Intelligence genes...

[GOD]

Ok, they are having trouble finding them... and the ones they have found provide limited "IQ" propensity.

My analogy on this is the following...


*Imagine a top assault aircraft*

Just what singular piece of this technology is actually responsible for its fighting capability? Is the TOTAL system more important or singular parts?

[thegnat]

So what you're basically saying is that intelligence is the sum of all our genes rather than ONE individual gene? (or a sum of a few)

To *me* different parts have different roles. The plane's wings allow it to float. Our feet allow us to walk. Now, do these have to do with fighting/intelligence? Not really.

The plane is able to fight due to its parts that allow it to fight. That specific mechanism, whatever it may be. Guns? I don't know, I'm not a mechanic. This can be a relatively complex system in itself. But it's the *fighting* system. The rest of the plane *moves* the fighting system, propels it, whatever. Our brains enable us to be intelligent. However the autonomic nervous system - the one that's non-voluntary isn't at all thinking.

Perhaps the brain is our organ that's the complex system for intelligence. Like the structure of our face isn't going to contribute to intelligence.

However, what will is what we learn. Our brains adapt to every day patterns. They're constantly changing. Perhaps we're born with a propensity to be intelligent or a natural ability for x or y but we have to use that.

Also the brain is an extremely complex organ that we don't know a lot about. Which could contribute to this.

[ScottH]

Fascinating topic!

I like the hardware and software analogy of brain functioning, whereby the body is the hardware, your total experience sort-of an operating-system, and what you're currently thinking about is an application instance.

I think the geneticists are working hard and fast to reduce everything down to simple genetics. What better way to gain funding, solicit interest, and control the world!

In truth, if someone were able to genetically alter people, safely, reliably, to dramatically improve IQ, it would be a boon to the country to first popularize it.

But, I doubt something like intelligence will ever be that simple. What about attractiveness, is that one gene (or a complex of singularly identifiable ones)? Probably not.

Our IQ is likely controlled by things far outside the neurons that make up our brain. Glands, dietary and cardiovascular characteristics, perhaps some balance or product rather than some idealistic value for each.

Aside: Have you read The Emporers New Mind? It's really about artificial intelligence, but plays well as a treatise on human brain theory (although it's a bit dated).

[GOD]

So what you're basically saying is that intelligence is the sum of all our genes rather than ONE individual gene? (or a sum of a few)



No, I'm talking about the concept that intelligence might not be about specific genes that "create" intellect. It might just be about genes that are the gateway controllers to pathways (and shortcuts).

How the brain routes stimulus and where it ends up I believe is the determinant to expressions of intellect/behaviour etc.

I'm currently thinking about whether the two hemispheres can actually create two different sub/conciousnesses.

GOD added, 6 Minutes and 49 Seconds later...

Fascinating topic!

I like the hardware and software analogy of brain functioning, whereby the body is the hardware, your total experience sort-of an operating-system, and what you're currently thinking about is an application instance.

I think the geneticists are working hard and fast to reduce everything down to simple genetics. What better way to gain funding, solicit interest, and control the world!

In truth, if someone were able to genetically alter people, safely, reliably, to dramatically improve IQ, it would be a boon to the country to first popularize it.

But, I doubt something like intelligence will ever be that simple. What about attractiveness, is that one gene (or a complex of singularly identifiable ones)? Probably not.

Our IQ is likely controlled by things far outside the neurons that make up our brain. Glands, dietary and cardiovascular characteristics, perhaps some balance or product rather than some idealistic value for each.

Aside: Have you read The Emporers New Mind? It's really about artificial intelligence, but plays well as a treatise on human brain theory (although it's a bit dated).

An interesting topic I read about tonight is the concept of "Unidirectional evolution". Essentially they have found that if they construct a evolutionary tree of related species then they all apprear to be evolving along a similar path. (Rather than random divergence). [There's plenty of area's to argue on this].

Other interesting article is about Males being the faster evolving element of the species given our simpler DNA configeration. Essentially this allows females to select positive attributes, whereas the males are playing higher odds... winner takes all. (Women have the YY combo to cover any genetic errors).

GOD added, 5 Minutes and 5 Seconds later...

Here it is...


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Richard Haier of the University of California

“Genetic research has demonstrated that intelligence levels can be inherited, and since genes work through biology, there must be a biological basis for intelligence".

[LastRailway]

Interesting subject.
Actually there have been many tries to assign specific genes to intelligence, and indeed there have been characterised a couple of genes which are supposed to regulate some functions of the brain (if I recall correctly, there are already identified genes which relate with dyslexia and discalculia, as well as studies -not very convincing yet- in sex-related genes that could possibly express motor coordination differences, and handedness). Of course it's evident that the whole cerebral system and its function is more probable to characterise intelligence.
The thing is that, to assume that intelligence is more hereditary than result of environmental factors is very risky with so poor evidence given. Furthermore, I am not sure what we define as intelligence. I think is a sum of many different characteristics that each individual express them in different grades, and a description of intelligence could only be comparative between groups of individuals that have neutralised all other factors but the genetic.
As for the link provided, I won't comment until I find the original article, but I would be rather sceptical towards the model proposed, since I find it a bit risky to correlate a basically physiological process with the existence of concrete genes that are responsible for the heredity of the process.

[brewmaster]

As a fully trained and functional geneticist, I have to say that intelligence is most cerainly genetically controlled. The problem is that it is likely controlled by so many genes, and not necessarily specific alleles of a few genes, but expression patterns and promoter strength as well. They cannot find them because the approaches we have to find genes cannot find genes whose pheonotypes are dependent on so many factors.

Just to give an example. My masters research involved the genetics of disease resistance to a specific pathogen. This is quite simple compared to something like intelligence. What I found was that the major locus contributing to the resistance only accounted for 33% of the variation in the population. While the next locus was only responsible for 10 more percent. That was under the most ideal conditions possible. When you start looking at something as complex as intelligence you can imagine that it gets even more difficult.

Moreover, human genetecists are at a major disadvantage since they cannot clone, self-fertilize, etc. These factors contribute to the phenomenon that you see in human studies where one lab comes out with a so called breakthrough discovery, only to have another lab have a conflicting result. There are no controls to parentage in human studies, which is detrimental to any study, because ideally you would want the smartest person you can find to mate with the absolute dumbest person you can find, and then evaluate the progeny and then their progeny. You can see how difficult and unrealistic that is.

I am always leary of human genetic studies findings due to these factors.

Also consider that IQ isn't a great measure of intelligence, although it seems to be our best measure. Look at valdictorians from high school, a great proportion of them go on to be failures. I am uncertain of the general IQ of those people, but I think I have made my point.

[LastRailway]

As a fully trained and functional geneticist, I have to say that intelligence is most cerainly genetically controlled.

I wonder where you base this statement.

[brewmaster]

I base that statement on the fact that certain people regardless of nurture are able to grasp abstract and difficult concepts. I am speaking of people who have never been taught that higher education is a necessity, have never excelled in any schooling whatsoever, yet still have amazing abilities when they so choose to apply their intelligence, I have met quite a few. It therefore, is inherent in their being. Therefore genetic, because genetics is the ultimate hereditary driving force of instinct and ability.

The flipside is that I have met those that come from families where both parents are surgeons and their progeny are completely inept in every sense. That is where nurture comes into play. If you always give a child what it wants, it will never have the drive to succeed and will assume that what is there will always be there.

However, I firmly believe the basal level of intelligence is genetically controlled. Here is an example. My grandfather was orphaned at the age of 13. He never had any nurture to give him ambitions, guidance, or even an education. Yet, he had an amazing ability to make anything work for his purposes. He developed engineering feats that I marvel at to this day, without any training, education, or even mentoring for that matter. So it is obviosly not nurture, therefore genetics.

I admit that I am speaking from observation, however he is not the only one I have seen this in, but I am very confident that intelligence is a hereditary trait.

I also admit that there is a further flip side to this point. In that I cannot prove this to be the case. In my grandfathers instance it is possible that his situation forced him to behave in such ways and develop an intelligence of his own. However looking at his immediate family, and then progressing to my own immediate family, I can see links to the probability that intelligence is genetic since I carry some of the same engineering, and general N traits he had.

Still more, my profession is my religion (quoth Dylan) and I can see way more than I can describe in words. Given prodding I can give argument.

[rocksteady]

I base that statement on the fact that certain people regardless of nurture are able to grasp abstract and difficult concepts. I am speaking of people who have never been taught that higher education is a necessity, have never excelled in any schooling whatsoever, yet still have amazing abilities when they so choose to apply their intelligence, I have met quite a few. It therefore, is inherent in their being. Therefore genetic, because genetics is the ultimate hereditary driving force of instinct and ability.

The flipside is that I have met those that come from families where both parents are surgeons and their progeny are completely inept in every sense. That is where nurture comes into play. If you always give a child what it wants, it will never have the drive to succeed and will assume that what is there will always be there.

However, I firmly believe the basal level of intelligence is genetically controlled. Here is an example. My grandfather was orphaned at the age of 13. He never had any nurture to give him ambitions, guidance, or even an education. Yet, he had an amazing ability to make anything work for his purposes. He developed engineering feats that I marvel at to this day, without any training, education, or even mentoring for that matter. So it is obviosly not nurture, therefore genetics.

I admit that I am speaking from observation, however he is not the only one I have seen this in, but I am very confident that intelligence is a hereditary trait.

I also admit that there is a further flip side to this point. In that I cannot prove this to be the case. In my grandfathers instance it is possible that his situation forced him to behave in such ways and develop an intelligence of his own. However looking at his immediate family, and then progressing to my own immediate family, I can see links to the probability that intelligence is genetic since I carry some of the same engineering, and general N traits he had.

Still more, my profession is my religion (quoth Dylan) and I can see way more than I can describe in words. Given prodding I can give argument.

I am really glad you posted all this, I have been wondering about this frequently as of late, and it's extra cool to hear it from a practicing geneticist (god i love this board)

I have been observing the differences in groups of people with high intelligence, and those without, and the differences are quite profound, leading me to think some evolutionary force is at play, and this just solidifies my opinion.

[GOD]

I wonder where you base this statement.

It pretty much stands to reason without even doing a single test that bright parents have bright children (as an average)... Just like tall people have tall children.

Just like height, you may have a predetermined range but it depends environmentally whether you achieve that maximum.

If depression often runs in families, then its a pretty sure bet other cognitive traits do as well...

GOD added, 85 Minutes and 12 Seconds later...

Also, I'm collecting a series of useful articles on science related topics that apply to brain structure and functioning.

GOD added, 123 Minutes and 4 Seconds later...

Here's something really interesting...

Seymour Benzer of the California Institute of Technology has made the first detailed map of a gene’s interior. He and his students discovered a “clock gene”, which helps our bodies place itself in time. Each time a cell divide, the strand gets a bit shorter. When it runs out, the cell can not divide anymore so it ages and dies. Scientists found that the enzyme telomerase can rebuild the strand over and over again. This substance has human cells living immortally in a petri dish at Geron Corp. for more than 200 regular lifetimes. None of the scientists have yet fig-ured out how to apply this to the entire body, but they are coming closer to being able to create new human parts that might not ever wear out. From - To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Provoker]

Is it possible for the whole to be embedded in each part?

[thod]

Its reasonable to say its genetic. A chimp is always brighter than a lizard and what differentiates them is genes. Even within a single animal the same is true. Border collies are far brighter than say an Afghan hound. Then for humans there is identicle twins raised apart that show similar IQ tests. By far the biggest factor is genes, environment is minor at best. There is strong evidence that bright parents have bright kids. We have already ruled out environment. Genius seems different Mr+Mrs Einstein were not geniuses and I dont recall ever seeing anything that their siblings are. I tend to regard it as a fluke combination. That they exist like this suggests it is multiple factors coming together just right. You have to be very careful with this though. Some people will love to use it for the racial superiority argument. I recall the highest IQ's are east asians and lowest austalian aborigines.

Now that we have the tech should we clone Einstiens? There is a case for saying that the whole of mankind will benefit if we put them to work in different fields.

[AgentofGaming]

There is strong evidence that bright parents have bright kids. We have already ruled out environment.

Well I would say from instances of hereditary rule and the multitude of fallen dynasties that it's not as simple as that. Of course we have to factor in inbreeding.

Also if I had lots of Einsteins I'd just stick them all in Physics, I don't think they would be as effective elsewhere.

I think tolerant societies produce more great minds. Weird people tend to be talented. So I agree that it's a combination of just the right genes that gives a perfect skill in a small area. The problem is discovering these perfect combinations.

[Blacklustre King]

I have an ENTP friend who is dead bent on proving to me that things of that nature are not genetic to socialized and I continuously use INTJs as an example as INTJs develop their unique processes at an extremely early age, long before they have any kind of real social interaction. I can remember moments from when I was about two years old, a few years before most people even start having the “capacity” to memorize.

I can even remember how I would analyze things even if it were only in the most basic and rudimentary constructs. How to get into my house assuming I got locked out. I would use my brother to lift me to the door handle, yes we were that small, where I would insert and the key that I know was hidden in the potted plant outside.

Even television was a problem as nothing but educational television could entertain me, senseless mindlessness was not high on my list of programs I could find enjoyable however I’ am not above watching sponge bob and other Nick shows to escape my own intellect.

I sometimes feel like my intellect was already there as problems I have never had experience in solving often come to me seamlessly as though I had been solving them most of my life. I come off as a so called “jack of all trades” but for the exception I’ am professionally good at everything I do even without having prior knowledge of how to do it.

Anything and everything that is a system is putty in my hands to be molded into a more efficient state.

[Santana28]

has anyone considered that perhaps attitude determines intelligence? children of parents with a certain personality disposition may share the same disposition via genetics, which creates a more fertile ground for knowledge integration than perhaps other personality types. so there wouldnt necessarily be a gene for "intelligence" - it would instead be a gene(or combination of genes) for personality type? and perhaps a gene for "storage capacity" or "processing speeds." just a thought that just popped into my head...

now speaking from experience - my father's side of the family has some very bright people in it. my father is the smartest man i have ever met, but also has no desire to do anything above the level of the next person he can impress. he will go no further, and actively sabotage himself when it seems he may succeed further. he's simply happy being the smartest, most successful person around the other people he knows - even if these other peoples' levels of success are next to nothing. his level of success is not equivalent or representative of his intelligence, but moreso of his personality type and/or personality disorders. but judging his ease of reaching the levels he desires and his methods of doing so - his level of intelligence is very clear.

i seem to have inherited both my father's personality type AND intelligence on some levels. my mother is.. well.... not bright at all. she is certainly not "stupid" - but she is also unwilling to make any efforts at bettering herself - she either says that she is not able to, or she explains it is not something she cares about or is interested in achieving. she's a high school dropout and she won't even consider getting a GED. she is probably an ISFP... she has a drastically different personality type that values relationships and personal interactions, but she has no passion for ideas or thinking... she is not necessarily unintelligent - but she also does not have a personality type that encourages learning and self-improvement. my father, has both a high capacity for storing and processing information and also a personality type that facilitates doing so and at the very least encourages him to be better than his peers.

so summarizing - personality type might influence intelligence levels moreso than a simple gene increasing storage capacity or information processing speeds. and more than likely, there is a combination of genetic factors that determine personality type.

i just thought of this at this very moment, so feel free to shoot holes through my theory :)

[terencec]

I think the intelligence could not be changed/learned after we were born. However, some will get more knowledge due to the personality. Here is my belief, a very high IQ person could be very ignorant if he does not have any education (education is not necessary in school.) but he is not stupid. I know a friend who is quite intelligent but quite ignorant of many things even though he has a MS degree in mechanic (School was the only place he learned. Now his only goal is to sleep with as many women as he could , prefer to do it at the same time!) On the other hand, I know a coworker who has a lot of knowledge/information but he is not very intelligent. Most of time, he just simply said what he read from books/internet without much thinking. I also knew someone in school they were intelligent and had a lot of knowledge. They usually do very well in school, get a Phd and work in the R&D department. They may not make a lot of money but they are usually working on interesting projects.

[polysylvester]

I think personality and intelligence are interrelated. Personality is moderated by the parts of our brain we use the most. Intelligence in different areas depends upon whether we use the parts of our brain that give us intelligence. I don't beleive that a standard IQ test measures all forms of intelligence. It doesn't even begin to cover feelers, but feelers have intelligence that is important. xNTx's are all going to be good at analytical and problem solving skills because NT defines them as using those parts of thier brain. From what I see, INTJ's come in a range of function from right dominant with a strong left to left dominant with a strong right. I hang a little to the right. That makes me stronger on visual processing.
I can follow a natural gift to mechanical skill through my family tree for several generations. My grandmother kept the tractors running and my grandfather didn't have a clue. Her brother ran a shop and knew how to repair castings on farm machinery better than anyone in this part of the state. From the time I was 12 yo I was tearing complicated farm machinery apart and fixing it. By the time I had an engineering degree I went to work in R&D. Out of 180 people in our division I had more patents than anyone else during the time I worked there. It was because I understood the "hands on" stuff as well as the theory. Part of it was a gift, part of it was my drive to improve myself. I believe the mind is just like muscle, it's made to be used, and will atrophy or grow depending on how we take care of it.

[deicruxified]

Ok, they are having trouble finding them... and the ones they have found provide limited "IQ" propensity.

My analogy on this is the following...


*Imagine a top assault aircraft*

Just what singular piece of this technology is actually responsible for its fighting capability? Is the TOTAL system more important or singular parts?

i can actually get a hint of something from your analogy but i'm not sure though if i understand it right...

let's just say that the aircraft is an aircraft, which is perfectly built to do the job. theoretically it won't fail but then given a bad pilot, it won't maximize it's full capabilities.

so are people. some are told they got the potential to do certain stuff but then they just take the skills for granted then it would stagnate through time. on the other hand, we got einstein and other "late bloomers" who before was cursed by their former teachers or mentors that they "have no future".

i'd like to call intelligence as something that is "untapped" just like the aircraft analogy. if the pilot knows or figures out what the aircraft can do, then he could do a lot of tricks from there...

my 2 cents

[terencec]

I would like to think intelligence/IQ etc is like hardware of computer. Knowledge is the software to unlock the power of the hardware. One can have the best hardware but without the good software, the hardware is unless. One can have good software but without hardware, it may not run or crash all the time.

I don't believe the hardware (i.e. intelligence/IQ) can increase in one's lifetime (There is no upgrade path imo). However, if we don't use the hardware for longtime, it may rust. So, in my view, the hardware can only stay the same, get worse but very unlikely get any better. The software is what we can upgrade.

Personality can help one to get good software to unlock the hardware but I don't believe if one has a "outdated" hardware, "vista" can run on it. Even vista can run on the "outdated" hardware, it will crash a lot or run very unefficient.

[Santana28]

i can actually get a hint of something from your analogy but i'm not sure though if i understand it right...

let's just say that the aircraft is an aircraft, which is perfectly built to do the job. theoretically it won't fail but then given a bad pilot, it won't maximize it's full capabilities.

so are people. some are told they got the potential to do certain stuff but then they just take the skills for granted then it would stagnate through time. on the other hand, we got einstein and other "late bloomers" who before was cursed by their former teachers or mentors that they "have no future".

i'd like to call intelligence as something that is "untapped" just like the aircraft analogy. if the pilot knows or figures out what the aircraft can do, then he could do a lot of tricks from there...

my 2 cents

i like this analogy. an "average" aircraft piloted by an expert pilot will fly above-average. and "average" aircraft piloted by a "below-average" pilot will fly below-average. a state of the art aircraft with an average pilot will not reach its maximum capabilities. a state of the art aircraft with a top-notch pilot will reach and perhaps exceed its greatest known capabilities. a state of the art aircraft flown by a sub-par pilot will fly below-ability, and perhaps crash.

[yondyr]

I look around at my family and my overriding conclusion is...I'm adopted. :)

[terencec]

I look around at my family and my overriding conclusion is...I'm adopted. :)

That is why we are sexual beings (not asexual beings, not clone). We are surprised the result besides the "surprised feelings" doing it! :)