[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 29 KB, 396x421, iq.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3815289 No.3815289 [Reply] [Original]

Is IQ really 50% environment and 50% DNA?

>> No.3815296

remember kids, there ARE dumb questions

>> No.3815305

Yep, science confirmed it
50% DNA 50% environment
Don't ask how, it's science.

>> No.3815311

It's much more complex than that. Intelligence is determined by a large number of environmental and genetic factors. It's impossible to say that nature and nurture are each responsible for exactly half.
The current prevailing theory is that genes establish a maximum potential IQ for an individual, and their upbringing and environment determine how close they come to that maximum.

tl;dr: no

>> No.3815320

thinking IQ measures intelligence is like thinking the Clockspeed measures the performance of a CPU

>> No.3815323

>>3815305
or you could, you know actually read the literature before spouting off.

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/full/mp201185a.html

>We estimate that 40% of the variation in crystallized-type intelligence and 51% of the variation in fluid-type intelligence between individuals is accounted for by linkage disequilibrium between genotyped common SNP markers and unknown causal variants. These estimates provide LOWER BOUNDS for the narrow-sense heritability of the traits.

my emphasis there.

point being, that at least half of the variation in IQ is genetic. twin studies have shown heritability between .4 and .8, supporting the nature paper.

>> No.3815328

>>3815289
it's 50% environment, 50% DNA and 50% not being an idiot

>> No.3815332

10%luck, 20%skill, 15% concentrated power of will, 5% pleasure, 50% pain

>> No.3815336

>>3815320
yeah, it only correlates extremely well with just about every positive life outcome that can be linked to 'intelligence'. up to about 2.5 standard deviations it has very, very good predictive value for job, school, and standardized test performance.

it is certainly not the be all end all measure of human ability on an individual level, but when dealing with large sample sizes it is a very good predictor of many outcomes and has a very high precision in measurement when tests are repeated.

>> No.3815344

>>3815332
and 100% reason to remember whose name?

>> No.3815510

>>3815336

most of that is due to self-fulfilling prophecy. and confirmation bias. For instance. I think you have some vested interest in having people use IQ tests.

>> No.3815530

I don't feel like making a new topic for one question so I'm posting in a random topic. I'm in an applied statistics class but I cannot for the life of me find any notes to help me on this one problem. Can someone at least tell me what specifically I need to look at to figure out this problem?

>On average, a household receives 9.5 telemarketing phone calls per week. Find the probability that a randomly selected household receives exactly six telemarketing phone calls during a given week.

>> No.3815543

>>3815336

I don think that ppl shuld use IQ cuz it makes some people feel bad sometimes, liek you probably LOL

>> No.3815549

bitches don't know about variance.

>> No.3815558
File: 16 KB, 460x288, darwin3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3815558

GENETIC ANALYSIS HAS CONFIRMED AT LEAST 50%. HERITABILITY STUDIES HAVE CONFIRMED ABOUT 70%.

== Genetic Basis for Human Intelligence Confirmed ==
Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic
Molecular Psychiatry; 9 August 2011; doi:10.1038/mp.2011.85

"Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence."

"We estimate that 40% of the variation in crystallized-type intelligence and 51% of the variation in fluid-type intelligence between individuals is accounted for by linkage disequilibrium between genotyped common SNP markers and unknown causal variants."

www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201185a.html

== IQ Reflects Anatomical Brain Differences ==
Genetics of Brain Structure and Intelligence
Annu. Rev. Neuroscience; 2005. 28:1–23; doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135655

"Genetic influences on brain morphology and IQ are well studied. A variety of sophisticated brain-mapping approaches relating genetic influences on brain structure and intelligence establishes a regional distribution for this relationship that is consistent with behavioral studies. We highlight those studies that illustrate the complex cortical patterns associated with measures of cognitive ability. A measure of cognitive ability, known as g, has been shown highly heritable across many studies. We argue that these genetic links are partly mediated by brain structure that is likewise under strong genetic control."

loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/PDF/TT_ARN05.pdf

>> No.3815559

>>3815558
== A Review of Studies Demonstrating the Heritability of IQ ==
Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits
Current Directions in Psychological Science; August 2004 vol. 13 no. 4 148-151; doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00295.x

This meta-analysis of former studies records intelligence to have a heritability of 0.85 in adulthood, which is very significant. "These findings are consistent with those reported for the traits of other species and for many human physical traits, suggesting that they may represent a general biological phenomenon."

www18.homepage.villanova.edu/diego.fernandezduque/Teaching/PhysiologicalPsychology/zCurrDir4200/Curr
DirGeneticsTraits.pdf

>> No.3815560
File: 74 KB, 638x874, Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3815560

http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~broberts/Bouchard,%202004.pdf
>There is now a large body of evidence that supports the conclusion that individual differences in most, if not all, reliably measured psychological traits, normal and abnormal, are substantively influenced by genetic factors. This fact has important implications for research and theory building in psychology, as evidence of genetic influence unleashes a cascade of questions regarding the sources of variance in such traits. A brief list of those questions is provided, and representative findings regarding genetic and environmental influences are presented for the domains of personality, intelligence, psychological interests, psychiatric illnesses, and social attitudes. These findings are consistent with those reported for the traits of other species and for many human physical traits, suggesting that they may represent a general biological phenomenon.

>> No.3815574

>>3815560
>>3815558
>>3815559

You sell IQ Tests. This is your Marketing Propoganda.

>> No.3815579

>>3815574
>lolol look at me I ignore papers whose results I personally disagree with due to dogmatic sociopolitical beliefs

Get out, cancer.

>> No.3815587

>>3815579

Define intelligence

>> No.3815617

>>3815587
in·tel·li·gence
   [in-tel-i-juhns]
noun
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.

performance in school, in jobs, and on every important test created by man would qualify under that criteria i would say. a measurable, objective, repeatable value that correlates extremely strongly with those would be as good a yardstick as we are going to get. IQ and IQ heritability deniers should fuck off and go play with the creationists so they can be with their scientific equals.

>> No.3815625

>>3815587
For our purposes I will define it as a characteristic of mental reasoning ability that can be measured by psychometric tests and that has a strong correletation to success in life.

What now? Was that demand meant to prove something?

>> No.3815633

>>3815587
Even if the people who respond to you give faulty definitions which you will then call them out on, *it doesn't have any effect on the validity of the papers*. Read them. They all state the operational definition of intelligence.

>> No.3815656

>>3815587

give me a break....

you're on the web and you make a statement suggesting that people are indistinguishable in the mental realm...........

>> No.3815657

So that means if I got bad grades in highschool (when I didn't care), then I'll get bad grades in college too (when I actually do care and try)?

>> No.3815673

>>3815657
yes, but not because you got bad grades in high school. it's because you are incapable of reading and understanding scientific literature. it's because you are incapable of understanding statistical things like correlation, probability, and distributions. it's because you have no idea what DNA is or how it actually works.

>> No.3815677

>>3815657
>nigga thinks grades matter (in and of themselves)

>> No.3815679

>>3815673
>statistical things

hahahahhha hahahahhahahha

good one

>> No.3815687

>>3815673
derp

>> No.3815788

>>3815289

no.

too much to explain, but i was raised like shit.

IQ: 137

gifted evaluation in 4th grade

captcha: man, lickya

>> No.3815801

>>3815673

so Bill Gates is like 6000 times as smart as me? Or do you use Logarithmic scaling? oh wait.. his SAT was about the same as mine.....

>> No.3815813

>>3815788
'environment' is not simply parental involvement, encouragement, or help in education. it also includes things like nutrition, which likely makes up a far larger segment of the environment difference than other factors, especially in the prenatal and early childhood phases.

>> No.3815811

>>3815579

Hurr Durr.. Look a me.. I'm am a Psychometrican.. It are SCIENCE like Physics!!!

>> No.3815831
File: 33 KB, 408x597, IQ.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3815831

>>3815801
are you that unfamiliar with what an outlier is? past 2.5 standard deviations above mean IQ it starts to lose its predictive value anyways.

>>3815811
great refutation of all of those peer reviewed sources provided earlier. clearly your evidence is superior.

>> No.3815889

>>3815289
Let's say x = environment y = dna and q =iq. All variables are on a scale of 0-1
.5x+.5y = q?
Nope.
xy=q?
Nope

xy+y=q?
Possible. This is as close as I can get without doing real math or research on the topic. Keep in mind, there probably are some exponential in there.

This means, there is no specific answer about %, instead, the % scales with DNA. This would make sense, being that the more capable you are, the more effect the environment would have.

>> No.3815902

>>3815332
this.

>> No.3815906

>>3815889
That may be the stupidest thing I've ever read on /sci/. You do know that you can't just define variables, put them into an equation, and say "yes" or "no" to that equation, right?

>> No.3815925

>>3815906
You do know that the reasoning behind the no's is very simple if you look at it for more than 2 seconds.

>> No.3816082

IQ is 100% genetic, assuming proper IQ which isn't often tested properly anyhow as there are too many factors.

Those who are truly genius, such as Euler and Ramanujan see the world in such a way that they have a natural propensity to accel in various areas. Their intelligence in this matter is 100% genetic. However, their success in these endeavors depends partially on the environment. providing paths and their genetic for drive in those areas. That is, you never become successful if you don't put forward at least the minimal effort needed to succeed, and you don't succeed without having that path to go down from.
That's not to say that a genius like either of those two couldn't start from scratch, but starting from scratch wouldn't net them anything more than fame for their genius unless they provided something new and introduced things. Both of them had resources that when combined with their intellect they blew everything out of the water.
Having all the resources in world however won't get you anywhere if you don't have the intellect to both comprehend and utilize them.
Someone of average IQ these days in first world countries has an insurmountable wealth of information at their fingertips. But most people don't understand it and/or know how to utilize it.
For these people, most people, environment makes a much greater impact as it can give them the vital resources and paths that they otherwise wouldn't get on their own but might still have an aptitude for applying those resources/paths given to them.

tl;dr
Intelligent people can construct their own solutions as well as use others solutions.
Lesser intelligent people can use solutions others help designate for them but rarely able to construct their own unique solutions.

>> No.3816099

>>3815558
>>3815559
>>3815560
thread ended here

Everything below is just denialism, butthurt, and rational anons trying to refute the butthurt.

>> No.3816112

>>3815289
So if a hamster is raised by supportive, encouraging parents then said hamster can hold a High school GPA of 2.6 and buy his/her way into a decent state school?
IMHO: DNA give you a "range" you get to move around inside that range as environment permits.
Sorry Negros

>> No.3816113

Lol, damn. I meant to troll a thread with this post but I accidentally made a new thread.