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.'"

Comments

1.29 plus or minus what?

[PvtVoid]

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.

Re:1.29 plus or minus what?

[weakref]

I don't think it's applicable. After all we don't even know what we are measuring... It's a very rough estimation of ability to answer certain kind of questions.

Re:1.29 plus or minus what?

[PvtVoid]

You are thinking about the accuracy of an individual measurement, when averaging large numbers with and without the gene you can get a much greater level of accuracy.

Precision is not accuracy. The standard deviation on IQ tests is about three points, but that does not mean that by averaging 1,000,000 IQs you can detect effects as small as 0.03 points -- the test is fundamentally incapable of measuring effects that small in the first place.

If your measurement is bad in the first place, averaging large numbers of measurements accomplishes nothing except giving you a false sense of accuracy. A huge pile of shit statistics is still shit.

Re:1.29 plus or minus what?

[Hatta]

IQs are gaussian by definition. The question isn't whether the statistics are valid here. The question is whether they're biologically meaningful.

Proof

[StripedCow]

According to some researchers, that essentially proves

According to some other researchers, the verb "prove" has lost its meaning.

Re:how can this be

[Chris Burke]

I think most researchers got the message after the DNA pioneer James Watson had to retire after suggesting a correlation

Since he had no scientific basis for that "correlation" whatsoever and was instead basing it on his personal interactions with black employees... yeah, the DNA "pioneer" who stole the whole idea from Rosalind Franklin must've forgot that the personal anecdotes of a racist are not exactly Nobel-worthy scientific observations. Is that a bad message for researchers?

Meanwhile, I'm interested to see how many will jump to using a ~1 point effect on IQ to justify statements like Watson's despite there not being any connection, and being less than what you'll get from a solid day of test preparation tutoring.

Just realize that if as they say there are many genetic factors that affect intelligence, it is unlikely that there are enough such factors isolated in certain populations to make a significant difference -- as in enough that Watson and others' casual observations were borne out in fact.

Re:The downside genetic engineering

[Quiet_Desperation]

Can we at least raise up the lower end? You know, maybe get a majority that stops voting for sociopaths?

Screw intelligence gene

[poity]

IQ is overrated. We'd all be better off with a anti-procrastination or anti-irrational-fear gene

So basically

[arcite]

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.

Intelligence is overrated

[MetricT]

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.

Re:The downside genetic engineering

[StikyPad]

You say that as if people are incapable of using intellect instead of just ignoring it and focusing on their feelings. I haven't met very many stupid people, but I've met lots of intellectually lazy people.