Researchers Find Dozens of Genes Associated With Measures of Intelligence (arstechnica.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers Find Dozens of Genes Associated With Measures of Intelligence (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday May 23, 2017 @03:30PM from the measures-of-intelligence dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: We don't know a lot about the biological basis of our mental abilities -- we can't even consistently agree on how best to test them -- but a few things seem clear. One is that performance on a number of standardized tests that purport to measure intelligence tends to correlate with outcomes we'd associate with intelligence, like educational achievement. A second is that this performance seems to have a large genetic component. But initial studies clearly indicated that the effect of any individual gene on intelligence is small. As a result, the first genetics studies found very little, since you needed to look at a large number of people in order to see these small effects. Now, a new study has combined much of the previous work and has turned up 40 new genetic regions associated with intelligence test scores. But again, the effect of any individual gene is pretty minor. The team behind the new work took advantage of open data to pull together information from 13 different studies, which cumulatively looked through the genomes of over 78,000 individuals. While those individuals had been given a variety of tests, the authors focused on measures of general intelligence or fluid intelligence (the two seem to measure similar things). The genomes of these individuals had been scanned for single base pair differences, allowing the authors to look for correlations between regions of the genome and test scores. Two separate analyses were done. The first simply looked at each base difference individually. That turned up 336 individual bases, which clustered into 22 different genes. Half of these had not been associated with intelligence previously. To provide a separate validation of these results, the authors did a similar analysis with educational achievement. They found that nearly all of the sites they identified also correlated with that. In a second analysis, the authors tracked base differences that cluster in a single gene. Since there are more markers for each gene, this tends to be a more sensitive way of looking for effects. And in fact, it produced 47 genes associated with the intelligence test scores. Seventeen of those had been identified in the earlier analysis, which brought the total genes identified to 52, only 12 of which had been previously associated with intelligence test scores.

16 of 267 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

didn't you get the memo by Swampash · 2017-05-23 15:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

You're not allowed to talk about the possibility of there being a genetic basis for variations in intelligence. Because some genes are more common in certain ethnic groups than others, and then all hell will break loose and you'll get Bellcurved.
1. Re: didn't you get the memo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-23 15:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Top scientists who want to keep their jobs at universities agree: evolution stops at the neck.
2. Re:didn't you get the memo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-23 16:08 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Actually, it's trendy in America to be racist toward whites and sexist towards males nowadays. That's probably why people are scared of any scientific findings showing up that might back up the statistical evidence that certain ethnic groups display on average higher intelligence than others (such as whites as compared to blacks).
  Yes, they will use history to justify their own bias, but don't be fooled, it is racism all the same, the target has just changed.
3. Re:didn't you get the memo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-23 16:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There is also a long ugly history of even scientists ignoring scientific findings that are socially unacceptable.
  Different mean and standard deviation of intelligence found in groups of people defined through genetic locus controlling for education, culture, diet, and socioeconomic status is one of them.
  The person that can prove four decades of scientific evidence wrong will be quite famous. Until then, everyone tries very hard to ignore the evidence and pretend it doesn't exist, as this paper did.
4. Re:didn't you get the memo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-23 16:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  While that is true, it does not mean that there is no genetic basis for differences in intelligence.
  Questioning motives in order to shut down discussion that is uncomfortable to some prevents society from accepting reality. Most of the technological progress we have today resulted from the efforts of those many would consider questionable under various ideologies and belief systems.
  Politeness is just a form of white lying, really, and it should not be considered when trying to determine truth. There are plenty of self righteous scientists who'd disagree, but they're just trying to virtue signal their insecurities away. The truth does not care about feelings. It is what it is.
5. Re:didn't you get the memo by Michael+Woodhams · 2017-05-23 17:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  One issue is comparing heritability within a group with differences between groups.
  The old argument goes something like this. Within middle class white Americans, IQ is highly heritable. Black Americans and new immigrants from Eastern Europe (this is around 1910 when there were many such immigrants) score much worse than middle class white Americans on IQ tests. Because IQ is heritable, the Blacks and Eastern Europeans must be genetically inferior.
  There are (at least) two major problems with this line of reasoning. One is that the tests had a cultural bias. This can be as simple as people with English as a second language not understanding the instructions, or just lack of familiarity with the types of questions being asked. Another is neglecting the contribution of environment: the testees may in fact be less intelligent, but because of impoverished childhood rather than inferior genes.
  A good example of this second point is height. Height is more heritable than IQ, but is also affected by childhood nutrition. As a people become affluent, average height increases, even though the genes are not changing.
  
  --
  Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
6. Re:didn't you get the memo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-23 17:34 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Obviously you *are* allowed to talk about that, since that's exactly what this study looked at. And it's been a very common field of study.
  Looks like SJW mentality isn't as pervasive in science as you think.
7. Re:didn't you get the memo by Jzanu · 2017-05-23 18:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  But Jewish populations are genetically distinct, even between small sub-groups. As a whole they are farther from European clusters than many African, and of course are more closely related to Arabs from genetic drift measurements. Races are artificial and are scientifically meaningless; genetics is reality.
8. Re:didn't you get the memo by Kiuas · 2017-05-23 23:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There are (at least) two major problems with this line of reasoning. One is that the tests had a cultural bias. This can be as simple as people with English as a second language not understanding the instructions, or just lack of familiarity with the types of questions being asked. Another is neglecting the contribution of environment: the testees may in fact be less intelligent, but because of impoverished childhood rather than inferior genes.
  A good example of this second point is height. Height is more heritable than IQ, but is also affected by childhood nutrition. As a people become affluent, average height increases, even though the genes are not changing.
  Excellent points. The same topic came up towards the end of a recent podcast of Sam Harris (link, the discussion about IQ starts sometime after the 1 hour 30 minute mark) which had as a guest the cancer physician and researcher. Siddhartha Mukherjee. The point made by Mukherjee is that available evidence suggests that IQ is heritable but not inherited. So genetic factors certainly play into shaping an individuals IQ, but it doesn't mean the offspring of someone with high or really high IQ will inherit that trait.
  And even if it turns out that genes account for 100 % of IQ variation that still does not eliminate the role of the environment and upbringing on how those genes (and hence, IQ) are expressed:
  
  Unfortunately there is frequent confusion about the meaning of heritability. The most frequent misunderstanding is the purpose of twin studies. Heritability estimates are about understanding sources of similarities and differences in traits between members of a particular population. The results apply only to that population. The purpose is not to determine how much any particular individual’s traits are due to his or her genes or his or her environment. Behavioral geneticists are well aware that all of our traits develop through a combination of both nature and nurture. Heritability estimates are about explaining differences among people, not explaining individual development. The question on the table for them is this: In a particular population of individuals, what factors make those individuals the same as each other, and which factors make them different?
  Therefore, twin studies aren’t designed to investigate human development. In recent years developmental psychologists, including L. Todd Rose, Kurt Fischer, Peter Molenaar, and Cynthia Campbell, have been developing exciting new techniques to study intraindividual variation. 12 Intraindividual variation focuses on a single person and looks at how an integrated dynamic system of behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and other psychological processes change across time and situations. New intraindividual techniques allow researchers to focus on a single twin pair and see how nature and nurture interact in nonlinear ways to explain both their similarities and their differences. 13 Both levels of analysis— twin studies and developmental analysis— are informative, but the results from the one do not apply to the other. 14
  Many people also confuse heritability with immutability. They hear the word “heritable” and immediately think of “genes,” which then conjures up pictures of a fixed trait that can’t be altered by external forces. In contrast, many people hear the word “environment” and breathe a sigh of relief, thinking the trait is easily modifiable. This requires quite a strong faith in social engineering!
  Just because a trait is heritable (and virtually all of our psychological traits are heritable) doesn’t necessarily mean that the trait is fixed or can’t be developed. Virtually all of our traits are substantially genetically influenced and are influenced by environm
  
  --
  "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
9. Re:didn't you get the memo by meta-monkey · 2017-05-24 02:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I would say the problem we encounter today is leftists suppressing science to justify horrific evil behavior, so we need an honest evaluation of the truth going forward.
  It goes something like this. Assume there are no genetic differences in intellectual ability between people of recent European and African descent. Notice there is a difference in group average outcomes (income, test scores, job placement, etc) in the United States between people of recent European and African descent. Since you've already established (without proof, and contrary to empirical evidence as well as basic understanding of evouationary biology) that there is no difference in these populations' average natural ability, the difference in outcomes must be because of racism on the part of the European-Americans against the African-Americans. This justifies hatred and resentment against the European-Americans, and the use of government force to extract resources from the European-Americans or enforcement of different behavioral standards to "correct" their oppressive misdeeds. Naturally this will also be profitable for the people pushing this narrative.
  If it turns out that no, in fact the reason for the difference in outcomes are largely genetic, then the entire justification for the redistribution and vilification falls apart. This is very bad for the left, so they have to forcibly shut down anyone who tells the truth about genetic differences between human haplogroups, insisting they are not just wrong, but also evil. This all ends very poorly.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
p hacking by eis2718bob · 2017-05-23 15:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is a textbook example of p-hacking. Note the plural in "measures of intelligence", along with "educational achievement" as dependent variables. Something was gonna show a correlation, to the vaunted oh point oh five. What a crock.
882. We don't even need the links for these anymore, just the number.
1. Re:p hacking by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-23 16:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes, because if you look at enough variables, given a truly random set, some portion of the variables are going to appear non-random. P-hacking isn't just twisting knobs to show something, it can also be looking at enough knobs. https://xkcd.com/882/
Re:Match against questions! by SLi · 2017-05-23 21:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

This "theory of multiple intelligences" is a quite popular narrative, but it's not empirically supported by studies. Rather, it seems that there is one "g factor", or general cognitive ability, that tends to explain quite well the "different kinds of intelligence". That is, any IQ test seems to be a good predictor of performance in any other IQ test, whether testing logical-mathematical, linguistic, spatial or some other "kind" of intelligence.
It doesn't even matter if intelligence is genetic by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-24 00:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

There are certainly genetic components that contribute to intelligence. But you know what? It almost doesn't matter.
Fact is: the average IQ of a black African is around 70. Africa is a disaster, and all the aid from the rest of the world has not helped. A population with an average IQ of 70 cannot maintain a Western infrastructure without help. But we aren't allowed to talk about intelligence as a contributing factor. If we could, we might have different strategies for aid; strategies that might actually work.
And if it turns out that, after pulling Africa out of its hole, those 30 points of IQ are due to environmental factors, or disease, or education, or whatever? Everybody wins.
tl;dr: Before we can do anything about the problems in Africa, we have to be able to talk openly about intelligence.
Odds are... by Dareth · 2017-05-24 02:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

Odds are the smartest person in the whole world is illiterate and wasting many brain cycles while subsistence farming.

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Get Ready for Science Denial... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-24 03:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

...Ironically from the SJW folks.