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."
The standard deviation of IQ is 15 or 16 in most scales. A difference of 1.25 standard deviations is not small.
However, without knowing the frequency of the gene in the tested population, it's impossible to know if the difference is statistically significant. If the group was 50% male and 50% had the gene, it almost certainly represents a real difference; if only 5% had the gene, that's only 7-8 guys, and the "difference" is pretty likely to be random chance.
It's also worth noting that the difference could be in developmental speed rather than in level---i.e., the guys with the gene could just take longer to develop, but be just as smart by age 25, or could be associated with some other factor that is merely correlated with intelligence (such as, say, alcoholism which can lead to poverty which can lead to a less intellectually-nurturing home life).
Basically, this article gives us a sound bite with almost no useful information---shoddy reporting.
Various genetic disorders can be carried by females, but only manifest in males. I guess we have this to compensate. I wonder how many other positive genes manifest only in males?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I agree with h4rm0ny with a couple of things to add. At our point in civilization, the greatest societal good seems to be the greatest good for the greatest number, also known as utilitarianism. But I think the true criteria for "advanced" society is the degree to which it provides for all people. A society is only successful when the needs of everyone are met. Consider that 50,000 people are born every day and 40,000 people die from starvation on a global level. Is civilization "succeeding" because more people born then are dying because of a lack of food? I would say that as advanced as we humans claim to be that our claim to greatness is lacking if as many as 40,000 die from famine each day. Consider that native american tribes and the hunter-gatherer tribes before them had no "class" of people who were homeless, and only starved in the case that there was no food for anyone. Capitalism, does not seem to be the best system in place for meeting societies needs. Also consider a civilization of Indians (that is, in India) who existed 1,500 years ago and did not require police, advanced government, or a military to enforce rules. They lived in cities, farmed, and lived in peace until their lack of military means led to their being forced into slavery by their invadors, the Caucasions from the Caucaus mountains. This ancient civilization was just ahead of its time, it was not stupid, for those of you who will contend that it is. If society today resembled theirs, we would not behave because of the rule of law, we would do good unto our neighbors because we would understand it is in our best interests and the societal good to do so. Post-Newtonian logic argues that there seems to be an inter-relatedness or oneness to the world. That is, what we do to another, we do to ourselves. If we behave in a self-interested manner we see the obvious evil that arises because of it. This was the main point that both Buddha and Jesus shared: that selfishness and not loving another as you love yourself (in Jesus' case) was the cause of societal woes. Humanities main problems stem from its short-sighted approach to its needs in that we feel that once we have met the needs of our individual person, we are satisfied. If a new paradigm were established and societal good and its success were determined on the basis of the degree to which every person in said society is provided for, you would see a very different culture and economy than you see today. Instead of a GREATLY disproportionate distribution of goods that is say, 90% of the wealth being in the hands of the top 5%, you would see wealth be at LEAST more EQUALLY shared among all sectors of society, knowing that societal good is measured in its ability for all to be satisfied. Also, Rousseau's social theory in part bases itself on a theory that if we were all waiting to be born, and did not know whether we would be born rich or poor, we would, assuming that the rich would be, by far the minority, would rather have a roughly equal society where all are basically provided for. This would seem more logically than playing the "lottery" and merely hoping to be one of the few fabulously rich people in the world yet to be created. But as for the original point about intelligence, it seems that a society obsessed with production would value innovation and technology which would make intelligence important. However, I know plenty of intelligent people who have somehow missed the point of life and who also think things which are ridiculous becase they fail the wisdom check to make informed observations and form accurate opinions about the facts of life. And again, the featured article in this story says there is a great deal of variance among those who had the genes just as a group. That means that some who have the altered gene and have an IQ which is 20 pts less than it would be may, in some cases, be smarter than people who don't have the altered gene and therefor and 20 pts more than they otherwise would. If you think intelligence is key to living the good life,
I usually get moderator points quite frequently - normally, it's when I've just done some metamoderating, a duty I confess I often ignore. However, I don't really use them for anything.
The problem with having modpoints is that, if a discussion is on a topic I know something about, or at least that I care about, then I'd far rather post replies than moderate. So I end up making use of my modpoints by going into discussions I neither know nor care about and shooting down First Posts, GNAAs, goatses and copy-paste trolls...
This may be why we've developed this stereotype of moderators as clueless. If they knew about the stuff being discussed, they'd be discussing, not moderating - so just like I always do, they've gone into a discussion they care little for and are doing the best they can there.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Yeah, great idea. "Hey, that guy's smarter than most of us, which means he's a potential threat to society, therefore we should keep very close tabs on him even though he's done nothing wrong , we're just pretty sure he will eventually, because... well, he can."
Hey, better yet, why not just preemtively lock up anyone with a sufficiently above-average IQ? After all, they're capable of far more than the average "sheeple", certainly more so than the average police officer or federal investigator (percieved as his "natural enemies" just because he's capable of outsmarting them, nevermind whether he would actually try), and worst of all these intelligent folks tend to question established norms that should never be questioned (eg. laws, rules of behavior, patterns of thinking, etc.).
A friend of mine once made the observation that having a working brain in a society that values everything except intelligence is almost like having a real superpower. Yes, it means that smart people can do things that the majority of people can't. However, as parent so sadly illustrated, it also makes them a target, for the very same reason. The average person fears what they don't understand, and they don't understand people that possess greater mental faculties than themselves.
And before anyone flames me too harshly, bear in mind that I'm not suggesting any kind of "superiority" of intelligent people -- human nature and failing knows no IQ score. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of fearing someone, of suspecting them to be of greater criminal inclination, than those of average (or lower) intellect. To associate one's predisposition to commit crime or harm others as being directly proportionate to intellectual capacity a "because they're smart enough to get away with it" is beyond asinine.