/sci/ - Science & Math

why does this go on day after day and still no one cares

>>3748177
Because people still don't get it. We still have denialists such as >>3748132 who think IQ is some sort of social construct.

>unequivocally
stopped reading right there

Oh, and yeah, it is a social construct.

>>3748206
That was the scientists' choice of words, not mine. Realize that you are taking issue not with a 4chan poster but with the Molecular Psychiatry journal, as well as the collaboration of many scientists around the world working on these genetic analyses.

Yes, intelligence is fucking genetic.
Not IQ.
IQ is like, learning and effort. It depends on attitude of the individual, the environment he's placed in and his intillectual abilities

>>3748169

But there are still environmental factors.
If you're sick, you do worse on IQ tests. If you're hungry, you do worse on IQ tests. If you are scared, you do worse on IQ tests.
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/108/2/346/

I hope no one thinks that I (>>3748231) was saying that IQ is a social construct.
I was just mentioning that IQ tests measure the combined effects of genes and the environment.

>>3748230
Re-read the studies or at least the summaries above. IQ was the metric that was correlated with genes (SNPs).

>IQ is like, learning and effort
No, not really. Read the second study in the OP for this one. Higher densities in certain brain regions results in higher scores in IQ tests.

Lol this is great. Finally we can quiet down the denialists and postmodernists. You people seriously are as bad as Creationists.

>>3748248
>Implying staying up late and then taking a test will make you score as high
>Implying waking up after barely sleeping, then taking the test will make you score as high
>Implying stress of any kind will make you score as high
>Implying any mindset will be able to let you score as high
>Implying you can always do this at any time at any rate and score relevant, correlating results.

I have an IQ of 175 tho

I think IQ is dum tho

>>3748301
IQ is a consistent measure. There has been a lot of literature showing one's IQ score to be almost exactly identical throughout life, suggesting an innate biological capacity.

You may mess up one test, but of course you could just take it again when you're not so sleepy. The fact that someone could mess up a test is entirely irrelevant when considering IQ's retest reliability.

>>3748291

>Lol this is great. Finally we can quiet down the denialists and postmodernists. You people seriously are as bad as Creationists.

Agreed. As a leftist, postmodernism is the cancer of our party, just like evangelical christianity is to the right.

Yeah, one study. If you say it's relevant, offer some reviews instead.

Besides, it doesn't say that IQ is fully inheritable, only that there is some influence.
And what is your point anyway? Do you propose segregation based on IQ or what?

The reality is that lack of education poses a far bigger problem in most countries. Even the less intelligent people are far from their actual potential.

>>3748326

Nope.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1651-2227.1984.tb09959.x/abstract
http://journals.lww.com/pedresearch/Abstract/1971/11000/Relation_of_Kwashiorkor_in_Early_Childhood_a
nd.1.aspx
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/49/6/814.short

There are more:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=malnourished%2C+IQ+score

My point (>>3748349) is that just because it is consistent throughout life doesn't mean that it is entirely heritable.
Environmental factors, like nutrition, play a role.

>>3748326
True.
For some reason I feel there is too much reliance and research on this IQ testing while you can just as easily pick out the dumb dumbs from the smart crowd by sight.
How complete have the IQ tests become concerning intelligence, because the ones I've always taken (lol IQ tests) mostly deal with pattern recognition, series and comparisons and shit like that.. While those can be learned to some extent when repeating them.

>>3748347
>Yeah, one study. If you say it's relevant, offer some reviews instead.
It's actually two studies if you read the OP. The first study was pretty big and the result of a long collaboration between geneticists. This is not purely a psychology paper where little experimentation is done. This is a genetics paper. Hard genetic evidence in a peer reviewed journal.

>Besides, it doesn't say that IQ is fully inheritable, only that there is some influence.
Quite a bit. The study concludes that over 50% of intelligence variation is certainly due to genetics, and the actual number could very well be more than that with more evidence.

>And what is your point anyway? Do you propose segregation based on IQ or what?
Slippery slope fallacy. I'm not even going to bother with this nonsense.

>The reality is that lack of education poses a far bigger problem in most countries. Even the less intelligent people are far from their actual potential.

Irrelevant.

>>3748349
I guess he means it's constant in "ideal" situation.
Ofcourse a malnutritioned child can't perform under ideal circumstances when his brain also doesn't receive enough necessary juices to get the metabolism going smoothly.

>>3748349
All those studies you listed have to do with malnutrition and its negative effect on IQ. Do you seriously think that these studies or my comments suggest the contrary? Of course a starving child is going to end up with an IQ lower than his genetic potential--he probably will also have a reduced height among other things.

In the first world, these problems are extremely rare. Everyone is well-fed, even the destitute. Genes therefore cause much of the variation in intelligence.

Again, please explain how any of this refutes the evidence of the studies in the OP.

>>3748412

The studies show consistency over time. I'm pretty certain some of these were more longitudinal studies. A malnourished child WILL NEVER be able to live up to the IQ potential written in his genes, even if he becomes better nourished at a later age due to the rate of development being skewed towards the younger years.

I am merely pointing out that temporary environmental factors affect overall score, and that consistency over time is not evidence that it is mostly biological.

However, since "over 50%" of variation in IQ scores is due to genes, there is obviously a large genetic component. However, unless the variation can be found to be 100% contributed to genes, there are environmental effects which play a role in IQ scores.

>>3748417
It doesn't.
I wasn't arguing with OP's studies. I was arguing with >>3748326
guys point.
I was arguing that consistency of scores doesn't necessarily mean that it's genetically based. That observation does not imply that inference.

His point was that an IQ test's retest reliability is proof of biological inheritance, and that is wrong.

>>3748386
>>3748417

I still think the percentage of variation of intelligence must be taken with a grain of salt.
When you say ~50% of intellectual variation is caused by genes, there is
-still quite an amount regulated by extrinsic factors (metabolism, regulation, ..)
-the amount of genes activated. The problem with a human gene is that it is mostly off, and the system will have to have the molecules necessary to make the gene's product. If these product are not available or aren't made to a certain extent due to another mutation, the gene could potentially not be activated, leading to a loss of intelligence due to a secondary effect. Here the amount of genes hasn't changed, only the amount of active genes.

>>3748469
>His point was that an IQ test's retest reliability is proof of biological inheritance, and that is wrong.

Well, it's not wrong given the recent genetic evidence on intelligence (above). If genes control cognitive factors, certainly it would explain the retest reliability. Genes don't just go away.

As for malnutrition, of course that is a strong environmental factor--but nowhere in the first world.

>>3748452
True, the detrimental effects the child has faced early in life has set him back so much, it can never recuperate what he has lost. He can to some extent though, if the nourishment improves drastically for example. Granted, he will still have lost some of his development, but some access to life is better than none I say.

Has there ever been a study done on iq with identical twins where one was educated and one was not? Yes, we need this study. If someone were highly educated in logic or mathematics, how much higher would they score than a twin who was not.

>>3748485

You're not understanding. Yes, IQ scores are largely heritable, but that is not because IQ tests have retest reliability. It is because certain genes have been linked with IQ.
Retest reliability is not evidence for biological inheritance of IQ.
It's like saying that consistent eye color is evidence that eye color is heritable. The one does not imply the other.

>>3748527
>It's like saying that consistent eye color is evidence that eye color is heritable. The one does not imply the other.

Yes, it does. If your eye color (or hair color) does not naturally change throughout your entire life, we can assume with great certainty that it is controlled by genetic factors.

But there is no need for assumption. The study in the OP shows intelligence already to be substantially genetic.

If IQ tests are entirely biological, then why does the same person score higher or lower on different IQ tests?

/thread

>>3748592
They don't. IQ is a consistent and reliable metric. It does not change significantly throughout life.

>>3748540
GENETIC FACTORS =/= GENES
Why are there so many changes in times people go through puberty, or when women go into menopauze?
It's the same effect, all coordinated with practically the same genetic mechanics. The only difference is certain metabolical differences.
The amount of leptin for example, a hormone which has been viewed as a quantifier for fat mass and howmuch you eat, also acts on immunity pathways to express certain levels of T cells (activating certain genes because of certain concentrations)
This happens because what you have inside of you, can only work on you. If your body would be completely devoid of Ca2+, no matter howmany genes you have, none of them will be active or make something.
I know this kind of analogy is kind of a strange one to make, but it still works to illustrate the point.

>>3748614
> It does not change significantly throughout life.
After what age? It sure as fuck changes during adolescence.

>>3748540

Clearly you do not know how to properly assign evidence to inferences. And clearly that makes this a pointless debate unless I am to teach you how to do so.

>>3748169
But does this support eugenics for hereditary of intelligence?

>>3748169
>estimate
Well theres your problem right there.

I estimate 99% of OP is a FAG

>>3748642
>didn't read the study
>can't refute central point of the studies
>attacks the scientists' choice of words

IQ is a useless metric until you use it to declare the superiority of one race versus another race, in which case it is the only reliable metric worth mentioning.

>>3748640

No.
Eugenics based on any trait or array of traits is bad because:
1) Decreased variability within the population.
2) Unforseen consequences
3) (I really need to get my desktop working again so I can just post the picture while reminding myself what this point was)
4) Scientific time waster.

Don't most of the most successful non-scientific people (CEOs of multi-nationals, various world leaders, actors/authors/creative types, entrepreneurs, etc.) have IQs in the 125-140 range? If so then it's fairly obvious that past a certain level that other factors (charisma, social skills, risk taking tendencies and so on) have a much bigger effect.

>>3748617
Not only that, just look at the giant journey from baby to adult.
I mean, changing the IQ test according to age would be retarded, as it only skews the results regarding the complete package at that age (not fully developed, still learning, ...)
The only right way to take an IQ test is when the person is fully developed, because only then such test is able to show howmuch of the package has been utilized.

>>3748669
You're right. Financial success is a different situation that is not always correlated with IQ.

Academic success and success as a professional academic have been shown to be highly dependent on IQ.

An estimate based on "unknown causal variants"?

>>3748677
Actually, IQ is varied with age. That is how it is calculated. Here is the formula:
IQ (intelligence quotient) = (Mental Age / Chronological Age) x 100.

The mental age is calculated with the IQ test.
The chronological age is, obviously, your age.

>>3748664

>My face when I've got a mutation intergase
>My face when I've got a DNA-variase
>My face when future products of molecular engineering

>>3748679
>Academic success and success as a professional academic have been shown to be highly dependent on IQ.

Yeah, but that's because IQ tests and the academic world are founded on the same matter. So of course, if you go through the same tasks with a similar level of competence, they're going to "predict" something. But it's more of a self-fulfilling profecy than predictive power. IQ tests, for instance don't necessarily predict who is going to make the next good theory of gravitation. I would value that more than this mindless quantitative performance worshipping.

>>3748700
Ofcourse it varies with age, that's what I said.
But that's no reason to try and see how smart the little fuckers are.
Since they still have to completely develop and to reach their (potential) maximum, it's only fair in my opinion to see what the result is of growing up and being genetically determined and being exposed to certain environments.
What the stages inbetween are, does not matter, because they're transitional; developmental intermediates if you will.

>>3748743

But because of the test reliability and how it is scaled with age, you are going to end up with approximately the same score whether you're testing a 5 year old or a 12 year old or a 20 year old, or a 30 year old.

tl;dr.

Also,
>Implying IQ isn't a social construct.
OF COURSE it is a social construct. It's a fucking unit for measuring (logical and spatial) intelligence. Saying IQ isn't a social construct is like saying a gram isn't an artificially constructed unit.
Intelligence on the other hand is very real indeed and is at least partially genetic. I don't see why anyone would argue against that.

>>3748757
Say that again to the alcoholics and you just might become the president one day.
>Hey kids, it's okay that when you're smart now. Start drinking your brains out. Your IQ will neeeevvvvvvvvvvvvvvvveeeer eeeeeevvvvvvvvvvveeeeer change! Now, who wants to see Fluffy The Drinking Rabbit?

I believe any amount of detrimental influence, whatever that might be, fucks you over and lets you score less. This is why you shouldn't test kids. You don't know what actions they will take in the future. Don't give them the pressure of the smart ones or dumb ones, encourage them to exploit their talents. If a person is intelligent, that person will find out sooner or later and act accordingly.

>>3748785
>If a person is intelligent, that person will find out sooner or later and act accordingly.
What exactly do you mean by "act accordingly" here?

>>3748485
Look up some studies on malnutrition among lower classes among first world countries.

Just wiki'd it myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition#United_States

>>3748785
True. But alcoholism can strike at any time.
Best to test 80 year olds then.
Seriously, any age will be arbitrary.

>Don't give them the pressure of the smart ones or dumb ones, encourage them to exploit their talents

This happens anyway because of school. If you are good at learning things, you end up being labeled one of "the smart ones" and if you are in the US, this also leads to social ostracization. Even before 10 years of age, students can be placed in gifted, normal, or remedial classes.

>>3748664
sadface.jpg

BUT I WANT TO BE PURE. JESUS SAID I COULD BE PURE.

>>3748807
I like how it discusses both malnourishment due to not eating, and malnourishment due to overeating foods which have little nutritional value.

>>3748796
Knowing what he's good at and exploiting that (using his talent)

>>3748810
You know, there is a time where your body should be at its peak, I guess this is of no difference than with your peak in intelligence, that is, if its regulated by purely a concentration agent (transciption factors and protein levels)

>>3748807
I don't understand what this has to do with the post I made?

>>3748854

>I guess this is of no difference than with your peak in intelligence

That is a pretty big assumption, assuming that sexual prime would line up with intellectual prime, especially if they are controlled by ANY other factors.

>>3748854
>As for malnutrition, of course that is a strong environmental factor--but nowhere in the first world.
Unless you're implying that AMURIKA isn't a first-world country.

bump

The brain's like a muscle, if you don't develop it or use it, it's going to be weak. Some people are born with the ability to develop it faster or with higher maximum potential, but a lot of finding that potential is based on nurture. It may not be a societal construct, but society definitley has an impact on it.