IQ genes identified in humans?
from the now-we'll-really-see-who's-so-smart dept.
Senior Associate John Gilmore of EFF brings to our attention this item from BBC News. Excerpts: "US researchers believe they have identified the parts of the human genome involved in developing a person's intelligence. This means scientists could soon test the potential intelligence of new-born babies…The researchers, working for the US National Institutes of Health, analysed the DNA of 200 of the brightest kids in America and compared them with the genetic material from ordinary children. The results are due out next year, but the BBC Newsnight programme has learned that key differences have been found. In other words, the scientists are homing in on the genes for genius…[According] to Jeremy Rifkin…'Every parent wants the best for their child,' said Rifkin. 'In the future, the parent could become an architect and each child the ultimate shopping experience.' "
November 29th, 2000 at 6:08 PM
Ugh, ugh, ugh, ugly.
No, in this case it is better not to know, and best of all not to want to know. This is a fine example of the type of research that does not help the human condition and should not be done. I wouldn't call for a ban, but as a taxpayer I am outraged that my money is being used to support this kind of unhelpful junk.
We absolutely should not, under any conditions or for any reasons, be grading people on the quality of their genes, much less actually separating them out for different educational and professional opportunities depending on the results of any genetic tests. The argument that such screening could be identify those who need greater educational attention, thereby advancing the cause of equality, is completely disingenuous. This is exactly the opposite of what has already been done in this country in the last three decades, with "gifted" enrichment programs that are reserved for those who score high on IQ tests.
Baby selection is even more distasteful. The fact that there are people who would want to get genetic prescreening and IVF in order to obtain a "smarter" baby is about the best case one could possibly make for requiring parenthood licenses. I certainly wouldn't want to be the child of such a couple.
The argument that, through eugenics, we can improve the species "naturally," perhaps with dramatic results, misses the fact that we are at the cusp of a technological revolution which will render any such "improvement" moot. Artificial intelligence systems will be many times more powerful than any human brain, and ordinary humans assisted by such powerful information tools will be able to achieve far more than any number of certified "genuises" ever could.
Further, no matter what correlations may exist between certain genetic factors and "intelligence," however one imagines the latter concept to be quantified, no genetic variation can plausibly explain the vast divergences between individuals in their intellectual development and attainment. No one is born with a gene for quantum field theory or Chinese literature. And yet everyone's head is bursting with ephemeral rubbish. That's where most people's "genius" goes.
The people who really deserve to be called "geniuses" (I'll not bother to name any obvious examples) are those who, through their single-minded focus and determined efforts, over many years, accomplish things of a much greater order of magnitude than the achievements of ordinary citizens. These true geniuses may display many talents, but their truly outstanding achievements almost always fall within one or a few very narrow areas. They deserve full credit for their hard work and singular contributions to human progress, not to have it written off to a supposed birth advantage.
But for those who still insist that all knowledge is good and no research should be stopped, I'd like to see a study of the correlation between IQ and the degree of obsession about IQ, and its possible genetic determinants.
November 29th, 2000 at 6:57 PM
No problem
By the time parents can engineer thier kids for intelligence, and those kids grow up; I'll be independently wealthy, not having to compete with them. In fact, I'll probably have a VC firm that will fund whatever business ideas they can come up with. So, they win and I win. What's wrong with that? A legal ban is completely out the window. Parents will do whatever they can to have the best kids that they can have. There's no way to stop that. Not at all. If they can't get the technology in the U.S., they'll come to clinics my start-up will establish in Thailand, Taiwan, or anywhere else in Asia I choose to establish them. If they can't do it in Asia, they'll go undergroud and do. Rather than discussing bans on this technology, a more useful approach would be to discuss why these kind of people want to have kids in the first place. Especially considering the indefinite youthful life-spans that we will get in the next few decades. Keep in mind the economic law of comparative advantage. it states that if you have two groups of people, even if one group is superior in every respect to the other, both groups are better off when they do business and work with each other, than if they go at it alone. As for AI. I thought it had just argued that human-like AI was impossible to begin with, hence the impossibility of "up-loading"? At least in the next 100 years or so.
November 29th, 2000 at 7:41 PM
IQ, Self-control, and Empathy
i just had a thought. A few years ago I read The Bell Curve which discussed the issue of IQ and how it co-relates with other socio-economic parameters such as income, family-size, education, crime-rate, etc. It turns out that IQ does positively co-relate with every desirable socio-economic parameter. But, what I thought was the real issue, which the book did not address, was how to define other characteristics such as self-control and the ability to focus on long-term goals, which are clearly more important in determining a persons prospects. Are there genes for these traits as well?
About a year ago, I read that researchers identified brain-structures that co-related with the ability to show "empathy" towards others, and that the minds of criminals tend to have smaller such structures than normal people. These genes can certainly be identified as well. This, combined with stem-cell regeneration therapy, offers the potential to "therapy", rather than to imprison, criminals. This possibility reminded me of a novel written by Greg Bear, called Queen of Angels (which is one of my favorite SF stories, BTW) which presented this possibility, and the social consequences thereof, as the main theme in the book. Certainly a non-punitive method of treating crime would be welcomed by all.
The idea that criminal and other anti-social behavior is rooted in the lack of the ability to empathize, suggests that empathy is the basis of any concept of morality. Any comments?
November 29th, 2000 at 7:51 PM
What's wrong with that?
"In the next 10 or 20 years we could have eugenics with a smiling face. We will no longer require the lower classes to have fewer babies; we will just have them have better babies as we learn to do gene therapy."
What's wrong with this? I'm totally in favor of this. The problem with society is the fact that we do have an under-class. Anything that can be done to up-lift them should be done. At least it makes a lot more sense that throwing them in prison for doing a little coke!
Everyone deserves to be smart and to have open opportunity. Far from being a nightmare, this is a liberal cause!
November 29th, 2000 at 8:38 PM
Re:Ugh, ugh, ugh, ugly.
I am glad that I am not the only person who finds this application of technology distasteful. We have no idea what effect this kind of therapy would have on other aspects of personality. We may begin breeding smarter babies, but who knows, what would we be breeding out of the human race? If intelligence was the only criteria for success in life, I might understand. As it stands, genius (as defined by an I.Q, test) is not a prerequisite for success. I see the human genome as a novel. It's various genetic sequences as sentences. Its how the sentences relate to one another that makes a novel. You need the context of the whole before individual sentences can have meaning. Until we can understand the human genome as a whole, fully understanding how genes effect each other, the application of this technology should be banned. Natural selection takes a long time for a reason. It tests variations in genetic code over the long term, in the real world. Mother Nature has produced amazing things over thousands of years that man could never duplicate. Assuming that we could do better is foolish arrogance. Build me better tools. Make better materials. Feed the hungry. But don't mess around with WHO I AM.
November 29th, 2000 at 9:15 PM
Not an immediate problem
The ability to design one's childern is a technology that will not be available for another 15-20 years. Mapping all of the proteins that result from the human genome will probably be completed before 2010. So, we will have a complete picture of the whole genome before we even get close to the technology for "designer" babies. As for messing around with who you are, I may want to change who I am, but I have no desire to change who YOU are. Afterall, doing something like this costs money, just like a gym membership. I pay money for a gym membership to work-out everyday (to change MYSELF), but I'm certainly not going to pay your gym membership so that YOU can work-out. The same will be true for any kind of gene therapy. So, there really is not an ethical issue here.
November 29th, 2000 at 10:50 PM
Re:No problem
Yeah, right. Assuming that these posthuman baby geniuses have any respect for human concepts of property and fair play. In any case, the ludicrous meme of Economic Stability For All that has arisen in the West in the decades since WW2 is one that is already beginning to show signs of wear. Sitting pretty at the top of an investment pyramid only works so long as there is a bottom to the pyramid.
You're a real humanitarian. Of course, this whole "everyone else is doing it, so that justifies me doing it" attitude is such a mature, long-sighted way to live.
One of the things I love the most about nanoenthusiasts is their fondness for setting deadlines (pardon the pun) for technological advances. It's the sort of cute, naive enthusiasm that back in 1969 thought that we would all be living on the Moon "in the next few decades"
Tell that to famine-plagued third world nations that are growing cash crops to service their debt to developed nations while their people starve. And don't try to tell me that it's all the dictators' fault. That economic law only applies so long as each party, regardless of their relative status, is prepared to grant the other the same set of rights and obligations that they live by.
November 29th, 2000 at 10:58 PM
Re:Not an immediate problem
You seem to think that ethics is "so long as I get mine, I don't give a rat's arse what happens to you".
Wrong.
November 30th, 2000 at 1:44 AM
My turn on the soapbox
Well, this is surely opening up a dodgy area of discussion
Here is my view:
Survival of the fittest.
It is in our interest and is our duty to advance and progress the human species at almost any and all cost (progressing also means a nice home, aka planet). That is our purpose
This is a area that may pan out to leap our species ahead and we (the cavemen) are grunting at it and shaking our clubs because it is something that we forsee benefiting future generations and not ourselves
Bit selfish if you ask me
I wouldn't want to be seen by future generations as a novelty…near neandertal walking around barely able to process 1/5th as much as they can however if that helps us as a whole then I will have to swallow my pride in my slightly higher than normal (present normal) intellect and allow progress to be made that will in fact better the species
Would anyone here have a problem with the idea (and this is a example, dont want to here how it isn't like this) if the scientific community stated in fact that a mother whom eats 3 apples a day for the second and third month of pregnancy will have a child with a IQ raised to the extent of genius? I don't think anyone (at least here) that wouldn't be considering apple eating to be a bad thing during this important time to provide the best chances for the future of the child.
If we know something then we much use the knowledge. Its our duty!!!
So instead of apples, we might one day get a injection which increases the neural pathways or whatever and allows the child to be to process information faster. Your right…your not breeding a future neurospecialist or someone that will invent warp drive or whatever you may dream…but your allowing that possible road to be open to the child.
Their is nothing "wrong" with that
So get off your high horse and stop being arrogant. If we learn more about ourselves, we become better. I am glad that we naturally started becoming less animalistic and develop the brain…that took millions of years…personally, I dont want to wait that long again for us to go to the next stage where their are less idiots…even though selective breeding is slowly working that way, a little boost is a nicer, faster solution (and this is not Hitler like).
Gattica we will never be and we should put laws in place not to discriminate against gene types, however, it wont be necessary either, work tends to speak for itself.
Now, that is the scary part…our biggest fear is knowing that this will work…and knowing that the transition will leave some people feeling like a idiot (and as a whole, we are…face it) but that shouldn't make us want to sabotage our future generations because we cant handle it…
Midevil knights possibly could handle this news…they had humility
Its time we remember what that is and work for the species instead of against it
and in the end, would you complain if a future genetic baby created the first drextech assembler would you think it was a good investment with only a little wandering around feeling more like a talking monkey.
I think we need to realize that we are not all kings and gods…we are simply a united species trying to make things better for us…so lets not get scared when we are on the dawning of it
Lets relearn humility and provide a brighter future for us and our children
And just so you know…the concept scares me also, however I also see benifits in it…as you should…and weigh the overall actions with results. me scared, world better…what is more important to the human species? if you think that this is a scary prospect then perhaps its time we tear off our unnatural clothes and stop taking vitamins and wander back into caves. We are progressing faster than ever and increasing more…embrace it…future shock is illogical
Me
November 30th, 2000 at 2:45 AM
Re:My turn on the soapbox
I suggest you go back and read what I wrote. I replied to specific statements in kurt2100's original post. At no point did I say that we should not allow our children to become more than we are. I simply question some of the assumptions that are made about the place we unaugmented monkeys will have in the new world order.
That is your notion of our purpose. From my individual perspective, my purpose is simply one of survival, whether I meet someone else's arbitrary notions of fitness or not. If the first batch of transhumans decide to enslave us and treat us like their pleasure toys, then I will fight them no matter how futile it is. If they are nice to me and scratch my belly, then I'll roll over and wag my tail.
If you say it, it must be true. Of course, Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, too.
Oh, please. To use your Hitler example, a belief that eugenics and compulsory sterilisation is wrong does not make you a bad German or a Luddite. Just because I believe in progress doesn't mean that I have to accept the statements of anyone else who claims to believe in the same nebulous, ill-defined concept.
Of course I would argue that I'm not, particularly in comparison to a lot of transhumanists, but hey, when in Rome…
November 30th, 2000 at 2:57 AM
Re:Not an immediate problem
Just try and stop me.
November 30th, 2000 at 3:00 AM
Re:Not an immediate problem
My body is my own personal property. I have the right to alter my boby as I see fit. There is no system of ethics that can argue with that.
November 30th, 2000 at 4:01 AM
Re:Not an immediate problem
Well, actually, there are many systems of ethics that can argue with that…
And if I become convinced that your choices will have an adverse impact on myself or those I care about, then I will attempt to stop you with every resource at my disposal. If I think your choices will only screw up your own life, then I may try to talk you out of it, unless you've really pissed me off, in which case I will laugh at you. If your choices seem to be positive ones that enhance personal freedoms, have no unacceptable side effects, and don't hurt anyone else, than I'll probably join you. If you'd have me.
November 30th, 2000 at 4:41 AM
Re:My turn on the soapbox
Actually, it wasn't a attack on you personally, its rather a attack on a mindset that is repeating on this subject.
The worst thing that happened about Hitler was that he talked about making the human race better…now his methods were extreme and wrong however, now when we start brushing on the same concept, someone usually cries out against it because a bad guy suggested it first…oh well…I guess we should be greatful that Hitler didn't say we should be nice to little puppys…world would be a messy place today.
ok, so this is a touchy area, however, I dont think that my grandson is going to enslave me and try to exterminate me and my friends because we only know one or two languages or couldn't make it past the eleventh question on Who Wants To Be A Millionare…bit extreme really.
We will be judged individually on what we do for society as we do today…not sectioned off and gased or whatever…its us in the first place that will willingly give the baby any "treatments" out of parental concern for the babies chances…the only change that may start coming into play may be sudden governmental encouragement to have enhancement discussions with your doctor or GP…
Sorry if you thought that my last post was directed at you in specific.
about one thing you said though
" my purpose is simply one of survival "
Again, your taking things personally…however, you can survive without a computer, indoor plumbing, etc: To survive all you need is food, water, and shelter…everything else we do for progression of ourselves and our local community (not the needs, the wants)
We want to mate and to socialize and be healthy…our wants are almost as powerful as our needs…
what good is survival if all you wish to do is simply exist.
Cheers
Saturn
November 30th, 2000 at 6:01 AM
Here Is What's wrong with that!
I guess it comes down to one major flaw: Where does creativity come from? Personally, I want everyone to be intelligent and healthy with long lives However, I do not want to live in wonderland I like having a darker side to society…to have art reflect the inner turmoil of humanity…to be able to go to places that is decorated in rather miserable colors and listen to music that has soul, heartbreak, and anger in it. I find it soothing I cant really imagine a world where everyone and everything looks like it belongs in a S Club 7 video… Sooo, I guess, before we start tinkering with personality traits (caring, emotional status, sensitivity, etc) we should try to conclude the outcome of what we are…I am in favor of physical tinkering (intellect, health) however, I think that leaving a personality alone to develop is in the best interest. Coming up with drugs and treatments for criminals and self help situations is acceptable though…basically, wait until the crime before giving the niceguy treatment…and let the rappers and artists do their things, dark side in tact. Saturn
November 30th, 2000 at 12:57 PM
Building Homo Differential
Mark, I have to respectfully disagree with you here on several points: 1: There is a fair body of work that has identified a 'g' factor. No one yet knows what it means in any real sense. There are meaningful statistical correlations between various levels of 'g' and specific modes of thought. I refer you and others to the excellent article at http://www.prometheussociety.org/Outsiders.html. Note in particular the difference in kind, not in degree, that seems to take place around IQ 150. 2: Let's postulate for a second that your 'it doesn't matter anyway because superhuman AI is just over the horizon' is actually true. Then the only hope we have of building binary descendents that we understand *at all* is to build them out of the primitives we discover in the human brain. Hell, we can't even understand the chimps and dolphins… why should we expect to understand and be able to communicate with emergent behavior in systems which don't even share our basic drives or biology? This argues that this research should be pursued with all speed. (in fact, it may be possible that we can't get human level behavior, no matter the processing power thrown at it, until we fully understand what nature has cooked up). 3: Your statement about who deserves to be called geniuses is false to fact. If I'm 4'8", there's no chance that I'll make it to the NBA. Period. While there are many different ways to be a genius, genetic predisposition is necessary but not sufficient. 4: While I am not aware of any study of the correlation between IQ and the degree of obsession about IQ, there are some partial hints in the article I referenced above. Read the section on classes of maladjustment carefully. As for your crack about 'not helpful to the human condition', I'd really like to understand your metric here. Are you saying that our current human condition, like democracy, is the worst possible system, except for all the others? It just doesn't wash. Let me ask you a direct question, which I haven't been able to really understand from your various postings: What is your metric for the 'good of humanity'? Without a clear conception of this, a prima facie reading of your posts make me suspect that despite your current studies in a high-tech field, you are a Luddite sympathizer at heart. Not meant completely perjoratively, but other than the refrain 'I don't WANT things to change', I haven't really been able to discern a coherent motivation for such an approach. I argue that all knowledge is good. My metric is humanity must a) survive as a species (note that poisioning ourselves out of house and home does not contribute to such survival) and b) spread life through the universe. Both factors of this metric imply that our models of reality be as accurate and complete as possible. This includes a detailed understanding of the only system we have an intimate relationship with that has the possibility of spreading the thermodynamic miracle we call life throughout the universe.
November 30th, 2000 at 4:03 PM
A new liberal cause
Far from being immoral to ustilize this technology as a tool of social policy, I can argue that it is immoral NOT to utilize and to allow public access to this technology. In The Bell Curve, published in 1994, Charles Murray argued that the reduction of social and class barriers throughout the early and mid 20th century lead to sufficient social mobility such that the only remaining barrier to success for the economically disadvantaged was cognitive ability. He further argued that successful people, in all fields of endevor, in fact composed a "cognitive-elite", and that cognitive ability had become the new basis of class division in present-day America. I'm not going to discuss his case examples, but suffice to say that he has a very convincing case. The book is very pessimistic and suggests that there is no workable method for reducing cognitive ability as a basis of economic success, due to the fact that the market is placing an increasing premium on cognitive skills (the growth of technology-based industries, for example). The point is that, if you are smart, you have much greater opportunities for financial success. If you are not smart, you have very few opportunities for success. A key point that he made in the book is that "any activity, even if its washing dishes in a restaurant, can be more effectively done by a person of greater cognitive ability, than one of less cognitive ability".
I thought at the time (in '94) that if genetic engineering could be developed, that it could then be used as a tool to increase the cognitive ability of the cognitive-disadvantage, so that they, in turn, can participate more effectively in an economy that is placing ever greater rewards on cognitive ability. That the dismal future portrayed in The Bell Curve could be overcome. Well, that day is on the horizon, and I believe that it will become a matter of public policy to not only allow people the ability to enhance thier cognitive ability, but that it will be subsidized for the poor. I believe that social justice will come to the view that it is just as immoral to denigh people the ability to improve thier cognitive ability as it is to denigh them an education. If you think about it honestly, giving someone the ability to increase thier cognitive ability is no different, ethically, than giving them access to good education or decent housing. All of these examples can be properly defined as self-emprovement or, as Clinton would put it, empowering the individual. It is time that we put technology to work to empowering the individual such that he/she can improve thier quality and prospects in life. This is the real moral arguement for genetic engineering.
For those of you who read The Competitive Advantage of Nation-states, by Mike Porter, the collective cognitive ability of a country's populace is the single most important parameter in determining a country's economic prospects, as well as its competitive position relative to other countries. For this reason, I believe that once the technology becomes available, there will be major national efforts, especially on the part of various Asian countries such as Japan and China, to improve the cognitive ability of a given country's populace in the same manner that educational efforts are undertaken today. Economic indicators such as per capita IQ will be as much in vogue as per capita income, in determining a country's prospects on the part of private and institutional investors. I think that Asian countries, such as Japan and China will take the lead, but that Latin American countries will follow suit once the benefits of doing so become plainly obvious. In fact, Venezuela launched a national program in the mid '80's to incorporate various nutrients in the national diet, in the belief that it would increase the cognitive ability of the national populace. The then Minister of Health was quoted as saying "that every child deserves the opportunity to be smart". I believe that this will become the next liberal cause in the early 21st century.
November 30th, 2000 at 4:29 PM
Re:A new liberal cause
I belive that it is far more likely that the ruling elite will reserve the process for their own children and leave the rest of humanity to rot, or serve as Huxley-ish Delta and Epsilon classes.
Tell that to a poor kid living in the inner cities. Endless political posturing about the importance of education has so far produced few results. Do you honestly belive that intelligence augmentation will be subsidised for the poor when the efforts made to improve their educational prospects are so pathetic?
November 30th, 2000 at 4:38 PM
Re:My turn on the soapbox
Sorry for taking it personally. I guess that I have developed an automatic response to the tone that some other posters on this forum tend to take when I question their adolescent power fantasies, proclaiming "just try and stop me" when I question the maturity or intelligence of their position.
The 'survival" thing was definitely a case of over-dramatisation. Mea culpa.
I totally agree with what you said on another thread about remaining in touch with the dark side of human nature. I think I'd go postal if I was forced to live in Happy Machine Elf Land.
November 30th, 2000 at 5:42 PM
The Nazies and Genetic Technology as Social Policy
The discussion of eugenics has become a "taboo" subject owing to the horrible atrocities that the Nazies commited in the name of eugenics and the creation of the "master race". Some clarification is in order about the details of the Nazi attrocities and how they are linked to the general concept of eugenics.
The word eugenics means "good genes", and has been associated with various attempts (mostly in the 20th century) to promote the development of "good people" (know in spanish as "buena gente"). What made the Nazies so evil was not eugenics per se, but their actions in pursuing it for the following reasons:
1) They used a standard of eugenics (aryan master race) that was of a nature that was clearly unattainable for those who did not fit it to begin with.
2) They used this standard of eugenics as a basis of not only depriving people of their civil liberties, but of exterminating (ending their lives) them as well.
3) All of this was done by means of "top-down" institutional power (i.e. a totalitarian government) where people were assummed to have no rights independent of this institutional power.
The historical lesson here, one that Jeremy Rifkin and Bill Joy seem incapable of understanding, is that the abuse of "top-down" institutional power has always been of source of all human attrocities and depravity through-out human history, including the Nazi attrocities.
The historical analog between what the nazies did and how genetic technology will be used in the future simply isn't valid for the following reasons:
1) The totalitarian system of government, such as the one the Nazies imposed, simply is not likely to happen in the future. In deed, it has been argued that the technological changes that make eugenics possible are actually weakening the power of institutions relative to individuals. As such, there is no possibility of a "top-down" imposition odf any kind of eugenics policy, Nazi-style, in the foreseeable future. Even Jeremy Rifkin and Bill Joy themselves have admitted as such in many of thier writings and statements. So, this analog doesn't hold water.
2) No one that I know of has ever suggested that people who choose not to engage in this technology, be stripped of their civil liberties, let alone exterminated. There are plenty of civil libertarian (including myself) who would see to it that this never occurs. Furthurmore, the imposition of this kind of attrocity requires the existance of a totalitarian system (see above) that just isn't going to happen in the future. In deed, many of the new technologies are being advocated BECAUSE they empower the individual (Clinton again) relative to institutional power. So, this analogy doesn't hold water.
3) Criterion by which people would use genetic technology are based on specific attributes, such as intelligence and social behavior, which are independent of racial background. Thus, a eugenics standard that is definitionally impossible for some people to attain (such as "aryan master race") as not being promugated here. So, this analogy with the Nazies is not valid either.
So, as you can see, whatever the arguments for or against genetic technology as a tool of social policy, any historical analogs to the Nazies are irrelevant to the discussion. So let bury this notion here and now.
November 30th, 2000 at 5:58 PM
detailed reply (almost a work of genius)
Yummm…. There are not that many things I like better than a thoughtful response that's completely wrong-headed. Point by point:
The consensus science is that about half of the variance in IQ test scores is due to genetic factors, based on separated-twin studies. Whether this finding is correct (I tend to suspect the motives of people who do such studies) or only partly correct (surely there is some genetic contribution to the variance of IQ test scores), the interpretation of IQ test scores in terms of a single "g factor" is at best a dubious hypothesis and at worst pseudoscience.
I think the "g factor" is primarily an ideological construction, and, in the absence of any proof that such a variable, separable from the empirical fact of an IQ test score, exists prior to and and serves as an explanation of the latter, my opinion is as good as anyone's. Another notion that has gained popularity in recent years is that there are "seven intelligences". Why seven? My guess is it's a number optimized for popular consumption. As for the single "g-factor", my guess is that the number "one" is chosen for its suggestion of a single human hierarchy, a single direction of progress — monotheism, in other words.
It is extremely unlikely that the genetic contribution to variance of IQ test scores is accounted for by a single genetic variable. I'll just say that anyone who disputes this statement knows little or nothing about genetics, neurobiology, or human development.
What is an IQ test, anyway? It is a test of some set of skills, not the least of which is the skill of test-taking, often honed by years of earnest academic competition. Most of the classic IQ tests are really tests of general knowledge, which, as has been amply pointed out, is highly culture-specific. Attempts to remedy this bias generally involve putting a greater emphasis on visual, logical and mathematical puzzles, but that only increases the advantage enjoyed by those who have oriented and trained themselves to solve such problems efficiently in the academic setting.
There is simply no way of objectively assessing unrealized "potential" (presumably this is what Professor Plomin is trying to do), and no way of separating "general intelligence" from achievement in an "IQ" test.
This article amply demonstrates the pseudoscientific nature of the "high IQ" enterprise. Apart from some correlations between "IQ" and scores on a few other tests, including tests of "social adjustment," the article contains almost exclusively anecdotal evidence and subjective judgements. For example, the passage dealing with your "difference in kind":
"Seemingly new aspects…" like what, exactly? Shouldn't "qualitative" differences be easier to demonstrate empirically than quantitative ones? Where is the evidence? This is myth-creation.
By golly, that is what he's saying, but where is the evidence?
Why does it not surprise me that members of IQ snob societies think of themselves as "different" from ordinary people?
The reverse is true. The only useful software "primitive" we have discovered in the human brain is the generic idea of a neural network, and that leads to a form of computation distinguished by the fact that no one understands it at all. But programmers and developers who build complex information systems out of ordinary procedural languages do understand what they're doing, at least locally. Large systems do outgrow any single individual's complete understanding, but can be composed hierarchically so that they are unlikely to get out of control or be doing anything radically unexpected. (I said can be, not that they always are. Where it matters, they should be, and where it really matters, they generally are.)
What we don't want are computers that share our basic drives or structure. Such systems would likely be very dangerous to us. In general, we don't want "emergent behavior" at all, unless it is intentional and very well controlled. If we see unexpected behavior, we generally call it a bug and try to fix it (yeah, or call it a feature). We want powerful, flexible systems, but we don't want them trying to get out of the box.
I think the basketball analogy is a rim shot at best. As Edison said, "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration." It's years of focused, hard work, not a matter of being able to dunk the ball in because you're taller. The intellectual slam-dunk, such as Kary Mullis' invention of PCR, is what I think Mullis will tell you does not require any particular sort of genius, just being in the right place at the right time. As for your claim that true genius requires a "genetic predisposition," where is the proof of that? And, if it were true, of what use would it be to know this? I think the use of any procedure to identify and harvest "potential geniuses" will (and does) do more harm than good, by discouraging others, and by justifying elitism and snobbery.
I agree that the article amply illustrates the stupidity of the IQ obsession.
What is good for us humans. If by "metric" you mean some simplistic formulation, I don't have one.
The Enemy!? Oh no, please, I swear….
Luddite sympathizer? Have you no sympathy for the loom-weavers of the early 19th century, who fought, alas to no avail, against the destruction of their proud and prosperous way of life? Maybe cheap lace for the masses was worth the price of so many families, but did it have to come in such a way? Why is it that technological progress in any field of endeavor so often leads not to the empowerment and enrichment of those engaged in that line of work, but to their degradation and impoverishment? Is there nothing amiss here?
I am as enthusiastic as anyone about the possibilities of technology to open new opportunities and provide genuine improvements in the lot of human beings. But technology brings a mixed bag of fruits, and anyone who does not see this is being willfully blind.
You argue against the wisdom of the ages, going back to the Book of Genesis, and brought up to date by such modern gifts of Prometheus as the knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons (impossible to unlearn, but alas), how to manipulate public opinion, and so on.
Okay, maybe not completely wrong-headed. It's hard to believe that anyone could disagree with a), though, apparently, some do; b) is optional, but I'm all in favor of it. Peace.
November 30th, 2000 at 6:24 PM
For whom the bell curves
Charles Murray's The Bell Curve is an overtly racist and heavily pseudoscientific book (hate propaganda masquerading as social science) which is remarkable principally for the degree of acceptance it won in otherwise "respectable" forums such as the New Republic (which promoted it with a cover story) and other mass media outlets. No, I haven't read it. Neither have I read Erich Von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods, but I have skimmed both, and others have debunked them thoroughly. You can easily locate well-written critiques.
It would be surprising if IQ test scores, which basically measure academic achievement (without regard to whether there is a genetic component of its variance), did not correlate with other measures of social and economic status, and the degree to which an individual and his family leads an orderly, achievement-oriented life. What is pseudoscientific is not the statistical data demonstrating such correlations, but Murray's twisting them up with strident racist and elitist rhetoric, and claiming to have proven arguments that the data does not prove or even address.
November 30th, 2000 at 7:19 PM
What brave new liberalism is this?
Charles Murray's book is racist and pseudoscientific. I already wrote that; see "for whom the bell curve tolls" above. BTW kurt2100, you ought not to put 3 long posts in a row at the top level. Even I'm not that hoggish.
As to your points:
True enough, but what about such other truths as, if you are rich, you have much greater opportunities for financial success… if you are a member of the dominant ethnic and cultural group… if you are young… if you are well-educated… if you are lucky…?
This is so silly I wouldn't bother to reply, except to point out that it is wrong in a really profound way. A person who is genuinely "smart," and burning with a passion for life, is likely to resent being used as a dishwasher. Such a person makes a very poor slave or peon, and is likely to act out in ways that provoke the blows of the overseer or the State. On the other hand, what is seen by the bosses as "laziness" or "stupidity" can often be the masked resentment of the oppressed or exploited. For the same reasons, such people may fail to perceive the existence of opportunities for advancement by "good behavior." A society is made up of human relationships, and people must have their dignity, too.
You illustrate beautifully why the Black Power radicals hated White liberals more than klansmen.
No, it's not. The attempt to increase "cognitive ability" through eugenics will achieve very little, and it will be rapidly overtaken by the advance of pure technology.
The rest of your comment is just bootless gush.
December 3rd, 2000 at 3:17 AM
Desire and tragedy
Most likely people will still want what they don't have, and strive to do things that are near or beyond the limits of their abilities. That is likely to leave plenty of space for drama, hope, despair, joy, fear and all the rest of the gamut of human emotions. And one can at least suggest that those emotions will stimulate further creativity and exploration of new emergent possibilities. That may be a bit different from what you mean by a dark side, but certainly it's more than a tranquilized or "therapied" placid harmony.
December 3rd, 2000 at 3:46 AM
The Mismeasure of Man
I haven't looked at the IQ literature in a while, but if you are interested in the topic then I strongly recommend Stephen Jay Gould's book, The Mismeasure of Man. He lays out arguments for multiple dimensions of intelligence (as part of an incredibly lucid verbal explanation of how factor analysis works). He also discusses much of the history of fraud and other bad science in IQ research. The cover of the revised and expanded 1996 edition says it is "The definitive refutation to the argument of The Bell Curve."
Most of the BBC article talks as if intelligence or genius were simple unidimensional qualities. Plomin is quoted as saying that "Each [gene] may account for a small piece of the action" but the article doesn't pay much attention to the complexity of how genes actually interact with each other and influence developmental processes, let alone the complex processes by which genetic and environmental influences interact. Rather than getting Murray and Rifkin's ideologically driven repetition of their existing views, the writer might have been better off interviewing scientists who deal with these issues, who could say something about what may be new, or not, in these findings.
December 3rd, 2000 at 12:14 PM
Re:The Nazies and Genetic Technology as Social Pol
Gee, I guess the only things you can say to this are:
and
There are issues in this new technology that must be carefully guaged to prevent the above from becoming true.
December 3rd, 2000 at 11:18 PM
Re:Not an immediate problem
I understand that this is not an immediate problem. However this technology is not something that is decided by the individual who is receiving it. Were you to make the changes on yourself after the fact, then I really have no problem with that (though I am unsure if it would help at that point), unfortunately we are talking about unborn babies, who have no say in what happens to them.
March 16th, 2003 at 7:00 PM
Re:Ugh, ugh, ugh, ugly.
On intelligence, I question how much intelligence is optimal. The assumption is that more is better, but as you yourself have pointed out, computers will soon overtake us in the purely intellectual or IQ stakes. So why bother exploiting that one?
I draw the analogy between those rich countries, such as some gulf states, and intelligence. Some of these gulf states have more imported workers that local inhabitants as the locals are all too wealthy to do menial tasks. Isn't it the same with intelligence? Wouldn't we all want to be doctors, scientists and occupy other intellectually challenging occupations if we all had an IQ of, say 140 or higher?
Let's take the analogy of physical strength. Let's consider the efficiency index that is used for athletes at, say, the Australian Institute of Sport. They measure the oxygen in the air you breathe in and compare that to the oxygen in the air you exhale. They then measure this ratio in comparison with your energy output (you would be running on a treadmill or riding an exercise bike that is connected to test equipment).
Let's say the top athletes score 200 (arbitrary scalar magnitude). Let's say the average Olympic athlete scores 160+, the average sports person, say at league level, score 140+. Those who exercise regularly and play sport several times a week might expect 120 and the average might be 100.
So what level do you actually need? 100!! That is all you ever actually need unless you are a sports person or athlete. The same is true of IQ. Although you might have an IQ of 140, the actual level required to carry out more than 90% of your daily grind is only 100 or less. You only use your maximum very occasionally. If you are in an intellectually taxing occupation you may regularly use 130+.
But just what portion of society can actually utilise a high IQ? The answer is that there is not that many. The majority of people perform interface functions – between hotel room and guest, between machine and client, between motor vehicle and client, etc. Automation of these tasks is not even on the horizon just yet though some low level occupations are becoming redundant.
Rather than look at the IQ or g of individuals, lets ask what the average IQ of a people might be and what advantage there might be to lifting it. Are there enough high end, middle and low IQ individuals to perform certain functions? It is my observation that high IQ people are frustrated with too few occupations and opportunities for their intellectual capacities.
There is a very real prospect that some countries have a lower average IQ because of the lack of opportunity for high IQ individuals (therefore no selective advantage) which could be remedied in only a few generations (as the higher IQ is not a mutation but purely a selection and enhancement through breeding from existing stocks).
The USA is swamped with Lawyers, a quite different problem. In this we are seeing people exercising their choice of occupation at the expense of less attractive (to them) occupations that require their intelligence and that need more people. Physics is suffering (I hear).
A greater influx of intelligent people would only increase the number of Lawyers, if the USA trend is anything to go by.
And then there are the occupations that intelligent people refuse to do. Now the gene rich countries import itinerant workers from gene poor countries. In the USA this would probably mean Mexico – already the main source for itinerant farm workers, especially in the south.
Another side effect of too much intelligence is the frustration of those who do not fulfill their intellectual potential. No group more viciously turn on themselves than the intellectuals when frustrated. There are a range of mental illnesses that stem from exactly this. It is almost as if the unused intellectual capacity can fester.
So, even before we consider the genes for intelligence, I question the first assumption: that a higher average IQ is necessarily better. I point to countries with a higher average IQ than, say, the USA (eg Scandinavian and some other European and Asian countries) and point out that they are not necessarily doing better by some measures, eg economically.
If, however, it could be shown that each step on the intellectual scale (for a country) increased the prospects for that country then that would be something, but it seems to me that there is an increase only to around 100 after which no substantial increase in economy, lifestyle, reported happiness, levels of violence etc flatten out.
Some African nations have a lower average IQ, but this may be largely due to several non-genetic factors:- health in maturation; exposure to or stimulation of the intellect.
Both of these points can be addressed. Note that illiterate people (through lack of exposure to education) always score lower in IQ tests regardless of the culture they come from. Sir Isaac Newton was the first of the Newtons who could sign his own name – makes you think, doesn't it!! (and look how well the Vietnamese refugees of the 70s did – their parents were generally below average IQ).