Obligatory:

So does this mean that soon calling people willfully ignorant will be anti-science?

I do not believe in greater (or lesser) intelligence (which I'm defining here as a capacity for knowledge), I've believe that some people are more curious and have a greater passion for learning than others and this makes them appear more intelligent.

cgraves67: I do not believe in greater (or lesser) intelligence (which I'm defining here as a capacity for knowledge), I've believe that some people are more curious and have a greater passion for learning than others and this makes them appear more intelligent.

That's cute.

/Have a cookie, then it's nap time.

s2s2s2: So does this mean that soon calling people willfully ignorant will be anti-science?

You joke, but as more genes that influence behavioral patterns are discovered, there is going to be a hell of a lot of outcry about how science is relieving people of personal responsibility.

The catch is, we still have social mores and codes of behavior that will also influence whether or not a person acts on their (for lack of better words) urges and instincts; and just because you have a gene that makes you predisposed to certain behaviors, that does not absolve you from the consequences of your behavior.

In other words, genetic predisposition does not absolve one's actions if they are a sociopath.

cgraves67: I do not believe in greater (or lesser) intelligence (which I'm defining here as a capacity for knowledge), I've believe that some people are more curious and have a greater passion for learning than others and this makes them appear more intelligent.

Good thing believing in something makes it true regardless of what science says. All brains are created equal!

meat0918: In other words, genetic predisposition does not absolve one's actions if they are a sociopath.

I am more concerned with the Government taking preemptive action. Who would they answer to?

cgraves67: I do not believe in greater (or lesser) intelligence (which I'm defining here as a capacity for knowledge), I've believe that some people are more curious and have a greater passion for learning than others and this makes them appear more intelligent.

After reading this post I am further convinced to the contrary.

ricewater_stool: cgraves67: I do not believe in greater (or lesser) intelligence (which I'm defining here as a capacity for knowledge), I've believe that some people are more curious and have a greater passion for learning than others and this makes them appear more intelligent.


Apparently you've never watched Wheel of Fortune.

Or CSPAN.

Now stupid people are going to whine about it not being their fault, they're IQ-handicapped, and demand more reality TV...

H31N0US: cgraves67: I do not believe in greater (or lesser) intelligence (which I'm defining here as a capacity for knowledge), I've believe that some people are more curious and have a greater passion for learning than others and this makes them appear more intelligent.

After reading this post I am further convinced to the contrary.

Well, that's about it. See you guys later.

Yes, go on.

I don't understand...

Trolljegeren: cgraves67: I do not believe in greater (or lesser) intelligence (which I'm defining here as a capacity for knowledge), I've believe that some people are more curious and have a greater passion for learning than others and this makes them appear more intelligent.

That's cute.

/Have a cookie, then it's nap time.

Niiicccceeeee

cgraves67: I do not believe in greater (or lesser) intelligence (which I'm defining here as a capacity for knowledge), I've believe that some people are more curious and have a greater passion for learning than others and this makes them appear more intelligent.

When I was 10, I used to say that anyone could be an Olympic athlete in some event with the right training from birth.

highendmighty: cgraves67: I do not believe in greater (or lesser) intelligence (which I'm defining here as a capacity for knowledge), I've believe that some people are more curious and have a greater passion for learning than others and this makes them appear more intelligent.

When I was 10, I used to say that anyone could be an Olympic athlete in some event with the right training from birth.

Just making sure I told you - I WAS 10!

cgraves67: I do not believe in greater (or lesser) intelligence (which I'm defining here as a capacity for knowledge), I've believe that some people are more curious and have a greater passion for learning than others and this makes them appear more intelligent.

i sort of agree with you some people are just focused on other things, surfers I know can barely work out how to pay a parking ticket but can give you an accurate five day weather and tide forecast with sunrise an sunsets for the entire south central pacific.

Is it connected to the depressed, cynical bastard gene?

cgraves67: I do not believe in greater (or lesser) intelligence (which I'm defining here as a capacity for knowledge), I've believe that some people are more curious and have a greater passion for learning than others and this makes them appear more intelligent.

In high school we had this massive pothead in one of our glasses. Dude could barely hold a conversation. Never raised his hand, commented, anything. Class rankings came out, he was #2 for a 3,000 body class. He did not try or apply himself. He did NOT have a passion for learning, he was just disgustingly smart. So some people, it's pure mind, no effort.

s2s2s2: meat0918: In other words, genetic predisposition does not absolve one's actions if they are a sociopath.

I am more concerned with the Government taking preemptive action. Who would they answer to?

The Department of Lightweight Aluminum Haberdashery.

How do they know this is an intelligence gene and simply not a gene that marks which of us are not politicians?

The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the
average IQ of African Americans was 85, Latino 89, White 103, Asian 106, and Jews 113.
The other sources I've read are usually in the same general ranges.
As far as anyone screaming racist!!!, get over it, it maybe politically incorrect but the test results are valid. How the information is misused is very often racist in intent and should not be tolerated.
While genetics do play a role in over all 'intelligence' their influence is pretty much 0 compared to the other variables involved. The #1 factor is how well the mother eats during pregnancy and how well the child is fed as it grows. Environmental factors are #2. Culture can affect intelligence by a much smaller degree than the first two. Genetic influence is a distant #4.
Intelligence is cumulative across generations in a measurable amount ie several generations of well fed parents do lead to small gains and even one generation subjected to poor nutrition and/or a negative environment can reverse those gains.

unicron702: cgraves67: I do not believe in greater (or lesser) intelligence (which I'm defining here as a capacity for knowledge), I've believe that some people are more curious and have a greater passion for learning than others and this makes them appear more intelligent.

In high school we had this massive pothead in one of our glasses. Dude could barely hold a conversation. Never raised his hand, commented, anything. Class rankings came out, he was #2 for a 3,000 body class. He did not try or apply himself. He did NOT have a passion for learning, he was just disgustingly smart. So some people, it's pure mind, no effort.

Awesome things happen when smart people smoke pot. It's beautiful sometimes.

darklingscribe
Is it connected to the depressed, cynical bastard gene?
`
Indirectly, higher intelligence can result in an increased awareness of the short comings of others and a lower tolerance level of those traits. But usually the DCB gene kicks in because the carrier is an asshat, no intelligence required.

meat0918: s2s2s2: So does this mean that soon calling people willfully ignorant will be anti-science?

You joke, but as more genes that influence behavioral patterns are discovered, there is going to be a hell of a lot of outcry about how science is relieving people of personal responsibility.

The catch is, we still have social mores and codes of behavior that will also influence whether or not a person acts on their (for lack of better words) urges and instincts; and just because you have a gene that makes you predisposed to certain behaviors, that does not absolve you from the consequences of your behavior.

In other words, genetic predisposition does not absolve one's actions if they are a sociopath.

Even if we go full monty and say the whole of the universe is deterministic - that choice does not exist, that all actions are therefore a result of an unending chain reaction, precluding the ability to choose - we may still make use of laws and punishment. As part of the system, those laws and punishment will reduce the incidence of actions just as they were meant to: two individuals may be predisposed to an action as a result of the fixed universe, but where one's mental processes cascaded into action, the other "decided" to show restraint as a result of fear of punishment. (Of course, in a deterministic universe, whether or not society maintains those laws is already destined as well.)

In short, laws and punishment have their role in society, whether or not choice is real, or whether (assuming the former) the individual could even make that choice.

/Yes, I am agreeing with you
//Pontificating on the Internet
///+300 intelligence poince.

s2s2s2: meat0918: In other words, genetic predisposition does not absolve one's actions if they are a sociopath.

I am more concerned with the Government taking preemptive action. Who would they answer to?

I'm going to spare you my boilerplate "government is YOU" speech because you're from Texas. I don't like children, but I won't be seen kicking them.

phlegmmo: [epicsportsfail.com image 480x384]

That.. that image is as close to a *literal* representation of 'man-child' as I expect to ever see.

J. Frank Parnell:
`
Boatmech: Indirectly, higher intelligence can
result in an increased awareness of the short
comings of others and a lower tolerance level of those traits.

`
People hate in others what they secretly hate in themselves.
I'll let you think about that for a moment.
`
Everything is about image these days, not
substance, so a lot of people just learn to act
intelligent. Memorization is also not intelligence,but passes for it these days. If that truly is intelligence, then we can just give up on AI, because computers can memorize things excellently already.
`
Ok, thought about it. Now what?
`
Memory and the ability to memorize are a significant influence on intelligence. How those memories are used is one indication of the level of intelligence. And yes, intelligence can be 'faked' up to a certain point. As to the image vs substance - welcome to the human race. I don't mean that in a snarky way, what I'm saying is that is a trait we all share to a certain degree.
The comment about AI is pretty confusing.
You set up a straw man -Memorization is intelligence (false)
Then you throw in the AI comment (not sure where that came from)
Then you burn it down - If that truly is intelligence, then we can just give up on AI, because computers can memorize things excellently already.(As I said memorization is part of 'intelligence', not the sum total)
`
AI will happen and like every other form of life the birth will probably be messy and painful to the parent and scary as hell to the offspring.
/can't wait for the Supreme Court ruling on Man vs Machine - should AIs have a mandatory lifespan or be allowed immortality?

Niveras
//Pontificating on the Internet
///+300 intelligence poince.
`
And we have a face plant on the dismount folks!

Gergesa: I imagine at some point race will be dragged into this so I will just go ahead and do it and get it out of the way. Koreans are the smartest and that is why they academically dominate others.

Or something along those lines. Whatever. Do it yourselves.

Approves

If you read the linked article, you see that a marker in the gene HMGA2 confers on average 1.3 points of extra IQ. It's not enough you'd notice, but in a large study (they used over 15,000 people) you can measure the trend-effect.

From the Nature-Genetics online abstract, we see it is the common-variant rs10784502. This variant is about 50% prevalent in both the european population and the sub-saharan african population. It is about 12% in the chinese and japanese populations.

Also, this mutation is intronic, meaning it does not impact the protein directly. Under the assumption that point mutations are like lightning (happen often but never in the same place) these (common, intronic) mutations are used as markers for common ancestry. That is, it doesnt directly tell us what is different, but instead is a signal that something in that gene is related to intelligence.

We dont know what or how, and after costly full-sequencing of these study subjects, we might see everyone(dumb and smart) has a unique form of the gene.

Info on the paper:
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.2250.html

info on rs10784502
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=10784502

Info on HMGA2
http://omim.org/entry/600698

You'll see HMGA2 is a growth and other-gene regulation promoter. It was found in pygmy mice to be related to their abnormal fat-tissue growth. Since the brain is mostly fat, a variant of fatty-growth could feasibly enhance brain-size, which is exactly what this new study found.

In 2005, a study found a boy with this gene broken. His bones were growing too fast, fat tissues depositing in the wrong places, and had many fatty tumors. This points to it as a controlling gene for normal growth patterns.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15593017

Boatmech: The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the
average IQ of African Americans was 85, Latino 89, White 103, Asian 106, and Jews 113.
The other sources I've read are usually in the same general ranges.
As far as anyone screaming racist!!!, get over it, it maybe politically incorrect but the test results are valid. How the information is misused is very often racist in intent and should not be tolerated.
While genetics do play a role in over all 'intelligence' their influence is pretty much 0 compared to the other variables involved. The #1 factor is how well the mother eats during pregnancy and how well the child is fed as it grows. Environmental factors are #2. Culture can affect intelligence by a much smaller degree than the first two. Genetic influence is a distant #4.
Intelligence is cumulative across generations in a measurable amount ie several generations of well fed parents do lead to small gains and even one generation subjected to poor nutrition and/or a negative environment can reverse those gains.



You assert an awful lot of facts. Do you have any sources for any of them? Or does this all come from your education at The University of My Ass? Never mind that 'The Bell Curve' has been demolished, several times over, by actually smart people. I'm ignoring that, because I feel sorry for you. But everything else you've said, in a parallel tone of factualism, demands *some* kind of substantiation beyond your mere say-so. At least cite some other worthless books.

J. Frank Parnell: Boatmech: Indirectly, higher intelligence can result in an increased awareness of the short comings of others and a lower tolerance level of those traits.

People hate in others what they secretly hate in themselves.

I'll let you think about that for a moment.

Everything is about image these days, not substance, so a lot of people just learn to act intelligent. Memorization is also not intelligence, but passes for it these days. If that truly is intelligence, then we can just give up on AI, because computers can memorize things excellently already.

"The problem is not whether machines think but whether men do." - Alan Turing

Makh: They already discovered that secret at NIMH.

Well, I'll be jiggered!



He's right! Gonzalo Laje, Xinmin Liu & Francis J McMahon all work at NIMH!

Boatmech: Niveras
//Pontificating on the Internet
///+300 intelligence poince.
`
And we have a face plant on the dismount folks!

Pretty sure that was supposed to be a joke. I'm basing that on stuff I've read by Niveras before, but it's only my hunch.

I think you both have good points, but it also seems to me that you might be talking past each other. I think you and I might be, also; if so, then I apologise for being harsh before.

Man, I swear the Intarwebs cause almost as much confusion as they purportedly solve. I'm suddenly reminded of Tom Vanderbilt's remarks in 'Traffic' that the fundamental problem of driving is that humans didn't evolve to properly assess motion at speeds faster than we can run (or, for that matter, survive impacts at those speeds). And also the several articles we've all see here that the reason other people's mobile phone conversations are so distracting to us is that we didn't evolve to tune out only one side of a conversation. So I guess maybe Internet chatter fails to deliver the nuances of normal conversation for our monkey brains because we can't see or hear each other? Again, just a guess.

andrewagill: Makh: They already discovered that secret at NIMH.

Well, I'll be jiggered!

[www.dartmouth.edu image 400x290]

He's right! Gonzalo Laje, Xinmin Liu & Francis J McMahon all work at NIMH!

Shhh! It's a secret!

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Boatmech: The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the
average IQ of African Americans was 85, Latino 89, White 103, Asian 106, and Jews 113.
The other sources I've read are usually in the same general ranges.
As far as anyone screaming racist!!!, get over it, it maybe politically incorrect but the test results are valid. How the information is misused is very often racist in intent and should not be tolerated.
While genetics do play a role in over all 'intelligence' their influence is pretty much 0 compared to the other variables involved. The #1 factor is how well the mother eats during pregnancy and how well the child is fed as it grows. Environmental factors are #2. Culture can affect intelligence by a much smaller degree than the first two. Genetic influence is a distant #4.
Intelligence is cumulative across generations in a measurable amount ie several generations of well fed parents do lead to small gains and even one generation subjected to poor nutrition and/or a negative environment can reverse those gains.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

You assert an awful lot of facts. Do you have any sources for any of them? Or does this all come from your education at The University of My Ass? Never mind that 'The Bell Curve' has been demolished, several times over, by actually smart people. I'm ignoring that, because I feel sorry for you. But everything else you've said, in a parallel tone of factualism, demands *some* kind of substantiation beyond your mere say-so. At least cite some other worthless books.

Well, certainly the Bell Curve is crap - but he makes a sound point in saying that genetics is likely a very small factor in the phenomenon we call "intelligence" - it's mostly cultural, behavioral, and environmental (nutrition, diease, etc.)
The likelihood that the genetic aspects of intelligence would emerge as an "ethnic" trait is small - human "ethnicity" is a set of adaptations to environmental pressures - and while it may favor an individual to have darker or lighter skin and so on, in one environment or another, there is no environment in which it is advantageous for a human to be dumber rather than smarter, with the possible exception of Alabama.

jso2897: The Department of Lightweight Aluminum Haberdashery.

THE funniest thing i have read today.

And i read "Garfield" this morning.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch
`
And we have a face plant on the dismount folks
!

Pretty sure that was supposed to be a joke. I'm
basing that on stuff I've read by Niveras before,but it's only my hunch.
I think you both have good points, but it also
seems to me that you might be talking past each other. I think you and I might be, also; if so, then I apologise for being harsh before.
Man, I swear the Intarwebs cause almost as
much confusion as they purportedly solve.
`
No problem with asking for citations and defiantly no need to apologize.
If you want the cits I'll dig them up but it would help if you'd pick a particular point or two to start.

jso2897
Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Boatmech: The Bell
Curve (1994) stated that the
average IQ of African Americans was 85, Latino 89, White 103, Asian 106, and Jews 113. The other sources I've read are usually in the same general ranges.
`
I used the Bell Curve because that book, for better or worse was my first exposure to the science behind the racism I grew up with.
The stats I copy pastaed (sp?) are in the Wiki and easy to find. The conclusions and recommendations the authors made are a whole nother story.

jso2897: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Boatmech: The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the
average IQ of African Americans was 85, Latino 89, White 103, Asian 106, and Jews 113.
The other sources I've read are usually in the same general ranges.
As far as anyone screaming racist!!!, get over it, it maybe politically incorrect but the test results are valid. How the information is misused is very often racist in intent and should not be tolerated.
While genetics do play a role in over all 'intelligence' their influence is pretty much 0 compared to the other variables involved. The #1 factor is how well the mother eats during pregnancy and how well the child is fed as it grows. Environmental factors are #2. Culture can affect intelligence by a much smaller degree than the first two. Genetic influence is a distant #4.
Intelligence is cumulative across generations in a measurable amount ie several generations of well fed parents do lead to small gains and even one generation subjected to poor nutrition and/or a negative environment can reverse those gains.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

You assert an awful lot of facts. Do you have any sources for any of them? Or does this all come from your education at The University of My Ass? Never mind that 'The Bell Curve' has been demolished, several times over, by actually smart people. I'm ignoring that, because I feel sorry for you. But everything else you've said, in a parallel tone of factualism, demands *some* kind of substantiation beyond your mere say-so. At least cite some other worthless books.

Well, certainly the Bell Curve is crap - but he makes a sound point in saying that genetics is likely a very small factor in the phenomenon we call "intelligence" - it's mostly cultural, behavioral, and environmental (nutrition, diease, etc.)
The likelihood that the genetic aspects of intelligence would emerge as an "ethnic" trait is small - human "ethnicity" is a set of adaptations to environmental pressures - and while it may favor an individual to have darker or lighter skin and so on, in one environment or another, there is no environment in which it is advantageous for a human to be dumber rather than smarter, with the possible exception of Alabama.

Assuming that because environment plays a more easily identifiable role that genetics must not is kind of silly, given the strong trend in nature vs nurture debates to be both.

Now, as far as a link to what we call race, which is just physical characteristics and mostly skin tone than anything else, that seems pretty unlikely to me. possible I suppose, but I see no evolutionary selective pressures there, unless of course a shared gene is controlling some level of our intellect and our melanin. I agree with you completely there.