/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7496209
>>7496170

Not that anon but your link and the UCLA link along with it leaves out a interesting detail.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21705-best-evidence-yet-that-a-single-gene-can-affect-iq/

>Following a brain study on an unprecedented scale, an international collaboration has now managed to tease out a single gene that does have a measurable effect on intelligence. But the effect – although measurable – is small: the gene alters IQ by just 1.29 points. According to some researchers, that essentially proves that intelligence relies on the action of a multitude of genes after all.

>After the researchers had established that HMGA2 affected overall brain size, they looked in more detail at a subset of 1642 volunteers from a twin study in Brisbane, Australia, who had all taken standard IQ tests. From that analysis, they were then able to measure the effect of the C on IQ. When people inherit C-variants from both parents they enjoy double the effect: a rise in IQ of about 2.6.

>“It’s important they’ve found this gene, but it took a sample of 20,000 people to find it, precisely because the effect is so small,” says Robert Plomin at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, and lead author of a groundbreaking study in 2007 which failed to find any single genes of disproportionate importance in intelligence. “If it’s this hard to find an effect of just 1 per cent, what you’re really showing is that the ‘cup’ is 99-per-cent empty,” he says.

>Steven Pinker, an author and professor of neuropsychology at Harvard University, agrees. “It’s an important finding, assuming it holds up,” he says. Pinker says that the findings are a first step in demonstrating that intelligence relies on large numbers of genes, each with a tiny effect, rather than on single genes that have moderate or large effects, but which are so rare that none has yet been identified.

Why did your links not talk about this?

>Why are intelligent men relativly bad at getting laid?

Because intelligence (IQ) is a tool just like strength. You could weight lift till you become blue in the face, but that does not mean you can utilize that strength to fight someone well with it. Same with intelligence, you can spend years and years training your brain on memorizing formulas, theories and patterns but that does not necessary mean you can execute them well.

A man with supposedly low IQ can do a better job at getting laid than one with high IQ simply because they chose to specialize in social interaction more than abstract thinking that has less opportunities to be applied to tangible applications in everyday life directly (and quite frankly tend to be more resource heavy).

Truth is some intelligent men just aren't equip or invested in wide spread social interaction or promiscuity. Or better yet most careers that people with high IQs get in are just not geared towards helping those particular traits that would help you with sexing up women more efficiently.

In this sense it is the intelligent ones who are on average finding themselves to be the inferiors instead of the superiors. But I wonder how many of you can freely admit that.

What is a number?

>implying I pay attetion to them