Slashdot Mirror
Chimpanzee Intelligence Largely Determined By Genetics
As reported by National Geographic, intelligence in chimpanzees appears to be strongly heritable, according to research led by William Hopkins, a primatologist at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, who examined both genetic and environmental factors for a group of related chimpanzees with varying measured intelligence:
To find out how much of that variability is due to genetics, Hopkins and his team assessed the cognitive abilities of 99 captive chimpanzees. They used a battery of 13 tests measuring various manifestations of intelligence, such as how the animals dealt with the physical world, reacted to sound, and used tools.
The group of chimps tested had an expansive family tree, ranging from full siblings to fourth and fifth cousins. This allowed the researchers to calculate how well scores on cognitive traits aligned with genetic relatedness. Two categories of tasks were significantly heritable: those related to spatial cognition, such as learning physical locations, and those that required social cognition, such as grabbing a person's attention. Some chimps are quite clever, making kissing sounds or clapping their hands to draw an experimenter's attention, Hopkins said. "This one is a real measure of intelligence and innovative behavior."
...Anyone agree? Have a look...
Here...
are you telling the stuff the jew professors at college told me about german engineers and black welfare moms being equal was a lie? why would they do such a thing?
...we're lead to believe with enough money for education everyone can be intelligent!
Genes and Race: The Distant Footfalls of Evidence
The heritability of a human's intelligence is as high as 77.1% in identical twin studies.
But of course, genes are just the hand you were delt. What you do with that hand is up to your parents, environment and later you.
Just flat out saying it's 50% is just an oversimplification and I'm sure it's the same with the chimps.
A chimpanzee named Fred was eaten by a tiger after recklessly clapping his hands and making kissing sounds, attracting the tiger's attention.
Other members of the troop were unanimous in describing Fred as "not the sharpest stick in the jungle".
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
... is to the A112 virus. But you knew that.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
They demonstrated a novel argument for why there are no hidden variables and that the statistical descriptions of quantum mechanics reflect reality accurately.
Psychology, still reeling from its failure in the once fashionable fields phrenology and eugenics, has returned with a handful of tests which can be weighted in way the scientist pleases to determine how much intelligence is heritable.
And today it's "about half".
(Related chimps have insignificant environmental similarities too, of course. But that's by the bye.)
It really is a dismal discipline.
Universities suspected this with humans also and did published research on it; Most of which has quietly been removed because it's not politically correct to show Asians have a 10pt higher IQ on average than white person(me), and 'other numbers'.
Interestingly enough true genius seems quite random, can have a long history of average parents etc and them produce someone quite gifted.
I am looking forward to Hollywood's announcement of a breeding program for intelligent chimps in order to cut costs on future productions of Planet of the Apes.
By the way, the study seems to indicate that trees are only as intelligent as their genes allow it to be, but specialised breeding could lead to intelligent plants. But for now, crossing a human with a flower may not result in a talking flower, though it still could be a pretty looking flower.
Am I really supposed to believe it's just coincidence that this story has been showing up everywhere for the past week? It definitely couldn't just be PR for the new Planet of the Apes movie opening this weekend.
The USSR tried—and failed—to breed man and chimp
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
... although factors like scholarity and religious affiliation also play a role
Human intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with genetics and everyone is equal.
HAHA
- Nelson Muntz and Eric Raymond
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
"why-I'll-be-a-smart-monkey's-uncle dept."
Ooooook!
Human intelligence may also be significantly determined by genetics...
** WOO WOO WOOO **
Sorry people, the person who posted the above sentence has been arrested for politically incorrect statements. Pointing out statistics and scientific studies is racist. He won't ever be bothering you again.
I am sure "Is it gender linked/dominated/driven?" would be asked next
Regarding your post (ever seen the film "They LIVE" with Rowdy Roddy Piper? You have a valid point. I am merely seconding it, by analogy to film is all).
It's to assure the current status quo has enough "wage slaves" that can function at AT LEAST the lowest common denominator level so those on top can STAY on top &, to create tax paying wage slaves being given false hope "you too can be on top of the 'mountain of gold' in the USA" which is, of course, complete bullshit. The "infamous they" 1% keep things just as they are, and control what is taught educationally as well (history you learn is about the victors and their leaders, not the REAL history, for instance). Get real.
The corollary here is that intelligence isn't always an advantage. Or else all chimps would have evolved human class intelligence. The question I'd like answered is, what natural advantages does innate stupidity confer upon a creature that enables it to spread its just as efficiently or even bettera than an intelligent creature. Maybe the neurons required to be good at puzzle solving and the like are subtracted from the total needed for street or jungle "smarts".
So this is how scientists research intelligence without hurting the feelings of people who believe everyone on the planet is as smart (individually or collectively) as everyone else on the planet. They study chimps. They publish their results. Left unmentioned is whether their conclusions might have parallels for the human race, but the fact that they specifically studied the acknowledged closest-related species says it for them. After all, drugs are developed by testing much further-removed animals like rats, and it's a process that seems to work great.
If these scientists had tried to study intelligence in humans, well, let's just say they'd have been doing it on their own dime, and their results would have been largely dismissed.
[nt]
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This just in, intelligence also highly heritable in humans. Only it isn't politically correct to talk about.
I assume all the chimps in the experiment were hand reared from birth.
Humans are the silliest peoples.
Can't remember whether I saw this on /. or another news site, but the cutting edge research on evolution has been called "neo Lamarckism". Intelligence itself can be passed on genetically. A recent "Epigenetic inheritance" study showed that mice who were taught to associate an odor with danger had baby mice who reacted strongly to the same odor. http://www.sciencedaily.com/re... (Science Daily 12/2013). It may be that learning or education "triggers" latent genes. Lamarck may not turn out to be a Tesla, but Darwin is unfinished business.
Gently reply
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
When IQ tests were first developed, researchers were surprised that women have the same average as men. However, they have less variability.
Ha! Got your attention!
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
The capacity to become intelligent is.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
If you are just learning that pseudoscience has long been utilized for all sorts of morally reprehensible behavior, you are a bit late to the party.
Are you basically saying that science is a bad thing because it sometimes gives answers which are objectively valid, but which go against your core set of beliefs?
The funny thing with beliefs is that when they do not correspond to reality, they always lose in long term, every single time. If you pretend that gravity doesn't exist, it'll "work" right until the point you walk over the next pothole, while those who stick to objective view will just walk around. Science, in that sense, is a "religion" of objectivity, taking the world as it is rather than pretending that it is what you want it do be. That's what distinguishes it from any other belief system - the only belief inherent in it is that the world is objective and can be studied.
Are you saying that if facts tend to show that IQ varies by race, for example, that we should discard science and favor some other theorem that preserves the gentle and fragile sensibilities of the general public?
We already know that all humans aren't the same. It would be ridiculous to think they are. If that is a "primrose path of racism" then so be it.
Discussion here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=13370#more-13370
So now we could breed up a strain of highly intelligent chimpanzees by selecting new parents from the highest scoring chimps?
I am anarch of all I survey.
Hereditary=genetics? What kind of a gross over-simplification is that? "Like in Humans, Genes Drive Half of Chimp Intelligence"? Genes don't drive human intelligence. They determine the upper and lower limits that can be achieved with proper nutrition, care and education and a multitude of other factors. More and more factors are being discovered everyday, each diminishing the role of genetics.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content...
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb...
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Must not be so intelligent to let THIS get out then http://science.slashdot.org/co... first of all, and secondly to have bred in digestive issues into their genome as well while they bred for intelligence (big problem for them, big mistake, on the digestive problem) and to have been so transparent to call Israel "the most international city" when they are NOT allowed to ROOK another jew, so it's transparently obvious they had to bring in goyim/gentiles/non-jews to pull THAT on. What's in the link above has gotten them kicked from nation to nation since time immemorial (Egypt, Russia, Poland, France, Spain, Germany - you name it) since they would spot a business that was doing well, passed for generations from father to son (e.g. a blacksmith) and jews would setup a business in the same town, funding it from jews in surrounding towns to drop prices so much that the existing generations long business would cave in, and then the jews would raise THEIR blacksmith's price to usurious levels. This I know from European nations who endured their presence and kicked them out and they are "not all nazis" before any fool tries to play that weak card. They're so transparent, and yes, not smart, simply based on the results noted in being kicked out of every nation they infested like a human virus, burning it out and raping it until nothing was left, then spreading to another nation to do the same. Didn't work out so well in WW2 though, now did it? Nope. What you're not told about the nazis in the history books (since WHO OWNS THE PRESSES AND MEDIA? Jews) is that the Germans fairly told them (since they were onto their tricks, which any idiot could pull in gang up tactics noted above) "you have 6 months to gather your belongings, and leave" and they did not. Huge mistake. So sure, Yes, they breed for "intelligence' (that much I know from knowing jews, as well as those quotes from their own talmud that does them in every time also), but I don't see any in their overall results. You can have all the money/gold in the world, but what profiteth a man to gain the universe, if he lose his soul? To be shunned like they are, for such heinous machinations they pull is not worth it. The very fact they try to get rhinoplasty operations like mad screams they cannot accept themselves for what they are alone as well. Their problem? Greed. They do not understand the mantra of "kill them with kindness" or when to backpeddle (like a Latin fighter, swing-swing-swing until they're burnt out totally along with the nation they're in, giving away their methods/means/modus operandi, and they wonder why they're never going to be accepted? THAT, is not being intelligent, or willing to co-exist with others peacefully. It is the mark of a sociopathic race, nothing more, bent on domination imo). They're doing the same to the "JewSA" too. It is their last stand and they're too stupid to realize that if they do it here, it won't go so well for them this time (to be shunted to stolen lands from Palestinians since the rest of the races on the planet did not want to kill them outright, neither did the Germans, giving them 6 months time to leave - which is what you won't see in history books since you know who owns the presses and media as well as hollywood, but they did not, and they got, what they got). They told other nations, after they pulled their gang up games on them in businesses (when also told to leave) "the land may be yours but the streets and buildings are ours" which was VERY DUMB, not smart. IF they were truly intelligent, they would overcome this tendency of theirs to be crooks to non-jews/gentiles/goyim. They apparently cannot. The results prove they are not very intelligent, period. History shows that much.
There are more male geniuses, but also more male retards. Provable fact based on the same research you note.
Quoting an insightful comment on TFA: [quote] It is simply wrong to state that intelligence is 50% genetic and 50% environmental. This is probably the most common misconception about the meaning of the term "heritability". Heritability does NOT measure what fraction of a trait is genetic. It measures how much genetic variability contributes to the variability of that trait in that population. This sounds like a subtle distinction, but it is MAJOR. First of all, consider a thought experiment. What would happen if we made a herd of dolly's sheep (clones) that are genetically identical. Would they produce exactly equal quantities of milk? Of course not, because we all know that environment will influence milk production. So would we conclude that milk production has no genetic contribution? of course not! To quote my old friend Tim Tully "Of course its genetic. They are making milk for christ sake! (well, thats a rated G version of the quote anyway)" So this little example demonstrates that the quantity we call "heritability" does not measure genetic contribution to a trait in any meaningful or absolute sense. "Heritability" does not mean "inheritable". "Heritability" depends on the particular constellation of genetic variants in THAT POPULATION. And how those particular variants influence the trait. But there is a second and even deeper issue, which is that even when genes DO influence a trait, they do so by interaction with each other AND by interaction WITH THE ENVIRONMENT! so a given gene may or may not influence a trait depending on the environment, and depending the other gene variants that happen to be in that particular animal. And the magnitude of the gene's effect size will also vary depending on environment and the other genes too! This almost certainly contributes to the so called "missing heritability" problem that runs rampant in human genetic studies. Bottom line: its an interesting study and blog post. But the claim to quantify % of genetic influence on intelligence is dead wrong, and actually very dangerous. Josh Dubnau, Assoc. Prof. CSHL, geneticist.[/quote]
As far as "genius" level intelligence? That, one's born with (you're generally the cloth you're cut from, i.e. smart parents will generally produce intelligent offspring). However, it's like your body. You can have all that potential, but if you refuse to develop it, it atrophies (or just never reaches any higher levels, since the database in the brain isn't filled enough to make associations between varying disciplines, which leads to my next point, on being a genius, vs. what I feel is a far more valuable and admirable goal, that unfortunately, takes time and and lot of effort - the polymath). The ideal of the polymath is where the great accomplishments occur. It doesn't necessarily need genius either though that does help. It needs drive and determination and a willingness to learn and work at it. What helps the most there? Loving what it is you are learning/studying. That, alone, makes all the difference. It's too bad we can't be immortals, since attaining the ideal of the polymath takes up the most precious commodity we are all only allotted a finite amount of: Life, and time. However, WERE we immortal? Humanity would, undoubtedly in my mind at least, be much farther ahead. Breakthrus in all fields would occur at prodigious rates. No hurries either. You could master many fields, and disparate yet interrelated ones at that. That's where the big changes occur. Interdisciplinary ones. It would help cure our problems with say, political and social knowledge as well (we are weak here, no questions asked, since wars prove that point alone - wasteful illogic). Technology's advanced far faster, but for what? Mostly killing is what I see. That is stupid, illogical, and wasteful, and for what? So the 1%'ers can sit back and sip margaritas and do coke laughing at the rest of the wage slave idiots they manipulate through the most dangerous 'sciences' of all: The psychiatric ones, perfect for stirring the masses, and like most conquerors, they always can be counted on to do the wrong thing. Seize law, media, communications and the political arenas, every single time, for domination and the ability to sway the masses/sheep (since what we hear, see, read, etc. DOES sway your mood etc. or did facebook NOT try that recently, to prove my point?). Think about all of this. Change, starts with YOU, people, and cascades outward in a geometric progression. Wish our leaders/masters would realize this to build a better world, vs. a worse one by the day.
"That's remarkable! You seem to be a product of selective breeding yourself: man-ass-pig. Half man, half ass, half pig. Although I might have the proportions wrong, you seem like a total ass while being only half a man and a pig." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12, 2014 @07:35PM (#47440191)
You can't HAVE "3 halves" man - see subject line above. That is, unless you're *trying* to tell us "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts", lol... per your proportions statement.
e's against the intentional misuse of it that's thinly veiled. The world's FULL of "Coffee is free (with 50 cent cup rental)" b.s. in other words. You don't even have to read between the lines to know it. E.G. Do you really *think* what you read in history books or are taught in school is REAL history? Guess again, & here's an example you get from childhood/early on: "George Washington NEVER told a lie"... ahem *cough* BULLSHIT *cough*. He'd be the 1st politician I know of that never did, lol! History is written by "the victors", the ones that control the presses, media, law, educational (key here that bold one, since "seize the youth, you seize the future" is SO true, and you are formed largely in your biases (sp?) EARLY on) and political spectrums (and it doesn't mean a victor in war necessarily either - the more subtle one that is used to START WARS, is economic... or, didn't Rothchild himself arrogantly state "I care not who makes the laws in a nation, if I control its money supply"? Yes, he did - that should tell you WORLDS, man). Think about this. Look at how the nation was stirred by the presses and political puppets (of the 1% war profiteer wealthy, and war IS the most profitable enterprise there is, bar none) on "WMD's" that were NEVER found... and for what? To go kick ass on someone that could SEE he and his people were being used like puppets? He tried to break free, and got wasted for it. Millions die in these bogus wars based on largely bullshit lies/premises. It is, truly, wasteful illogic and makes me ashamed to be a human being, so much so, I feel many times that animals (who are more honest, & direct) are BETTER PEOPLE THAN PEOPLE!
1st, getting this out, right off the bat: I am not homosexual, but I have to admit I have had pals who turned up gay. No big deal. They can't help it. One thought when I found out I was going to "disown" him. No way. He was one cool mofo despite being gay. I have found them to be good friends and advisors in fact, on MANY levels, and truer friends than my often "using" heterosexual male pals have been over time in fact. Yes, I am "safe", but it took me TIME to get that down, as well as experience. Now to my subject line. The "point" you brought up has an interesting correlation with overpopulation iirc. IF there are more males in any given population/society, it's indicative of an overpopulation issue. Since, after all, men are "roosters in a henhouse". It only takes 1 MALE to impregnate umpteen (insert # here) FEMALES. If I am "off' or need correction via documentation (which I don't largely trust solely anymore since acamedicians have been getting caught left and right skewing statistical results or producing unreproducible findings as well as "peer review" often being bullshit too, since they gather in groups to profit together by it, ala "4/5 dentists chew trident" (dating myself there) well, that's easy to pull off by skewing the statistical sampleset by sampling only a certain area, lol, right next to the factory for trident and sending each dentist in the area a lifetime supply of it and using THEM only as your "sampleset"))? Feel free to correct me.
There's some GREAT ones (iirc, wasn't DaVinci gay? Alan Turing too? Yes) & DaVinci + Turing leads to this other "addendum" of mine (polymath vs. genius) http://science.slashdot.org/co... (though I feel DaVinci better illustrates the ideal of the polymath vs. Turing, who imo @ least, illustrates genius focus level more), Yes, those are the people that really truly CHANGE the world, for the better. Too bad they're often persecuted as in the case of gays. God doesn't make no junk as the saying goes. Imo they're intentional by design. Perhaps on the note of population I mentioned earlier? Who knows. I am not God. However, I feel that (per that link above) that it's what we DO with what he makes that we're all given, that makes the difference at first personally, and then hopefully, globally and historically. We're all capable of it. Too bad many of us don't use it fully or get discouraged early on and can't haul ourselves up outta the mud (hard minus help, nobody does it ALL alone is what I have found also), and overcome it and apply ourselves (due to laziness or being so discouraged possibly, I don't know). Not saying I have either. "Perfection" is a ROAD, not a destination, in other words.
Some meta-analysis of the actual study, along with some examination of how the media has generally thoroughly misrepresented the study, is available at Language Log.
Thus Component 1 (23.6% of test variance) was significantly heritable — h2 = 0.538. The symbol h2 is used to denote "narrow-sense heritability", which is the ratio between the variance due to average effects of alleles, and the phenotypic variance as a whole:
$$h^2 = \frac{Var(A)}{Var(P)}$$
In other words, about half of the variance in a PCA component accounting for about a quarter of the variance in test results was accounted for by genetic variation.
Component 3 (10.8% of test variance) was also significantly heritable, with h2 = 0.335. Thus about a third of the variance in a PCA component accounting for about a tenth of the variance in test results was accounted for by genetic variation.
The genetic relationships of components 2 (11.7 of test-score variance) and 4 (8.2% of test-score variance) were not statistically significant.
A quarter plus a tenth of the test results were shown to be related at all (not in whole, but at all) to heritable traits. The grand total overall was just under 16% (a half of a quarter, plus a third of a tenth).
Now, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't describe 16% as "largely". I'd describe 16% as "partly", or "mildly", or "somewhat". But of course, reporters for Nat'l Geo and The Independent and the like aren't big on math.
It's still an interesting and intriguing study, of course, but so grossly misreported that it boggles the mind. We need a better grade of chimpanzee writing science articles for the general public! :D
His intelligence is working just fine...
Yours, on the other hand,...
The ASS part was the cultural "contribution"...
Idiocracy?
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Hahaha, man I've never met anyone like you in person but if I did I'd have a grand old time.
Your fearful schizophrenic babbling is like music to my Jewish ears. I find it especially amusing how you think Jewish cultural loyalty or quotes from ancient fairy tales nobody takes literally (unlike you dipshit christians/muslims!) is different from any other immigrant behavior throughout history... Or are you perhaps bitter that your scotch-irish heritage or whatever-the-fuck kinda euro-mutt you are doesn't have a rich history of success and a support system in the face of adversity, or traditions passed down over 3 thousand years?
Gentiles mad about their comparatively lacking cultural richness I can forgive, what I can't is you being so lazy and stupid as to blame whatever personal problems you have on an entire ethnic group and its history. But please, tell me what ethnicity you identify with so I can type up a similar rant, it seems like fun!
You also project you fear what You jews wrote gets out in your reaction to it http://science.slashdot.org/co...
Right, Mr. Jew? No, I think I'll let you stir in your name calling rage and fear instead. How's that? As to your tossing names at europeans though, the Russians and Slavs seem to be running a nation of their own, and that side of the planet, just fine. The Brits ran the planet for centuries. Both have rich cultures. So much for your "intelligence". Better go breed for more as was said since you evidently don't cut it on those grounds. The Orientals and India have 5,000 yrs. of culture and recorded history. You're outsmarted on every 'point' you tried making. It's not hard either. It's hilarious.
In your name tossing rage filled projections. How? Noting Scotch-Irish. See, I have a theory. There's a "war" going on. Between groups with money. In effect, Jews and Masons (since the scottish rite house is the original batch of them). Thanks. Your reaction, as was said to you, is priceless and simple to infer information from easily. You've merely confirmed the theory I have that I noted above. I've been invited to join both groups (marriage in jews, and masonry). I wanted neither. I don't approve of how either of you act or your means to achieving ends either I turned them both down, both offers (thank goodness I escaped I feel). You're both like Voodoo vs Christianity. The same ideals hold (ala 7th sons) and polar opposites (depending on which angle you view from since everything is a matter of perspective) yet they use the same tools, just like yourself projecting masonry I suspect since you projected that much also.
Maybe you're not getting the reference?
You can't HAVE "3 halves" man - see subject line above. That is, unless you're *trying* to tell us "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts", lol... per your proportions statement.
Oh look a dumpy ignoramus with nothing to say, sitting on his boulder writing angsty teenage shit. It could only be APK!! Lol & *lol* => LOL!