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."
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.
One of the local businesses used to hire students on summer vacation for clean-up of the property and shop. Few skills required, good hours, etc. But, once the minimum wage got over $3/hour, it was less expensive for the owners to do that work themselves. No more low-skill jobs there, and no chance to get your foot in the door for the high-skill, high-paying jobs in the rest of the plant.
There are jobs out there that do not require a lot of skill. Several million of them, according to statistics on illegal immigration. The trick is convincing students that they're not worth $30K per year when they first leave high school, because they haven't proven themselves in the work place. And that low-skill jobs aren't a career, but are a stepping stone toward better jobs. You're not going to stay a hamburger flipper, unless you have no ambition to move on... or your ambition is to own a hamburger joint!
All this talk of efficiency and none about what the goal is? Seems hard to calculate the "efficiency" of society without being able to measure our achieval.
But I can make an educated guess that when you talk about efficiency, you're referring to productivity and GDP etc. Is that our whole aim as a species? To manufacture more and more goods? Because you need someone to sell them to and people buy to improve their lives. The greatest possible satisfaction for the largest possible number is the real goal of society in my book - and working in a frenzy to get by isn't it. Face it - ever since the invention of modern farming techniques, most of mankind has been facing a losing battle to make himself useful. We have the necessities of life (in the developed world), with modern transport, telecommunications, medicine, broadcasting, printing ad infinitem. By this point we should be working four days a week maximum and the rest of the time can be adapted to leisure, study, pursuit of all those things you really want to do.
Improving the efficiency of society by weeding out the unproductive? Don't you know that the level of ability needed to be productive is rising and rising? Your idea leads to either fewer and fewer people under more and more pressure to be brilliant, or else a halt to technological development.
Higher education ought to be the biggest growth industry in the developed world right now. Why isn't it?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.