Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Try To Identify the Intelligence Gene
An anonymous reader writes "The world's largest brain study to date, with a team of more than 200 scientists from 100 institutions worldwide collaborated to map the human genes that boost or sabotage the brain's resistance to a variety of mental illnesses and Alzheimer's disease. The study also uncovered new genes that may explain individual differences in brain size and intelligence. From the article: 'Following a brain study on an unprecedented scale, an international collaboration has now managed to tease out a single gene that does have a measurable effect on intelligence. But the effect – although measurable – is small: the gene alters IQ by just 1.29 points. According to some researchers, that essentially proves that intelligence relies on the action of a multitude of genes after all.'"
My intelligence is about all I have going for me. I know it's selfish, but I shudder to think of living in a world where *everyone* is smart by default. I didn't get kicked around all those years by the jocks just to settle for being an average intellect.
Of course, I guess genetic engineering will probably turn everyone into super athletes too. But athletic prowess is a short-term thing anyway. Intellect is supposed to be for the long-term. But when/if the engineering starts, intellects (like athletes) will always be looking over their shoulders at their better engineered youngers gaining on them.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
It's not even funny...
Oh, for crying out loud. IQ tests must have a bigger measurement error than plus or minus 2, which means that the 1.29-point alteration is smaller than the measurement error. I.e., no effect.
'According to some researchers, that essentially proves that intelligence relies on the action of a multitude of genes after all.'"
Apparently, those researchers don't have that gene.
But but but, I've been told by my superiors that intelligence is a social construct devised by the white man to keep down the proletariat, and has no biological basis whatsoever.
its like taking one part of the cpu and saying oh look this one does adding....
its the whole brain and how it functions dear sirs im not a scientist and i know this.....
This is one of those studies that we're constantly going to hear about in ads for a couple of decades to come and then somebody tries to replicate it and doesn't get a statistically significant result. I bet this gene lets us use 10.1% of our brains or something, right? 1.29%. You have got to be kidding.
...is to acknowledge that it is no more "fair" to discriminate on intelligence than it is to discriminate on sex, race, or any other innate quality.
While giving more resources to the intelligent might be the right option for a functioning society, i.e. we reward the intelligent even though they work no harder than the stupid, it must be understood that we don't do so because they "deserve" it but because we think it will help humanity as a whole.
Government, taxation and welfare for morons and cripples is thus entirely legitimate.
I've already seen how this how this ends.
Would someone leave some flowers on Algernon's grave
Maybe it is the determination and habits of individual learners that is important and not what is in his or her genetic makeup.
So I can go on disability. That would give me more time to post on Slashdot! =)
I admit, IQ Testing does give us a relative gauge of somebody's intelligence, but I feel like the reliability of IQ Testing on a point-for-point basis (in terms of accuracy, precision) isn't good enough to be used for "gene spotting."
According to some researchers, that essentially proves
According to some other researchers, the verb "prove" has lost its meaning.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/hesham100
. . . right after they identify the meaning of "intelligence."
I noticed that it gets even better, if you are a child of these lucky few:
On another note, I noticed the gene in question HMGA2 was previously linked to a person's height. I wonder if an extension of this study would consider any possible correlation between height and intelligence in regards to variations in this gene.
- - -
MV
An IQ test gauges your ability to be a single-minded, focused cog in the right sort of machine. It confidently shows that you excel at certain things but fails to consider whether it is because your brain is optimised for particular tasks at the expense of more general performance.
Some people with high IQs apply themselves creatively - as do some people with mediocre IQs. But it's usually those in the higher half of the main part of the bell curve who do interesting things, while those who spend all day banging on about how they're in Mensa and how they're better than 99% of the population usually come to nothing.
much like the crime gene, and the gay gene, is probably just another invention to drum up research funding. the modern equivalent of "glands" and "humours," a gene has come only to represent our sadly pedestrian understanding of the genetic sciences.
Good people go to bed earlier.
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Chrysalis_Project
* A lot of folks think it'd be a "bad thing", I don't necessarily though... I even asked my nephew & a pal of his (very intelligent young guy, a real "math whizkid" but a touch lazy (what 'kills' guys like that) beat me 1st time he ever played chess, I could not believe it... I've played 1,000's of games of it, & he took me, barely, but he did) about it, know what they said (after I said I think it'd be GREAT to build that "superior man")?
"People would end them, fast..."
I had a hard time with that, but... well?
See, & from what I understand, Hitler & Mengele tried & succeeded in creating these "geniuses", only to find they had 1 very BAD 'downside': Psychotic/Sociopathic behavior patterns & no consciences...
Something to "look out for" I suppose were it to be successful with today's methods @ the genetic level)... do I? No, not if done 'right' (purely a relative term though, & for every thing you could think of? 10 more can & odds are, WILL, go awry).
Personally though, I have NO PROBLEM in creating a better kind of human being... if that's possible that is. Toying with "God's own engineering" (and as the saying goes "God don't make no junk") might be dangerous is all... because I *think* that God & evolution go "hand-in-hand" and we're built to adapt to survive almost anything. Pretty good design, & that evolution IS part of his handiwork.
APK
P.S.=> As Mr. Spock said in the StarTrek TOS episode my subject-line comes from: "The scientsts overlooked 1 important fact: That superior ability breeds superior ambition"...... apk
I can not be identified...
Imagine a pill you swallow in the morning with your breakfast, that stimulates a few genes and gives you a 10 - 20 Pt IQ-boost for the rest of the day, so you are extra sharp in your work, in meetings & presentations, in an examination, and so on... Or, if you were born IQ challenged (quite a number of people are in every society), a long-term medical treatment that, over the years, boosts your IQ to average level, or perhaps to even above-average level... A medical cure for being under-powered in the brain department, in other words. That could really change some people's changes in life. Being of below-average intelligence is a handicap that lasts a lifetime and often results in low personal-income, and being sidelined/rejected/excluded by the smart people.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
The intelligent gene is Levis.
Did they limit their study to only "normal" circulating variants you'd find in a population of typical, healthy subjects? Or was any consideration given to very rare variants?
http://jmg.highwire.org/content/18/6/410.full.pdf
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(70)91848-9/abstract
Science is often naive in its investigation of things that could only possibly be used for benign purposes. My personal preference is that we focus on finding the morality gene before intelligence, and make that a prerequisite requirement for any intelligence improvement. I think even Dr. Evil would agree, he doesn't like competition.
Maths/science doesnt lie, it just decieves people with unstated and misleading assumptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
This is one of those studies that we're constantly going to hear about in ads for a couple of decades to come and then somebody tries to replicate it and doesn't get a statistically significant result. I bet this gene lets us use 10.1% of our brains or something, right? 1.29%. You have got to be kidding.
a) The "only use 10%" meme is a myth.
b) There's a difference between "big effect" and "statistically significant effect".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Suppose it's discovered that optimizing the genes for athleticism turns off genes for intelligence? And vice-versa?
Then it's one or the other, or mediocrity.
I've been told, by a bio ethicist, that there at six genes that influence height. So the idea that's there's just one gene for IQ seems odd.
Free as in "the Truth shall set you..."
According to some researchers, that essentially proves that intelligence relies on the action of a multitude of genes after all
What it proves is that IQ is not affected by one gene. It could be that intelligence is unaffected by genes, but is a result of training. Also, IQ is a bad measurement of intelligence.
Doesn't adderal (sp?) have a somewhat similar effect? I've heard it increases "focus" & "concentration" (especially for ADD/ADHD type folks)... correct me where I am "off/wrong", & thanks!
From what I understand, it helps folks do better on IQ tests too, by increasing their ability to concentrate on problems too... could be wrong, I got this via 'hearsay' & "the infamous 'grapevine'"...
* I am always "up" for learning a new thing or being corrected where I am NOT 'strong'...
APK
P.S.=> Thanks in advance for the info. IF you have it that is... apk
I hope they eliminate all of the Congresscritters from providing genetic material in this study. Otherwise the signal-to-noise ratio suffers.
Because of course black people can't possibly have any genes in common with the superior white race, that would be icky.
Let's all make sure that all kids will have genotype close to a local maximum of intelligence, even if it cuts off the capability to approach global maximum for all future generations!
But what am I complaining about? US society, the only people stupid enough to do anything like that, is already taken over by psychopaths, it's like worrying about European royal families inbreeding.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The reality is we have no good definition for intelligence at the moment, so trying to pin down genes for it seems a bit peculiar.
IQ? Let's get working on improving EQ through gene therapy. That is where the real ROI exists. EQ has a MUCH larger impact on a person's success by almost any measure.
... that essentially proves that intelligence relies on the action of a multitude of factors after all.
-><- no
In fact, put it this way: I KNOW you can "exercise your mind" & improve it... it adapts, just like the body's musculature does, if you "push it" (I knew this end of it before what I tell you next (former NCAA 1st string/starter lettering athlete for a National Champ in the sport of Lacrosse)).
* We're marvelous instruments... "God Don't make no junk" (& yes, some people think I am 'stupid' for believing there's God, but I don't believe he's anything like we can even begin to describe, but I also believe he's THE 'benevolent force' in this existence too)
APK
P.S.=> Put it this way: When I began my forays into Computer Science? I just could not *get it* on a great many concepts!
(Which scared the hell out of me as I put a lot of monies into it but panic's a GREAT motivator, & the "mother on invention" @ times)
However, I had GREAT help & coaching when it mattered most, right @ the start!
(A fellow whose brother was a pal of mine but I never knew he in highschool, the late Ron Procopio, a later fellow classmate of mine in collegiate academia who went to my same highschool)
Put it this way: Only 10/360 of us made it out of the CSC degree track/discipline/major @ the end into jobs in the working world...
Anyhow/anyways, when I was ready to "give up", he told me:
"Look, just keep @ it - you'll get it, just keep doing it... your mind will adapt to this way of thinking sooner or later, & when you 'hit problems'? Lay it down for awhile, even a whole day. Your mind will even think about it when you sleep to solve it, the longer you look @ it, it'll come, even then. I won't do your work for you, but I will give you pointers & clues when you hit a jam!"
I'll never forget that, or him for telling me that, because it IS truth & I'll always thank him for it, he 'saved me'... & because of he largely, I kept @ it & tried harder too!
To what he said?
Hey - lol, I've woken up out of deep sleeps @ 2-3 a.m. with an idea to solve issues in code before in fact for work-related hassles that could have 'shut down' millions of dollars projects that ended up working great!
(E.G.-> Once taking CPU usage in loops on a Citrix multi-campus business program down from lockups due to 100% cpu usage on remote clients only, not local campus ones (which was odd, but a simple sleep API call in loops solved it because of shared sessions in citrix overloading the middleware drivers to Oracle on SUN midranges, vs. DoEvents calls in VB6))
So what he said & what YOU said... ?
Yes - it works and yes, your mind WILL solve things, and yes, it can be 'trained' as you say, & 'reshaped' to achieve things that @ first, seem like you'll never be able to do (unfortunately, it "changes you" in other ways, there's always some 'push/pull' & 'give/take' when you send resources to one area - you pull from others! Put it this way in more 'mundane terms': I am NOT the guy I once was in some ways (better for the most part, worse in others) because of that)... apk
You'd get more mileage out of studying the various mental illnesses that the various "extremely intelligent" people in history have had and benefited from. Nash was schizophrenic, several important thinkers had ADD/ADHD (Edison, Einstein, etc.), and others may have had some form of autism. That old saw that "there is a fine line between genius and insanity" is more true than most people give it credit.
a) The "only use 10%" meme is a myth.
You don't say! Consider that I chose this myth intentionally.
There's a difference between "big effect" and "statistically significant effect".
I know. There's also a difference between correlation and causation. Very small "effects" very often turn out to be accidental correlations. Statistical significance doesn't mean certainty.
So, you know, fuck you, filth, and try pulling your head out of your ass and getting at least a glimmer of reality.
They have the internet in the South now?
What you're implying is wrong in so many ways, I don't know where to start. But how about this: the gene is more prevalent in blacks than whites. Mod parent racist.
Our society is already full of smart people that are bored doing menial tasks, or worse, think that the menial tasks are beneath them. I'm supposedly an intelligent person, but I was bored out of my mind when I did inside sales. What about the service industry or factory work? Isolating the factors of intelligence is all good and well, but beyond that we need to leave it alone. No gene therapy to make average intelligence people smarter. No Flowers for Algernon.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Flowers for Algernon"
Very interesting but sad story.
Why do you think "blacks" when talking about th possibility some people are less intelligent due to genetics? You're a closet racist, and with friends like you, they don't need enemies.
I've always thought that intelligence was the result of an optimized system. Sure, any of a thousand genes can decrease intelligence- they decrease optimization. If all of the thousands of genes are set right, you get a system working properly, and hopefully high intelligence.
To look for a single gene that controls intelligence is like looking for the single part that solves performance issues in all computers everywhere.
Put another way, what's the one gene that controlls health? Hey look, a gene that causes cancer if it's mutated. Behold- the health gene!
then it's not surprising that the search for the gene responsible for it would also fail. But then, it's obviously a waste of time to point that out, LOL.
There are only actions not approved by the psychiatrist and labelled as "mental illness". For example, people are telling they hear voices and are therefore LYING and therefore mentally-ill (in psychiatry the fact that patient complains about something IS the disease, psychiatrists don't believe any of the illnesses actually exist.)
It is like trying to find morality in physics, or saying one religion has more "truth" in it than some other.
Could there be a stakholder motive not to report a single datapoint?
IQ is overrated. We'd all be better off with a anti-procrastination or anti-irrational-fear gene
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
a. No shit, it's only 2.3% for most people. :)
b. Given the point above it makes 1.29 into both categories
You can't handle the truth.
The researchers trying to identify what genes affect intelligence should first come up with an undeniable definition of the term. I personally know of someone who does not have a lot of "book learning" (and probably would not do well in school) but he had a lot of "common sense". At the same time, there are brilliant scientists out there that are clueless about social interactions. You can be brilliant in one area and a complete idiot in another area. Are these people geniuses or idiots (or both).
For some strange reason must - real - rich people such as a Trump believe that intelligence is related to genes. ...
No, they will never ever admit it in public.
Just look at super rich families who only want their children to marry other certain types of people
Longevity is the result of switching on certain genes, which is not possible when you eg eat junk food or even some sugar some of the time, ...
the step that intelligence is in a large part the result of genetics is not too far out: it will probably be more a question of finding the right combination, that is unless the research is no longer pursued of course
It was great too, I watched it as a boy when it was on T.V. - it was called "CHARLY"
See it here, & in its ENTIRETY, in fact -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AeSf5QDEmQ
* Good stuff...
I felt bad for he, especially when he 'went awry' over rejection where his intellect should have saved he from that (over Claire Bloom)... & at the end too, of course.
(It just proves that men can't HELP but "let the 'little head' do the thinking for the 'big head' (just how we're made & until you go through the "school of hard knocks" & mature a bit? Well, watch the film, because it "tells the tale" for each of us... @ some point usually for most of us on THAT account!))
APK
P.S.=> Thanks for noting it... apk
A glimpse of how the US is perceived when those kinds of stories bubble to the surface. It's worse than I thought.
This is perhaps semantics but the term intelligence has a pretty broad meaning. IQ tests several different areas of what we call "intelligence" that aren't always related. For testing the effect of a single gene you'd think they'd search for a specific type of intelligence that the gene raises.
You're hinging your life-success not on how smart you are, but how stupid people are around you. That isn't a good way to go through life. Success comes from enlightening everyone, including yourself and most especially others. Knowledge begets more knowledge. A truly intelligent person would realize that.
While I agree the GP was an ass and a troll, he was right about one thing: both at and @ require 2 keystrokes. You can't get @ without hitting shift.
Would this not be a more fruitful and important quest?
According to three separate tests I have an IQ of 160, and I've spent most of my career working in academia. And believe me, intelligence is overrated. "Average" people are often a great deal smarter than they're given credit for.
And us "smart" guys can be dumber than a bag of hammers more often than we'd like to admit. The smarter you are, the more likely you are to be a victim of Dunning-Krueger syndrome. In academia, "I have a Ph.D." often translates into "I know everything about everything", usually with comic or tragic outcomes.
What I have seen, both in my personal and professional lives, that would make far more impact for society is finding the genes for discipline, for rationality, for work ethic, for compassion to others. Solve those, and you'll improve our society far more than trying to create a planet of Einstein's.
http://www.examiner.com/charleston-conservative-in-charleston-sc/media-censored-seven-hate-crime-mob-attacks-grand-rapids
Especially the ending which REALLY "caps it off"/puts the icing on the cake! Vincent is a "film hero" of mine in fact...
* It's come close to bringing tears to my eyes @ times...
APK
P.S.=> I'm going to mirror what another responder to your post stated pretty much - Trust me: We're pretty close to it now imo & getting closer all the time!
(I took coursework in genetics here years ago, as a lab-science requirement in the CSC degree track & learned a LOT on that account, & some of where we stand, today, on those grounds in terms of utilizing it too!)
Boy - glad I did, very interesting stuff!
On GATTACA specifically though?
Well, I contacted my then prof. before the class started with reasons WHY I wanted the course!
(Yes - because I think it's "a look @ the future" & will be applicable in MY SCIENCE too as an aid to it, AND because I told her I was a 'fan' of that film as well!)
Which she oddly had never seen, but when she told me she did later? She too loved it, but warned it would be used against us, ala insurance databases tracking hereditary diseases ( & disallowing coverage based on it OR EVEN THE POTENTIAL OF IT via inheritance!)
Sort of "GATTACA-LIKE" right there, when you come right down to it!
Anyhow/anyways:
She was a really nice lady too that let me "combine my science with hers" by designing a Hydrogen Atom simulation for extra-credit in an OpenGL screensaver I did also (did it years before @ that school as I was 'chipping away' @ CSC courses for the degree while working in the real world doing it too with a terms database for another science they used there for years in the DOS/Win3.x days in VB3 16-bit in the library so kids could look up terms in it for that science discipline on labs for extra credit etc./et al... made MOST sense that way - combining my science, which aids theirs, too!)
So, 1st day of class I told her as I walked in so she knew me by face?
"GATTACA"
She laughed!
All per a discussion we had in email prior to the class starting & to allow me to take THAT class vs. others (typically physics for most CSC geeks traditionally) after the Science Dept. Head ok'd it too (he'd done it for me before too))... apk
Not my keyboard, since I use that a lot: I remap it with this tool -> http://www.start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=493:kbdedit-the-best-keyboard-layout-editor&catid=21:64bit-system-software&Itemid=73
(64-bit too)
* For #'s, I use the number pad (helps data entry usually to use that is why, so might as well train for that 'side skill' while I am @ it!) - my top row of keys instantly is mapped to their 'shifts'.
APK
P.S.=> There you go... for MOST of you, it may work like that, but not for me - things are NOT "all the same" wherever you go & some of us "operate a bit differently"... apk
Scientist: "After studying nearly all of America, we've reached the conclusion that there is no such thing as intelligence."
Reporter: "You mean no intelligence gene?"
Scientist: "Uh, yeah... sure."
emotional intelligence (people persons)? physical intelligence (athletes)? logical intelligence (traditional definition)? linguistic intelligence (pedants)?
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Perhaps I'm only showing a lack of understanding by saying this, but as I recall from biology class, any trait that operates as a matter of degrees essentially has to have multiple genes to make it so.
Take skin color, for example. If it was a literally "black-or-white" matter (notwithstanding the politics of it, of course...), it would have one gene that decides the color of a person (dark or light, with nothing in-between), and each option would be either dominant or recessive. Since there are many, many variations on skin color, this is accomplished by many, many switches that, themselves being essentially binary (like all gene switches, as I recall), are turned on or off in a very large number of potential combinations, thereby producing a large variety of skin colors.
If intelligence were just one gene, then a person would be simply "smart" or "not smart," right? So, if I'm not utterly wrong about something, these "clever" scientists have only succeeded in proving the blatantly obvious--which is basically what I would expect from most scientists who study the "black box" we call the brain.
Maybe in century or so, someone will have actual, definitive evidence on how the brain truly works, but so long as "experts" think Rorschach tests, electrocution, addictive and damaging psychiatric drugs, and straight jackets are at all clever (all of which are still in use, in point of fact), we may as well just call most of the "great discoveries" in brain "science" (it doesn't yet deserve the term, IMHO) what they are: assumptions, rudimentary observations, and kludges. Sure, people come up with lots of stuff that works (to some degree, at least), but I have yet to hear anyone saying with confidence, "this is definitely HOW AND WHY it works." They're all monkeys with keyboards, as I see it.
Search for 1 gene that gives intelligence is the same as trying to find a gene that makes a person able to build cars really fast. Intelligence as we know it, is a concept, not a thing. It is made up of many variables from memorization, speed of mental processing, mental imagery, mental abstract understanding, and etc that it's almost ridiculous to try to find 1 gene that represents them all. Why not work your way on the bottom but finding genes that affects core abilities and then maybe see if one gene has the most profound effect on their supposed definition of IQ (in which the definition IQ is highly up to debate).
Epistemology tells me that if there is, in fact, an 'IQ gene' it undoubtedly serves as the Pirate gene as well.
we're looking for a gene that 'causes' intelligence — while we forget it is we ourselves who actually *think* — and as such, we can know the processes of intelligence from the inside, and with understanding.
perhaps it is not so much a 'gene that causes intelligence' — so much as an *attitude* that yields results. a critical attitude closes us off from intelligence, while being open/transparent to the perceptions available yields its secrets — the whispers of knowledge from nature are ours to hear if we have the inner disposition to calmly listen.. as the good dr. steiner recounts:
"Our civilization is more inclined to criticize, judge, and condemn than to feel devotion and selfless veneration.. But just as surely as every feeling of devotion and reverence nurtures the soul's powers for knowledge.. so every act of criticism and judgement drives these powers away..
"As the sun's rays quicken all living things, so reverence in us quickens all the feelings in the soul. At first glance, it is not easy to believe that feelings of reverence and respect are in any way connected with knowledge. This is because we tend to see cognition as an isolated faculty that has no connection whatsoever with anything else going on in our souls... Disrespect, antipathy, and disparaging admirable things, on the other hand, paralyze and slay our cognitive activities." (R.S., HTKHW)
--
"It is the still, small voice that the soul heeds, not the deafening blasts of doom." (William Dean Howells)
and were not successful. Finally found some in a 2nd grade class down the street.
1st: Thanks. 2nd: On a more 'pessimistic' note though? I'd say "Big Pharma"'s MOST interested in profit$ generation though...
However, perhaps you're as pessimistic as myself (or just a realist really) - the 'focus' part probably lends to creating better "worker-drones", thus even more profits (and the wheel goes 'round & round' lol). That'd be my take on that "POV" of yours.
* On psychedelics improving learning though? I have a bit of a hard time digesting that one... I think having a 'straight' sober mind would do that (in most cases @ least) over say, taking LSD & studying while 'tripping', lol!
(However, for all I know on that note? I could be wrong too... it's not my area of expertise or study generally!)
APK
P.S.=> Then again, now that I *think* about it?
E.G. #1 of 2: This guy Kevin L. I knew during my 1st degree of 2 (B.S. MIS) was "straight A's/4.0" consistently term after term (good athlete too, top notch tennis man - iirc, near top in state in highschool but a guy I went to highschool with, Eric L. actually was though, but I recall him asking if I knew Eric & I did, we lived only a few blocks apart was why & hung out @ times then)...
Anyways - Kevin literally was DRUNK most of the time too! Not like "staggering" drunk, but buzzed... I found this out seeing him drinking beer & studying a lot...
I asked him "How on earth do you do so well, because I'd think it would hurt your performance!" even though he was "@ peak" anyhow!
He said he found the BEST way to get good grades on tests was to be in the same 'state of mind' he was while studying... in his case? A wee bit drunk (he wasn't "loaded" all the time, just doing what I've seen alcoholics do - maintaining a certain level of "feeling well").
E.G. #2: This brings to mind another guy, Joe D. (I can't & won't put their FULL names down, that wouldn't be right OR my right to do, even though the stories are interesting enough):
This guy played games all day long (such as they were in those days on ATARI etc.) - he's in the room right next to mine in the dorm, so I can tell you that point-blank, because I could hear it easily (odd, because my floor, top one, was mostly "jocks" (like myself)).
He also was a "4.0" guy, term-after-term consistently...
I one day asked he: "How do YOU PULL THOSE GRADES when I know you never, EVER, study?" He has me then pull a random book off his shelf, and says "start reading any page from it"... to which he started reciting it WORD-FOR-WORD to me, exactly, even getting punctuation tonal inflections right.
I thought it was some trick, I pulled another book & same thing!
He ended up telling me that whatever he saw (photographic memory) or heard (eidetic memory), he recalled perfectly. He had both gifts COMBINED... was amazing.
All he had to do was hear the lecture, &/or read the chapter once (even just skimming them) & he could figure out the rest because he had ALL OF IT in his head, for the most part... this guy was downright amazing.
Those 2 guys astounded me. Mostly Joe.
He left our school because as he put it? It was "Too easy" for him... who knows WHERE he ended up (probably some gov't. think tank, because he wasn't just gifted that way, he was VERY intelligent & could put some pretty complex "2+2"'s together... put this this way? He was WICKED GOOD @ Discrete Math, without really trying and I don't care what anyone says, that math is more THINKING than "doing by rote").
Kind of a funny story about him.
He was from Korea iirc. So one day, these 2 arab guys (Salah & Waleed) in my dorm put up this noteboard they were always scrawling their form of writing on... this made a lot of other folks think "wtf are they writing to one another? Crap about us??" (not me, I didn't give a crap)...
HOWEVER, being how I was in those days, young & immature??
Well, lol, I started writing (well, 'simulating' it @ least as best I could) my own form of "oriental chinese"
What we call intelligence is actually a combination of things and is situation-dependent, so they're not going to find an intelligence gene. My understanding is that neuroscience points to working memory, speed of recall, and other factors as the true strengths. You can up your IQ by for example taking n-back tests to increase your working memory recall.
Currently hooked on AMP
They wouldn't find an intelligence gene in DC in the last 50 years regardless of party affiliation.
1st: It's not science fact I was working on: More the premise & possible outcome from it, based on an analogy in film (one I like to use because it tends to have more of a "common-ground" with the common man... would you prefer I quote scripture or classical literature instead? Less people would tend to see a "common-ground" in my estimation were I to use other forms of culture/media in my estimation... that's all).
2nd: This isn't my area either. I rarely post in the 'sciences section' here in fact, but this one "piqued my interest" is all!
3rd: I am only speculating here, using that genre to make a point.
BUT, in MY area, the computer sciences? I can tell you, point-blank, that a lot of folks (including Dr. Mark Russinovich of Microsoft whom I've had some 'dealings' with good & bad in the past + doing work for the same organization/companies for, loves sci-fi too!). Largely this goes on with engineers too. Comes with the territory with geeks to love sci-fi... a lot of what WAS merely science fiction decades ago, after all, is now science-fact because of guys like myself being inspired by it.
It "goes with the territory" in my field, so "my apologies" (not) for using it...
NOW, on the Nazi scientists & what you said:
Could be, I don't doubt you! I might have named the wrong man, but I do know that guy played games on folks. Not nice ones.
Plus - It's just what I "heard tell" (that the nazi's were working on genetic engineering... even nutty stuff like using monkey testicles sewn into the skin & some folks ended up with somekind of STD infections... is it true? I don't know, you tell me perhaps)...
* HOWEVER, this tends to "bear out my statement", so take a read:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22nazi%22+and+%22genetic+engineering%22&go=&qs=ns&form=QBLH
Lot of it too!
So... that "all said & aside":
Was I a victim of "the grapevine" or misinformation? Doesn't appear that way, especially in this one:
http://creation.com/hitlers-master-race-children-haunted-by-their-past
PERTINENT QUOTE ON THE "LEBENSBORN":
"Between 1935 and 1945, there were born some 10,000 children in Germany and an estimated 9,000 in Norway as part of a Nazi genetic engineering plan to build up an Aryan âmaster-raceâ(TM) or super-breed of humanity. This scheme was known as the Lebensborn or âFountain of Lifeâ(TM) program. Special clinics were set up where SS men1 were encouraged to mate with blue-eyed, blonde Nordic girls who had no Jewish ancestry, in order to produce âracially pureâ(TM) German offspring. The resultant babies were then brought up in the foster care of dedicated Nazi couples or reared in special orphanages. There were at least ten Lebensborn homes in Germany,2 and nine in Nazi-occupied Norway, where the unmarried pregnant women could give birth in secret away from their homes.3 The babies were christened in a ritual in which an SS dagger was held over them as the mother swore allegiance to Nazi ideology.4 If any of the children born into the program were disabled, they were killed"
APK
P.S.=> There you go... apk
Could the title of the summary possibly be further from the actual nature and findings of the research without being about a completely different story? Cookie for anyone who can think of a way.
I have no interest in facilitating an argument from authority. Facts speak for themselves, no matter who utters them or what they have done.
It's true that science fiction has a long history of important contributions to inspiring scientists in many fields. However, Star Trek novels are not the best example of this.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
What I have seen, both in my personal and professional lives, that would make far more impact for society is finding the genes for discipline, for rationality, for work ethic, for compassion to others. Solve those, and you'll improve our society far more than trying to create a planet of Einstein's.
IMHO you might get the biggest bang for the work by researching and finding a cure for psychopathy (by the "sociopathic behavior due to brain abnormality rather than training" definition") This is something akin to color-blindness but for conscience. Psychopaths are pretty common (about one in a hundred) and if they don't come up with a compensation that turns them into an acceptable citizen they do harm far in excess to their numbers. (Sociopaths-by-training may be more common but they're also more trainable-out-of-it.) The bulk of legal systems and moral codes is about finding a way to handle these people.
So far the best "treatment" found seems to be teaching them Objectivism. It gives them a logical reason that accepting a particular set of behavioral rules starting with the non-aggression principle is good for THEIR interests. They may become very abrasive good citizens. But they still become people you can interact with and not have to count your fingers and relatives afterward.
(Some religions also succeed a bit at reforming some psychopaths. But other psychopaths are happy to fake a conversion if it gets them benefits and/or sets up suckers for bilking. It's hard to fake being an Objectivist without actually accepting the philosophy and becoming one.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Speaking of Einstein, I understand his brain was donated to a research institution.
If some of it is still around it might be interesting to check his genome and find out how it deviates from the Human Genome Project reference.
Granted some of his intelect might be the result of training, nurture, and/or a "birth defect but GOOD mind you". But if there's a genetic basis for improved intelligence (or its potential) that would be a good place to look.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
See subject & post parent 2 this (since u r trying 2 hide it). Says it all for me.
APK
P.S.=> How pitiful - it truly is. I have repeatedly said in my replies all throughout this article's replies where I posted that I am not a "science expert", such as here -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2792033&cid=39710063
I even asked questions to help "boost" my know-how in various areas because of it!
(Folks here were nice enough to respond with good data on that note - thanks Mr. Feldman especially on that note -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2792033&cid=39710063 )
Then you said this, when I was only trying to make a point by analogy using film (the finest artform humanity has imo):
"It's true that science fiction has a long history of important contributions to inspiring scientists in many fields. However, Star Trek novels are not the best example of this." - by Samantha Wright (1324923) on Tuesday April 17, @06:46PM (#39717261) Homepage Journal
Ahem: I am certain that a LOT of folks would "tend to disagree" & that's also ONLY your opinion... lol, that of a bullying student only - not someone that's actually done things of good note in respected publications, trade shows, or commercially produced goods in said area!
Period/Fact (especially the latter term, since you used it yourself, but "oddly" (not) had NO FACTS showing you've ever done anything noteworthy in the sciences yourself!)
Me, in order to defend myself vs. your 'trolling' attack?
By way of comparison, I had repeatedly over time by way of comparison/contrast, & as early as my 2nd yr. out of academia & kept doing it for 1/2 a decade++ or more, no less!
Heck - I quit doing it in fact by a certain point (was no need once I had a dozen or so under my belt).
So - get back to me when you do the same... that is, IF YOU EVER DO!
Then I'd @ least consider you somewhat of a "peer"!
(Not just some "talk a lot/done nothing" ne'er-do-well BULLY that isn't capable of inductive thought, which IS the mark of an expert, not just reciting already known facts, but making breakthrus or helping others via their works/deeds (which YOU haven't done yet, & I suspect strongly you NEVER will either...))... apk
See subject & post parent 2 this (since u r trying 2 hide it). Says it all for me.
APK
P.S.=> How pitiful - it truly is. I have repeatedly said in my replies all throughout this article's replies where I posted that I am not a "science expert", such as here -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2792033&cid=39710063
I even asked questions to help "boost" my know-how in various areas because of it!
(Folks here were nice enough to respond with good data on that note - Thanks to Mr. Feldman especially on that note -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2792033&cid=39710063 )
Then you said this, when I was only trying to make a point by analogy using film (the finest artform humanity has imo):
"It's true that science fiction has a long history of important contributions to inspiring scientists in many fields. However, Star Trek novels are not the best example of this." - by Samantha Wright (1324923) on Tuesday April 17, @06:46PM (#39717261) Homepage Journal
Ahem: I am certain that a LOT of folks would "tend to disagree" & that's also ONLY your opinion... lol, that of a bullying student only - not someone that's actually done things of good note in respected publications, trade shows, or commercially produced goods in said area!
Period/Fact (especially the latter term, since you used it yourself, but "oddly" (not) had NO FACTS showing you've ever done anything noteworthy in the sciences yourself!)
Me, in order to defend myself vs. your 'trolling' attack?
By way of comparison, I had repeatedly over time by way of comparison/contrast, & as early as my 2nd yr. out of academia & kept doing it for 1/2 a decade++ or more, no less!
Heck - I quit doing it in fact by a certain point (was no need once I had a dozen or so under my belt).
So - get back to me when you do the same... that is, IF YOU EVER DO!
Then I'd @ least consider you somewhat of a "peer"!
(Not just some "talk a lot/done nothing" ne'er-do-well BULLY that isn't capable of inductive thought, which IS the mark of an expert, not just reciting already known facts, but making breakthrus or helping others via their works/deeds (which YOU haven't done yet, & I suspect strongly you NEVER will either...))... apk
You demonstrate a lack of inductive reasoning + achievements that results from it, here http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2792033&cid=39717365 and before that, here http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2792033&cid=39716989
Where you trolled and ran when confronted!
(Then, it's obivous you resorted to down moderation to try "hide it" when it showed us all just who and what you are there)
After all - it's clear YOU tried to play "bully expert" in an area you are specialist in, vs. someone who said they were not and only made an analogy to film using the sci-fi genre to do so!
(Which many others would disagree with you on with your "wannabe expert" mere STUDENT'S opinion only to your name/credit, but no visible achievements in the science you focus in).
On those downmods to try "hide" your blunders?
Please - Don't tell us it doesn't go on here via multiple account using trolls such as this KNOWN one here on /.:
E.G. -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2787367&cid=39697623
(I.E.-> It's easy to do, in modding down your detractors, after logging out of your /. registered account to maintain "karma points" and also cake to avoid removal of downmods too - it is too obvious you know that puny trick too)
So much for mere student "wannabe experts" like yourself who are "lots of talk, no action/deeds to show for it" that actually were applied to better the human condition.
Period.
So, get back to us when you've had your ideas actually APPLIED to something useful that better the human condition.
(Something you arrived at via inductive reasoning (the sign of experts, not amateurs who merely recite by rote what they learned from actual experts in professors in academia, or text books... like yourself!)).
"There is no gene for the human spirit" -> http://www.scififilmhistory.com/index.php?pageID=gattaca
* I thought your reply was VERY apt...
APK
P.S.=> Especially in regards to a main premise of that film... apk
Why do people assmuse any political comment is coming from a labeled point of view? We have a political system that promotes little other then sociopaths to the highest positions of power. Ideology is completely irrelevant. The problem is folks who think it does still matter and act as useful idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H cheerleaders for one Party or another.
My name is Gene. The mirror shines my intelligence. Upon reflection, I find this to be true. Behold, condensation!
Well, if the movie Idiocracy has any validity, a gene for intelligence is selected against once a society reaches a level of existence beyond simple subsistence. I expect all Slashdotters understand the math, and suspect none of them know what to do about it because we also know the limits to growth that preclude a simple read-heed-and-breed solution.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
No no, what have you ever done that was noted as excellent and was applied to better things was the question and for example, that did well in respected written publications (books/magazines) , trade show contests like Ms Tech Ed and your code going into commercial software that's sold for decades from a Microsoft Certified Partner.
On the latter, I even made it 40% better in the end/last version. In fact, as a side to that? The ideas for DB work are only NOW just starting to really be used to speed them up, & it's working well in the "real industrial world". Folks are using it now ONLY now really, and getting the gains I showed the planet (along with Mr. John Enck in fact who came up with PRETTY MUCH near the same idea in fact) would work for it on LARGE scale (because I used it for years in the DOS world even with DBase III).
That's the level of work I am looking for from you.
Quit trying to play "SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk of /." because without a PhD in the psychiatric sciences, or a formal evaluation of my "alleged mental state" given in a professional psychiatric environs, and a license to practice it? You're actually libeling me you know.
So, answer that simple question, because what shows the ability to be an expert and inductively reason is the very deeds I ask you show us you have to your name/credit. Pretty simple. Answer it.
Yes, it's indicative of "inductive reasoning", because it gets noted as the above partial list I only alluded to has done improving things on more than a few fronts & takes things and relates them into something larger than the "sum of the parts" as a result based on what you observe... that others haven't sometimes, which is what much of the above's about....
Fact is - I've done it a dozen times & very nearly before you ever started coding.
I was ending doing that level of effort around the time you state you started coding.
Heck, I quit giving a damn about it years ago, & doing that ontop of normal DB coding work (steady eddy money, nobody does their data OR processes for business the same, so there is always work in it), because there's enough on my resume of that nature (the better stuff I first noted) to get me into jobs I want.
E.G.-> The things you note & of the same general type I've done by truckloads in the business world in Client-Server programming since 1994, 17++ yrs., & using C++, Delphi/Object Pascal, VB3-6, .NET, & even Access on smaller projects since 1994. It's actually FAR larger, but often gets to be "same old, same old" & "old hat" after awhile.
I don't even consider it the type/level of things I am asking you prove you've done, & professionally, and well into the MANY MILLIONS OF LINES OF CODE, and database stored procs ontop of that.
One I do though, because it helps saves folks eyes - I am even helping surgeons save folks eyes to this day 14++ yrs. later afaik (at the Cincinnati Eye Institute with code I wrote that magnifies images up to 100x without distortion (regions & antialiasing basically)) so they can examine it better in x-ray photos, but I can't prove it anymore than you can with your "alleged accomplishments"... unless you call them & ask if the are still using the system on tablets for doctors from CareLinc (who I did the work for in Georgia).
However, I can on the fronts noted above easily enough.
Show us you've better, more, & earlier than those types of things above with PROOF.
So if anything? RESPECT YOUR ELDERS... we might have done all the types of things you're doing long before you even started, & to better overall result.
BUT who knows? One day from the benefits of your education?? You may end up "schooling me"... but, that remains to be seen. I wish you luck on that front in fact. The world needs good things, especially nowadays, and more of them on all fronts.
But nobody knows it all... & in that thread, in that area, I repeatedly said
I "beat U to the punch" & set U up like a bowling pin -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2792033&cid=39712085
* To which all you had was an downmod in "effete retaliation"... didn't you *think* I'd see it & bring it back into view with this post? Guess again, troll...
APK
P.S.=> Face 1 fact: You don't have the intelligence to EVER "get the better" of me, period... apk