![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Charles the III of Spain of the Hapsburgs was an imbecile, and he only had 8 great grand parents. What heading should that go under? 128.206.82.56 ( talk) 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)done
I suggest changing the title to "Heritability of intellgence" since almost all material is about Heritability. The current title is somewhat POV since it seems to imply genetics. Objections? Ultramarine 02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Just one;
If intelligence is hereditary, why is it that the overwhelming majority of ultra smart people in the United States do not come from "noble ancestry?"
I mean, most Americans are descended from "European trash," e.g., the working class. To me that doesn't sound like good genetic pedigree regarding the breeding for brains.
Since the majority, the overpowering majority of Europeans who came here were all from "trash" stock, this country should have no smart people at all.
A big, glaring problem with the heredity argument. Indeed, a college professor of mine, whose brother got into that whole ancestry thing, discovered that their great grandfather was a coal miner. From coal miner, to college professor. Its not the only incident either, there are many others. Many people in this country, who teach at Ivy league institutions, who have won nobel prizes, often descend from the lowest of the low from Europe way back when. In Australia, which was originally a prison colony, there are many people there with high I.Q.'s Most of those people are descended from criminals and brigands the British government had deemed "feeble minded."
Of course, I'm not here to make a statement, but to pose a question; if intelligence is inherent, if its inborn, if its genetic, why is it that at one point all of humanity lived in a state of savagery?
Another question I have is, if Europeans according to tests supposedly have higher level II intelligence, I need to ask, why was it that northern Europeans, the ones promoted as being smarter than everyone else, lived in a state of barbarism for hundreds of years?
If intelligence was truly genetic, you'd think they would have created a civilization as sophisticated as that of ancient India or Persia. Were are all the pyramids in Norway? Were are the ancient cities in Germany? Were are the Ankor Wats of England?
No mean to insult anyone here but Stonehenge, when compared to the pyramids in Central America, is hardly an example of brain power.
Is the heredity of intelligence "science" real science, or, is it racist junk science out to abuse its authority to promote racist views?
Nazi Germany abused science in a similar manner; more worrysome though, is the lack of research in how intelligence can be increased. People seem perfectly comfortable in assuming, what you got is what you got, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Sucks for nonwhites, but very convenient for whites. I'm just saying, I hope racist egotism is not the motivating factor for that "science" and "research."
206.63.78.105stardingo747 —Preceding
comment was added at
08:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Stardingo. If the people who built Stonehenge were so 'backward', how is it that you're here today speaking in the language of their distant descendants? Runcero ( talk) 10:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Too often people work on articles by picking a POV and looking for sources to back it up. I think the way to research an article is to find out what the notable verifiable sources are and then find out what they say (what views they hold) and then come up with an outline for an article that accommodates their views and whatever arguments exist among them. Following this principle I have discovered that there are plenty of good scientific research on the heritability of traits including IQ. A sample of key studies:
Now, I have not read most of these, but this is precisely my point: I have not chosen them because they support my POV, but because they are frequently cited by scientists and thus represent notable views, whatever their views are. And this is plenty of material to work through. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Discussion brought over from the Race and Intelligence page:
What do people mean when they claim that racial differences cause differences in IQ? According the the lead, it sounds like some people think that race stands for biological differences. In the "Race" section above Alun demonstrates that for biologists race is subspecies and there are no meaningful human races in a biological sense. The question is whether there is a genetic component to differences in IQ scores and this question has nothing to do with "race." Study on the biology of IQ hinges on twin studies. Here is a fair sample of the major sources:
To start us off, I propose we look at these articles:
I repeat, the point is not to cherry-pick quotes that we agree or disagree with. The point is to examine reliable sources to find out - yes, find out, as if e may actually learn something new - what the notable views are.
From what I gather from this literature, most of the current scholarship - mainstream scholarship - on IQ scores is not even concerned with the debate "is it environmental or is it genetic."
There is a body of literature, and I provided many citations above, and obviously an article on this research must be organized around the most notable and mainstream views on the matter - it should include all notable views ... but I think that the major notable views should be the principle factor in the organization and presentation of the article.
Virtually all scientific research on the genetic determinants of variation in IQ scores is based on twin studies and above (perhaps now in archived talk) I provided a bibliography of major (i.e. from major peer-reviewed journal journals, and which are frequently cited) articles. These studies indicate an ongoing debate between scientists who measure the heritability of intelligence at .40, and others who measure it at between .60 and .70.
In addition to these contrasting calculations, there is a debate over the effects of of the shared prenatal environment - some argue that identical blood supply should lead to greater similarities between monochoriatic twins than dichorionic twins; others argue that competition for blood supply should lead to greater differences between monochorionic twins than dichorionic twins. I think we need to have a good article that provides a clear account of this research and these controversies.
Perhaps someone who has training in genetics and access to these journals could take the first step in sketching out an article on Heritability and IQ.? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about the heritability of IQ - specifically, the proportion of variance in IQ which is attributable to genetic variance. Consequently, I don't think this is the place to discuss race, intelligence, or race and intelligence. Questions about whether IQ measures "intelligence," whether "race" exists, or whether different populations differ in IQ for genetic reasons, can be addressed elsewhere. Harkenbane ( talk) 19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Race is an illusion of the flesh, but genetics is not. If an ethnicity is revealed to have a higher genetic predisposition towards learning disabilities by a scientific study, those conducting the study should not be labeled as racist just for their findings. In reality race is but the demographic distribution of genetic traits and it's the problem traits that are the problem, not the race. I personally think it's pathetic that we tend to only classify race by a handfull of cosmetic and superfluous traits that have no impact on personhood other than that our species is weak minded enough to identify with and mimic the behavior of people who look similar to us. IQ is about measured intelligence by the way, the word intelligence is in IQ for a reason. -- 67.58.85.10 ( talk) 17:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Genetics of intelligence redirects to this article. However I do feel there may be a distinction between the genetics and heritability. Heritability can be measured without the knowledge of the actual genes such as measuring traits over several fruit fly generations. It might be necessary to have a separate article, genetics of intelligence, that focuses only on genes that have been associated with intelligence. Wapondaponda ( talk) 23:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I hate how legitimate studies are labeled controversial simply because they raise uncomfortable questions or go outside the comfort zones of established mainstream religions. The studies on the genetic factors effecting intelligence are controversial because they raise uncomfortable questions about this "all men born equal" mindset we've been taught to blindly accept.
Face it, everyone isn't born equal, look up birth defects if you don't believe me. Genetics plays a large role in many things, it's still labeled controversial that Genetics effects sexuality even though not a single scientist in the field would deny it, and this is controversial because it brings up bad memories from history class or raises issues relating to ethnicity and demographic areas. We're every bit as subject to genetics and natural selection as the next species and we need to get over our tendency to undermine legitimate scientific case studies just because we don't like what they may reveal to us. Without knowledge we have no power.-- 67.58.85.10 ( talk) 17:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
SUMMARY: Need balanced coverage of section "Between-group heritability", and link to a larger entirely new article on statistic in social science
PROBLEM #1: Coverage of opposing camps in the section titled "Group Comparisons" is not fair/balanced
DETAILS: As of 3:50 pm, US Central Time, Friday, July 3rd, 2009, there are 2 paragraphs in this section. There are a total of 1192 (949+253) characters typed and allowed in favor of one view. Yet there are only 229 characters which have been allowed to represent the opposing view.
The first paragraph is 939 characters (including spaces), which presents the view that between group comparisons of heritability cannot be made for psychometric measures.
The second paragraph is 479 characters (including spaces) and includes 2 sentences. The first sentence is 229 characters, and presents an outdated weak argument supporting the validity of between group comparisons. Rather than proceed to qualifications, expansion, or (better yet) a superior argument from the 'other side', this paragraph then returns to the initial camp, and presents yet another sentence supporting that view, 253 characters long. Strangely, this additional sentence add no value to the argument, save the dropping of another name (it makes no argument, adds no explanatory or evidential information not already presented above).
PROBLEM #2: The debates over statistical significance of group comparisons on psychometric tests is too large to be covered here, and is relevant to many other topics besides intelligence
Yet a third issue, which I attempted to at least mention briefly in this section, is the wide spread deep debates over the significance of statistical comparisons of groups of humans on the basis of psychometric tests. A much large article covering this topic should be created by a QUALIFIED scientist. It should include sections discussing cases of public deception, as well as political motivations. Most importantly though, it should include the actual GENERALLY ACCEPTED standards used in various areas of social and medical research. If lives depend on it, a much higher standard is used for determination of effect size and statistical significance. If it is merely a tool for the elucidation of human nature, for the development of governmental policies, funding, and educational curriculum, or other less "valued" purposes, then the standard is lower. Lastly, this new article should also include some graphical examples depicting important experimental design concepts, such as the masking or confounding of effects, when using only a few descriptive statistical tools. Mostly social researchers are familiar with debates in inferential statistics, but the more fundamental philosophical issues are more esoteric.
Paul.J.Richardson 21:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.j.richardson ( talk • contribs)
to:
I changed "the between-group genetic differences average out" to the second of the above since it looks good to me, but I'm happy with either wording (although sticking to the source would be best). Johnuniq ( talk) 01:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
"A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around three quarters.[8] The New York Times Magazine has also listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.[9] This coefficient would imply that r squared is about 0.56, meaning that about 56% of the variance in IQ scores is genetic."
The study under [8] gives no heritability measurement. For doubters, it can be easily accessed from a google search. The measurement for 56% is also considerably lower than the 75% measurement, yet it has no notation. Also, it's rather pointless to quote the NYT article when it gives no citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.11.120 ( talk) 17:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.196.138 ( talk) 18:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I moved a lot of info here from Race and intelligence per a proposal in mediation. Subsequently it has been suggested that information on between-group heritability of IQ should not take up so much space here. I'd like to see how we can best address this issue.
The lead states that this article is primarily about in-group heritability. Why is that? Should between group heritability of IQ not be discussed here at all?
Much of the new info is admittedly about hypotheses to explain the correlation between IQ and race without a mostly hereditarian explanation. I agree that this may not be the best place for this info. Please give ideas for other articles that would be more fitting for this information, while avoiding POV forks (which was my aim in keeping all the information together). T34CH ( talk) 20:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the "Inconsistency" piece, that post was incorrect in saying that 56% and .75 were unconnected, considering how 56% definitely is .75 when r-squared. However, the NYT article should be disregarded since it gives genuinely no source. The 2004 paper cited should also have more detail given from it. Are they listing a correlation coefficient or the percentage variance? If possible, papers with public domain access should be listed. There's also no actual reference given on the Posthuma 2002 paper.
On another note, it should also be clarified how much more heritable g is than IQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.1.91 ( talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This section of the article still has some of the same problems that were originally raised during the mediation case for the now-defunct Race and intelligence article, as well as some new problems that resulted from the split. I’d like some attention to be paid to fixing them.
What was a problem previously, and still is one, is that instead of explaining the arguments that are presented in favor of between-group IQ differences being heritable, the “heritability” section devotes a large amount of space to explaining almost nothing. While WP:UNDUE demands that we not devote a larger portion of space to any hypothesis than it receives in the source material, it does not demand that our explanation of a minority viewpoint be uninformative. A new problem is that “heritability” should not be only one subsection of the section “between-group heritability”, because the entire section is discussing between-group heritability. Most of the content of this section was copied verbatim from the Race and intelligence article, in which it was explaining factors which could affect between-group differences in IQ, but if it’s going to be presented as factors which could raise or lower between-group heritability, it’ll need to be reorganized.
I think the best solution to this might be something that DJ proposed during mediation for the Race and intelligence article, which is to take a data-centric approach, focusing on individual lines of data which could affect between-group heritability, rather than on viewpoints about whether it’s heritable or not. Here are some of the specific data points that DJ suggested the article cover:
This would be in addition to the lines of data which the article discusses already, such as health and quality of education.
I also think that if the scope of this section is limited to discussing factors influencing between-group heritability, several of the points discussed here aren’t relevant, and should be either removed or moved to the Between-group differences in IQ article. For example, the question of test bias that’s raised in the test construction section is relevant to the question of whether IQ can accurately be compared between cultures, but this is a separate question from whether and to what degree between-group differences are heritable.
Before I go about making any of these changes, I’d like to make sure nobody has a significant problem with them. Does anyone have any improvements to suggest about what I’ve proposed here? -- Captain Occam ( talk) 00:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I get the impression that this article is slowly becoming a POV fork of the race and intelligence article. It seems that large sections that were part of the race and intelligence have now moved here. I believe the scope of this article is the heritability of intelligence, not supposed differences in intelligence between groups, that is a separate subject. Wapondaponda ( talk) 15:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
After more than 140 years after the creation of the word " eugenics", I must question two things:
1-How many races exists in the world? And Why there's 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,10,etc. races in the world?
2-What is intelligence? After read many eugenics tracts, I realized that a person why hight level of IQ/intelligence is someone very bigoted, racist and charlatan. Am I right or wrong and why?
This Israeli site: [ Jpost] makes another question: Are Taliban descendants of Israelites? Agre22 ( talk) 21:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)agre22
Some of the paragraphs in the "caveats" section are lifted word for word from the APA statement. There should be more original work in that regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannoro ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The birth rate for people with low IQs is MUCH higher than those with high IQs, yet the mean IQ of the world keeps rising and rising. If genes really determined intelligence this would make absolutely no sense. The mean intelligence is increasing because of education. Education = higher IQ, Genes do not = higher IQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.166.90 ( talk) 23:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Johnson, Wendy; Turkheimer, Eric; Gottesman, Irving I.; Bouchard Jr., Thomas (2009). Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 4, 218.
This is a paper I learned about from Johnson, Gottesman, and Bouchard directly, as I happened to be in the "journal club" in their University of Minnesota Department of Psychology during fall semester 2009. It includes the important conclusion, "even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability," which does a lot to clarify the issues discussed in this article. I take it that everyone who has ever looked at good sources on this topic has heard of Bouchard (and his co-author Turkheimer). Both of these scholars have modified their conclusions in recent years, as they have continued to follow up the data sets they study and to interact with other researchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 19:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I see today a version of this article in which the first statement with a footnote is "Heritability is a measure of the relative contribution of genotype to the variation of a phenotype on a given group in a specific environment." I rather doubt that that is the exact definition of heritability given by any current reliable source (this doesn't appear inside quotation marks in the article), but let's check. What does the cited source [1] actually provide in its own exact words as a definition of "heritability"? How many of you have that source printed out or available online as you edit this article?
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
-- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 13:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There has been article talk for a while at some other articles, on the subject of environmental influences on IQ, in which editors have proposed merging those articles with one another or into other Wikipedia articles. This Heritability of IQ article stands out currently as the best sourced, and evidently most watched, of the several articles about various influences on the development of IQ. We can all note for the record that the technical term "heritability [of trait]" of course does not solely mean "genetic influence on [trait]" but rather "estimated balance of environmental and genetic influence on [trait in a particular population]." Thus it might be in the spirit and fact of what this article is really about to retitle it to Environmental and genetic influences on IQ or something like that, with appropriate redirects. This issue is open for your discussion while I read some new sources (copyright 2010) that I have just obtained from academic libraries. Let's discuss what would bring about a yet more current, even more accurate, and clear and educational article on this frequently contentious topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 00:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I was browsing around looking for sources for this and other articles, and found an excellent online post, which, although it is not a Wikipedia reliable source, definitely points to a lot of sources that are Wikipedia reliable sources and analyzes those sources with sound judgment. This is a good post to look at while preparing to edit this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 20:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
To the extent that such a discussion is warranted here, the correct argument is here. Tijfo098 ( talk) 20:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I put it back, but some parts need better explaining and citations. Also a picture like File:Resp-to-sel.jpg would be much more informative, although just for one individual rather than selected population, although that one is still better than a generic regression pic. Tijfo098 ( talk) 22:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Rose SP is dissing the entire subfield of quantitative genetics, arguing that it is completely useless nowadays [1]. This is definitely a POV, and should not be used in the lead, especially unattributed. This is not at all how a textbook like Hartl and Clark (which has good reviews [2]) presents the topic. Some nuance is needed. Tijfo098 ( talk) 08:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
From the book review: "Although the text does not discuss it, the cited paper also showed that there are a large number of genes that are not affected by the environment and/or the background genotype, so phenotypic plasticity is just one of the things that may or may not influence development and survival on the way from genotype to phenotype." A more NPOV presentation is at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/population-genetics/#StaPopGen Tijfo098 ( talk) 09:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, Google scholar finds only 3 citations for Rose's 2006 paper. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Tijfo098 ( talk) 09:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Rose is very much committed to a nurture viewpoint. He's been writing this stuff in his books for decades. He had more luck with people paying attention to his arguments against evolutionary psychology than against quantitative genetics, it seems:
Tijfo098 ( talk) 09:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I see an editor is checking references for this article and making sure that statements in article text match what the cited references actually say. I will try to add some references, first to this talk page, and later to the article. I appreciate any editor who checks references to make sure that they are being used correctly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 23:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I see the article is tagged, as of November 2010, but I don't see a new section of article talk here discussing that. What's the concern? -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 04:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Section "1.1.1 Background" says: Heritability is defined as the proportion of variance in a trait which is attributable to genotype within a defined population in a specific environment. But two sentences later it says The heritability of many traits can be considered primarily genetic under similar environmental backgrounds. This leaves me confused: together the sentences seem to say "The proportion of variance attributable to genotype can be considered primarily genetic." Am I missing something? I suspect that the second quoted sentence is misworded and should start out as "The determination of ..." instead of "The heritability of ...." Duoduoduo ( talk) 16:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
See discussion here [4].-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 22:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to note that the twins reared apart research shows a slight shared environmental effect in adulthood. See the Bouchard study discussed here [5], the best study of reared apart twins to date.
Based on this, I wanted to ask a larger question-- if this methodology gives different results than other methodologies, might it make sense for us to devote a sub-section at the beginning (perhaps called "Techniques" or "Methodologies"to the various methods that have been used to calculate the heritability of IQ? We could then, within that discuss the assumptions they make which might bias the heritability to be higher or lower.
In No Two Alike, JR Harris makes the argument that the twins reared apart studies are more reliable than the twin studies, because those studies are biased by assumptions like equal environments. That's the type of thing that would go in the section I'm proposing.
Note: I've posted a related idea on restructuring the sections below.-- Babank ( talk) 23:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I think we should seperate the parts that define Heritability and its caveats from Methods and Results. Results and methods section should deal with the behavioral genetic techniques and the results they produce, not with defining heritability..
I would put the Correlations in this new section as well, as this is related only to defining/calculating Heritability, not the behavior genetics research.
Under my proposal here, we would have a Heritability section preceding the Methods and Results section. Any thoughts on this idea?-- Babank ( talk) 23:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Changed the sections as suggested above. Thoughts? Miradre ( talk) 23:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
-- Babank ( talk) 20:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
What does everyone think of making these changes:
Thoughts?-- Babank ( talk) 21:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The section had no sources which discussed regression to the mean in the context of this article. The "IQ Testing 101" source mentions "regression to the mean" once in the test as a passing remark. Reviewing the history of this article, the section has been essentially unsourced since it's introduction three years ago [7] in what seems to be a copy/paste dump from somewhere else. aprock ( talk) 06:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I can only view pages 1-14. The search result indicates that "regression to the mean" is mentioned once in those pages, with what looks like a simple explanatory note. As discussed above, including the mathematical particulars of any one statistical tool is undue here. It is not the job of wikipedia to walk readers through the statistical calculations made by researchers. aprock ( talk) 21:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This section appears to be about heritability of giftedness, defined by various measures, not heritability of IQ. It consists of a single large table with no accompanying discussion. I suspect this is undue, with the content being more appropriate for inclusion on the pages of the individual researchers or the Giftedness page. Seeking constructive feedback, aprock ( talk) 17:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Question: Should the section Heritability_of_IQ#Regression_toward_the_mean be included in this article?
Currently, inclusion of this content in this article is based on three sources:
I'll note that none of these sources imply that regression to the mean is a particularly meaningful aspect of the Heritability of IQ. In fact, the most authoritative source on the subject, the Intelligence book, notes that it's a general characteristic of all heritable traits. While the mechanics of computing expected regression to the mean may be interesting to some, they do not belong in this article. If they belong anywhere, it is in the main regression to the mean article, or possibly the heritability article. While I feel that the section is out of place in the article, I fully support including content parallel to the paraphrased description of what is in the Intelligence book above.
Input invited, aprock ( talk) 22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Until proper sourcing for inclusion, I suggest that the section be reduced to a brief summary of how regression to the mean relates to Heredity/IQ based on the Eysenck source. Any objections. aprock ( talk) 20:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Based on the feedback provided, I've removed the section for the time being. If it can be rewritten with better sourcing indicating it's relevance to the topic here, then we can add it back. aprock ( talk) 17:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
This section does not discuss heritability at all. Rather it presents various correlation numbers, for what purpose it is unclear. I've moved the section to the end, and unless some sources can be found which relate the specific correlation content presented back to heritability, I think it should be removed. aprock ( talk) 21:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The psych book on my shelf says nothing about correlation of intelligence being a more relevant statistic than heritability when it comes to measuring heritability. Your suggestion that sources are used to exclude information rather than include information is exactly backwards. Until you provide some sources, I'll defer further conversation for the RfC. aprock ( talk) 18:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
If the material does stay it should be brought inline with WP:NPOV. The section currently cherry-picks data to support a WP:FRINGE WP:POV and excludes mainstream data found in the sources provided...
Fischbein (1980), in a study of twins, divided his samples into three groups categorized by social class. He found that heritability estimates increased with increasing social class. The estimate of broad heritability from the intraclass correlations for identical and fraternal twins was .78 for the highest social class, but only .30 for the lowest. Extremely similar results were obtained from a large-scale study of 1909 non-Hispanic Caucasians and African American sibling pairs (identical twins, fraternal twins, full and half siblings, Cousins in the same household, and biologically unrelated siblings) from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent I lealth who were tested on Wechsler's Vocabulary subtest (Rowe, Jacobson, & Van den Oord, 1999). When categorized by parental education, the heritability for the most highly educated families averaged .74 versus a value of .26 for the less well-educated families(Rowe et al.). In a twin study conducted in Russia, Crigorenko and Carter (1996) evaluated the parenting styles of the mothers of identical and fraternal twins, and analyzed these relationships as a function of the family's social class. They found parenting styles to differ for the two types of twins (e.g., mothers of identical twins employed more infamilization, invalidation, and authoritarianism than mothers of fraternal twins), and for different social classes. Regarding the latter point. Grigorenko and Carter found that Russian mothers with less education and lower occupational status were more likely than their more educated, higher status counterparts to use authoritarian approaches, to view their children's behavior less positively, and to invalidate and infantilize their [P31] twins' behavior. The latter two styles were also associated with lower children's IQs.
- —Kaufman, Alan (2006). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. pp. 30–31. ISBN 9780471735533.
In the mean time a POV tag on the section seems appropriate. — ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 03:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
No one is disputing that correlation data is presented in various sources. The problem here is that you are cherry picking raw data and inserting that section, deliberately trying to conflate correlation data with heritability. The links that you are drawing from the correlation data to heritability are not in the Kaufman book. Your claim to have shown such statements is false. aprock ( talk) 20:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I have been trying to add this for a long time:
"However, some studies suggest that even just a single gene called HMGA2 can increase IQ by 2.6 points, reducing the paradox of fairly high heritability with few actual genes found to manipulate IQ. [1]. A single mutation of a letter from T to C in this gene raises IQ by 1.29 points, and if this happens in both copies the effect is doubled. Each mutation in each copy of the gene also increases the brain size by 0.58%. Over 21,000 people were studied for this trend to become evident, and this is one of the first peer-reviewed studies to find a single gene responsible for intelligence."
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
This has also appeared in well-respected secondary sources, such as New Scientist. This is also most likely not a false positive due to the large sample size and the co-dominant doubling effect of having both mutated copies of the gene. I think it should be added at least somewhere in the article, maybe in the molecular genetics section. Jaredjeya ( talk) 11:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
See [11]. Worth mentioning? Certainly not a sample representative of the general population. 8% looks impressive. Academica Orientalis ( talk) 12:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
[ http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Chabris2012a-FalsePositivesGenesIQ.pdf molecular genetics of psychology and social science requires approaches that go beyond the examination of candidate genes.] 178.148.233.248 ( talk) 19:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
This is just a newspaper article with no references for its claims. It shouldn't be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.57.173 ( talk) 01:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing in here about eugenics. Quite a stretch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.57.173 ( talk) 03:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see so few links in this article to publications by Eric Turkheimer (current president of the Behavior Genetics Association, and long a very thoughtful and influential author on behavior genetics research). Other current authors (for example, Wendy Johnson and Lars Penke) have good review articles on the subject that could improve this article a lot. I'll link to some here.
Eric Turkheimer has recently been president of the Behavior Genetics Association, and he has the very kind habit of posting most of his peer-reviewed journal articles on his faculty website. [13]
Lars Penke is another, younger researcher who posts most of his publications on his personal website. [14]
An interesting review article,
Turkheimer, E. (2008, Spring). A better way to use twins for developmental research. LIFE Newsletter, 2, 1-5
http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20Online%20CV/Turkheimer%20(2008).pdf
admits the disappointment of behavior genetics researchers.
"But back to the question: What does heritability mean? Almost everyone who has ever thought about heritability has reached a commonsense intuition about it: One way or another, heritability has to be some kind of index of how genetic a trait is. That intuition explains why so many thousands of heritability coefficients have been calculated over the years. Once the twin registries have been assembled, it's easy and fun, like having a genoscope you can point at one trait after another to take a reading of how genetic things are. Height? Very genetic. Intelligence? Pretty genetic. Schizophrenia? That looks pretty genetic too. Personality? Yep, that too. And over multiple studies and traits the heritabilities go up and down, providing the basis for nearly infinite Talmudic revisions of the grand theories of the heritability of things, perfect grist for the wheels of social science.
"Unfortunately, that fundamental intuition is wrong. Heritability isn't an index of how genetic a trait is. A great deal of time has been wasted in the effort of measuring the heritability of traits in the false expectation that somehow the genetic nature of psychological phenomena would be revealed. There are many reasons for making this strong statement, but the most important of them harkens back to the description of heritability as an effect size. An effect size of the R2 family is a standardized estimate of the proportion of the variance in one variable that is reduced when another variable is held constant statistically. In this case it is an estimate of how much the variance of a trait would be reduced if everyone were genetically identical. With a moment's thought you can see that the answer to the question of how much variance would be reduced if everyone was genetically identical depends crucially on how genetically different everyone was in the first place."
The review article "The neuroscience of human intelligence differences" by Deary and Johnson and Penke (2010) relates specifically to human intelligence. [15]
"At this point, it seems unlikely that single genetic loci have major effects on normal-range intelligence. For example, a modestly sized genome-wide study of the general intelligence factor derived from ten separate test scores in the cAnTAB cognitive test battery did not find any important genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms or copy number variants, and did not replicate genetic variants that had previously been associated with cognitive ability[note 48]."
The review article Johnson, W. (2010). Understanding the Genetics of Intelligence: Can Height Help? Can Corn Oil?. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 177-182 [16]
looks at some famous genetic experiments to show how little is explained by gene frequencies even in thoroughly studied populations defined by artificial selection.
"Together, however, the developmental natures of GCA [general cognitive ability] and height, the likely influences of gene-environment correlations and interactions on their developmental processes, and the potential for genetic background and environmental circumstances to release previously unexpressed genetic variation suggest that very different combinations of genes may produce identical IQs or heights or levels of any other psychological trait. And the same genes may produce very different IQs and heights against different genetic backgrounds and in different environmental circumstances. This would be especially the case if height and GCA and other psychological traits are only single facets of multifaceted traits actually under more systematic genetic regulation, such as overall body size and balance between processing capacity and stimulus reactivity. Genetic influences on individual differences in psychological characteristics are real and important but are unlikely to be straightforward and deterministic. We will understand them best through investigation of their manifestation in biological and social developmental processes."
Johnson, W., Penke, L., & Spinath, F. M. (2011). Understanding Heritability: What it is and What it is Not. European Journal of Personality, 25(4), 287-294. DOI: 10.1002/per.835 [17]
responds to psychologists' comments about their earlier review article on heritability. "Our target article was intended to provide background knowledge to psychologists and other social scientists on the subject of heritability. This statistic, in many ways so basic, is both extremely powerful in revealing the presence of genetic influence and very weak in providing much information beyond this. Many forms of measurement error, statistical artefact, violation of underlying assumptions, gene–environment interplay, epigenetic mechanisms and no doubt processes we have not yet even identified can contribute to the magnitudes of heritability estimates. If psychologists and other social scientists want to understand genetic involvement in behavioural traits, we believe that it is going to be necessary to distinguish among these possibilities to at least some degree. Heritability estimates alone are not going to help us do this."
Turkheimer, E. (2011). Genetics and human agency (Commentary on Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2011). Psychological Bulletin, 137, 825-828. DOI: 10.1037/a0024306 [18]
reemphasizes the point that a heritability calculation tells us nothing about subject to environmental influences a human trait is. "That heritability depends on the population in which it is measured is one of the most frequently repeated caveats in the social sciences, but it is nevertheless often forgotten in the breach. (For example, it is nearly meaningless for Dar-Nimrod and Heine to note that 'heritability [of intelligence is] typically estimated to range from .50 to .85' [p. 805]. The heritability of intelligence isn’t anything, and even placing it in a range is misleading. Making a numerical point estimate of the heritability of intelligence is akin to saying, 'Social psychologists usually estimate the F ratio for the fundamental attribution error to be between 2.0 and 4.0.') The observation that genotypic variation accounts for 90% of the variation in height in the modern world depends on the variability of genotype and environment relevant to height. Among cloned animals with widely varying diets, body size is perfectly environmental with heritability of 0; in genetically variable animals raised in identical environments heritability is 1.0. This is no mere statistical fine point: it means that the entire project of assessing how essentially genetic traits are in terms of measured heritability coefficients is a fool’s errand."
Chabris, C. F., Hebert, B. M., Benjamin, D. J., Beauchamp, J., Cesarini, D., van der Loos, M., ... & Laibson, D. (2012). Most reported genetic associations with general intelligence are probably false positives. Psychological Science. [19]
"At the time most of the results we attempted to replicate were obtained, candidate-gene studies of complex traits were commonplace in medical genetics research. Such studies are now rarely published in leading journals. Our results add IQ to the list of phenotypes that must be approached with great caution when considering published molecular genetic associations. In our view, excitement over the value of behavioral and molecular genetic studies in the social sciences should be temperedءs it has been in the medical sciencesآy a recognition that, for complex phenotypes, individual common genetic variants of the sort assayed by SNP microarrays are likely to have very small effects.
"Associations of candidate genes with psychological traits and other traits studied in the social sciences should be viewed as tentative until they have been replicated in multiple large samples. Failing to exercise such caution may hamper scientific progress by allowing for the proliferation of potentially false results, which may then influence the research agendas of scientists who do not realize that the associations they take as a starting point for their efforts may not be real. And the dissemination of false results to the public may lead to incorrect perceptions about the state of knowledge in the field, especially knowledge concerning genetic variants that have been described as 'genes for' traits on the basis of unintentionally inflated estimates of effect size and statistical significance."
-- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 19:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
" In fact, according to the concept of regression toward the mean, parents of IQ at either extreme are more likely to produce offspring closer to the mean (or average)"
In such a case, the standard deviation of IQs should also decrease with time, which is not observed as far as I know. 212.198.146.114 ( talk) 23:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I have a lot of reliable sources at hand for checking and updating this article, and I invite fellow Wikipedians to nominate medically reliable secondary sources to use to bring this article up to date with current professional handbooks and upper-division and graduate textbooks on the article topic. I have made a few preliminary edits to the article on the basis of reliable secondary sources and I invite comments and suggestions from the rest of you to incrementally improve this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 13:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)On the Nature and Nurture of Intelligence and Specific Cognitive Abilities: The More Heritable, the More Culture-Dependent -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 13:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal is a new, open-access, "peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original empirical and theoretical articles, state-of-the-art articles and critical reviews, case studies, original short notes, commentaries" intended to be "an open access journal that moves forward the study of human intelligence: the basis and development of intelligence, its nature in terms of structure and processes, and its correlates and consequences, also including the measurement and modeling of intelligence." The content of the first issue is posted, and includes interesting review articles, one by Earl Hunt and Susanne M. Jaeggi and one by Wendy Johnson. The editorial board [20] of this new journal should be able to draw in a steady stream of good article submissions. It looks like the journal aims to continue to publish review articles of the kind that would meet Wikipedia guidelines for articles on medical topics, an appropriate source guideline to apply to Wikipedia articles about intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 21:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Estimation and Partition of Heritability in Human Populations Using Whole-Genome Analysis Methods 174.95.171.228 ( talk) 01:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
This article is about a topic that is a subtopic in the study of behavior genetics. Wikipedia has a lot of interesting articles based on the ongoing research in behavior genetics, both in humans and in nonhuman animals. I've been reading university textbooks on genetics "for fun" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. That university has long been a center of research on human behavior genetics, being the site of a major study of monozygotic twins reared apart. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us here collaborate to build an encyclopedia, I thought I would suggest some sources for updating the articles on behavior genetics and related topics. The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources.
The guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."
Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.
The guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."
Other Wikipedians who watch the article Behavioural genetics did all of us a great favor on that article's talk page by suggesting helpful sources. In particular, User:Pete.Hurd suggested an authoritative textbook on behavior genetics, covering both the human and the animal research, and following up on his suggestion led me to several other helpful sources with similar subject cataloging in libraries.
I'll be reviewing the sources below, which I have either in full text or as sets of notes from previous readings of the sources, as I prepare to update this article with all of you looking on. I'd be delighted to hear recommendations of other sources on this article's topic that meet Wikipedia medically reliable source guidelines, as the sources listed do. The first set of sources consists of authoritative textbooks.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)Taken together, these findings suggest that about 50% of the variation seen in IQ scores is accounted for by genetics and a nearly equal percentage is accounted for by environment.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laysummary=
and |laydate=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)There are many useful review articles and overview news stories from peer-reviewed scientific journals that meet the WP:MEDRS guidelines and are very useful sources for updating articles about behavior genetics (and I encourage Wikipedians to suggest others besides those listed here).
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Some more general reference books about genetics or behavior also touch on behavior genetics issues through book chapters.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |archivedate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laysummary=
and |laydate=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)The list above is not exhaustive, but it includes sources that are well worth a look for checking on updates of this article. Enjoy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 03:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/we-cant-ignore-the-evidence-genes-affect-social-mobility/ 74.14.73.37 ( talk) 06:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613001682?np=y Above paper proves that IQ and SES correlation is due to genes and not environment, proving the argument of The Bell Curve. Also it is by Plomin, so is mainstream and reliable. If no one else wishes to add these edits then I shall do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wajajad ( talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0030320
Above study by Robert Plomin indicates that SES doesn't modulate heritability of IQ, and in fact, race doesn't modulate heritability of IQ either. More sources are found here: http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/more-behavioral-genetic-facts/ All sources are high quality and warrant inclusion into this article. 74.14.73.162 ( talk) 08:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Genetics of aggression, Genetics of obesity, Psychiatric genetics, Genetics of gender, Genetics of aging, Genetics of social behavior, yet no separate article for Genetics of intelligence.
Heritability takes a value ranging from 0 to 1; a heritability of 1 indicates that all variation in the trait in question is genetic in origin and a heritability of 0 indicates that none of the variation is genetic.
No.
Heritability is not the same as genetics, and IQ is not the same as intelligence. Even specialists occasionally ignore the reality of de novo mutations. There are other factors to consider, too, such as gene expression and epigenetics. The article mentions, for example, statistical reliability concerning the method of measurement, namely the tests. 213.109.230.96 ( talk) 10:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
"The fact is that the molecular genetic basis of cognitive ability is currently almost completely unknown. (The same applies to most other complex traits, too, of course.)" Sure. The question, then, has to be asked: why the asymmetry? Intelligence is not the only complex trait whose molecular genetic basis is poorly understood, as you've pointed out, so why do we see Genetics of aggression, Genetics of social behavior, etc., yet no Genetics of intelligence? Maybe we don't need a separate article after all, but the question is open. It's not merely rhetorical. 213.109.230.96 ( talk) 02:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
"What means of measuring intelligence other than IQ-type tests are there?" Standard IQ tests are a fairly homogenous class. They are static, while computer-based tests, for instance, allow for more dynamic, interactive options in cognitive tests, such as n-back. IQ tests are designed to assess reasoning abilities, visuospatial and linguistic-mathematical, while accepted definitions of intelligence encompass also attention and memory, and some go even further. Intelligence tests can be psychometric or biological. Neuroimaging intelligence testing is still in its early days, but it's a promising prospect. Additionally, encephalization quotient (EQ) is relevant for cross-taxon measurements of intelligence, as imperfect as it is. 213.109.230.96 ( talk) 02:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
"And the definition of heritability in the article is correct." The definition of heritability is correct, but the implied definition of "genetic" is not. Needless to say, genetics is more than just heritability. I've heard the argument that schizophrenia cannot be fundamentally genetic because most schizophrenics don't even have any family history of schizophrenia, but that argument ignores the fact that de novo mutations are often involved in the disorder. That argument also fails to account for pleiotropy: genes associated with other disorders may be involved in schizophrenia, seeing that family members of schizophrenics have higher rates of certain other disorders, not just of schizophrenia itself. Besides the word "hereditary," another adjective oft-confused with "genetic" is "inborn" -- or "congenital," if you will -- which excludes postnatal modification of gene expression and postnatal genetic code alterations. 213.109.230.96 ( talk) 02:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0100248#pone.0100248.s005
Above paper proves certain SNPs found through GWAS indeed associated with cognitive ability. This development in genetic causation of IQ must not go unmentioned in this article. 74.14.73.163 ( talk) 03:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
http://m.pnas.org/content/early/2014/09/05/1404623111 New source from Plomin and Visscher labs about gene variants behind IQ. New citation for this article. 74.14.75.158 ( talk) 19:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Added graph over heritability over lifespan from study "Behavioral Genetics of Cognitive Ability".. Revert if you disagree... MicroMacroMania ( talk) 11:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I choose to represent it in the same manner as done in the study: THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY. By Athur Jensen J. Philippe Rushton. I Dont see how I represented it wrong. It shows the heritability by agy over life span. I painted the whole graph and represented the data from the study correctly. The license copyright is under creative commons 3.0. That is what is commonly used siting all other studies here on wikipedia and if my understanding is right, same goes for that graph. MicroMacroMania ( talk) 13:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2014105a.html
Above article is by Ian J. Deary and Robert Plomin and is an excellent inclusion as an external link. 74.14.75.158 ( talk) 17:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Continuing on the IQ meritocracy train of thought, Plomin et al. have published a study that demonstrates that SES has no moderation on IQ at all, so I think we are justified for having it in the article. Also, I think there are problems with citing Turkheimer in this article to attempt to disprove IQ meritocracy, the original Turkheimer study showing this effect was pretty low quality. The data were old (from the 1950s as I recall), so there's no reason to think the results still hold today given the large social changes in the US since then. More importantly, it was underpowered for the effect it was trying to detect. It takes a lot more statistical power to detect GxE interactions than to detect G+E main effects, and consequently if an underpowered study does find such effects it's quite likely that it's just a false positive. More here. 74.14.75.158 ( talk) 19:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9125.12049/abstract
The above link is a comprehensive rebuttal of all detractors of behavior genetics and warrant inclusion in this article and related ones.
76.66.130.161 (
talk)
22:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
::Please don't post these off-topic comments, Weiji. I have read the full article. Everything else you write above is totally inscrutable, please make points relevant to the above source.
76.66.130.161 (
talk)
05:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help). The reference I'm mentioning here is indisputably a review article, and considerably more related to IQ. --
WeijiBaikeBianji (
talk,
how I edit)
14:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)And again, striking through sock of a banned user, one of the R&I farm. [23]. Dougweller ( talk) 08:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000171 http://m.cdp.sagepub.com/content/19/6/339 Also relevant to the above discussion on sources for meritocracy are these two sources demonstrating the high correlation of high academic and career success with cognitive ability.
Another — slightly irrelevant to this line of discussion — source relates to the common genetic variants proven to be causal to cognitive performance: http://m.pnas.org/content/111/38/13790.abstract
Wajajad ( talk) 05:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Wajajad ( talk) 09:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's yet another source,reaffirming the importance of genetics in education: http://m.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/02/1408777111.abstract Wajajad ( talk) 03:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
While important, general intelligence (or 'g'), as measured by IQ tests, is only one of the attributes we value in our society. Arthur Jensen (1998: 356), for example, has underlined that the expression of intelligence in any person's life and in the character of a society depends on other factors, equally important, that are independent of 'g'. He goes on to say that it is the interaction between general intelligence and these other factors that accounts for much, probably most, of the enormous variance in the visible aspects of what most people regard as worldly success. Success in life is not at all related to a single factor; success has many dimensions and IQ plays an important part in only some of them. There are many other factors that can sit along with, and at times surpass, IQ and these certainly are valued just as much as IQ. These include conscientiousness, integrity, sustainability, effort, commitment and seeking to be self-learners, among other attributes.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
We can cite Gregory Clark to demonstrate that most societies have been meritocracies based on ability and thus we have the hierarchies we see today?
76.66.130.161 (
talk) 01:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
His books A Farewell to Alms and The Son Also Rises are pertinent to this article.
76.66.130.161 (
talk)
01:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Is that relevant to debate of heritability of IQ? Not that it is not an interesting info, though also mentioned in the bell curve. MicroMacroMania ( talk) 08:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
A reliable source. We can include it to show that cognitive ability / intelligence differences can be accounted for (29%) by specific SNPs. This data is reliably replicated. 74.14.49.84 ( talk) 14:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Charles the III of Spain of the Hapsburgs was an imbecile, and he only had 8 great grand parents. What heading should that go under? 128.206.82.56 ( talk) 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)done
I suggest changing the title to "Heritability of intellgence" since almost all material is about Heritability. The current title is somewhat POV since it seems to imply genetics. Objections? Ultramarine 02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Just one;
If intelligence is hereditary, why is it that the overwhelming majority of ultra smart people in the United States do not come from "noble ancestry?"
I mean, most Americans are descended from "European trash," e.g., the working class. To me that doesn't sound like good genetic pedigree regarding the breeding for brains.
Since the majority, the overpowering majority of Europeans who came here were all from "trash" stock, this country should have no smart people at all.
A big, glaring problem with the heredity argument. Indeed, a college professor of mine, whose brother got into that whole ancestry thing, discovered that their great grandfather was a coal miner. From coal miner, to college professor. Its not the only incident either, there are many others. Many people in this country, who teach at Ivy league institutions, who have won nobel prizes, often descend from the lowest of the low from Europe way back when. In Australia, which was originally a prison colony, there are many people there with high I.Q.'s Most of those people are descended from criminals and brigands the British government had deemed "feeble minded."
Of course, I'm not here to make a statement, but to pose a question; if intelligence is inherent, if its inborn, if its genetic, why is it that at one point all of humanity lived in a state of savagery?
Another question I have is, if Europeans according to tests supposedly have higher level II intelligence, I need to ask, why was it that northern Europeans, the ones promoted as being smarter than everyone else, lived in a state of barbarism for hundreds of years?
If intelligence was truly genetic, you'd think they would have created a civilization as sophisticated as that of ancient India or Persia. Were are all the pyramids in Norway? Were are the ancient cities in Germany? Were are the Ankor Wats of England?
No mean to insult anyone here but Stonehenge, when compared to the pyramids in Central America, is hardly an example of brain power.
Is the heredity of intelligence "science" real science, or, is it racist junk science out to abuse its authority to promote racist views?
Nazi Germany abused science in a similar manner; more worrysome though, is the lack of research in how intelligence can be increased. People seem perfectly comfortable in assuming, what you got is what you got, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Sucks for nonwhites, but very convenient for whites. I'm just saying, I hope racist egotism is not the motivating factor for that "science" and "research."
206.63.78.105stardingo747 —Preceding
comment was added at
08:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Stardingo. If the people who built Stonehenge were so 'backward', how is it that you're here today speaking in the language of their distant descendants? Runcero ( talk) 10:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Too often people work on articles by picking a POV and looking for sources to back it up. I think the way to research an article is to find out what the notable verifiable sources are and then find out what they say (what views they hold) and then come up with an outline for an article that accommodates their views and whatever arguments exist among them. Following this principle I have discovered that there are plenty of good scientific research on the heritability of traits including IQ. A sample of key studies:
Now, I have not read most of these, but this is precisely my point: I have not chosen them because they support my POV, but because they are frequently cited by scientists and thus represent notable views, whatever their views are. And this is plenty of material to work through. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Discussion brought over from the Race and Intelligence page:
What do people mean when they claim that racial differences cause differences in IQ? According the the lead, it sounds like some people think that race stands for biological differences. In the "Race" section above Alun demonstrates that for biologists race is subspecies and there are no meaningful human races in a biological sense. The question is whether there is a genetic component to differences in IQ scores and this question has nothing to do with "race." Study on the biology of IQ hinges on twin studies. Here is a fair sample of the major sources:
To start us off, I propose we look at these articles:
I repeat, the point is not to cherry-pick quotes that we agree or disagree with. The point is to examine reliable sources to find out - yes, find out, as if e may actually learn something new - what the notable views are.
From what I gather from this literature, most of the current scholarship - mainstream scholarship - on IQ scores is not even concerned with the debate "is it environmental or is it genetic."
There is a body of literature, and I provided many citations above, and obviously an article on this research must be organized around the most notable and mainstream views on the matter - it should include all notable views ... but I think that the major notable views should be the principle factor in the organization and presentation of the article.
Virtually all scientific research on the genetic determinants of variation in IQ scores is based on twin studies and above (perhaps now in archived talk) I provided a bibliography of major (i.e. from major peer-reviewed journal journals, and which are frequently cited) articles. These studies indicate an ongoing debate between scientists who measure the heritability of intelligence at .40, and others who measure it at between .60 and .70.
In addition to these contrasting calculations, there is a debate over the effects of of the shared prenatal environment - some argue that identical blood supply should lead to greater similarities between monochoriatic twins than dichorionic twins; others argue that competition for blood supply should lead to greater differences between monochorionic twins than dichorionic twins. I think we need to have a good article that provides a clear account of this research and these controversies.
Perhaps someone who has training in genetics and access to these journals could take the first step in sketching out an article on Heritability and IQ.? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about the heritability of IQ - specifically, the proportion of variance in IQ which is attributable to genetic variance. Consequently, I don't think this is the place to discuss race, intelligence, or race and intelligence. Questions about whether IQ measures "intelligence," whether "race" exists, or whether different populations differ in IQ for genetic reasons, can be addressed elsewhere. Harkenbane ( talk) 19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Race is an illusion of the flesh, but genetics is not. If an ethnicity is revealed to have a higher genetic predisposition towards learning disabilities by a scientific study, those conducting the study should not be labeled as racist just for their findings. In reality race is but the demographic distribution of genetic traits and it's the problem traits that are the problem, not the race. I personally think it's pathetic that we tend to only classify race by a handfull of cosmetic and superfluous traits that have no impact on personhood other than that our species is weak minded enough to identify with and mimic the behavior of people who look similar to us. IQ is about measured intelligence by the way, the word intelligence is in IQ for a reason. -- 67.58.85.10 ( talk) 17:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Genetics of intelligence redirects to this article. However I do feel there may be a distinction between the genetics and heritability. Heritability can be measured without the knowledge of the actual genes such as measuring traits over several fruit fly generations. It might be necessary to have a separate article, genetics of intelligence, that focuses only on genes that have been associated with intelligence. Wapondaponda ( talk) 23:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I hate how legitimate studies are labeled controversial simply because they raise uncomfortable questions or go outside the comfort zones of established mainstream religions. The studies on the genetic factors effecting intelligence are controversial because they raise uncomfortable questions about this "all men born equal" mindset we've been taught to blindly accept.
Face it, everyone isn't born equal, look up birth defects if you don't believe me. Genetics plays a large role in many things, it's still labeled controversial that Genetics effects sexuality even though not a single scientist in the field would deny it, and this is controversial because it brings up bad memories from history class or raises issues relating to ethnicity and demographic areas. We're every bit as subject to genetics and natural selection as the next species and we need to get over our tendency to undermine legitimate scientific case studies just because we don't like what they may reveal to us. Without knowledge we have no power.-- 67.58.85.10 ( talk) 17:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
SUMMARY: Need balanced coverage of section "Between-group heritability", and link to a larger entirely new article on statistic in social science
PROBLEM #1: Coverage of opposing camps in the section titled "Group Comparisons" is not fair/balanced
DETAILS: As of 3:50 pm, US Central Time, Friday, July 3rd, 2009, there are 2 paragraphs in this section. There are a total of 1192 (949+253) characters typed and allowed in favor of one view. Yet there are only 229 characters which have been allowed to represent the opposing view.
The first paragraph is 939 characters (including spaces), which presents the view that between group comparisons of heritability cannot be made for psychometric measures.
The second paragraph is 479 characters (including spaces) and includes 2 sentences. The first sentence is 229 characters, and presents an outdated weak argument supporting the validity of between group comparisons. Rather than proceed to qualifications, expansion, or (better yet) a superior argument from the 'other side', this paragraph then returns to the initial camp, and presents yet another sentence supporting that view, 253 characters long. Strangely, this additional sentence add no value to the argument, save the dropping of another name (it makes no argument, adds no explanatory or evidential information not already presented above).
PROBLEM #2: The debates over statistical significance of group comparisons on psychometric tests is too large to be covered here, and is relevant to many other topics besides intelligence
Yet a third issue, which I attempted to at least mention briefly in this section, is the wide spread deep debates over the significance of statistical comparisons of groups of humans on the basis of psychometric tests. A much large article covering this topic should be created by a QUALIFIED scientist. It should include sections discussing cases of public deception, as well as political motivations. Most importantly though, it should include the actual GENERALLY ACCEPTED standards used in various areas of social and medical research. If lives depend on it, a much higher standard is used for determination of effect size and statistical significance. If it is merely a tool for the elucidation of human nature, for the development of governmental policies, funding, and educational curriculum, or other less "valued" purposes, then the standard is lower. Lastly, this new article should also include some graphical examples depicting important experimental design concepts, such as the masking or confounding of effects, when using only a few descriptive statistical tools. Mostly social researchers are familiar with debates in inferential statistics, but the more fundamental philosophical issues are more esoteric.
Paul.J.Richardson 21:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.j.richardson ( talk • contribs)
to:
I changed "the between-group genetic differences average out" to the second of the above since it looks good to me, but I'm happy with either wording (although sticking to the source would be best). Johnuniq ( talk) 01:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
"A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around three quarters.[8] The New York Times Magazine has also listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.[9] This coefficient would imply that r squared is about 0.56, meaning that about 56% of the variance in IQ scores is genetic."
The study under [8] gives no heritability measurement. For doubters, it can be easily accessed from a google search. The measurement for 56% is also considerably lower than the 75% measurement, yet it has no notation. Also, it's rather pointless to quote the NYT article when it gives no citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.11.120 ( talk) 17:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.196.138 ( talk) 18:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I moved a lot of info here from Race and intelligence per a proposal in mediation. Subsequently it has been suggested that information on between-group heritability of IQ should not take up so much space here. I'd like to see how we can best address this issue.
The lead states that this article is primarily about in-group heritability. Why is that? Should between group heritability of IQ not be discussed here at all?
Much of the new info is admittedly about hypotheses to explain the correlation between IQ and race without a mostly hereditarian explanation. I agree that this may not be the best place for this info. Please give ideas for other articles that would be more fitting for this information, while avoiding POV forks (which was my aim in keeping all the information together). T34CH ( talk) 20:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the "Inconsistency" piece, that post was incorrect in saying that 56% and .75 were unconnected, considering how 56% definitely is .75 when r-squared. However, the NYT article should be disregarded since it gives genuinely no source. The 2004 paper cited should also have more detail given from it. Are they listing a correlation coefficient or the percentage variance? If possible, papers with public domain access should be listed. There's also no actual reference given on the Posthuma 2002 paper.
On another note, it should also be clarified how much more heritable g is than IQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.1.91 ( talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This section of the article still has some of the same problems that were originally raised during the mediation case for the now-defunct Race and intelligence article, as well as some new problems that resulted from the split. I’d like some attention to be paid to fixing them.
What was a problem previously, and still is one, is that instead of explaining the arguments that are presented in favor of between-group IQ differences being heritable, the “heritability” section devotes a large amount of space to explaining almost nothing. While WP:UNDUE demands that we not devote a larger portion of space to any hypothesis than it receives in the source material, it does not demand that our explanation of a minority viewpoint be uninformative. A new problem is that “heritability” should not be only one subsection of the section “between-group heritability”, because the entire section is discussing between-group heritability. Most of the content of this section was copied verbatim from the Race and intelligence article, in which it was explaining factors which could affect between-group differences in IQ, but if it’s going to be presented as factors which could raise or lower between-group heritability, it’ll need to be reorganized.
I think the best solution to this might be something that DJ proposed during mediation for the Race and intelligence article, which is to take a data-centric approach, focusing on individual lines of data which could affect between-group heritability, rather than on viewpoints about whether it’s heritable or not. Here are some of the specific data points that DJ suggested the article cover:
This would be in addition to the lines of data which the article discusses already, such as health and quality of education.
I also think that if the scope of this section is limited to discussing factors influencing between-group heritability, several of the points discussed here aren’t relevant, and should be either removed or moved to the Between-group differences in IQ article. For example, the question of test bias that’s raised in the test construction section is relevant to the question of whether IQ can accurately be compared between cultures, but this is a separate question from whether and to what degree between-group differences are heritable.
Before I go about making any of these changes, I’d like to make sure nobody has a significant problem with them. Does anyone have any improvements to suggest about what I’ve proposed here? -- Captain Occam ( talk) 00:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I get the impression that this article is slowly becoming a POV fork of the race and intelligence article. It seems that large sections that were part of the race and intelligence have now moved here. I believe the scope of this article is the heritability of intelligence, not supposed differences in intelligence between groups, that is a separate subject. Wapondaponda ( talk) 15:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
After more than 140 years after the creation of the word " eugenics", I must question two things:
1-How many races exists in the world? And Why there's 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,10,etc. races in the world?
2-What is intelligence? After read many eugenics tracts, I realized that a person why hight level of IQ/intelligence is someone very bigoted, racist and charlatan. Am I right or wrong and why?
This Israeli site: [ Jpost] makes another question: Are Taliban descendants of Israelites? Agre22 ( talk) 21:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)agre22
Some of the paragraphs in the "caveats" section are lifted word for word from the APA statement. There should be more original work in that regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannoro ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The birth rate for people with low IQs is MUCH higher than those with high IQs, yet the mean IQ of the world keeps rising and rising. If genes really determined intelligence this would make absolutely no sense. The mean intelligence is increasing because of education. Education = higher IQ, Genes do not = higher IQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.166.90 ( talk) 23:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Johnson, Wendy; Turkheimer, Eric; Gottesman, Irving I.; Bouchard Jr., Thomas (2009). Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 4, 218.
This is a paper I learned about from Johnson, Gottesman, and Bouchard directly, as I happened to be in the "journal club" in their University of Minnesota Department of Psychology during fall semester 2009. It includes the important conclusion, "even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability," which does a lot to clarify the issues discussed in this article. I take it that everyone who has ever looked at good sources on this topic has heard of Bouchard (and his co-author Turkheimer). Both of these scholars have modified their conclusions in recent years, as they have continued to follow up the data sets they study and to interact with other researchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 19:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I see today a version of this article in which the first statement with a footnote is "Heritability is a measure of the relative contribution of genotype to the variation of a phenotype on a given group in a specific environment." I rather doubt that that is the exact definition of heritability given by any current reliable source (this doesn't appear inside quotation marks in the article), but let's check. What does the cited source [1] actually provide in its own exact words as a definition of "heritability"? How many of you have that source printed out or available online as you edit this article?
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
-- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 13:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There has been article talk for a while at some other articles, on the subject of environmental influences on IQ, in which editors have proposed merging those articles with one another or into other Wikipedia articles. This Heritability of IQ article stands out currently as the best sourced, and evidently most watched, of the several articles about various influences on the development of IQ. We can all note for the record that the technical term "heritability [of trait]" of course does not solely mean "genetic influence on [trait]" but rather "estimated balance of environmental and genetic influence on [trait in a particular population]." Thus it might be in the spirit and fact of what this article is really about to retitle it to Environmental and genetic influences on IQ or something like that, with appropriate redirects. This issue is open for your discussion while I read some new sources (copyright 2010) that I have just obtained from academic libraries. Let's discuss what would bring about a yet more current, even more accurate, and clear and educational article on this frequently contentious topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 00:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I was browsing around looking for sources for this and other articles, and found an excellent online post, which, although it is not a Wikipedia reliable source, definitely points to a lot of sources that are Wikipedia reliable sources and analyzes those sources with sound judgment. This is a good post to look at while preparing to edit this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 20:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
To the extent that such a discussion is warranted here, the correct argument is here. Tijfo098 ( talk) 20:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I put it back, but some parts need better explaining and citations. Also a picture like File:Resp-to-sel.jpg would be much more informative, although just for one individual rather than selected population, although that one is still better than a generic regression pic. Tijfo098 ( talk) 22:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Rose SP is dissing the entire subfield of quantitative genetics, arguing that it is completely useless nowadays [1]. This is definitely a POV, and should not be used in the lead, especially unattributed. This is not at all how a textbook like Hartl and Clark (which has good reviews [2]) presents the topic. Some nuance is needed. Tijfo098 ( talk) 08:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
From the book review: "Although the text does not discuss it, the cited paper also showed that there are a large number of genes that are not affected by the environment and/or the background genotype, so phenotypic plasticity is just one of the things that may or may not influence development and survival on the way from genotype to phenotype." A more NPOV presentation is at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/population-genetics/#StaPopGen Tijfo098 ( talk) 09:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, Google scholar finds only 3 citations for Rose's 2006 paper. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Tijfo098 ( talk) 09:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Rose is very much committed to a nurture viewpoint. He's been writing this stuff in his books for decades. He had more luck with people paying attention to his arguments against evolutionary psychology than against quantitative genetics, it seems:
Tijfo098 ( talk) 09:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I see an editor is checking references for this article and making sure that statements in article text match what the cited references actually say. I will try to add some references, first to this talk page, and later to the article. I appreciate any editor who checks references to make sure that they are being used correctly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 23:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I see the article is tagged, as of November 2010, but I don't see a new section of article talk here discussing that. What's the concern? -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 04:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Section "1.1.1 Background" says: Heritability is defined as the proportion of variance in a trait which is attributable to genotype within a defined population in a specific environment. But two sentences later it says The heritability of many traits can be considered primarily genetic under similar environmental backgrounds. This leaves me confused: together the sentences seem to say "The proportion of variance attributable to genotype can be considered primarily genetic." Am I missing something? I suspect that the second quoted sentence is misworded and should start out as "The determination of ..." instead of "The heritability of ...." Duoduoduo ( talk) 16:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
See discussion here [4].-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 22:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to note that the twins reared apart research shows a slight shared environmental effect in adulthood. See the Bouchard study discussed here [5], the best study of reared apart twins to date.
Based on this, I wanted to ask a larger question-- if this methodology gives different results than other methodologies, might it make sense for us to devote a sub-section at the beginning (perhaps called "Techniques" or "Methodologies"to the various methods that have been used to calculate the heritability of IQ? We could then, within that discuss the assumptions they make which might bias the heritability to be higher or lower.
In No Two Alike, JR Harris makes the argument that the twins reared apart studies are more reliable than the twin studies, because those studies are biased by assumptions like equal environments. That's the type of thing that would go in the section I'm proposing.
Note: I've posted a related idea on restructuring the sections below.-- Babank ( talk) 23:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I think we should seperate the parts that define Heritability and its caveats from Methods and Results. Results and methods section should deal with the behavioral genetic techniques and the results they produce, not with defining heritability..
I would put the Correlations in this new section as well, as this is related only to defining/calculating Heritability, not the behavior genetics research.
Under my proposal here, we would have a Heritability section preceding the Methods and Results section. Any thoughts on this idea?-- Babank ( talk) 23:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Changed the sections as suggested above. Thoughts? Miradre ( talk) 23:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
-- Babank ( talk) 20:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
What does everyone think of making these changes:
Thoughts?-- Babank ( talk) 21:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The section had no sources which discussed regression to the mean in the context of this article. The "IQ Testing 101" source mentions "regression to the mean" once in the test as a passing remark. Reviewing the history of this article, the section has been essentially unsourced since it's introduction three years ago [7] in what seems to be a copy/paste dump from somewhere else. aprock ( talk) 06:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I can only view pages 1-14. The search result indicates that "regression to the mean" is mentioned once in those pages, with what looks like a simple explanatory note. As discussed above, including the mathematical particulars of any one statistical tool is undue here. It is not the job of wikipedia to walk readers through the statistical calculations made by researchers. aprock ( talk) 21:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This section appears to be about heritability of giftedness, defined by various measures, not heritability of IQ. It consists of a single large table with no accompanying discussion. I suspect this is undue, with the content being more appropriate for inclusion on the pages of the individual researchers or the Giftedness page. Seeking constructive feedback, aprock ( talk) 17:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Question: Should the section Heritability_of_IQ#Regression_toward_the_mean be included in this article?
Currently, inclusion of this content in this article is based on three sources:
I'll note that none of these sources imply that regression to the mean is a particularly meaningful aspect of the Heritability of IQ. In fact, the most authoritative source on the subject, the Intelligence book, notes that it's a general characteristic of all heritable traits. While the mechanics of computing expected regression to the mean may be interesting to some, they do not belong in this article. If they belong anywhere, it is in the main regression to the mean article, or possibly the heritability article. While I feel that the section is out of place in the article, I fully support including content parallel to the paraphrased description of what is in the Intelligence book above.
Input invited, aprock ( talk) 22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Until proper sourcing for inclusion, I suggest that the section be reduced to a brief summary of how regression to the mean relates to Heredity/IQ based on the Eysenck source. Any objections. aprock ( talk) 20:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Based on the feedback provided, I've removed the section for the time being. If it can be rewritten with better sourcing indicating it's relevance to the topic here, then we can add it back. aprock ( talk) 17:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
This section does not discuss heritability at all. Rather it presents various correlation numbers, for what purpose it is unclear. I've moved the section to the end, and unless some sources can be found which relate the specific correlation content presented back to heritability, I think it should be removed. aprock ( talk) 21:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The psych book on my shelf says nothing about correlation of intelligence being a more relevant statistic than heritability when it comes to measuring heritability. Your suggestion that sources are used to exclude information rather than include information is exactly backwards. Until you provide some sources, I'll defer further conversation for the RfC. aprock ( talk) 18:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
If the material does stay it should be brought inline with WP:NPOV. The section currently cherry-picks data to support a WP:FRINGE WP:POV and excludes mainstream data found in the sources provided...
Fischbein (1980), in a study of twins, divided his samples into three groups categorized by social class. He found that heritability estimates increased with increasing social class. The estimate of broad heritability from the intraclass correlations for identical and fraternal twins was .78 for the highest social class, but only .30 for the lowest. Extremely similar results were obtained from a large-scale study of 1909 non-Hispanic Caucasians and African American sibling pairs (identical twins, fraternal twins, full and half siblings, Cousins in the same household, and biologically unrelated siblings) from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent I lealth who were tested on Wechsler's Vocabulary subtest (Rowe, Jacobson, & Van den Oord, 1999). When categorized by parental education, the heritability for the most highly educated families averaged .74 versus a value of .26 for the less well-educated families(Rowe et al.). In a twin study conducted in Russia, Crigorenko and Carter (1996) evaluated the parenting styles of the mothers of identical and fraternal twins, and analyzed these relationships as a function of the family's social class. They found parenting styles to differ for the two types of twins (e.g., mothers of identical twins employed more infamilization, invalidation, and authoritarianism than mothers of fraternal twins), and for different social classes. Regarding the latter point. Grigorenko and Carter found that Russian mothers with less education and lower occupational status were more likely than their more educated, higher status counterparts to use authoritarian approaches, to view their children's behavior less positively, and to invalidate and infantilize their [P31] twins' behavior. The latter two styles were also associated with lower children's IQs.
- —Kaufman, Alan (2006). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. pp. 30–31. ISBN 9780471735533.
In the mean time a POV tag on the section seems appropriate. — ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 03:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
No one is disputing that correlation data is presented in various sources. The problem here is that you are cherry picking raw data and inserting that section, deliberately trying to conflate correlation data with heritability. The links that you are drawing from the correlation data to heritability are not in the Kaufman book. Your claim to have shown such statements is false. aprock ( talk) 20:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I have been trying to add this for a long time:
"However, some studies suggest that even just a single gene called HMGA2 can increase IQ by 2.6 points, reducing the paradox of fairly high heritability with few actual genes found to manipulate IQ. [1]. A single mutation of a letter from T to C in this gene raises IQ by 1.29 points, and if this happens in both copies the effect is doubled. Each mutation in each copy of the gene also increases the brain size by 0.58%. Over 21,000 people were studied for this trend to become evident, and this is one of the first peer-reviewed studies to find a single gene responsible for intelligence."
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
This has also appeared in well-respected secondary sources, such as New Scientist. This is also most likely not a false positive due to the large sample size and the co-dominant doubling effect of having both mutated copies of the gene. I think it should be added at least somewhere in the article, maybe in the molecular genetics section. Jaredjeya ( talk) 11:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
See [11]. Worth mentioning? Certainly not a sample representative of the general population. 8% looks impressive. Academica Orientalis ( talk) 12:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
[ http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Chabris2012a-FalsePositivesGenesIQ.pdf molecular genetics of psychology and social science requires approaches that go beyond the examination of candidate genes.] 178.148.233.248 ( talk) 19:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
This is just a newspaper article with no references for its claims. It shouldn't be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.57.173 ( talk) 01:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing in here about eugenics. Quite a stretch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.57.173 ( talk) 03:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see so few links in this article to publications by Eric Turkheimer (current president of the Behavior Genetics Association, and long a very thoughtful and influential author on behavior genetics research). Other current authors (for example, Wendy Johnson and Lars Penke) have good review articles on the subject that could improve this article a lot. I'll link to some here.
Eric Turkheimer has recently been president of the Behavior Genetics Association, and he has the very kind habit of posting most of his peer-reviewed journal articles on his faculty website. [13]
Lars Penke is another, younger researcher who posts most of his publications on his personal website. [14]
An interesting review article,
Turkheimer, E. (2008, Spring). A better way to use twins for developmental research. LIFE Newsletter, 2, 1-5
http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20Online%20CV/Turkheimer%20(2008).pdf
admits the disappointment of behavior genetics researchers.
"But back to the question: What does heritability mean? Almost everyone who has ever thought about heritability has reached a commonsense intuition about it: One way or another, heritability has to be some kind of index of how genetic a trait is. That intuition explains why so many thousands of heritability coefficients have been calculated over the years. Once the twin registries have been assembled, it's easy and fun, like having a genoscope you can point at one trait after another to take a reading of how genetic things are. Height? Very genetic. Intelligence? Pretty genetic. Schizophrenia? That looks pretty genetic too. Personality? Yep, that too. And over multiple studies and traits the heritabilities go up and down, providing the basis for nearly infinite Talmudic revisions of the grand theories of the heritability of things, perfect grist for the wheels of social science.
"Unfortunately, that fundamental intuition is wrong. Heritability isn't an index of how genetic a trait is. A great deal of time has been wasted in the effort of measuring the heritability of traits in the false expectation that somehow the genetic nature of psychological phenomena would be revealed. There are many reasons for making this strong statement, but the most important of them harkens back to the description of heritability as an effect size. An effect size of the R2 family is a standardized estimate of the proportion of the variance in one variable that is reduced when another variable is held constant statistically. In this case it is an estimate of how much the variance of a trait would be reduced if everyone were genetically identical. With a moment's thought you can see that the answer to the question of how much variance would be reduced if everyone was genetically identical depends crucially on how genetically different everyone was in the first place."
The review article "The neuroscience of human intelligence differences" by Deary and Johnson and Penke (2010) relates specifically to human intelligence. [15]
"At this point, it seems unlikely that single genetic loci have major effects on normal-range intelligence. For example, a modestly sized genome-wide study of the general intelligence factor derived from ten separate test scores in the cAnTAB cognitive test battery did not find any important genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms or copy number variants, and did not replicate genetic variants that had previously been associated with cognitive ability[note 48]."
The review article Johnson, W. (2010). Understanding the Genetics of Intelligence: Can Height Help? Can Corn Oil?. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 177-182 [16]
looks at some famous genetic experiments to show how little is explained by gene frequencies even in thoroughly studied populations defined by artificial selection.
"Together, however, the developmental natures of GCA [general cognitive ability] and height, the likely influences of gene-environment correlations and interactions on their developmental processes, and the potential for genetic background and environmental circumstances to release previously unexpressed genetic variation suggest that very different combinations of genes may produce identical IQs or heights or levels of any other psychological trait. And the same genes may produce very different IQs and heights against different genetic backgrounds and in different environmental circumstances. This would be especially the case if height and GCA and other psychological traits are only single facets of multifaceted traits actually under more systematic genetic regulation, such as overall body size and balance between processing capacity and stimulus reactivity. Genetic influences on individual differences in psychological characteristics are real and important but are unlikely to be straightforward and deterministic. We will understand them best through investigation of their manifestation in biological and social developmental processes."
Johnson, W., Penke, L., & Spinath, F. M. (2011). Understanding Heritability: What it is and What it is Not. European Journal of Personality, 25(4), 287-294. DOI: 10.1002/per.835 [17]
responds to psychologists' comments about their earlier review article on heritability. "Our target article was intended to provide background knowledge to psychologists and other social scientists on the subject of heritability. This statistic, in many ways so basic, is both extremely powerful in revealing the presence of genetic influence and very weak in providing much information beyond this. Many forms of measurement error, statistical artefact, violation of underlying assumptions, gene–environment interplay, epigenetic mechanisms and no doubt processes we have not yet even identified can contribute to the magnitudes of heritability estimates. If psychologists and other social scientists want to understand genetic involvement in behavioural traits, we believe that it is going to be necessary to distinguish among these possibilities to at least some degree. Heritability estimates alone are not going to help us do this."
Turkheimer, E. (2011). Genetics and human agency (Commentary on Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2011). Psychological Bulletin, 137, 825-828. DOI: 10.1037/a0024306 [18]
reemphasizes the point that a heritability calculation tells us nothing about subject to environmental influences a human trait is. "That heritability depends on the population in which it is measured is one of the most frequently repeated caveats in the social sciences, but it is nevertheless often forgotten in the breach. (For example, it is nearly meaningless for Dar-Nimrod and Heine to note that 'heritability [of intelligence is] typically estimated to range from .50 to .85' [p. 805]. The heritability of intelligence isn’t anything, and even placing it in a range is misleading. Making a numerical point estimate of the heritability of intelligence is akin to saying, 'Social psychologists usually estimate the F ratio for the fundamental attribution error to be between 2.0 and 4.0.') The observation that genotypic variation accounts for 90% of the variation in height in the modern world depends on the variability of genotype and environment relevant to height. Among cloned animals with widely varying diets, body size is perfectly environmental with heritability of 0; in genetically variable animals raised in identical environments heritability is 1.0. This is no mere statistical fine point: it means that the entire project of assessing how essentially genetic traits are in terms of measured heritability coefficients is a fool’s errand."
Chabris, C. F., Hebert, B. M., Benjamin, D. J., Beauchamp, J., Cesarini, D., van der Loos, M., ... & Laibson, D. (2012). Most reported genetic associations with general intelligence are probably false positives. Psychological Science. [19]
"At the time most of the results we attempted to replicate were obtained, candidate-gene studies of complex traits were commonplace in medical genetics research. Such studies are now rarely published in leading journals. Our results add IQ to the list of phenotypes that must be approached with great caution when considering published molecular genetic associations. In our view, excitement over the value of behavioral and molecular genetic studies in the social sciences should be temperedءs it has been in the medical sciencesآy a recognition that, for complex phenotypes, individual common genetic variants of the sort assayed by SNP microarrays are likely to have very small effects.
"Associations of candidate genes with psychological traits and other traits studied in the social sciences should be viewed as tentative until they have been replicated in multiple large samples. Failing to exercise such caution may hamper scientific progress by allowing for the proliferation of potentially false results, which may then influence the research agendas of scientists who do not realize that the associations they take as a starting point for their efforts may not be real. And the dissemination of false results to the public may lead to incorrect perceptions about the state of knowledge in the field, especially knowledge concerning genetic variants that have been described as 'genes for' traits on the basis of unintentionally inflated estimates of effect size and statistical significance."
-- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 19:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
" In fact, according to the concept of regression toward the mean, parents of IQ at either extreme are more likely to produce offspring closer to the mean (or average)"
In such a case, the standard deviation of IQs should also decrease with time, which is not observed as far as I know. 212.198.146.114 ( talk) 23:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I have a lot of reliable sources at hand for checking and updating this article, and I invite fellow Wikipedians to nominate medically reliable secondary sources to use to bring this article up to date with current professional handbooks and upper-division and graduate textbooks on the article topic. I have made a few preliminary edits to the article on the basis of reliable secondary sources and I invite comments and suggestions from the rest of you to incrementally improve this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 13:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)On the Nature and Nurture of Intelligence and Specific Cognitive Abilities: The More Heritable, the More Culture-Dependent -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 13:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal is a new, open-access, "peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original empirical and theoretical articles, state-of-the-art articles and critical reviews, case studies, original short notes, commentaries" intended to be "an open access journal that moves forward the study of human intelligence: the basis and development of intelligence, its nature in terms of structure and processes, and its correlates and consequences, also including the measurement and modeling of intelligence." The content of the first issue is posted, and includes interesting review articles, one by Earl Hunt and Susanne M. Jaeggi and one by Wendy Johnson. The editorial board [20] of this new journal should be able to draw in a steady stream of good article submissions. It looks like the journal aims to continue to publish review articles of the kind that would meet Wikipedia guidelines for articles on medical topics, an appropriate source guideline to apply to Wikipedia articles about intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 21:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Estimation and Partition of Heritability in Human Populations Using Whole-Genome Analysis Methods 174.95.171.228 ( talk) 01:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
This article is about a topic that is a subtopic in the study of behavior genetics. Wikipedia has a lot of interesting articles based on the ongoing research in behavior genetics, both in humans and in nonhuman animals. I've been reading university textbooks on genetics "for fun" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. That university has long been a center of research on human behavior genetics, being the site of a major study of monozygotic twins reared apart. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us here collaborate to build an encyclopedia, I thought I would suggest some sources for updating the articles on behavior genetics and related topics. The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources.
The guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."
Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.
The guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."
Other Wikipedians who watch the article Behavioural genetics did all of us a great favor on that article's talk page by suggesting helpful sources. In particular, User:Pete.Hurd suggested an authoritative textbook on behavior genetics, covering both the human and the animal research, and following up on his suggestion led me to several other helpful sources with similar subject cataloging in libraries.
I'll be reviewing the sources below, which I have either in full text or as sets of notes from previous readings of the sources, as I prepare to update this article with all of you looking on. I'd be delighted to hear recommendations of other sources on this article's topic that meet Wikipedia medically reliable source guidelines, as the sources listed do. The first set of sources consists of authoritative textbooks.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)Taken together, these findings suggest that about 50% of the variation seen in IQ scores is accounted for by genetics and a nearly equal percentage is accounted for by environment.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laysummary=
and |laydate=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)There are many useful review articles and overview news stories from peer-reviewed scientific journals that meet the WP:MEDRS guidelines and are very useful sources for updating articles about behavior genetics (and I encourage Wikipedians to suggest others besides those listed here).
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Some more general reference books about genetics or behavior also touch on behavior genetics issues through book chapters.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |archivedate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laysummary=
and |laydate=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)The list above is not exhaustive, but it includes sources that are well worth a look for checking on updates of this article. Enjoy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 03:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/we-cant-ignore-the-evidence-genes-affect-social-mobility/ 74.14.73.37 ( talk) 06:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613001682?np=y Above paper proves that IQ and SES correlation is due to genes and not environment, proving the argument of The Bell Curve. Also it is by Plomin, so is mainstream and reliable. If no one else wishes to add these edits then I shall do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wajajad ( talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0030320
Above study by Robert Plomin indicates that SES doesn't modulate heritability of IQ, and in fact, race doesn't modulate heritability of IQ either. More sources are found here: http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/more-behavioral-genetic-facts/ All sources are high quality and warrant inclusion into this article. 74.14.73.162 ( talk) 08:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Genetics of aggression, Genetics of obesity, Psychiatric genetics, Genetics of gender, Genetics of aging, Genetics of social behavior, yet no separate article for Genetics of intelligence.
Heritability takes a value ranging from 0 to 1; a heritability of 1 indicates that all variation in the trait in question is genetic in origin and a heritability of 0 indicates that none of the variation is genetic.
No.
Heritability is not the same as genetics, and IQ is not the same as intelligence. Even specialists occasionally ignore the reality of de novo mutations. There are other factors to consider, too, such as gene expression and epigenetics. The article mentions, for example, statistical reliability concerning the method of measurement, namely the tests. 213.109.230.96 ( talk) 10:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
"The fact is that the molecular genetic basis of cognitive ability is currently almost completely unknown. (The same applies to most other complex traits, too, of course.)" Sure. The question, then, has to be asked: why the asymmetry? Intelligence is not the only complex trait whose molecular genetic basis is poorly understood, as you've pointed out, so why do we see Genetics of aggression, Genetics of social behavior, etc., yet no Genetics of intelligence? Maybe we don't need a separate article after all, but the question is open. It's not merely rhetorical. 213.109.230.96 ( talk) 02:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
"What means of measuring intelligence other than IQ-type tests are there?" Standard IQ tests are a fairly homogenous class. They are static, while computer-based tests, for instance, allow for more dynamic, interactive options in cognitive tests, such as n-back. IQ tests are designed to assess reasoning abilities, visuospatial and linguistic-mathematical, while accepted definitions of intelligence encompass also attention and memory, and some go even further. Intelligence tests can be psychometric or biological. Neuroimaging intelligence testing is still in its early days, but it's a promising prospect. Additionally, encephalization quotient (EQ) is relevant for cross-taxon measurements of intelligence, as imperfect as it is. 213.109.230.96 ( talk) 02:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
"And the definition of heritability in the article is correct." The definition of heritability is correct, but the implied definition of "genetic" is not. Needless to say, genetics is more than just heritability. I've heard the argument that schizophrenia cannot be fundamentally genetic because most schizophrenics don't even have any family history of schizophrenia, but that argument ignores the fact that de novo mutations are often involved in the disorder. That argument also fails to account for pleiotropy: genes associated with other disorders may be involved in schizophrenia, seeing that family members of schizophrenics have higher rates of certain other disorders, not just of schizophrenia itself. Besides the word "hereditary," another adjective oft-confused with "genetic" is "inborn" -- or "congenital," if you will -- which excludes postnatal modification of gene expression and postnatal genetic code alterations. 213.109.230.96 ( talk) 02:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0100248#pone.0100248.s005
Above paper proves certain SNPs found through GWAS indeed associated with cognitive ability. This development in genetic causation of IQ must not go unmentioned in this article. 74.14.73.163 ( talk) 03:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
http://m.pnas.org/content/early/2014/09/05/1404623111 New source from Plomin and Visscher labs about gene variants behind IQ. New citation for this article. 74.14.75.158 ( talk) 19:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Added graph over heritability over lifespan from study "Behavioral Genetics of Cognitive Ability".. Revert if you disagree... MicroMacroMania ( talk) 11:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I choose to represent it in the same manner as done in the study: THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY. By Athur Jensen J. Philippe Rushton. I Dont see how I represented it wrong. It shows the heritability by agy over life span. I painted the whole graph and represented the data from the study correctly. The license copyright is under creative commons 3.0. That is what is commonly used siting all other studies here on wikipedia and if my understanding is right, same goes for that graph. MicroMacroMania ( talk) 13:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2014105a.html
Above article is by Ian J. Deary and Robert Plomin and is an excellent inclusion as an external link. 74.14.75.158 ( talk) 17:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Continuing on the IQ meritocracy train of thought, Plomin et al. have published a study that demonstrates that SES has no moderation on IQ at all, so I think we are justified for having it in the article. Also, I think there are problems with citing Turkheimer in this article to attempt to disprove IQ meritocracy, the original Turkheimer study showing this effect was pretty low quality. The data were old (from the 1950s as I recall), so there's no reason to think the results still hold today given the large social changes in the US since then. More importantly, it was underpowered for the effect it was trying to detect. It takes a lot more statistical power to detect GxE interactions than to detect G+E main effects, and consequently if an underpowered study does find such effects it's quite likely that it's just a false positive. More here. 74.14.75.158 ( talk) 19:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9125.12049/abstract
The above link is a comprehensive rebuttal of all detractors of behavior genetics and warrant inclusion in this article and related ones.
76.66.130.161 (
talk)
22:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
::Please don't post these off-topic comments, Weiji. I have read the full article. Everything else you write above is totally inscrutable, please make points relevant to the above source.
76.66.130.161 (
talk)
05:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help). The reference I'm mentioning here is indisputably a review article, and considerably more related to IQ. --
WeijiBaikeBianji (
talk,
how I edit)
14:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)And again, striking through sock of a banned user, one of the R&I farm. [23]. Dougweller ( talk) 08:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000171 http://m.cdp.sagepub.com/content/19/6/339 Also relevant to the above discussion on sources for meritocracy are these two sources demonstrating the high correlation of high academic and career success with cognitive ability.
Another — slightly irrelevant to this line of discussion — source relates to the common genetic variants proven to be causal to cognitive performance: http://m.pnas.org/content/111/38/13790.abstract
Wajajad ( talk) 05:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Wajajad ( talk) 09:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's yet another source,reaffirming the importance of genetics in education: http://m.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/02/1408777111.abstract Wajajad ( talk) 03:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
While important, general intelligence (or 'g'), as measured by IQ tests, is only one of the attributes we value in our society. Arthur Jensen (1998: 356), for example, has underlined that the expression of intelligence in any person's life and in the character of a society depends on other factors, equally important, that are independent of 'g'. He goes on to say that it is the interaction between general intelligence and these other factors that accounts for much, probably most, of the enormous variance in the visible aspects of what most people regard as worldly success. Success in life is not at all related to a single factor; success has many dimensions and IQ plays an important part in only some of them. There are many other factors that can sit along with, and at times surpass, IQ and these certainly are valued just as much as IQ. These include conscientiousness, integrity, sustainability, effort, commitment and seeking to be self-learners, among other attributes.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
We can cite Gregory Clark to demonstrate that most societies have been meritocracies based on ability and thus we have the hierarchies we see today?
76.66.130.161 (
talk) 01:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
His books A Farewell to Alms and The Son Also Rises are pertinent to this article.
76.66.130.161 (
talk)
01:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Is that relevant to debate of heritability of IQ? Not that it is not an interesting info, though also mentioned in the bell curve. MicroMacroMania ( talk) 08:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
A reliable source. We can include it to show that cognitive ability / intelligence differences can be accounted for (29%) by specific SNPs. This data is reliably replicated. 74.14.49.84 ( talk) 14:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)