About Half of Kids' Learning Ability Is In Their DNA

Taco Cowboy writes with this story about new research that finds a strong genetic component to a child's ability in math and reading. "You may think you're better at reading than you are at math (or vice versa), but new research suggests you're probably equally good (or bad) at both. The reason: The genes that determine a person's ability to tackle one subject influence their aptitude at the other, accounting for about half of a person's overall ability. The study, published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications, used nearly 1,500 pairs of 12-year-old twins to tease apart the effects of genetic inheritance and environmental variables on math and reading ability. The researchers administered a set of math and verbal tests to the children and then compared the performance of different sets of twins. They found that the twins' scores — no matter if they were high or low — were twice as similar among pairs of identical twins as among pairs of fraternal twins. The results indicated that approximately half of the children's math and reading ability stemmed from their genetic makeup.

A complementary analysis of unrelated kids corroborated this conclusion — strangers with equivalent academic abilities shared genetic similarities. What's more, the genes responsible for math and reading ability appear to be numerous and interconnected, not specifically targeted toward one set of skills. These so-called 'generalist genes' act in concert to determine a child's aptitude across multiple disciplines. The finding that one's propensities for math and reading go hand in hand may come as a surprise to many, but it shouldn't. People often feel that they possess skills in only one area simply because they perform slightly worse in the other."

Comments

And what they did not publish

[Anonymous Coward]

strangers with equivalent academic abilities shared genetic similarities

and these are unequally distributed in different races

Re:And what they did not publish

[Anonymous Coward]

Just proves that all men an NOT created equal, no matter what the PC crowd would have you believe.

What Mr. Lincoln left out was the rest of the statement, "in the eyes of the law".
That omission has wasted millions of dollars for higher education for those that can't learn. Not to mention the money wasted on "equal opportunity" and "head start" programs.

Some people just can't believe their eyes.

Re:And what they did not publish

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just proves that all men an NOT created equal, no matter what the PC crowd would have you believe."

So what does the Mac crowd believe?

Re:And what they did not publish

[timeOday]

You are confusing two different things: 1) the assumption that all people have equal intellectual ability (which practically nobody believes), with: 2) the assertion that only those with high potential are deserving of the nourishment needed to reach one's own personal potential. I can see different levels of intellectual ability in my own children; do I pull the less-able one from math? No! If anything, she will benefit more from the extra time devoted to mastering times tables than my other kids would benefit from learning a little more geometry.

Secondly, you completely confused about equal opportunity. There is nothing in this study that says people of equal potential will reach equal levels of attainment if the potential of one is developed while the potential of the other is neglected or discouraged.

Re:And what they did not publish

[Xenx]

That they're superior to their PC brethren.

Re:And what they did not publish

[timeOday]

Do you?

"That omission has wasted millions of dollars for higher education for those that can't learn." - Bzzt, wrong. There's nothing in this research that claims anybody "can't learn."

"Not to mention the money wasted on 'equal opportunity' and 'head start' programs." - Bzzt, wrong again, and 0 for 2. There's nothing in this research that shows equal opportunity or head start programs don't help, much less that they are a "waste."

Your post, and the one we are responding to, are good examples of why people have become "PC" and afraid of certain facts - because history is so full of people with political ends who (unconsciously) twist the facts to support their subjective beliefs, sometimes with disastrous results.

Re:And what they did not publish

[ideonexus]

That omission has wasted millions of dollars for higher education for those that can't learn. Not to mention the money wasted on "equal opportunity" and "head start" programs.

What a mind-boggling conclusion to draw from the article. If a human-being's intelligence is only 50% influenced by their environment, you think we should deny them the environment to develop that 50%? If that's you're reasoning, I suspect you would be one of the people being denied these social benefits.

Standardized Testing Implications?

[timrod]

What I'm wondering is what implications this will have for standardized tests. Most of the tests assume that everyone is on the same playing field - but if this is true, and genetics play a role equal to 50% of a student's learning ability, this would essentially mean that some students will intrinsically perform better than their peers simply because they have the genes and other people don't.

I'm willing to bet that the second they come up with a test for these genes, there will be lawsuits by school districts who lose funding over standardized tests, claiming that they are at an unfair disadvantage because their students simply don't have the genetic makeup to score well on the tests.

Anecdotal

[Charliemopps]

It's just anecdotal evidence, but my kids Adopted from Africa... he's smart but in regards to entirely different things than I am. I'm your typical computer guy... terrible with people but good with math, bad at spelling and grammar. He's totally outgoing, a natural leader. I take him to the park and he's organizing group activities with all the kids within minutes. It's truly amazing. I couldn't do that now, as an adult! He's 6, and already reading at a level I wasn't at until middle school. So genetics are definitely a factor.

That being said, I'm intensely interested in the mechanics of just about everything. How do you build a fence? How does a lawn mower work? I've passed this curiosity on to my son. So nurture is a factor to.

I've learned more about life by adopting than just about any other thing I've ever done in my life. I highly recommend it, you'll get more out of the venture than you ever had to put in.

Re:Anecdotal

[wonkey_monkey]

How does a lawn mower work?

Followed shortly by "What's the fastest route to the hospital?"

Meaning

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a kid who is clearly ahead of the class with mathematics but clearly behind the class with reading. So, these studies probably mean it isn't a fundamental ability problem, so where do I go from here?

Aptitude is only half the story. The other half is being interested in the subject.

Re:False.

[PopeRatzo]

Or maybe there's real-world ugly truths that the utopianists and progressives refuse to accept.

Well, possibly, but experience teaches that flat-out racism is a more likely culprit. We've seen people of all races and ethnic background perform at a very high level at every possible field, including Jewish and Italian basketball players and African-American pure mathematicians. What Murray (and you) are always looking for is the ceiling and floor. That's racist.

Plus, we've learned that there is one additional defining characteristic of racists: They will go to great lengths to try to rationalize their bigotry. And that, was my point. You've confirmed that.