart pill" to raise IQ.

Re:The top is not an issue

[phasm42]

I'm sure everyone has heard the phrase "I don't want to know". Sometimes I wonder if there are some things that scientists should avoid studying. For example, what if it could be scientifically proven, without a doubt, that race A was in many ways superior to race B? The scientist may be perfectly capable of accepting this without it affecting his actions towards others, but the rest of the world may see this as an excuse or reason to treat race B as inferior.

Alternatively, the opposing view would be that yes, this should be allowed to happen, because it's the truth, and we should learn to adapt to this knowledge. Perhaps this is the more correct answer. But I think it all depends on your values, and I don't think there can ever be a correct answer to this question. But exploring both sides can be valuable insight.

Interview with Greg Cochran

[Henry V .009]

Here is an interview I had with Cochran about the possibility that homosexuality is caused by a virus:

Interview Interview Extras

Tay-Sachs != Crippled

[Webs 101]

Tay-Sachs does not produce crippled people, so it does not work as you hypothesize.

The selection would only apply to people who are heterozygous for Tay-Sachs, i.e. they are carriers of the gene. Infants who are born homozygous, with two copies of the gene, only live a few years. All die by age 5. There is no cure.

So, as you can see, there wouldn't be a whole lot of people crippled with Tay-Sachs running away from the Cossacks....

The argument in a nutshell

[goombah99]

To answer your question you have to understand the thread of the argument.

it goes like this. In medieval times jews were not allowed to own land, grow crops, or compete in the labor force. Thus you starved to death and could not support a family unless you are able to work in a management job or as an advisor. In some places, handling loans was considered un-christian and this was relegated to jews. So in other words there was a huge premium of basic survival for above well above average intelligence (that is most people are laborers so to be a manager chosen based on merit--since people did not particularly like jews--you had to have added value not just seniority to be manager.)

Thus we have an extraordinary selective pressure for intelligence. But this arose over a very short time on human reproductive cycles so nature could not be too selective about picking the best solution from a longevity standpoint. Of course, long term diseases like cancer dont affect reproductive success either. So the Jews got a gene that confers intelligence at the expence of people getting teo of these genes dieing off. Not a bad trade from a speicies point of view. Not so good for 1/4 of the individuals in a gene rich population.

So you can now see that Palestinian semetics were not subject to this selective pressure precisely because they were not jeweish. Its not the semetic heritage but the jewish religion that was persecuted.

Okay nice theory but are there other explanations. Perhaps the disease conferred a genetic advantage to some dread disease like say plague. Well first no such disease has been identified. But more significantly, jews were not an isolated population they were integrated into the general population. Therefore the selective pressure of a pathogen would have affected the general population just as much as the jews.

Okay then what about a founders effect, wherein a population is winnowed down to a few individuals creating a genetic bottleneck in which defects of those individuals are carried into the general population even if they have no benefit. They argue there is no basis for this in the genetic record.

The selective pressure that differentiated jews from anyone else was cultural.

Or so the theory goes.

Re:The argument in a nutshell

[jamesangel]

I did not RTFA, but I did read the summary in The Economist last week. As I read it, the explanation was that of the founder's effect that you mention, along with the tendancy of Ashkenazi Jews to marry only among their population. The idea was something like this:

- In the Middle Ages only intelligent Jews survive
- Conditions improve, but because of few Ashkenazi Jews marrying outside their communities, intelligence genes are retained
- However, this lack of genetic diversity serves not only to maintain intelligence but also to make the population more liable to the various diseases mentioned

Re:The argument in a nutshell

[dillon_rinker]

Interesting that you respond to a scientific study by mentioning your probabilities rather than facts.

How would YOU suppose that the Ashkenazi Jews came to have a higher average IQ than the general population?

I am reminded of the fact that ALL of Einstein's children are a very insignificant proportion of ANY population.

It's probably a trashy journal - be skeptical

[chesapeake]

From a quick Google (I'm an undergrad genetics major, with two minor subjects left to go), the Journal of Biosocial Science has an impact factor of only 0.449 - generally, people don't read it, and serious research doesn't appear to go into it.

Compared to some other journal impact factors:

NATURE - 27.955
SCIENCE - 23.32
GENOME RESEARCH - 9.863

and

ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA - 1.554
(I assume this is a Scandinavian psychiatric journal - hardly *THAT* common)

Btw, impact factors are just a rough guide of the number of citations - they show what journals you'd like your research to go into in order for it to be cited lots - effectively scientific currency. Some good research could go into poor journals...

Careful, there.

[Grendel Drago]

I'm pretty sure the difference between average IQ and party affiliation is due in a large sense to racial disparity. Black folks skew Democrat, more than any other ethnic or racial group (well, Cuban exiles in Miami skew Republican, but that's local to there). For whatever reason you want to attribute, blacks do worse than whites on these tests.

For what it's worth, I am curious what the comparison would be based on party affiliation within the same ethnic/racial group.

--grendel drago

Or you prove the point

[goombah99]

Basically your case could be construed as proving the opposite point you seek to make. Intelligence is not just some intinsic quantity independent of the indivuals ability to summon it. In fact intelligence is measured by its expression. If you choke on an IQ examine you are infact not intelligent. Or at least have a damaged form of intellegence that can be summoned when it might be particuarly useful--under stress.

to make an analogy, imagine you were fastest runner in your tribe except when stressed by a tiger chasing you. You and your kind would soon berelegated to the tiger poop heap of failed genetic experiments.

Re:Or you prove the point

[DG]

Well... OK, let's run with this for a second.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to this particular definition ("intelligence is measured by its expression") because I have experience with this too: I drive a race car. My success at any given event is in very large part an expression of my performance at that event. Some days, I'm so good I'd make you weep at the sheer beauty of it. And other days I couldn't drive sheep. :)

It's hard to boil this down into a single "talent" number to compare against other drivers. For sure, there are a rare few who seem to have much less variability in their performance (they are consistantly at the top of their game, where I occasionally have a "sheep day") but when I'm really "on", I'm the equal of even these lucky few. (and I'm convinced that my variability could be eliminated with the proper coaching)

So lets say that intelligence follows a similar pattern. Some days you express well; other days, not so much. There is some variability to the expression of your intelligence depending any number of outside factors.

Well then, that makes determining a link between genetics and intelligence DOUBLY hard, because now you have to account for expression performance.

I have seen an entire field of drivers have a "sheep day" all at once, where *everybody* is off his game, and if *anybody* rises to just an "average" performance he'd wipe the field. So it's possible that Group A has a good day, and Group B has a bad day, and now you have data showing that A is smarter than B, when really what you measured is that A expressed better than B.

Now you could make the argument that, by virtue of expressing better, that at the time the test was taken that A *really was* more intelligent than B. By your definition, I agree. But that doesn't prove that A's intellectual genetics are superior to B's - in fact, if we assume the variability ranges overlap, on a retest B might be smarter than A, or they might even be tied.

So either way, we are making life very difficult for anybody seeking proof of a genetic link to intelligence. Taken the first way, the test doesn't really measure intelligence. Taken the second way, it does - but "intelligence" is highly variable and hard to nail down. Either way, it makes any study claiming a direct link between some factor and intelligence highly suspect.

DG

The effect of culture on IQ

[Colin Smith]

I take it that they tooks lots of Ashkenazi Jews out of their natural cultural environment at birth, handed them over to random sections of society at large and then compared the intelligence of the resulting adults with the rest of society in order to rule out cultural effects? Hmm? They didn't?

Instead what they say in the study basically and with a lot of hand waving is we couldn't think of anything which might be causing this culturally and wouldn't know how to measure it anyway so it must be biological.

The basis of prejudice

[tgibbs]

This is where prejudice really lies: in making judgments of individuals based on what you believe you know about the statistical characteristics group. Many hope to reduce prejudice by insisting that real statistical differences do not exist, but this avoids the real problem--it is still prejudice even if the difference is real. People are individuals, not statistics, and if you judge a person on a statistical basis, without troubling to learn what that person is like as an individual, then you are engaging in prejudice.

Moreover, trying too hard to deny such statistical differences can actually encourage prejudice, because it conveys the message, "If this difference were real, then it would be OK to be prejudiced."

Re:I'm Not Much of a Geneticist, But

[managerialslime]

You are closer to the truth than you might know. For more than a thousand years, Jewish males became part of the community when, at age 13, and after seven or more years of study, they demonstrated their literacy skills by publicly reading the bible (torah) and conducting a religious service. (Today called a Bar Mitzvah.) Illiterate males were not seen as "desirable" and so may have had a tougher time finding a mate and reproducing.

Even worse, at the same time, many countries made it a crime for Jews to marry non-Jews, and so the poor, illiterate Jewish male had little chance of finding a mate.

During the dark and middle ages, the majority of the population of Europe was illiterate (the royalty and the church the general exceptions).

[Off-topic sidebar:] We owe a great debt to the Catholic Monks of Ireland who, during this time, transcribed not only bibles, but classic texts from the Roman, Greek, African, and Mid-Eastern civilizations that are the base of Western Civilization. See the special on PBS or The History Channel, or buy the book on Amazon, "How the Irish Saved Civilization (Hinges of History) by THOMAS CAHILL. Without the Irish, there may have never been a renaissance, then an industrial revolution, and then the era of slash dot and online pr0n. [/End off-topic sidebar]

During this same period of time, many countries' laws prohibited Jews from becoming tradesmen, artisans, or farmers. As a result, banking and trade, professions that require math and literacy, became the Jew's primary source of income. A Jew without math and language skills had a much tougher time of making a living and supporting any mouths he might reproduce and so was further discouraged from marrying.

SOoo....
From within the community, illiterate Jews were seen as undesirable matches. They were often outlawed from marrying non-Jews. In addition, at a time when non-Jewish peasants could be illiterate farmers, the Jews could not. The pressure on lower-intelligence Jews NOT to reproduce or at least minimize the number of offspring was enormous.
From the isolation of the Jews around 70 AD through the renaissance, there were approximately 70 generations. This was more than enough time to depress the proportion of illiterate adults in the community.

Specious reasoning

[Tony]

Most people who are depressed are so because of biochemical imbalances and not because their teachers overpraised them as children.

Depression is correlated with biochemical changes, right enough. Depressive states are accompanied by changes in serotonin & norepinephrine levels. You can induce depression with oxotremorine, for instance.

But correlation does not imply biochemical "imbalance" naturally causes depression. It's just as likely that depression causes the biochemical imbalance.

Many cases of chronic unipolar depression (and bipolar mania / depression) may very well be tied to genetics or long-term chemical changes in the body. In non-genetic cases, what caused the imbalance in the first place? Could it not be a chemical dependency caused by long-term situational depression (that is, the body just gets used to the chemical state of being depressed)?

Most cases of depression (and the ones generally referred to by the root post) are not necessarily caused by some physical problem.

Don't believe me? How many times has a perfectly good mood been changed by an outside event? Why is there such a high rate of depression in veterans? Why did we have an increase in depression after 9/11/2001?

Praise from teachers is important. The praise should be balanced with expectations, though. I loved art class; not that I was any good, but the important thing wasn't the finished product, it was the process. I learned an appreciation for great art through my understanding (not mastery) of the process.

Unfortunately, in geometry, understanding and mastery are tied together. And there are many, many people who are incapable of understanding geometry. This doesn't make them worse than those of us who *do* get geometry; it just means they'll never design bridges or houses, or teach geometry. (Okay, they *might* teach geometry.)

Its not as simple as you claim

[NDPTAL85]

You are only half right. Some folks have a greater genetic potential for just about anything, and no amount of hard work by others will ever over come that. People born short for example have a tough time playing basketball. Some folks are born with more fast twitch or slow twitch muscle fibers giving them an advantage in certain sports. The same carries for intelligence.

Don't tell me you've never seen someone who regularly goes to the gym yet their body remains flabby. I have. I've also seen people who look like they go to the gym 5 times a week even though they hardly work out at all. Thats genetics. No amount of hard work can overcome that.

Also considering the societal and financial advantages of having and using a lot of intelligence if it was a simple matter of just putting the effort in, then just about everyone who goes to college/university would have a genius level IQ of some sort and most would be multi-millionaires.

Re:Its not as simple as you claim

[k96822]

Don't confuse physical ability with mental ability. While there is a physical aspect to mental development, it doesn't play as much as a role because of the brain's unique ability to adapt. A short brain can become tall, so to speak!

I would like to know where you live, because in America, intelligence gives you social /disadvantage/, and I'm looking for a plane trip to anywhere this isn't true. If you value knowledge, you're a nerd and people hate you for what you achieve because it makes them feel bad about themselves. Financial gains aren't based on intelligence here either: they are based on the willingness to hurt others. Some people confuse this with intelligence, though. For example, people will often, at first, consider the unethical behavior of Bill Gates negatively, and then switch when they say the words, "But, see how rich he is?" In America, money is morality.

Fails a trivial reality check...

[BerntB]

I did not do well at all, came close to panic several times during the test, and didn't come close to finishing. [Later the test was aced.]

Your argument is that too many factors influence testing.

Consider... if someone is e.g. ill, then all tests will fail. So your argument "proves" that also tests of physical strength are equally impossible!

Obviously, your argument is wrong. You can measure random factors statistically.

Well, that argument fails, but your thesis might be true? It needs that the intelligence researchers would have to be idiots or in a conspiracy, which Gould argues. It is possible, but it is a bit too similar to the position of creationists on evolutionary biology.

As an aside, if you panic while taking a simple test, then the military would not want you to make decisions that will kill people... (But you were unused to that kind of stress at that time, so it was a temporary thing. Hopefully.)

Mr. Spock would be wrong.

[Engineer-Poet]

The research is based on the assumption that the test returns repeatable results over sufficiently large groups. I believe that this assumption has been tested and proven correct, so the variation that individuals see between their own test scores on different occasions and between themselves and others has no bearing.

Also, the difference between some groups is not just 5 points on the test; I understand that it is closer to 20 points between different ethnic groups in the USA alone.

Mathematically speaking

[hey!]

if we model the Jewish population as one which mainly inbreeds, it is virtually certain that the ancestry of every Jew alive can be traced to a relatively small subset of the total Jewish population in the era in question. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to invoke genetic fitness to produce this result. The operation of chance is all that is needed to ensure that many lines of descent die out but a few become ubiquitous. Depending on your assumptions about the marginal difference some fitness factor (say intelligence) makes on reproductive success, it is possible (likely) that chance is by far the dominant factor in this.

Based on what I know about Jewish culture, I don't think genetic factors influencing social fitness (intelligence --> status) would have a great influence on reproductive rates. First, you encourage all of your children to marry and bang out as many children as possible, not just the smart handsome ones you are most proud of. Second the community takes care of its own, especially under pressure. These practices tend to mitigate any reproductive disadvantages of particular genes.

None of which doesn't mean that Jews aren't smarter than the rest of us on average. But if the reason is genetic, it's more likely to be the operation of chance than natural selection. Likewise, appeals to natural selection aren't needed to explain why diseases become common in inbred populations. In fact they're quite dubious in a population this size over the time scale we're talking. If any single gene or small set of genes present in our core population cause a disease, we'd see that disease fairly often in our modern population of Jews.

It would be very interesting indeed if we could show that the sphingolipid disorders in question coudl account for the difference in intelligence between Jews and the general population. It's possible of course. But even if so the prevalence of these disorders has nothing to do with natural (or in this case social) selection.

In short, this strikes me as some rather dubious speculation that has a few interesting bits in it, but otherwise wouldn't attract much attention apart from its political in-correctness.

Racial intelligence and Equal Rights

[Prien715]

If genetic group A on average were shown to be generally more intelligent than genetic group B, I don't think this would have huge negative side effects. The problem is that people go from populations to specific instances without a decent grasp of probability.

For example, light eyed people generally have worse reflexes than darker-eyed people. No baseball recruiter bases their picks on eye-color, they base it on the player's statistics, since it's already factored in. In the same way, if a person from the group with the average lower intelligence got a higher SAT score, higher grades, etc. than someone from the group with "better" genetic intelligence background, the person with the higher scores/grades should to be admitted to college/given the job/etc, just as in the baseball example (note that this decision only depends, like the baseball example, on the desire of the institution to be better, not because of a gov't program or equality concerns).

Just because a group on average happens to be better than another group, it says nothing determinate about any one member of either group. The group with the lower average intelligence may even have the smartest person as a member and the group with the higher average may the twenty dimmest.

The only reason a study like this would make a difference this would make is that from a population standpoint, people from one genetic group may have different jobs/salaries/etc than people from another genetic group. While this is trivially true right now, I don't think genetics is necessarily the explaination (or even part thereof). Probably heavily cultural. But how can we know if we don't study it?

If I say black people are generally taller than Chinese people, that's pretty non-controversial, but any other tests, people are likely to blame the ruler I'm using.

Re:Oh, really?

[shotfeel]

Simple. They gave them an easier test the second time. Or maybe they did give them the exact same test again.

Not that I think that's what happened, just saying...

simple

[tdmg]

I'm a Jew with family from Galizia (not France's Galicia), Romania (Transylvania), and Ukraine. While I am not sure if Jews are genetically smarter, there is a simple answer to the problem. Selection (not really natural). Which is what Cochran says in his study (seems like most people commenting haven't really read the study, sadly). However, he states it a little differently than I do:

The smartest Christians for over 1000 years became priests. If you had 10 kids (as was common), the smartest one went on to be a priest, because they could read/write well, had good memories for scripture, and they could teach. So, the smartest Christians were taken out of the gene pool (*thinks Copernicus and Aquinas*). Repeat this process for centuries and you get a sub-par gene pool.

On the flip side. The smartest Jews went on to be rabbis and businessmen, they got the best and brightest wives and had many children. Repeat this process for centuries and you get an intelligent group.

Simple as that. You don't need a study, just common sense :P

I don't think I'm smarter because I have Jewish BLOOD. It's a cultural thing, those who are intelligent are respected in the Jewish community and have a lot of smart kids, and Jews of average intelligence still pursue education, because that's what is expected of them.

In the words of Richard Feynman, "Jews have a history of respecting learning: They respect their rabbis, who are really teachers, and they respect education. The Jews pass on this tradition in their families all the time, so that if a boy is a good student, it's as good as, if not better than, being a good football player."

I even experienced this as a child, and this is why I say it's a cultural thing: My second grade teacher's name was Mrs. Einstein (no direct relation), and somewhere during the course of the year I expressed my pride in the fact that Albert Einstein was Jewish and that I was also Jewish. One of the students taunted, "Why would you want to be related to a guy that looked like a toad?"

Shows what they know :)

Why?

[lorcha]

Be careful there. It's not always so simple.

Is there any benefit to having an appendix? Other than your 1 in 700 shot of having acute Appendicitis, which was deadly before modern medicine? Or any advantage of having tonsils, which are prone to infection?

Or what about the genetic predisposition to certain cancers that this study talks about? Could it be that they weren't selected out because a) most people didn't tend to live long enough for the cancer to manifest itself, or b) the cancer manifested itself long after parents passed their prime reproductive age?

The human genome is vast, human populations are large, and there are many forces at work. Saying, "Well, my gut tells me this is true." doesn't really cut it. And, anyway, what was this huge benefit that kept these genes in? 5 IQ points, on average? Whoopdee doo.

Perhaps there just wasn't enough pressure to select these genes out. The chances of two random Ashkenazi Jews having a Tay-Sachs baby are roughly 1 in 3,600. The effect of having a Tay-Sachs baby is the kid dies within a few years. Well, lots of babies die for lots of reasons. The incidence rate for SIDS is in the 2.5 per 1,000 range (but not much is known about SIDS, so it's not diagnosed as easily as T-S.) Even among parents who are both T-S carriers, each of their kids only has a 25% chance of having T-S. So a couple has a kid that dies young. Lots of kids die young (especially a few hundred years ago). That's why you have lots of kids (back then, anyway).

We may never know why these genetic diseases were never selected out. For all we know, there just wasn't enough time and in a thousand years they might be gone.

Re:Things Man Was Not Meant To Know

[turbidostato]

"Ignorance is natural too, but I don't see anyone arguing that people who've learned nothing should be considered equal to those who have studied extensively and developed important intellectual skills."

"One man, one vote" anyone, uh?

Great resource!

[Rectal Prolapse]

Thanks for the links...good summary! Interesting quote:

One is that the heritability of IQ rises with age--that is to say, the extent to which genetics accounts for differences in IQ among individuals increases as people get older. Studies comparing identical and fraternal twins, published in the past decade by a group led by Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., of the University of Minnesota and other scholars, show that about 40 percent of IQ differences among preschoolers stems from genetic differences but that heritability rises to 60 percent by adolescence and to 80 percent by late adulthood. With age, differences among individuals in their developed intelligence come to mirror more closely their genetic differences. It appears that the effects of environment on intelligence fade rather than grow with time. In hindsight, perhaps this should have come as no surprise. Young children have the circumstances of their lives imposed on them by parents, schools and other agents of society, but as people get older they become more independent and tend to seek out the life niches that are most congenial to their genetic proclivities.

A second big surprise for intelligence experts was the discovery that environments shared by siblings have little to do with IQ. Many people still mistakenly believe that social, psychological and economic differences among families create lasting and marked differences in IQ. Behavioral geneticists refer to such environmental effects as "shared" because they are common to siblings who grow up together. Research has shown that although shared environments do have a modest influence on IQ in childhood, their effects dissipate by adolescence. The IQs of adopted children, for example, lose all resemblance to those of their adoptive family members and become more like the IQs of the biological parents they have never known. Such findings suggest that siblings either do not share influential aspects of the rearing environment or do not experience them in the same way. Much behavioral genetics research currently focuses on the still mysterious processes by which environments make members of a household less alike.