Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I feel sorry for Watson in the sense I actually believe he believes what he says, and genuinely cannot hold his tongue. But you, I can sense you just want to puff yourself up at the expense of other people. Africans as it were. Like I said, you should get no joy from the IQ of Africans vs Europeans. Your IQ stays the same.
Naw, I don't. Watson is certaintly intelligent enough to have understood the consequences of his actions - just by remembering what happened to William Shockley after he became an advocate of linking race and genetics - despite having no formal training in that field.
This is one study out of thousands. You didn't answer the question.
It is hardly the last word, but to my knowledge it is the best study done to date on the relationship between specific genes and intelligence. It is the best answer currently available to your "What genes?" question.
It is hardly the last word, but to my knowledge it is the best study done to date on the relationship between specific genes and intelligence. It is the best answer currently available to your "What genes?" question.
Well....that pretty much discredits it right there. Big sampling error.
Africa may have the lowest IQ, but where else can 3 men do this...led by a 65 year old man!
Like a damn BOSS!
Great video. Those guys play high stakes poker with lions. If they win, they get a good meal. But if they lose, they get mauled and possibly eaten alive. I wonder what success rate their tribe considers acceptable? If you get the meat, say, 95% of the time, and mauled 5%, is that good enough? How rare is it for a man to live to age 65 doing this?
It is hardly the last word, but to my knowledge it is the best study done to date on the relationship between specific genes and intelligence. It is the best answer currently available to your "What genes?" question.
But the study did not mention any specific genes are associated with intelligence based on IQ. It mentioned intelligence in relation to physical health.
Physical health issues can also stem from genetic predisposition so there was no concrete conclusion that these genes relate to intelligence based on IQ or physical health.
You seem to be trying to find something to fit your prejudicial views.
Facts are there are no genes that have been verified to be associated with IQ test in particular in any significant way and in every study they look at different "traits" (as was mentioned in the study you posted) or skills/talents. Some even look at genes of people who scored high on various standardized tests but I've never seen one based on an IQ test indicating that points on that test would be higher than 5 (which is the DNA Land study BTW of which I am a part of), which is what you and others like to tout being linked to "genes." If IQ tests or generalized intelligence is linked to a particular gene and you've read about it - you should know what they are. If t here are more than one genes associated with it, you should know at least 5 of them you can name.
The idea that these intelligence genes are not as prevalent based upon sociological race is also not anything that has been shared in any studies or reports or articles that you have ever posted on this subject.
So it kind of makes you look like you are making ish up to anyone who knows anything about studying traits associated with genes.
Will note on DNA Land's intelligence trait in relation to genes that they tell me the genes that I have a high frequency of that are associated with "General Intelligence." So I can name those 16 genes.
They also state the following about me specifically:
Quote:
Based on tested variants, your result is:
Possible evidence of increased intelligence
These variants cover only a small fraction of what is thought to be the total genetic contribution to intelligence. Your real traits may vary from this prediction due to remaining unknown genetic effects and environmental factors.
They also state in regards to the genes being reviewed for the study:
Quote:
Human intelligence is highly difficult to quantify, and many tests have been developed to measure aspects of intelligence with varying degrees of success.
While intelligence has also been historically difficult to study from a genetic perspective , recently, a GWAS study of 78,000 individuals identified associations between 52 genes and intelligence , and was featured in the New York Times. We thought it might be interesting to base a report on these results although, like all genetic predictions, these predictions come with extensive caveats.
As the New York Times article points out, these genetic variants do not determine your intelligence. They contribute only a small fraction to explaining the variance in intelligence observed in the studied population (Europeans), and are likely to be involved in interactions between other genes and environmental factors in ways currently unknown.
Please take note especially of the last bolded phrase.
Practically all IQ/intelligence studies are done on white/European populations. So there is no definitive way to infer any sort of increased intelligence in them or Asians since there has been no studies that show that any ethnic group has more or less of any specific genes indicated to be associated with intelligence or IQ versus Europeans.
Reviews such as those in the Bell Curve are not valid in regards to today's genetic research on the trait of intelligence, as it was just a review of old data, which primarily was compiled during a sociological era of pervasive "race" discriminatory attitudes about people of different ancestral origins. The book itself is not based on genetics but a review of data in comparison to "outcomes" in society. It is more of a sociological study versus genetic study.
Again, Watson knows this but maybe he is declining in his old age. His sociological opinions he stated are not scientifically based. It is sad that he allowed himself to fall prey to a sociological trend of his generation but not surprising considering his age and the era he primarily lived through.
It is also not surprising there are many of you who like to misconstrue genetic research regarding traits such as intelligence. Most of you do not know anything about it other than the reading of newspapers and blogs that more than likely reinforce your own prejudicial sociological views.
I'll further note that for American black people, we on average have 20-30% European admixture, so the idea that we would not have the same intelligence genes as the greater European population is kind of silly. Also, that these genes/traits are not indigenous to any other groups of people is also silly to believe since all of us share common ancestors and all of us are "of Africa" specifically.
But the study did not mention any specific genes are associated with intelligence based on IQ. It mentioned intelligence in relation to physical health. Physical health issues can also stem from genetic predisposition so there was no concrete conclusion that these genes relate to intelligence based on IQ or physical health.
Physical health? No, the study used educational attainment as the proxy for intelligence.
Quote:
Abstract
Intelligence, or general cognitive function, is phenotypically and genetically correlated with many traits, including a wide range of physical, and mental health variables. Education is strongly genetically correlated with intelligence (rg = 0.70). We used these findings as foundations for our use of a novel approach—multi-trait analysis of genome-wide association studies (MTAG; Turley et al. 2017)—to combine two large genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of education and intelligence, increasing statistical power and resulting in the largest GWAS of intelligence yet reported... By combining datasets using MTAG, our functional sample size increased from 199,242 participants to 248,482. We found 187 independent loci associated with intelligence, implicating 538 genes, using both SNP-based and gene-based GWAS. We found evidence that neurogenesis and myelination—as well as genes expressed in the synapse, and those involved in the regulation of the nervous system—may explain some of the biological differences in intelligence.
If you have a problem with that, you'll need to take it up with the editors of Nature.
Great video. Those guys play high stakes poker with lions. If they win, they get a good meal. But if they lose, they get mauled and possibly eaten alive. I wonder what success rate their tribe considers acceptable? If you get the meat, say, 95% of the time, and mauled 5%, is that good enough? How rare is it for a man to live to age 65 doing this?
Here is something more. How many times do hunters just walk away when they figure the risk is not worth it? There are cases where hunters will just cut their losses and walk away.
Physical health? No, the study used educational attainment as the proxy for intelligence.
You still didn't answer the question. Linking a study is not answering the question - what genes are associated witih intelligence.
So it seems you don't know.
In follow up, I'd ask, which of these genes are less pronounced in ancestral locations in regards to Europeans, Africans, Asians, indigenous Australians, indigenous Pacific Islanders, indigenous North/South Americans....
You cannot answer any of these because there is no definitive answer.
And the conclusion of the study you linked was:
Quote:
People with a higher level of cognitive function have been observed to have better physical and mental health, and to have longer lives [3, 7]. This paper exploited the high genetic correlations found between intelligence and education, increased the statistical power of a GWAS on intelligence, and attempted to find the loci and biological mechanisms that help explain intelligence differences, and the health differences with which they are associated.
FYI - the conclusion summarizes what they were studying. They were studying the link between intelligence and education and how that associates with the health of the subjects.
It was not about educational attainment and intelligence. It was a combination of the latter on "health."
You still didn't answer the question. Linking a study is not answering the question - what genes are associated witih intelligence. So it seems you don't know.
... the 538 genes cited in the study. And no, I won't past a large amount of text from the study here. You'll have to go to the link.
Quote:
In follow up, I'd ask, which of these genes are less pronounced in ancestral locations in regards to Europeans, Africans, Asians, indigenous Australians, indigenous Pacific Islanders, indigenous North/South Americans....
You cannot answer any of these because there is no definitive answer.
True, it is not known yet just how genes associated with intelligence are expressed differently in different populations but that research is ongoing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
