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?
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.
I've already seen how this how this ends.
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! =)
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.
. . . 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
we reward the intelligent
I think you'd have to start there first, before worrying about avoiding its conclusions. If we're wishing for the moon, we're probably more likely to install a matriarchy first.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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.
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.
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.
I hope they eliminate all of the Congresscritters from providing genetic material in this study. Otherwise the signal-to-noise ratio suffers.
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
Would someone leave some flowers on Algernon's grave
His cousin Biggles probably did already.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
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.
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!
Total waste of money. They should have been studying cat genes if they're trying to detect intelligence. Cats have it figured out...
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
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.
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).
A glimpse of how the US is perceived when those kinds of stories bubble to the surface. It's worse than I thought.
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.
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.
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
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.
Epistemology tells me that if there is, in fact, an 'IQ gene' it undoubtedly serves as the Pirate gene as well.
Y'know, they don't make that joke in countries that have actually gotten off their butts and given it a female leader a try.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
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)
It is my express promise to you that no scientifically significant remark has ever started with a link to an article on Memory Beta.
For the record, Mengele mostly just sewed people together, froze them, and infected them with diseases to test treatments. Unethical as a doctor, sure, but fairly small-time on the evil genius scale. He wasn't even the highest-ranking doctor at the camp.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Stimulants improve focus. Psychedelics improve learning. Obviously, Big Pharma is only interested in the former. That's why Big Prison prosecutes the latter.
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
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
we reward the intelligent
Bullshit. There are MENSA members driving cabs. How intelligent does a movie actor have to be? A baseball player?
The people most highly rewarded, the CEOs, are being rewarded for sociopathy, not intelligence. Speaking of which, do you think Steve Ballmer or Carly Fiona are any more intelligent than the average joe?
Free Martian Whores!
They wouldn't find an intelligence gene in DC in the last 50 years regardless of party affiliation.
I don't really want to get into it now, but your understanding of history and your sources are utter rubbish. Here's a less imaginary perspective on Lebensborn. In short, the German understanding of biology in the 40s was too primitive to do anything more than selective breeding, and they never implemented selection for positive traits on a wide scale.
However, this is not the time or the place for such a discussion. If you want to talk about this further, I'd be happy to entertain you the next time I do a biology Q&A.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
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
"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.
Look, dude: Star Trek books are poor science fiction. The people who write them are not generally experts in the themes they explore, and the entire canon has a long and colourful history of requiring consultants to fill in the actual science fiction for them. Even one of the show's writers has admitted this. The claim you made in your original post about superior intelligence necessarily breeding disregard for others is a gross oversimplification contrived for plot convenience. Hatred by and of the smart is a function of social alienation and mutual disrespect, just like any other discrimination.
If you want some more effective inspirational material, try looking for something that isn't anchored to a huge canon. Short story anthologies are really good at this, which is in part why they were the mainstay of the genre for most of its history.
Your behaviour and your preoccupation with credentials strongly suggest that you are emotionally vulnerable. It is probably not a good idea to keep getting worked up about Slashdot comments. No, I don't have additional accounts; most likely you were modded down by someone who thought you had stepped across the line by making a personal attack. I don't think it means much anyway, given that you're posting anonymously and I'd already read the post. I'd call it a waste of a mod point to make an obvious statement.
By the way: having letters after one's name doesn't confer ambition, reasoning skills, or anything in between. It makes for a pretty good cut-off to filter out unmotivated people, but I've met a lot of duds with PhDs. You really shouldn't imply that someone lacks inductive reasoning ability based on output. All that does is make it look like you hate young people.
If you really need to partake in this absurd contest, though, I have the skills you're asking for. I've been programming for over ten years, building CMSes, game engines, virtual machines, and interpreters from scratch. I have worked on some moderately-sized projects (about half a million lines of code) and laid architecture and solved design flaws in similar programs. Two years ago I designed, built, and exhaustively documented a toolkit of genetic components for teaching and enabling chemical engineers to genetically alter a species that normally requires a graduate degree in biology to understand, and presented that work at MIT. Today, I get more job offers than I know what to do with. I was accepted into the most prestigious graduate school in Canada alongside applicants from Berkeley, MIT, and Stanford as one of their strongest candidates.
But I didn't feel the need to wave all of that around, because intelligent, well-meaning people, no matter the level of age, education, or experience, let facts speak for themselves, and they respect others by default. I don't hate or disdain you, APK, I just think there's better reading material out there.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
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.
I'm actually a really big Star Trek fan. I know a lot of people who are. Emotionally and conceptually it's extremely powerful, inspiring stuff, but as far as actual science content, it's very thin. It would be better to call it science propaganda: this is how the future could be if we work together on making things right. The actual science fiction is just a backdrop to the speculative view of what the human social world could be if we let go of our social prejudices and focus on the objective of living better lives.
The problem, and I'm getting pretty annoyed that I have to repeat myself, is that most Star Trek novels might as well be fan-fiction in terms of science content. They don't pay well to write, so the only strong authors who write them are usually just getting started in their careers, which means they're limited in what resources they have available to do real research. This is pretty much the same thing for any mass market paperback serial book, although Star Wars novels are generally much worse than the Trek novels.
By the way: just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good. Just look at politics.
I've watched GATTACA several times, incidentally, and I highly recommend it to pretty much anyone interested in the ethics of genetic engineering, but a word of caution before you take it too much to heart: I did a bunch of research on the legal status of what happens in the film, and it was actually made completely illegal in the United States a few years ago, and US courts have a very good track record in favouring the plaintiff in discriminatory hiring cases. Regardless of the icky, complicated ethical reality underlying the situation, it has very little chance of actually coming to pass.
I can't comment on Flowers for Algernon, having little time to read these days, but I'll put CHARLY on my to-watch list. I have heard great things about it, however, and I do respect it.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!