Slashdot Mirror
Single Gene Can Boost IQ By Six Points
ananyo (2519492) writes "People are living longer, which is good. But old age often brings a decline in mental faculties and many researchers are looking for ways to slow or halt such decline. One group doing so is led by Dena Dubal of the University of California, San Francisco, and Lennart Mucke of the Gladstone Institutes, also in San Francisco. Dr Dubal and Dr Mucke have been studying the role in aging of klotho, a protein encoded by a gene called KL. A particular version of this gene, KL-VS, promotes longevity. One way it does so is by reducing age-related heart disease. Dr Dubal and Dr Mucke wondered if it might have similar powers over age-related cognitive decline. What they found was startling. KL-VS did not curb decline, but it did boost cognitive faculties regardless of a person's age by the equivalent of about six IQ points. If this result, just published in Cell Reports, is confirmed, KL-VS will be the most important genetic agent of non-pathological variation in intelligence yet discovered."
My guess would be that two groups, those that express the gene and those that do not have a 6 point difference in IQ on average, in favor of those with the gene.
-- Begin thoughtfuly, end insensitively.
It has more impact that way.
You're right. Lack of this gene depresses intelligence. Feel better?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
You're right. We're going to need a helluva lot more than 6 points to get people like you to understand the significance of raising the baseline.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Am I understanding properly that the "KL-VS" variant of KLOTHO is Rs9536314 with genotype "T;T"?
I love talking to people who are adamant that intelligence is not heritable, yet believe in evolution. When I ask how we evolved from presumably less intelligent ape-like ancestors without intelligence being heritable, I can almost see the gears grind to a halt.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
For everyone else who has that gene (I don't know if I do, I'm still trying to figure out what SNP KLOTHO references in my genetic results), and can't stand reading the Economist's painfully dumbed-down explanation of the research, here's the actual paper.
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
The standard deviation is 15. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... As for the statistical significance, not sure. IANAS, so I am not sure which formulas to best use to model it. According to TFA, their sample size is 718, of which 1/5 possess the gene, so intuitively I'd say that 6 points do seem significant.
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
Nothing implies a change in an individual. The difference is within a population.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Also if it's the length of life, they took the wrong goddess, not Clotho but Lachesis is responsible for that.
Look up the gene on open access GWAS databases and see for yourself.
According to various IQ tests, I'm smarter than Einstein.
IQ tests are bullshit. Mostly because you can easily train them and gain 20-30 "points" fairly easily. Especially if you start out fairly "intelligent" already (read: share the way of thinking and the train of logic of those that design these tests) because once you play in the 150+ league, what matters is concentration and speed. Finding the logical pattern quickly and then being able to track various variables at the same time is usually the key.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yeah, but it's six points for a single gene.
If you buy 100 of those genes you get 600 points! You'll became a geneius.
factor 966971: 966971
If all this gene achieved was less cardiovascular diseases and higher intelligence, we would (nearly) all have it by now due to selection. So the question is, what else does it do which counterweights this?
Not really. Cardiovascular disease generally kills long after the age of reproduction. The number of people who would have been born if not for parental death by cardiovascular disease is likely pretty small. Also, those with higher intelligence tend to reproduce less.
A single gene can boost IQ by six points? I've got something like 24,000 of them!
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Erh... yes? Your argument with my statement above would be what exactly?
To clarify: I don't believe in evolution. It is "only" the only scientifically acceptable theory concerning the development of life that we have currently. But that's independent of my faith in it. It simply is. There's little I could accomplish by believing in it.
Unless someone can come up with a competing theory that deserves the name there's not really an alternative to it. It is also a quite acceptable theory, supported by what we know about how life developed and not contradicted by anything I could think of currently.
My problem is with the term of believing. Believing something requires some kind of faith, believing someone requires some kind of trust. Neither has anything to do with science.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.