New study on genetics of inteligence

[Aeson]

... like Apolyton! [/albie]

[KrazyHorse]

How have you reached that conclusion? Have you compared people with identical genes and different enviroments?

As you haven't even bothered to read both of my posts in this thread, I'm not answering you.

[Sir Og]

As you haven't even bothered to read both of my posts in this thread, I'm not answering you.

I have actually read your posts I even looked up "regression" in wikipedia for disambiguation.
I don't get how that

I don't follow this literature as closely as you do, so I have no idea how much impact this hypothesis has had on recent research, but it appears laughable on its face. As a relatively-informed outsider, I had long ago come to the conclusion that intelligence as measured by IQ had around a 50% genetic component.

follows from that

These are similar numbers to those reported in twin studies and even in simple regressions...

Of course you don't have to answer.

The problem I have with these studies is that there never are two equal enviroments (diet, education, healthcare, family etc.) so that you can make a valid comparison.

[VetLegion]

The science is already more or less known / established... the precise genes
and combinations are not known, but it is known that intelligence is highly
heritable.

What is being sought is language to speak about that... terminology
and changes/restatements in/of ideology that would make it socially acceptable
to speak and act on the known fact of heritability of intelligence.

Don't know if that will ever happen or even if it can happen. Or even that it
should happen. But that's where the battleground is.

[Sir Og]

Is this an Yugo thing?

I am not at all convinced that genes have even 50 % influence on a persons actual intelligence. (even if we assume that IQ is an accurate measurement of intelligence). Genes ofcourse are a factor but they are a fremework. They set the limits and the environment develops ones intelligence within those limits.

For me this makes a lot more sense than claiming that just because you had parents X and Y you are guaranteed to score a certain high IQ irrespective of how you grow up, what training you receive etc. Especially considering how complex the brain is and how many changes happen there in a persons lifetime.

[VetLegion]

You are not convinced if you just arrived at this field. Spend a year on it and
you'll be convinced. It's not a Yugo thing... I stumbled on the topic of IQ in 2006
and now, five years later (I've lost interest in the meantime), the conclusions of
experts in the field seem to be the same: like many other human traits, intelligence
has a large genetic component.

That doesn't mean you're automatically smart if your parents are smart. You are
most likely to be as smart as your average ancestor. And then there's a random
(normal) distribution around that. You can end up really dumb even if your parents
were both Nobel prize winners.

[Sir Og]

Since there is still no clear understanding of how envirement and genes combine to form a certain level of intelligence how exactly are the researchers controlling for different environments.

Also I'd be very curios to see studies of identical twins separated at birth and placed in very different environments. (different cultures, different social status, education, etc.) I doubt that there is a large enough sample size of such twins.

Additionally there is the question of how meaningful/useful IQ is in the first place.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Even if twin studies are included, you still hit the same stumbling block- how do you distinguish genetic influences from pre-natal environmental factors?

An assumption that just because twins are identical means they experienced identical pre-natal environmental experiences remains just that- an assumption.

[C0ckney]

it's a pretty reasonable assumption though.