Got to love the internet. You can get a free university education without even leaving your bed. Just listened to a nice discussion about IQ and genes (hat-tip to Steve Hsu):
Among the interesting points:
IQ is probably determined by as many as 10,000 genes, and each gene may only influence IQ by as little as a fifth or a tenth of a point.
Once they get a million high quality genotype-phenotype pairs, they will be able to create a useful formula estimating IQ from genes, though commenter chartreuse would argue that reaction norms would make this formula only useful in a narrow range of environments.
Steve Hsu imagines police looking at the DNA left at the crime scene and knowing the suspect was a 6’1″ Asian with a 160 IQ, at which point someone on the panel joked that Hsu was talking about himself.
Apparently height can already be predicted from DNA to some degree. Professor Manfred Kayser states:
We were able to predict extreme height, which is those in the upper 3 percent, with an accuracy of 0.75, where 0.5 is random and 1 is a perfect indicator.
I assume he means that if they find some DNA, his prediction of whether the person is extremely tall will be right 75% of the time?
Steve Hsu notes that about 16% of the variation in height can be traced to genes that have actually been identified which means that a formula predicting height from genes would correlate 0.4 with actual height.
0.4 is about the correlation between height and weight. In other words, scientists are now at the point that can predict someone’s height from their genes as well as they can predict their height from their weight.
As more height genes are discovered, that correlation could roughly double.
Also mentioned in the above video is DNA editing CRISPR, but this will have little relevance to IQ for a long time to come, because if 10,000 genes are linked to IQ, and each one only affects it by a tenth of a point or so, then knowing where to edit to get a noticeable effect is currently impossible, and potentially dangerous, because humans have only 20,000 genes, so each one has many functions.
Pumpkin Person 
Hello Pumpkin Person,
I’ve been reading your blog for the last couple of weeks. I was wondering if you might be able to tell me if based on my IQ score, I have the potential to pursue a career in medicine or dentistry. I was also considering a career in law or finance/consulting.
Nevertheless, I feel as though my score is low and there is no consistency among it. I would appreciate any feedback regarding what career I would be best suited for and what careers I would not.
My IQ score
The only thing I would caution is that the WAIS-IV is now a decade old, and if the Flynn effect is still occurring, your full-scale IQ might be as much 3 points lower than the test results say.
But even with that deduction, you’re still way smarter than the average college grad, especially when it comes to verbal IQ. Your overall IQ is probably somewhat lower than the average lawyer’s though your verbal abilities might be as high or higher than the average lawyer’s.
Still, law is such a competitive field that I wouldn’t pursue it unless you can get into an elite law school as LOTB would say, are unusually driven or charismatic, and.or have family connections
Consulting or marketing might be a better option
I would recommend going into a field that emphasizes speaking and/or writing, as opposed to spatial reasoning.
But I’m not a professional, so don’t take my advice too seriously
I have taken the WAIS a total of 3 times in my life in the span of 4 years. I was wondering if I could privately email you the results and we could discuss some career options. My scores have be inconsistent throughout.
WAIS-IV*. I suffer from mild ADHD so that could explain, the deficit in processing speed. Would a career like medicine or dentistry where once you get in and are guaranteed a stable job be better suited for me?
Do I have the IQ to pursue a career like medicine?
If you took it that many times I would go with your first assessment, because you may have had a practice effect.
I don’t want to discourage you from pursuing a certain career, because there are so many factors that come into play, and the WAIS-IV measures only a few of them.
Yes you can email me, but I have a lot of other emails to respond to, so I may not reply until next week
Doctors supposedly have an IQ in the mid 120s, but there is considerable range, and if you want to be a surgeon, it would probably be best if your perceptual IQ were higher than your verbal IQ. Your profile is the opposite.
But again, I’m not a professional and there are so many other factors involved, most important I think is your passion for the field.
Do you think the general ability index would be less affected by the Flynn effect, since the sat more stable and the Verbal section correlates high with the SAT. If so, maybe that index is a better indicator of your IQ at this point. Donno about the Perceptual tho, what do you think the correlation between SAT and perceptual would be?
Chase,
According to the BLS, law is growing at 6%, which is average. Unless you’re going to attend a top-tier school, it mightn’t be a good idea.
I don’t know much about finance, but if I had to guess, I’d say your M scores are too low for that profession.
Dentistry or medicine seems like your best bet. Have you thought about physician’s assistant?
Hope this helps 🙂
😉
every guy on that panel is a moron, but peepee is even dumber, so she can’t see it.
16% of the variation in height can be traced to genes that have actually been identified…
FALSE.
finally it’s clear. the very simple and obvious concept of “norms of reaction” is simply beyond the ability of people like shoe and poodle-jew to understand. hitting them over the head with it is of no use. they can’t understand it. they simply cannot understand it.
Do you have anything to say beyond calling people dumb?
If you’re so much smarter, then propose a study that can actually be done, beyond just identical twins separated into different countries, which is so rare it’s not viable.
Do you even understand GCTA? Please describe a study using GCTA that could actually be done, that would actually prove independent genetic effects on IQ or height.
i already have on multiple occasions on your blog peepee-tard.
coming to the defense of your fellow chink.
so predictable.
i already have on multiple occasions on your blog peepee-tard.
Links?
And I’m not trying to defend Hsu, I just find it unlikely that a physicist turned decamillionaire turned geneticist, is not extremely bright.
Of course that doesn’t mean he can’t make mistakes, but you’re not providing any alternative viable study designs.
i already have on multiple occasions on your blog peepee-tard.
I know you’ve suggested genetic studies where people are recruited from all over the developed world and their phenotypes expressed as Z scores relative to their country. I agree with that suggestion.
He doesn’t understand GCTA. He doesn’t understand Hsu. He doesn’t understand Plomin, Deary, or behavior genetics. He knows nothing of which he speaks.
The truth is that there is no environmental intervention that can increase IQ and can last.
And “Shoe” is quite aware that genomic predictors are context specific. He writes in the comments about predicting height:
A genomic predictor is built using a sample population that experienced a specific environment, and its accuracy will degrade if it is applied to a group that experienced a different environment (e.g., famine, malnutrition).
http://infoproc.blogspot.ca/2016/02/missing-heritability-and-gcta-update-on.html
shoe isn’t “quite aware” of anything.
he’s mentally retarded.
he just claimed that 16% of the variance in height had been accounted for.
for what population?
did he say?
no!
chinks are so fucking retarded.
while at the same time they believe they’re smarter than everyone else.
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/still-chasing-ghosts-a-new-genetic-methodology-will-not-find-the-missing-heritability/
he just claimed that 16% of the variance in height had been accounted for.
for what population?
did he say
Yes, as a matter of fact he did. He wrote:
“This is from GIANT so I think it’s all (well-nourished) Europeans”
Does he think about Frenchmen, Albanians, Moldovans or Swedes. And what is actually “well nourished”, is it a healthy mediterranean diet or a fat a fast sugar infested British one ?
Dalton Conley is also Jewish, if that’s relevant to you.
Another academic in NYC, who gets a prestigious gig, because of his ethnic group, who controls higher education there.
Only Jews and Asians seem to be obsessed with mimicking the White Gentile demographic, and then wanting to trump them!!!!!
shoe’s claimed the same for cholesterol peepee-tard.
he’s a moron.
plain and simple.
but people even dumber have a prayer bump for any who claim to be scientists.
the very idea of many genes of small effect is patently ridiculous.
notice also that shoe’s parents were born in china, and poodle-jew is a canadian.
a general rule of the american ideology…
the more american you are the less you believe it.
why?
because the people who rule america are evil…more than any elite group before them.
and they’re able to fool immigrants and their children.
the very idea of many genes of small effect is patently ridiculous.
Why?
The idea that there are 10,000 genes that influence IQ is nuts. You’d never get those massive differences in intelligence within a society that way, everything would be distributed equally.
Well the way I imaginet it, each gene is like a coin. If you get the heads variant, it increases your IQ. If you get the tail variant, it decreases your IQ. Most people through the genetic lottery, would get a roughly equal number of heads and tails, and thus have average IQ. High IQ people would be those who lucked into an unusual number of heads. Low IQ people would be those who had an unusual number of tails. Hence, a normal distribution of IQs.
Judging from social reality, there are probably only 2 to 5 genes for high intelligence or major differences in intelligence, the genes that they find that allegedly are related to intelligence probably only lower it slightly or keep it average (depending on the allele).
This is because when they tested the mathematical abilities of students and divided them into three groups, depending on the social class (low, middle, high) and created a graph for each of them all what they found were three bell curves! Thus intelligence is mostly NOT polygenic.
http://www.directupload.net/file/d/4295/qqpoisgt_gif.htm
This is because when they tested the mathematical abilities of students and divided them into three groups, depending on the social class (low, middle, high) and created a graph for each of them all what they found were three bell curves!
I suspect if they included more intermediate social classes, in between low and middle, and in between middle and high, all the different bell curves would form one big bell curve.
Genetic is like q usual recipe but many times the ingredients will can be changed.
Pumpkin,
Why I put this image? What is missing there?? Or better, whom ?
Me. In the far left.
Expected, 😉
I asked who are missing in the image but related to this (hi)story.
But i don’t talk about you, but the outsiders, 😉
http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/02/benoist-on-eugenics-and-intelligence-interview-on-the-human-sciences-part-2/
Brain size is correlated with group size. I would say 50 walking apes together was a big circle of protection. A human brain consumes 20 percent of energy of the body. When they began to consume meat and cook it more energy was available through less harsh food digestion.The brain now had extra energy. As proto-humans continued to evolve, adolescence began to increase. Puberty happens in humans at age 12. Neanderthal began puberty at age 7. Juvenile looking proto-humans would select mates like themselves. Relationships are better when both males and females select for phenotype. Juvenile features determined how groups would split off into two groups. (juvenile looking proto-humans and non juvenile looking proto-humans)
An increase in learning spans took place. Cultures was important for the transmission of knowledge. Fast learners again and again would branch off the main group. A chimpanzee has four times the strength of a human because in chimps their mussels consume four times the ATP. When our early ancestors started to walk their bones were so strong that they could fall 15 feet and not break them. They were not helpless when it came to predators.
General learning ability is a balance of energy resources being directed. Brain-cells (neurons) also have glial cells for myelination. So it is only a mater of directed energy. Neurogenesis happens when learning. The hippocampus is responsible for memory consolidation. A word I use, and is linked to transhumanism is optimization.
Energy flows in the brain require water and energy. Uploading is a tern generally used to compare hardware being converted software i.e. the brains connectome. This is a concept that rejects optimization. The brain just directs energy as a prism directs light. The brain is a magnifying glass of energy channels. Everything you see through your eyes is a model of your brains reconstruction. What is called inhibition is from the inside of ourselves. “Introspection”. You know when to stop and when to go by it. Introversion is inside your head and body. From the privation of the internet people spend less time in their head. Most times I forget my self awareness in what I am doing. In this I am at least beginning to have control over my compulsions. I think genes are a form of calibration. And this is internal and external models of the world and ourselves.Optimization a is calibration by genes.
I have been making new videos for my video blog on YouTube. I wont post them here but it does takes time for me to organize my thoughts before I make each video.
if it were really the case that 16% of the alleles for height have been found this could only be demonstrated by:
a random sample from around the developed world.
this hasn’t been done.
steve shoe and the 75% guy are lying fucktards.
They obviously just believe in the Genotype + Environment = Phenotype model.
I thought you largely believed in it too when it came to physical variables, but objected when it came to psychological variables.
But I agree with you that scientists can sometimes be very dogmatic in assuming they’ve proven something, when really it’s still a hypothesis.
And to be clear, it would ideally be a random sample of people of the same ethnic group from around the developed world, because you would want any differences between countries to be environmental, not genetic
But because of selective migration this is tricky. For example when it comes to IQ, Ashkenazi Jews in America score about half a standard deviation higher than Ashkenazi Jews in Israel. Richard Lynn explained this through selective migration but it could be environmental.
Pumpkin,
You know if pygmies and Montenegrinians have fixed genes to the height, that is, has become genotypic and / or universally distributed among them *
it is possible that…
1. many genes can be used to predict phenotype fairly accurately
AND
2. those many genes do NOT each have a small effect.
it is not possible that…
1. many genes can be used to predict phenotype fairly accurately
AND
2. those many genes each have a small effect.
and furthermore…
this is NOT (necessarily) due to epistasis.
but retards like shoe and poodle-jew can’t distinguish between these two possibilities…even though only one is possible…
why?
because they can’t distinguish between model and reality.
“all models are false, but some models are useful.”
they can’t understand this. and it’s not that they don’t understand this. it’s that they can’t.
so the reality behind “many genes of small effect”…
if there is one…
is…
that certain alleles have an effect with a mean above or below zero by a statistically significant but trivial amount…
that is, the “effect” of an individual allele is a distribution not a point…
AND…
that distribution itself changes from one set of environments to another…
in other words…
expect that the 16% figure…
1. is an exaggeration,
2. will not increase by much,
3. will increase by much more than any such figure for psychological traits.
If each have additive effects and are common variants, that’s what is needed to vindicate Hsu’s argument. And thus far, it is heading that way.
that is, the “effect” of an individual allele is a distribution not a point…
So for example, 68% of people with allele X in environment Y will have an IQ of 100 – 100.2. 95% will have an IQ of 99.9 -100.3 etc. In other words, people with each allele will have their own bell curve, and that bell curve will have a mean trivially different from the population mean, and an SD trivially different from zero.
that distribution itself changes from one set of environments to another…
But if it’s an indendependent genetic effect, it will either increase the odds of being above average (to a trivial degree) in every environment, or increase the odds of being below average (to a trivial degree) in every environment, but the average level itself will change with environment
all models are false, but some models are useful
I assume you mean that models are at best crude approximations for reality, but if reality is this precise (10,000 genes of tiny effect) crude approximations become useless.
Something that all of these so called scholars forget to mention is that humans are identical in 99.5% of their genetic markers. Therefore, the fact that “intelligence” might be controlled by as many as 10.000 genes is a weak excuse for not finding those that cause variation among individuals.
Moreover, IQ will never be able to be linked to anything biologic simply because it is not a quantitative unit. If a 220 pounds individual is twice as heavier than a 110 pounds one, a 160 IQ person is not twice as intelligent as a 80 IQ one. If psychometrics want to become relevant for biologic purpose, they will need to measure quantities instead of indicating a ranking relative to a disputable “norm”.
And finally, no single gene can directly cause IQ because an IQ test taker is never uncounciously following his instincts. He may fail any puzzle for various reasons that don’t really deal with his abilities and he can succeed by luck.
If psychometrics want to become relevant for biologic purpose, they will need to measure quantities instead of indicating a ranking relative to a disputable “norm”.
The field of chronometrics attempts to do exactly that.
As indicated in this chart, it seems nearly impossible that roughly 50% of the genome is involved in the variation of any trait.
In addition to that, as I mentionned before, less than 0.5% of genetic markers show variation between individuals. And that’s not all. I could read at various places on the internet that only 5% of the variable alleles are thought to be functional and to result in a phenotype. And finally, genetic expression is further moderated by dominance and recessivity.
So, if there are genes for intelligence, their number has to be limited, their effect has to be sufficiently large and most of the involved alleles need to be dominant.
“The field of chronometrics attempts to do exactly that.”
Time is considered to be the fourth dimension and we all know we have no way to handle it directly in our three dimension reality. However, chronometrics use the sun and planet earth revolution to give something that approximate the reality of time. And it works to the point that one minute is one minute anywhere and at anytime and that two minutes really means 1+1 minute. Chronometrics is already quantitative, though in a much more abstract way than other measurements.
do you also notice…
1. prof shoe is an utter nerd?
2. prof poodle-jew speaks in an affected accent?
look at shoe’s picture. he has that chinese underbite thing, and his tongue is too big for his mouth.
he looks and sounds retarded.
Have you seen this article on what non-shared environment is? http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/16/non-shared-environment-doesnt-just-mean-schools-and-peers/
PP Steven Pinker doesn’t believe in racial IQ differences. I believe he’s only saying that to protect his career. Even he would get taken down. Look at how Watson got taken down. The same would happen to Pinker.
I know for a fact that he believes in racial IQ differences. You cannot write a book called “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature” and think that all races are the same in the brain. In “Better Angels of Our Nature” he says that we are all the same in the brain as evolution stopped 10kya. I believe he’s just saying that to keep his career. Even Harvard professor Steven Pinker will have his life destroyed and his life’s work ruined if he came out and said this