Slashdot Mirror
Massive Study Searching For Genes Behind Intelligence Finds Little
An anonymous reader writes: It's been taken for granted that science would, one day, figure out what parts of our DNA make us smart (or not). But a huge new study done by a group of almost 60 researchers using genome data on over 100,000 people has come up empty-handed. The scientists first looked for differences in the genome that correlated with academic achievement. After narrowing it down to 69 individual sites, they gave cognitive tests to separate group of 24,000 people and looked for evidence of difference at those same locations (abstract). Most of the sites weren't significantly different from chance — the (already weak) genetic influence of genes on height has an effect 20 times greater. On top of that, the three gene locations that did seem to have a stronger correlation weren't involved in development of the nervous system.
I care less about a SciFi movie. Much better is one more nail in the coffin of the insidious book, The Bell Curve
The study did not demonstrate this at all. It simply failed to find specific genes responsible for intelligence.
You might still be born with a set intelligence which isn't genetically determined, or it might be genetically determined on the basis of genetic factors that were not identified for any number of reasons. Or you could be right.
The point is, this study doesn't provide any evidence one way or another.
Also, equating academic performance with intelligence may be dubious. There could be many factors responsible for academic performance, of which intelligence is just one. We can't even define what intelligence is...
Not quite true.
It shows that a large number of specific candidate genes don't do it. Even if it's not a complete refutation of the hypothesis, it is a push to maybe look elsewhere for some of the mechanisms of intelligence development.
Not quite true.
It shows that a large number of specific candidate genes don't do it. Even if it's not a complete refutation of the hypothesis, it is a push to maybe look elsewhere for some of the mechanisms of intelligence development.
Well, it only would show that those genes don't have an individually-detectable affect on whatever marker they looked at. Maybe collectively they have an effect that can't be detected statistically. Maybe the marker they chose doesn't make sense.
Imagine if I tried to identify the gene for "sickness." I took anybody who ever got sick for any reason and studied their DNA and looked for a common link. Most likely I wouldn't find anything. Would this prove that genes can't make you sick? Or is it more likely that "sickness" is such a broad description of a phenotype that it could have a billion different causes.
Academic performance could be the result of MANY factors. Physical attractiveness has been demonstrated to have an impact on academic performance, and you'd hardly expect the same genes to affect that as your ability to do some kind of mental processing. That is just picking one attribute that is obviously going to confound results. Then you get into stuff like whether intelligence is about persistence, or ability to process information, or memory, etc. All of those things are likely to affect academic performance. Then there are cultural factors - let's just assume the sterotype about Asians prodding their kids to study harder is true - I'm sure there are alleles more common in Asians (the fact that they have distinctive appearances makes this obvious for starters), and that is going to confound things.
If you really want to identify the genes responsible for a trait, you have to first come up with a very precise definition for the trait, ideally one tied to some kind of biological mechanism (good luck if it involves the brain).
Yes when I saw that news in the summer I thought it was misguided. I did a short essay on genetics vs environment as part of my psychology education where the conclusion was that environment dictates the IQ of children and genes the IQ of adults. The cause of this might be that adults choose and form their own environments.
This might mean that environment is the biggest factor in the average person's intelligence, but that their genes affect what type of environment they choose to have.
Personally I think that behavior is the main factor in intelligence. Training yourself certain ways of thinking and tackling problems sounds more reasonable to explain why someone is smarter than another, than people becoming smarter because of their genes.
These results are just part of the process in finding out what causes what we consider intelligence. Expect more of these in the future, and do not expect consensus.
Right, because if these guys didn't find it, it must not exist. I wonder if you've even read that "insidious" book.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
You could also just compare them with fraternal twins.
In this case the genetic starting points are different, but the in-utero contributions are the same.
From the original paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...
We identify several common genetic variants associated with cognitive performance using a two-stage approach: we conduct a genome-wide association study of educational attainment to generate a set of candidates, and then we estimate the association of these variants with cognitive performance. In older Americans, we find that these variants are jointly associated with cognitive health. Bioinformatics analyses implicate a set of genes that is associated with a particular neurotransmitter pathway involved in synaptic plasticity, the main cellular mechanism for learning and memory. In addition to the substantive contribution, this work also serves to show a proxy-phenotype approach to discovering common genetic variants that is likely to be useful for many phenotypes of interest to social scientists (such as personality traits).
How the hell does the article now writes that "The scientists first looked for differences in the genome that correlated with academic achievement"? No, they looked for "educational attainment". Then the abstract goes on "Three SNPs (rs1487441, rs7923609, and rs2721173) are significantly associated with cognitive performance after correction for multiple hypothesis testing." SNPs are different alleles of the same gene.
Then, "Convergent evidence from a set of bioinformatics analyses implicates four specific genes (KNCMA1, NRXN1, POU2F3, and SCRT). All of these genes are associated with a particular neurotransmitter pathway involved in synaptic plasticity, the main cellular mechanism for learning and memory." But the article states that " On top of that, the three gene locations that did seem to have a stronger correlation weren't involved in development of the nervous system."
What the hell??
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
"Its central argument is that human intelligence is substantially influenced by both inherited and environmental factors and is a better predictor of many personal dynamics, including financial income, job performance, chance of unwanted pregnancy, and involvement in crime than are an individual's parental socioeconomic status, or education level."
And
"The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved."
It's a perfectly valid premise to investigate. That's all the book is. Just like some groups have predisposition to certain diseases, maybe some groups have a genetic limitation to the likely of above average intelligence.
Please note: I am saying some groups. I am not saying my group would be smarter. People tend to project that idea.
That said, I hope not. But not looking into it is a massive disservice to humanity.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I don't see where the book was ever debunked.
Just criticized by the perpetually butthurt politically correct social justice warriors. And we know what mere criticisms are worth. Everyone has one.
Clearly genetics has a very large impact on intelligence. Human DNA seems to yield far more intelligence than any other sequence we've yet encountered.
The AT article seems to try to put a spin on it, but the actual abstract sounds quite different:
It's clear from twin studies that IQ has a strong genetic component, about as strong as height: both have a heritability of around 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to 1, with 1 being variability being entirely genetically determined). Here's a bit more info on heritability from Nature: http://www.nature.com/scitable...
Failing to find the genes responsible in this study means nothing since the current SNPs we test for are quite limited. Ultimately, these questions can only be resolved by full genome sequencing of large numbers of people. Until then, we may get lucky in identifying genes in these kinds of studies, but failure to find something means little. And, actually, they did find something interesting.
"Massive study finds that they should have hired more intelligent researchers"
Who cares if they found genes correlated to intelligence but they don't directly affect the nervous system? The body is interconnected in so many ways that everything affects intelligence.
Also, academic achievement also tests for willingness to put up with bull and do boring homework, or an interest in certain subjects. To be fair though, academic achievement is probably more important than intelligence, at least for some things. For example many colleges want applicants to take the Student Aptitude Test, yet I've never heard of one wanting an IQ test.
Other studies have found that about 50% of the variation in intelligence is due to genetics. This study only looked at it from the perspective that maybe a few genes contribute a lot. It seems that the answer is it is due to a large number of genes each with a tiny effect. This is hardly surprising but it was a worthwhile test.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
There is no maybe, every study that has ever looked into this since the dawn of science has confirmed this.
Indeed. For example, even the ancient Greeks and Romans knew perfectly well that these uncouth blue-eyed barbarians from the North were obviously dumber than the glorious Mediterranean master race.
Wait, what?
Hell you don't even have to ask science, every average Joe on the street knows this already from life experience.
Ask "average Joe on the street" what he thinks about evolution.
Ask "average Joe on the street" what he thinks about evolution.
Exactly. Relying on average Joe to determine a piece of knowledge on very complex shit (or wisdom) is pretty stupid no matter how we cut it.
maybe some groups have a genetic limitation to the likely of above average intelligence.
There is no maybe, every study that has ever looked into this since the dawn of science has confirmed this.
Your statement may be accurate, but probably not in the way you mean. If you seriously want to look into the history of scientific views on race, you might start here.
Yes, for most of the history of science, scientists have claimed that they had "proof" of the inferior intelligence of one race or another. The funny thing is... the race that is "stupid" tends to change depending on the time period or the background of the authors, suggesting most historical methodologies were probably flawed. Unless, of course, you actually believe that the Jews and Asian people of the 19th century were actually so very stupid (as scientists of that time said), but recent IQ tests seem to put them at the top. And if you believe that all these scientific "tests" are valid across different eras (which is rather preposterous if you look at their "methodologies" for determining "superior" races), then your genetic heredity hypothesis runs into problem -- otherwise, how do you explain the giant jump in intelligence for Asians and Jews in "scientific" studies in the past couple hundred years?
It's kinda like the fact that back in the early 20th century, Jews were the stars of professional basketball, lauded for their supposed athletic prowess, their craftiness and stealthiness ("scheming minds"), and their shortness, which was supposed to give them an advantage on the basketball court by allowing faster maneuvering closer to the ground. Of course that sounds like nonsense today when basketball is dominated with large, tall African-American players, but we still seem to want to find some sort of genetic explanation for the "natural athletic ability" of certain races.
Hell you don't even have to ask science, every average Joe on the street knows this already from life experience.
I know average Joe. He often harbors some racist views, either overt or latent.
But just in case you're young and everything you've ever read has been sanitized by the Academic Department of Purethought: the highest average IQ of any human race/group belongs to Ashkenazi Jews.
The problem is that you have to accept that (1) IQ tests actually are a reasonable measure of the only type of "general intelligence" that counts, (2) that IQ can't be influenced significantly by experience or life conditions, and (3) that there are no other confounding variables that could make comparisons between vastly different groups problematic.
I don't accept any of these. First, IQ tests measure something but many scientists have severely criticized them as the only possible measure of "general intelligence." And second, there are many, many known confounding factors, including environmental factors and life experience, that make comparisons difficult between races.
I'm NOT saying that no racial differences exist. I'm saying that (1) even if they do exist, the tests are mostly written by smart white people to evaluate smart white people, so they may not accurately measure useful intelligence in other cultures, (2) there are way too many confounding variables to give a lot of accuracy to comparisons, and most of the differences seen at face value are very likely not to turn out to have meaningful genetic or racial sources.
If you were to go to, say, Japan or Russia and say to a scientist, "Some races have higher geneti