It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligence genes discovered by scientists

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic




With gene therapy, cloning and designer babies, I can see a race of Einsteins might be in our future. When you look at the research in this area, manupulation of genes and doing things like deleting genes is becoming easier and easier.


Careful for what you wish for, if you can make them smarter you can certainly make them dumber.

Looking at our education system , MSM, and what is targeted towards the masses I wouldn't be to confident that creating Baby Einsteins is on the agenda for the masses.





posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You said:


Ah ok, I forgot my opinion means nothing, thanks for reminding me.


Of course it means nothing when you say these things in a vacuum with nothing to support anything you're saying. Why should anyone accept your opinion instead of the researchers that carried out the study? You offer nothing but opinion without anything to support what you're saying.

You said:


Once again this can be interpreted exactly as I stated. If the gene isn't ordered properly then it wont function at full capacity as it was intended. Its like a football player who has his muscle genes damaged, obviously he wont be able to perform at the same level as other football players. I honestly thought we had moved past this naive idea of an intelligence gene a long time ago but clearly I was mistaken.


This makes no sense. Of course it's an intelligence gene because if these genes are not ordered in a certain way then the result is dullness of thinking or impaired cognitive abilities. This is what scientist do. They label genes that are associated with a particular disease or behavior.

So when you talk about BRCA1 and BRCA2 you're talking about genes associated with breast cancer. Scientist catalogue these things and it's exactly what the Researches are doing in this area. This is why they said this:


They conducted various computational analyses and comparisons in order to identify the gene networks influencing healthy human cognitive abilities. Remarkably, they found that some of the same genes that influence human intelligence in healthy people were also the same genes that cause impaired cognitive ability and epilepsy when mutated, networks which they called M1 and M3.


Again, what you're saying has nothing to do with reality and how scientist catalogue these discoveries. This is why their study was published in the journal Nature Neuroscience and your opinion without a shread of evidence to support anything you're saying is meaningless.

You said:


A doctor is clearly going to have a higher level of intelligence compared to a person who knows nothing except thieving. Just the act of learning complex topics such as biology or pharmacology will enhance your ability to think about other complicated topics. After learning to program in several different languages I can now think about other logic problems much more easily and my thought patterns are generally much more complicated. It's the process of exercising your brain which causes one to be smart. You don't get strong arms without lifting weights regularly, and you don't get a strong brain muscle if you don't actually use it. Sure genetics plays some role in how efficiently our brain can learn new information, but there is no gene you can isolate and say is responsible for intelligence, it's clearly much more complicated than that.


Again, a totally illogical statement. To say because someone is a thief a Dr. will have higher intelligence than him is just PURE NONSENSE. There's serial killers who have higher IQ's than most people and this is how they get away with so much. Andrew Cunanan who killed Versace had an IQ of 147. The people who met him said he was charming and intelligent and he was a porn star and child prostitute. Frank Abagnale from the film Catch Me if you Can has an IQ between 136-140. He started running cons at age 15. You have people who can play instruments by ear and child prodigies you know music notes before they know letters. So it's silly to think this isn't genetic. This is why the article said this:

Researchers have believed for some time that intellect is inherited with studies suggesting that up to 75 per cent of IQ is genetic, and the rest down to environmental factors such as schooling and friendship groups.

Bingo!

This is something you clearly don't understand. Someone may be very intelligent but a thief because of their environment. This could simply be the friends they hang with at school or their family situation.

A study like this is very important because it found the genes associated with intelligence and they might even be able to help people learn better in the future. Intelligence is genetic and environmental. I have an IQ of 120 and this story was recently in the news.

Nicole Barr, a 12-year-old from Essex in England just scored a 162 on her Mensa IQ test — that's two points higher than what Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking scored.

So it's not just the process of excersing your brain. You start with a certain level of intelligence and this is genetic. How you use this intelligence depends on your environment.

William James Sidis, whose said to be one of the most intelligent men who ever lived did this:

Sidis could read the New York Times at 18 months,[4] had reportedly taught himself eight languages (Latin, Greek, French, Russian, German, Hebrew, Turkish, and Armenian) by age eight, and invented another, which he called Vendergood.

He entered Harvard at age 11. Although the University had previously refused to let his father enroll him at age nine because he was still a child, Sidis set a record in 1909 by becoming the youngest person to enroll at Harvard University. In early 1910, Sidis' mastery of higher mathematics was such that he lectured the Harvard Mathematical Club on four-dimensional bodies.


This is genetics and this is why this study is so important.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42


God, you and your little xircel of little, like...steinsteins and hosebecks and brat wurst and bock fish and poose fish and dont tell me to make my posts intelligible.


edit on 22-12-2015 by breakingbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: breakingbs
a reply to: interupt42


God, you and your little xircel of little, like...steinsteins and hosebecks and brat wurst and bock fish and whiz fish and dont tell me to make my posts intelligible.



?,

have they gotten to you?
edit on 421231America/ChicagoMon, 21 Dec 2015 23:42:33 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: breakingbs
a reply to: interupt42


God, you and your little xircel of little, like...steinsteins and hosebecks and brat wurst and bock fish and whiz fish and dont tell me to make my posts intelligible.



?,

have they gotten to you?



The p0ose fish? The toy sprockets?
edit on 22-12-2015 by breakingbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Gene's are not Blueprints.

I hate genetics and the study of them because it only leads to perverse manipulation.

I need to make a pretty big point here... this research is being done by the same minds that brought you Monsanto.

...is that intelligence?

"IQ alone is not enough; EQ also matters. In fact, psychologists generally agree that among the ingredients for success, IQ counts for roughly 10% (at best 25%); the rest depends on everything else—including EQ."
(Bressert, 2007)



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   
the king has returned.....

.
..
...
who are you?



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: criticalhit

o ifoundout, and idontwanna.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Writers need to stop with the futurisic stuff ! Now !

Reality just plays catch-up ...

Jules Verne

Arthur C. Clarke

Stanley Kubrick

Alfred E. Newman

We think it ... it gains power of mass thought and then BAM !!!

A New star wars ... with ancient players !! ( Harrison must be what - 73 ? )

STOP the free thinking now!

Or don't !

Trekkies next ...





posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 05:59 AM
link   
A wiser man than myself once said, "The 20th Century saw the mastery of energy, while the 21st Century will see the mastery of biology."

Sounds odd, at first. But a true mastery of biology will mean a mastery over things like aging/longevity, vastly improved sensory apparati (remember Terminator 2? ... "What do you see?" - "Everything."), healing from any injury, vastly improved memory and physiological control, and of course intelligence...

Although it is quite disturbing to think that despite our 20th century advances, even today half the world's population is still living in deplorable living conditions, completely disconnected from what this world is easily capable of providing, technologically speaking.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 06:09 AM
link   
So does this imply that certain geno types are somehow intellectually superior and worth more to society? Is this controlled eugenics? Will some racial or ethnic groups be targeted for genetic corrections? Will genetically unaltered people someday be considered a sub class when compared to the genetically corrected ones? Are these genetically modified intellectuals our future "evolved" masters of a worker class of naturally unaltered "subhumans" who can't afford the alterations?

The cheesy B SciFi movie "Zardoz" is becoming more of a reality every day it seems. As bad as that movie was, it seems to be prophetic now.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 07:03 AM
link   
/sarcasm
So they finally had time to find what gene was missing from GOP candidates! How wonderful and inventive!
/sarcasm


Now on serious note, I remember watching Ted talk some time ago that was focusing on genes and ethical questions - with little focus on what if we try to change them?!
edit on 22-12-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


This makes no sense. Of course it's an intelligence gene because if these genes are not ordered in a certain way then the result is dullness of thinking or impaired cognitive abilities.

Well I could jumble up the gene responsible for regulating chemicals in your brain or jumble up the gene which determines how your neural pathways are annealed, or any number of other genes, and your brain function would be impaired as a result. That does not imply any of those genes are "intelligence genes", like intelligence comes wrapped up neatly in a little pack of genetic code. Clearly it's a combination of many different genes which determine how intelligent a person will be. They will have a high learning capacity if the genes are undamaged and ordered as they should be. But it should be pointed out many of the child prodigies you speak of have genetic issues. For example a lot of kids with autism seem to exhibit remarkable abilities in math and science but they are terrible at understanding things like social cues. In reality our genes are constantly evolving and there is no "best genetic code". One of the reasons the human species is so powerful is because of our diversity. We have people who are good at different things because that's often how intelligence works.

We have people which specialize in different fields because people are often naturally good at some things and bad at other things. You will find that the brain of a musical composer is different from the brain of a powerful CEO or the brain of a quantum physicist. When I'm building something, I use the right tool for the job, when I'm hiring someone I choose the right person for the job, the person who has the type of intelligence I'm looking for, because there are many different types of intelligence. And lets not forget how amazingly versatile and malleable the human brain is. There are people who have lost virtually half their brain and still managed to live a normal life. People who have lost the part of their brain which processes sound can have their neural pathways rewired to process the signals through other parts of their brain. There are people who have been terrible at something their whole life, and then one day they decided they were going to dedicate themselves to mastering what ever it was, and they end up becoming experts in their field.


Researchers have believed for some time that intellect is inherited with studies suggesting that up to 75 per cent of IQ is genetic, and the rest down to environmental factors such as schooling and friendship groups.

Bingo!

This is something you clearly don't understand. Someone may be very intelligent but a thief because of their environment.

I understand it, I just think 75% is a vastly exaggerated number. If that thief goes on neglecting his natural talents and not making use of his brain then he will lose that talent over time. I have known people who were exceptionally gifted back at school but now they're stuck in a job which requires very little brain power and they've already lost their advantage over everyone else. Once again, if you don't exercise your brain it will not remain sharp. Why do you think humans are the most self aware species on the planet? Why do we see no humans born without that type of self awareness unless they have a serious medical condition? There is something inherently powerful about the way the human brain processes information and no other species has access to that learning potential. The learning potential is there for everyone who has a working brain, they just have to dedicate themselves to it and not give up. If they push hard enough they can literally rewire their brain and change their entire thought process. This is a scientifically documented fact and I know it's true from first hand experience.
edit on 22/12/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
IQ is archaic and a very narrow minded approach at measuring people intellectual strengths and weaknesses. In fact, the IQ test came about as one more way to push the eugenics agenda, giving one more reason to sterilize the "unwanted" population at the time.

How does one define intelligence? Is it logical, geographical, emotional, perceptive, etc?

I don't hold much respect to studies like this one, but it is interesting nonetheless. They always seem to follow a very very narrow path in determining what ought to be and what ought not to be. In other words, just because someone doesn't fit our ideals, does not mean they aren't intelligent. IQ try's to set it all straight.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

I was thinking the same thing, in fact in the future having the intelligence gene could mark you for extermination.

The elites don`t want a world filled with people who are smarter or as smart as they are,they want a world filled with dumb animals that they can manipulate and control.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: interupt42

I was thinking the same thing, in fact in the future having the intelligence gene could mark you for extermination.

The elites don`t want a world filled with people who are smarter or as smart as they are,they want a world filled with dumb animals that they can manipulate and control.



Unfortunately, I think Idiocracy is going to turn out to be an accurate prophecy



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Your whole post is nonsense and you bring ero evidence to the table. If you have studies that contradict the study cited then let's see it. It's basically you trying to pass your opinion off as fact. You say things like.


I understand it, I just think 75% is a vastly exaggerated number.


Well, if it's an exaggeration then cite some studies that refute this. It's just gobbledy gook. Scientist have been studying these things for years. This is some wild, blind opinion that makes no sense like what you're talking about. Here's some highlights from actual studies.


Various studies have found the heritability of IQ to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults and 0.45 in childhood in the United States.[6][18][19] It may seem reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, that the opposite occurs is well documented. Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.8 in adulthood.[7] One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to seek out different environments that reinforce the effects of those genes.[6] The brain undergoes morphological changes in development which suggests that age-related physical changes could also contribute to this effect.[20]

A 1994 article in Behavior Genetics based on a study of Swedish identical/fraternal twins found the heritability of the sample to be as high as 0.80 in general cognitive ability, however it also varies based on the trait, with 0.60 for verbal tests, 0.50 for spatial and speed-of-processing tests, and only 0.40 for memory tests; in contrast, studies of other populations estimate an average heritability of 0.50 for general cognitive ability.[18]

In 2006, The New York Times Magazine listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.[21]

If there is biological inheritance of IQ, then the relatives of a person with a high IQ should exhibit a comparably high IQ with a much higher probability than the general population. In 1982, Bouchard and McGue reviewed such correlations reported in 111 original studies in the United States. The mean correlation of IQ scores between monozygotic twins was 0.86, between siblings, 0.47, between half-siblings, 0.31, and between cousins, 0.15.[57]

The 2006 edition of Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence by Alan S. Kaufman and Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger reports correlations of 0.86 for identical twins raised together compared to 0.76 for those raised apart and 0.47 for siblings.[58] These number are not necessarily static. When comparing pre-1963 to late 1970s data, researches DeFries and Plomin found that the IQ correlation between parent and child living together fell significantly, from 0.50 to 0.35. The opposite occurred for fraternal twins.[59]


en.wikipedia.org...-55

Heritability in IQ has been well established. This isn't something new, it's just specific genes have been found that's associated with intelligence have been found. They even found when a person has a High IQ there's correletions between family members that's higher than the general population.

There's other factors like environment that contribute to this as well. So whether a person "excersises their brain" on crime or a medical journal doesn't matter. This is why Andrew Cunanan had an IQ of 147 and Dahmer had an IQ of 145. If you're correct, Dahmer should have been a complete idiot because he didn't become a Doctor.

Tests have even shown how heritability increases with age. Twins are even higher.

Same person (tested twice) .95
Identical twins—Reared together .86
Identical twins—Reared apart .76
Fraternal twins—Reared together .55
Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
Biological siblings—Reared together .47
Biological siblings—Reared apart .24
Unrelated children—Reared together—Children .28
Unrelated children—Reared together—Adults .04
Cousins .15
Parent-child—Living together .42
Parent-child—Living apart .22
Adoptive parent–child—Living together .19[60]


Again, your hyperbole and opinion means nothing. It's about actual scientificic studies that have occurred over the years.
edit on 22-12-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
Two things come to mind - Flowers for Algernon by Keyes, and Brain Child by George Turner.

Brain Child deals with this pretty directly - the government takes research just like this and creates genius intellects in some test tube kids, one of many problems being that no-one can exactly decide what "intelligent" or "genius" means. So they take all the gene mods they know to the absolute limit and create four types of genius. They think.

One group turns itself off in utero. The other three develop into genius engineers, genius artists and genius thinkers. In the end, it turns out that any intellect that is too far outside the average is too out of place to survive. Only the engineer group can be understood at all, and them just barely.

It turns into a sort of combat between the humans and the genius engineers on one side and the artists and thinkers on the other. Very entertaining.


So did Star Trek.

Khan.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Sparkymedic




How does one define intelligence? I


Intelligence is simple as the proper usage of 'fact's' given to them. Know what to do, and how to apply them.

Memorization does not denote intelligence. It just means they are a talking parrot.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Your whole post is nonsense and you bring ero evidence to the table. If you have studies that contradict the study cited then let's see it. It's basically you trying to pass your opinion off as fact. You say things like.



It's nonsense to you but that doesn't mean it's nonsense to everyone. I agree for example and I know like minded people who also believe it is more nurture than nature.

I just don't believe science is that advanced yet, there's the EQ (but I'm sure genes for that will be found as well), there's so many genes that do something and these scientists appear to be searching for a 'master switch', besides they probably need money for their research and I'm sure many people will support them because they want their theories to be true. If it were valuable, it would have remained a company secret.

And above all I believe in the mind foremost and believe many causes are in the mind rather than genetics. Besides it also doesn't explain how there are and have been people with parts of their brain missing from birth, but still able to function and no appear "dumb" or mentally impaired. Which you would expect in the line of thought from these kinds of research.
(article: www.bbc.com...).

I also view the brain much like computers, except we would all have the latest model. It's the software, if it is programmed intelligently then it will work better than a program which was not programmed very well. A program can be slow on the latest chips and accomplish something while another program might accomplish the same thing faster on an older model just because it's code is better. It's not the body but the mind and the truths that are passed on in a family (and surroundings to a lesser extend), created by life events, because someone thought of something better and improved upon the parents truths.
edit on 22-12-2015 by johnnyjoe1979 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join