Genetics vs. Regression Toward the Mean

[LightFang]

So, I have heard two conflicting ideas about intelligence.

1. Intelligent people tend to have intelligent children. This is because they have genes that generally confer higher intelligence, so their kids become intelligent, and so on. This was an idea explored in Idiocracy, where all the intelligent people had only one or no kids while the unintelligent ones had like 6 or 7 and eventually the human race turned stupid.

2. IQ is on a bell curve, so intelligent people do not necessarily have intelligent children. Rather, there is a phenomenon that since these intelligent people are farther away from the mean (average IQ), their children will tend to have more average IQs.

How can these two conflicting ideas be resolved?

And what do you think?

 

[philippe]

I believe to hang on the second point but when the children are being raised by intellegient parents and there is a lot of expression on it, it may well develop the intellectual capacities of the child.

 

[@N1k1T0$]

1. Intelligent people tend to have intelligent children. This is because they have genes that generally confer higher intelligence, so their kids become intelligent, and so on.

Non factual .

2. IQ is on a bell curve, so intelligent people do not necessarily have intelligent children. Rather, there is a phenomenon that since these intelligent people are farther away from the mean (average IQ), their children will tend to have more average IQs.

Non factual as well.

Intelligent people may or may not have more intelligent kinds than other people.

However the word intelligence is so subjective that it is not intelligent to categorize people as intelligent and not.

i rather we categorize them in relativeness to their profession education , success ,etc.

 

[LightFang]

Non factual .




Non factual as well.

Intelligent people may or may not have more intelligent kinds than other people.

However the word intelligence is so subjective that it is not intelligent to categorize people as intelligent and not.

i rather we categorize them in relativeness to their profession education , success ,etc.

How about we categorize them in IQ like I suggested above?

 

[@N1k1T0$]

How about we categorize them in IQ like I suggested above?

It's simple IQ =/ Intelligence. But we can get some conclusions regarding the very high IQ people but not necessarily about their kids. However instead of that i prefer we categorize people based on the criteria i said.

 

[Kennigit]

IQ is not really a good measure of intelligence, IMHO. Or atleast, it is not as reflective as other factors: generally, I would say intelligent people are:

1) fairly rational
2) well educated
3) recognize significance of education

So, intelligent people tend to have secure/good jobs -> children go to good school (public or private) -> teach children early on (read to them, etc)-> decide not to have tons of kids/more that they can handle (typically do not live ridiculously beyond their means)->can help child with their education->child succeeds.

 

[AngryZealot]

Studies with identical twins separated at birth show that intelligence is partly genetic and partly environmental.

 

[classical_hero]

Another nature vs nurture argument.

 

[Dubai Vol]

Genetics are more complicated than that. Both of my parents are of above-average intelligence, IQ 130-ish (like it or not, IQ gives a reasonable idea of general intelligence. IQ relevance is not the argument here.)

So they have 2 kids. One is clearly more intelligent than either of them, one is clearly less intelligent. Both kids born when parents were under 25, so the probability of age of the parents being a factor is negligible.

Stick that in your theory and smoke it.

 

[Gogf]

Are you the smart kid or the stupid kid?

 

[Dubai Vol]

Are you the smart kid or the stupid kid?

Are you tall? If so, do you brag about it? Do you consider being tall a particular source of pride?

"Hi, I'm tall! that makes me better than you!"

So how does being intelligent differ in any way from being tall? Accident of birth. No kudos to the tall or the smart. They were born that way, no credit to them.

Intelligence is not necessarily a positive survival trait, beyond a certain point. Same for being tall. Two metres? Good some ways, not so good others. Two and a half metres? Hmm, getting difficult. Maybe not such a good thing.

The problems with excess intelligence are less obvious, but no less real.

 

[Warman17]

So, I have heard two conflicting ideas about intelligence.

1. Intelligent people tend to have intelligent children. This is because they have genes that generally confer higher intelligence, so their kids become intelligent, and so on. This was an idea explored in Idiocracy, where all the intelligent people had only one or no kids while the unintelligent ones had like 6 or 7 and eventually the human race turned stupid.

2. IQ is on a bell curve, so intelligent people do not necessarily have intelligent children. Rather, there is a phenomenon that since these intelligent people are farther away from the mean (average IQ), their children will tend to have more average IQs.
How can these two conflicting ideas be resolved?

And what do you think?

If 1 is true, than 2 can't be true. If there is an increase in stupid people over smart people then the IQ curve will "shift" to take account the new mean. That is 100 IQ for the new generation will now be dumber than the previous generation's 100 IQ. The children of smart people should be better off and stay smart, meaning their IQ will actually rise because the new generation of smart people will have a greater relative IQ compared to the dumb people than previously.

For example if population A's average IQ exam score is 50/100 [meaning scoring a 50/100 is 100 IQ] and population B's average IQ exam score is 40/100 [meaning scoring a 40/100 is 100 IQ] then a person scoring a 80/100 will have a greater IQ in population B than population A. So assuming smart people can keep the same nominal smartness in their children, their children's IQ will only rise if the greater population continues to dumb down.

 

[Narz]

Intelligence, while having a genetic component is largely a matter of training, IMO. Personality is genetic to a large degree but intelligence (it's expression at least which is more important than abstract "potential") is mostly environmental.

How can these two conflicting ideas be resolved?

By recognizing the comminality of their both being wrong?

And what do you think?

I think simplistic general theories to explain complex realities & processes are generally silly.

 

[Mirc]

IQ is not really a good measure of intelligence, IMHO. Or atleast, it is not as reflective as other factors: generally, I would say intelligent people are:

1) fairly rational
2) well educated
3) recognize significance of education

So, intelligent people tend to have secure/good jobs -> children go to good school (public or private) -> teach children early on (read to them, etc)-> decide not to have tons of kids/more that they can handle (typically do not live ridiculously beyond their means)->can help child with their education->child succeeds.

@the bolded part: It's hard for me to disagree more than I do... Almost none of the really intelligent people have actual "traditional" jobs. Thinking of the most intelligent people I know... one is travelling the world and earning money in the process just enough to support himself, another 3-4 own companies or are the people behind them ruling them from the shadows, at least 3 are unemployed "freelancers", and of all those really intelligent ones that I know only one has a standard job (professor).

I think super-intelligent people will most often avoid the standard jobs at all costs, and go on their way.



Back on topic,

I think simplistic general theories to explain complex realities & processes are generally silly.

^ That.

And while I think neither of the two is right, I think I can come up with a better model to understand it. How about "intelligent people tend to raise their children in an intelligence-welcoming atmosphere, are wonderful in broadening the horizon of their children, and open up a great appetite for knowledge in their progenies"?

And add to that the fact that people tend to borrow many things from those with which they spend a lot of time.

However, we might settle it much better by saying that intelligence is mostly a matter of training (even though it can have a genetic component), and training is very often a combination of chance and choice. And since those children of intelligent people have the chance, they only need the choice. Which leaves us with the fact that "some intelligent people have intelligent children while others don't", which is not really such a mind-boggling conclusion...

 

[Dubai Vol]

Intelligence, while having a genetic component is largely a matter of training, IMO. Personality is genetic to a large degree but intelligence (it's expression at least which is more important than abstract "potential") is mostly environmental.


By recognizing the comminality of their both being wrong?


I think simplistic general theories to explain complex realities & processes are generally silly.

Aside from the misplaced apostrophe, which I am genetically constrained to point out, I just have to ask: what planet do you people live on who know so few people that you don't understand that stupid is inborn? Are you really so privileged and sheltered that you have never met a stupid person?

No, sunshine, we are NOT all the same. Yes, I indulged in such wishful thinking when I was 18 years old too, but it just ain't so, snowflakes. You are all far above average, because you can read and write a coherent sentence. Yes, a lot of that is training and effort, but raise the bar just a little, and there are plenty of people who can't clear it.

Frankly, that's the problem with America: everybody wants all our precious snowflakes to go to college and become bankers and lawyers, and nobody wants to be construction workers and plumbers.

My brother is a master plumber. That's an official title. Stupid people don't become masters.

 

[Narz]

I'm with you Mirc. That has been my experience also.

 

[Kennigit]

I'm talking of the generic "smart person". The doctor, the lawyer, the biologist, the physicist, the NASA engineer, the chemist, professors, etc, etc, etc. But even if the super intelligent don't have a traditional job, the ones with children will (I assume) instill a sense of the importance of education to the child, and I believe that if you read to a child early on, teach them basic math before 1rst grade, and more, the child has a better shot at being a "smart" person.

I guess I'm saying most smart people with kids will have enough money to pay for their child's needs and probably will have access to good materials.

 

[Narz]

Aside from the misplaced apostrophe, which I am genetically constrained to point out, I just have to ask: what planet do you people live on who know so few people that you don't understand that stupid is inborn? Are you really so privileged and sheltered that you have never met a stupid person?

Met plenty, most of them grew up in a rather stupid environment. A kid raised by a TV vs. one raised by a loving & intelligent mother & father (even if that kid is adopted from a couple of dumbasses) will probably be sharper in just about every regard.

No, sunshine, we are NOT all the same.

I'm not your sunshine & I never said we were.

Yes, I indulged in such wishful thinking when I was 18 years old too, but it just ain't so, snowflakes.

Wishful thinking? Sounds like you just want to feel superior. I indulged in that type of wishful thinking when I was younger too. Thinking I could just get by by being naturally smarter. Life taught me a fine lesson about that. Kids who have a sense of themselves as naturally smart choke in situations where they must prove it more so than kids who believe smart is as smart can do. Don't have the study on me but common sense should dictate this to be true (or you can try to look it up).

You are all far above average, because you can read and write a coherent sentence. Yes, a lot of that is training and effort, but raise the bar just a little, and there are plenty of people who can't clear it.

So? What does that prove about genetics vs. environment?

Frankly, that's the problem with America: everybody wants all our precious snowflakes to go to college and become bankers and lawyers, and nobody wants to be construction workers and plumbers.

Again, what's this have to do with anything? It's quite obvious by your tone you want to be a "precious snowflake" yourself (and look down your nose at Americans).

My brother is a master plumber. That's an official title. Stupid people don't become masters.

I agree with you there. Better a master plumper than a third-rate college professor.

But you've supplied no evidence for your thesis.

BTW, in case you're confused I'm not saying schooling makes the man/woman. By the time your kid is ready for school it's already at least 50% too late. I'm not up on the latest research but I'd imagine kids who are smart by age 3 or 4 stay smart (unless a tragedy happens or their parents get lazy with 'em) & dumb 3 & 4 year olds stay dumb (on average, unless they get very lucky with extraordinarily supportive teachers, relatives etc.)

People who think they're smart because of what school they go to are sad cases, I'll agree with you on that.

 

[frekk]

Actually, although people who earn alot do tend to have a higher IQ, IQ is a very poor predictor for success - high IQ doesn't seem to predispose people for higher incomes, its just one of many factors that makes it possible. There are tons of people with very high IQs who are not succesful.

You can think of it this way: all roofers have good arms and legs, there are no paraplegic roofers. But having 4 working limbs doesn't mean it's likely you will be a roofer. It's not even that extreme with high income, of course, because there are plenty of people with a high income and low IQ.

The best predictor, by far, is the income level of your parents.

What I think happens is this.

Selective pressures are much higher among low-income groups. Therefore, occasionally, the cream of the crop rises to the top, when intelligence, ambition, and opportunity happen to coincide. We'll call them Generation A, the new entrants to the high-income group. They'll have very high IQs and a solid grasp of the processes behind social mobility.

They give birth to Generation B. Generation B probably inheirits some, but not all, of the traits of their immediate parents. The average IQ of Generation B is going to be higher than the norm, but lower than Generation A. Generation A are the parents, and as mentioned, they have a firm grasp of social mobility factors: so they encourage these factors in Generation B, both in how they raise them and how they provide opportunities for them. Generation B is probably going to have a higher income level than their Generation A, but, they never actually learned the techniques of social mobility: they simply had those instilled in them as habits. So they have a poor grasp of social mobility factors, although they have strong habits which favour it.

Generation B gives birth to Generation C. Generation C has very little selective pressure, and the genetic traits of Generation A are now even more watered down. Their parents - Generation B - have only a habitual tendency to social mobility, not a comprehensive understanding of it. Therefore they pass on relatively less of the social mobility talents to Generation C. However, Generation B is very wealthy, and highly networked into the higher-income group as a whole, so they pass on a great deal of opportunity to Generation C, which makes up for any lack of traits, talents, habits, or understanding.

This watering-down process continues until, at some point, IQs and habitual factors actually drop below norms for the population as a whole, and advantage alone is no longer enough to keep their necks above water. They subside back down into the pool of lower income groups. Selective pressures return, and at some point the process starts all over again ...

 

[Dubai Vol]

No, Narz, you're just wrong on this one. Kids are born smart or stupid. Their parents can maximize their potential, but beyond a certain point there is nothing that will make a stupid kid smart.

This isn't about me, or you. My smart master plumber brother isn't even genetically related to me. He is also a very talented artist. As I said, genetics are not that simple, but natural ability is a fact. Pretending that everyone has the same innate ability is the root of a lot of today's problems.

We are NOT all created equal. I am the world's worst basketball player. I am rubbish on a motorcycle. No amount of practice or training will make me good at those things. Meanwhile, I am pretty good on four wheels:

And I play a mean game of Scrabble, can hold my own in a fencing match, cook rings around your grandmother, etc.

To say, "oh, everybody has the same ability, if only they were properly encouraged" is the most ridiculous idea ever conceived.