Genetics vs. Regression Toward the Mean

[Gogf]

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.

So I'm curious. What makes you think you're so smart?

 

[Narz]

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.

I didn't say kids aren't born with propensities to be of a certain intelligence, I'm just saying the actual reality of how smart kids get is much more dependent on environment.

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.

I never said "everyone has the same innate ability". You're putting words in my mouth. Not everyone is gonna be Tiger Woods, Bill Gates or Barack Obama but everyone can be a master of something except maybe those with severe organic brain problems.

We are NOT all created equal.

No schnit.

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.

I agree.

You seem to be responding to someone else you once had an argument with, not me. I never suggested everyone can be as good as everything as anyone else. That's silly.

As for intelligence. It's mostly learned. Smart parents won't try to make their kid smart like BrainyKid X down the street is smart, they'll try to figure out his natural (genetic) strengths and work with them. That said, if no one ever recognizes his/her strengths they will go to waste. So even if intelligence is innate in the theoretical world it's still mostly environmental in the real one.

 

[civ_king]

my dad has an IQ of 140 and he compressed 10 years of college into 4, i find that impressive, and i have an IQ of 150 and I'm flunking school so uh... yeah but hey i have ADHD so i don't exactly "fit in" at school so i get bullied but i get revenge in cruel and sadistic ways

 

[Narz]

Have you considered transferring to a school in nowhere land?

 

[civ_king]

no, because most schools in the US are basically assembly lines lacking quality control

 

[Bigfoot3814]

I resent that a little bit.

 

[@N1k1T0$]

The whole talking about Inheriting intelligence genes sounds not very intelligent to me. Some people do have better ability than others in a lot of things that matter . Geniuses do exist but... let's not over categorize people because we are risk at making the mistake of calling many people as idiots or stupid which is a stupid think to say , when we are the ones who failed to understand them.

There is emotional intelligence and a thousand different things that we may not notice but make those who we acting as idiots though we are not , consider others as idiots.

Relatively indeed there is difference in intelligence and there is likely a dude out there that is better than you in almost every thing you are good at. Does it make you an idiot ? Not in my book.

Are people born with a potential to be something ? The brain develops as you grow so no. When you are born the potential is not already there , you have not yet been born IMO you are not yet become a being with the potential to become something else , until you grow a bit. That is my opinion i consider environment a part of the Genetics. Instead of making a division.

 

[Dubai Vol]

As for intelligence. It's mostly learned.

We seem to be talking past each other here. Intelligence is not "mostly learned." Intelligence is an innate characteristic that people are born with, just as height is. While a poor parent can stunt the growth of a child, with bad nutrition, a parent can stunt the brain development of a child with bad nutrition. But short of malnutrition, intelligence is there, and able to be used, regardless of parental influence, just as height is intrinsically there. The kid who can dunk a ball flat-footed can still dunk a ball flat-footed even if he never sees a basketball goal until he's 40 years old.

 

[Narz]

Ok. You're right intelligence is not "mostly learned" but the ability to use it is & that's more important than intelligence itself.

By the way, who's your av?

 

[El_Machinae]

Intelligence falls on a curve. The intelligence of children born from intelligent parents also falls on a curve. It's not the same curve as the general population, though.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

By the way, who's your av?

It's that dumbass lady who made up the story about a black Obama supporter attacking her and cutting the letter B into her face for supporting John McCain. I wish DV would use something else.

 

[LightFang]

Intelligence falls on a curve. The intelligence of children born from intelligent parents also falls on a curve. It's not the same curve as the general population, though.

Oh.

Thread totally over.

Thanks!

 

[Hygro]

Oh.

Thread totally over.

Thanks!

Is that really the end though? Just like you I was wondering the exact same thing, genetics and the regression effect. I mean, isn't the regression effect irrelevant if smart people aren't on the main curve?

Oh wait, I think I figured it out. Smart people born to average ancestors will have kids regressing whatever the regression effect multiplier is back toward the mean, because that person's intelligence is x SDs away from average. But another smart person, just as smart, might come from a line of smart people, and therefore is dead center on his family's bell curve, and therefore his kids will likely be just as smart.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Oh wait, I think I figured it out. Smart people born to average ancestors will have kids regressing whatever the regression effect multiplier is back toward the mean, because that person's intelligence is x SDs away from average. But another smart person, just as smart, might come from a line of smart people, and therefore is dead center on his family's bell curve, and therefore his kids will likely be just as smart.

That would be correct if intelligence were 100% genetically determined, but it's not.

Parents who are well above average in intelligence, height, or whatever, typically got "lucky" on both genetic and other factors. Since there isn't much reason to expect the other factors to be exactly repeated in the next generation, and since the majority of random changes would (by the sheer statistics of it) tend to be negative, you get regression to the mean.

 

[.Shane.]

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.

Causation vs. correlation. Nature and/or nurture...

Intelligent people have kids who are more likely to be intelligent because of a variety of factors. It may be genetic to a degree, it may also be that someone who is intelligent understands and values things that lead to intelligence (education, analytical thought, creativity, stable home life, healthy emotional life, etc...) and, therefore, nurture people who turn out more intelligently.

Then, of course, is the whole crapshoot aspect of life whereby some people succeed in spite of all the stars being aligned against them where others fail in spite of all the stars being in perfect synchronicity.

 

[El_Machinae]

That would be correct if intelligence were 100% genetically determined, but it's not.

Parents who are well above average in intelligence, height, or whatever, typically got "lucky" on both genetic and other factors. Since there isn't much reason to expect the other factors to be exactly repeated in the next generation, and since the majority of random changes would (by the sheer statistics of it) tend to be negative, you get regression to the mean.

Are humans dumber than Australopithecus?
And there are also non-random changes to consider. Smarter parents can arrange their lives so that their kids can have more advantages. We're seeing an uptrend in intelligence in the last 100 years, and some of that is due to feedforward effects.

 

[Ayatollah So]

We're seeing an uptrend in intelligence in the last 100 years, and some of that is due to feedforward effects.

For that matter, the long-term trend of animal evolution is also in favor of larger brain-to-body-mass ratios. The average modern bird or mammal could think circles around its hundreds-of-millions-of-years-ago ancestors. However, if a set of parents is well above average (several standard deviations), smart money is still on regression to the mean. In a randomly selected case, that is. YMMV.

 

[AngryZealot]

Not really.

To the extent that evolution is a normalizing force, you will get regression to the mean. In the absense of spontaneous mutation, evolution will eventually wipe out all differences between individuals.

However,

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?

To the extent that success is determined by intelligence, intelligent people will have more successful children and be favored by evolution. Natural selection drives intelligence forward (but only if the cost of intelligence is outweighed by the benefit).

Example: It's been hypothesized that Jews tend to have higher intelligence because of the strong prejudice against them. Only the more intelligent Jews are able to succeed, so there is strong natural selection for intelligence in the Jewish community.

The two ideas only conflict if you neglect natural selection.