Slashdot Mirror
Gene Found That May Affect IQ in Males
Chowser writes to tell us the AZStarNet is running an article stating that North Carolina scientists claim to have identified a gene that affects IQ in males. The difference is apparently quite striking, with the average IQ difference between those that had the gene and those that didn't being approximately 20 points. From the article: "However, he stressed that the IQ results in his research were based on a group average; individual males carrying the gene version had a wide range of IQ scores. While females also can carry the variation, it does not appear to affect their IQ, he said."
It would be very interesting to see the effects of this gene across different populations. If it does not adversely affect Caucasian females, perhaps other populations are also immune to its effects (or are particularly susceptible to it).
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
"...didn't being marked at 20 approximately 20 points."
;)
Maybe I have that gene, 'cuz I can't figure out what you're trying to say there...
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
IQ tests are too unreliable for identifying gene that contribute to intelligence. They are far from standardized for all people/genders and until then its really not possible to definitivly say just how any gene affects intelligence short of extremely major differences, such as those found in cases of genetic disorders. Even then, determining the exact gene (if it even is just one) is very difficult. If only we could agree on a perfect definition of intelligence first, then maybe we could come up with a better way to measure it.
Demented But Determined.
I'll wait to see their statistics. Why did they study this gene? It seems likely, for example, that given any group of 300 people, one could find a gene variant correlated with higher (or lower) IQ *in those 300 people*. With 30,000 genes, the statistics could be quite delicate. Another subject not discussed, apparently, is that a gene could presumably affect rate of development or growth, rather than eventual intelligence (this may be much more plausible, for example). This would manifest itself in 10-year olds, but not, for example, in 30 year olds. Why did they study 10-year olds? It seems like this may be an obvious objection.
Do you know what the bad ones who get "weeded out" under such a system do when they can't find a job? They steal your car and sell cocaine in order to get by.
Even the strictest of libertarians will agree that it's better to have a system in place that gives such people something productive to do. Sure, they don't have the IQ to design bridges or perhaps even to work a cash register. Nevertheless, society as a whole is better off if there are opportunities available to those who cannot compete in the job market based on their (lack of) intelligence.
You can often employ several such people doing various tasks for the cost of one more police officer. It's better to keep them out of a life of crime than it is to "let nature take its course".
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Yes some people definitely have, genetically, an intellectual advantage over others... but as I've grown older I have reluctantly acknowledged how other kinds of smarts -- notably, common sense and street smarts -- are really more important.
Let's say you're a genius, some child prodigy who's super at calculus or something.
Can you charm women and get laid?
Can you get along with strangers and keep a stable job?
Are you smart enough to stay out of trouble? Avoid fights, etc.
Are you smart enough to choose good friends?
Are you disciplined enough to manage our finances?
Are you street smart enough to protect your wealth from crooks?
Do you get regular exercise and stay in shape?
These are all things that are very important for a good quality of life, and you don't necessarily get 'em just because you are smrt.
Normal IQ tests designed by different groups show similar results when you give people both tests. People who get high scores are the people we commonly think of as being "smart", "intelligent", or "brainy". So obviously the tests work pretty well.
Sure, the tests will never be perfect. That doesn't make them useless or irrelevant.
Unless you're an idiot-savant, splitting hairs about different types of intelligence isn't all that useful. Unless you were raised by wolves in a cave, whining about cultural biases is just plain whining.
BTW, 20 points could qualify as "extremely major differences".
Why would this be interesting, if it was true? Any trait is determined by some combination of (1) genetics, (2) prenatal environment, and (3) environment after birth. Studies of twins have already shown that genetics accounts for a very large percentage of the variance in IQ scores. On the other hand, there is no consensus about what IQ scores measure, except that they measure...the property possessed by people who do well on IQ scores. So we already knew there are genes that are important in determining it, but we don't know what "it" really is. What does this particular study (if correct) tell us that we didn't already know?
Find free books.
Let's not forget what we are testing for here. We're not saying that this gene makes people dumb. We're saying that boys with this gene score more poorly than boys without this gene. We're using a purely operational definition of intelligence (IQ score), and not making a value judgement.
This is interesting science, despite those who are spending their energy railing against IQ tests. IQ tests are terrible indicators of how "bright" someone is, but they are fairly consistent tests, in which people tend to get the same results over time, so they are measuring something with accuracy. And whatever that is, is hurt by this gene.
Is it attention? Does this gene make your balls itch, thus distracting you from standardized tests (also explaining why it only affects boys)? Perhaps, does it affect mathematico-spatial ability specifically, which boys tend to do better on than girls (very likely for social reasons), and thus the generally poor performance of girls in this part of the test accounts for the gender variation (a floor effect)?
Who knows. But a strong correlation between a gene and a standardized test score (especially a well established one like most IQ tests) in a not insignifigant sample (300 kids) is nothing to sneeze at - 20 points in a sample that large tends to indicate it's a real effect. Don't let the articles journalistic simplifications ("Gene makes boys dumb") throw you from seeing what that is.
People are treating this like there's a "smart gene". That's not at all the case. All they've done is identify a genetic defect which tends to lower the IQ of people who have this defect. They don't know the mechanism, and they still have a wide range, so it's probably one of many factors that is meaningless in isolation. Testing a particular living person for it wouldn't tell you anything useful about their intelligence.
P ages/I/Imprinting.html
So, what about potential people who do not yet have an intelligence that can be tested? Well, it turns out that IGF2R is a very, very special gene for other reasons. There are certain genes that are "imprinted" in sexual reproduction. You might wonder why, with all the mutations and screwups that nature seems to allow, we don't see female mammals occasionally giving birth to their own clones, from meiosis that doesn't go as planned. Well, inheriting two of the same chromosome is almost always fatal because of these imprinted genes. With imprinted genes, genes are expressed if and only if they come from one particular parent. IGF2 is expressed exclusively from the father. IGF2R is expressed exclusively from the mother. The upshot of this is that while you could use this to discriminate among egg donors, using it to discriminate among sperm donors would be useless. As the mechanism that causes the correllation is still unknown, and ova are in much shorter supply than sperm, people are unlikely to be terribly selective about it in ova. Given all the other things we can test for, it's unlikely people would make a sperm decision based on how smart the grandsons of their designer daughters would be. If we're assuming babies with pre-selected genetic makeup, the next generation could do the same, rendering the decision moot.
Read more: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/Biology
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
Trouble is the _competence_ part. Do show me where to get competent programmers... So far there don't seem to be that many about.
In fact hardworking incompetent programmers are pretty dangerous. (they're not as dangerous as hardworking incompetent military leaders of course).
Actually for programmers, I won't really care about the 20% vs 85% effort. As long as the genius guy uses his genius when doing his work.
I suggest that a programmer might be required to be fairly smart in order to be competent.
After all when it comes to _programming_, the _computer_ is supposed to do the work that doesn't require much intelligence.
Believe me, I've seen code by stupid programmers, and designs by stupid designers (I'm not a great programmer or designer, but some things are just so obviously stupid). The genius guy can replace some of these stupid but hardworking programmer with a script or two. If you could see some of the code I've seen... It's amazing how bad stuff can get and still "kinda work" (which can be very _dangerous_ if you think about it).
Everything else remaining the same (assume normal to above average trustworthiness and loyalty), I'd take the lazy genius guy anytime even if he only spends 20% of his office time working.
You won't have to throw 80-100% of his work away AND spend more time and resources fixing the resulting mess - corrupted data, pissed off people.