Intelligence Gene or More Eugenics Bull Puckey?

I read Boncho's OP and saw red. Not because of anything he said, but because of the ongoing concerted efforts to wrongly attribute everything to "genetics." In this case, reports on new research consistently referred to a newly discovered "intelligence gene." My call? ...

More Bull Puckey from the Genetics-Eugenics camp, intent on proving "genetic superiority." This research identifies a variant protein, rs7171755, that acts on the so-called "intelligence gene" (NPTN, discovered in 2009 btw) to affect its expression, not a "new variant gene." For starters. And as the researchers themselves point out, "intelligence is influenced by many genetic and environmental factors." In fact:

1. The NPTN gene was found in 2009 along with its product, the NPTN protein (neuroplastin). It's not "new."

This gene [NPTN] encodes a type I transmembrane protein belonging to the Ig superfamily. The protein is believed to be involved in cell-cell interactions or cell-substrate interactions. Alternative splicing results in multiple transcript variants. [provided by RefSeq, May 2009]

2. The rs7171755 polymorphism found in this study affects expression of the NPTN gene (and NPTN protein), not NPTN itself.

The rs7171755 polymorphism acted …to affect expression in the human brain of the synaptic cell adhesion glycoprotein-encoding gene NPTN.

3. While genes do code for proteins, not all protein variants derive from genes - they may result from epigenetic influences, generally referred to as "gene-environment interractions" - and many, if not most, result from protein misfolding. Which is why the researchers stipulate, "intelligence is influenced by many genetic and environmental factors."

4. Evidence shows misfolded proteins are linked to a huge array of psychiatric disorders that may be inherited either genetically or epigenetically, be "acquired," or arise "sporadically." This research is important in that it will help unravel the protein misfolding disorders that underlie various forms of psychiatric illness - NOT because it is wrongly interpreted as "proving" intelligence is "genetic."

The findings, …could help scientists gain more insight into the biological mechanisms underlying several psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and autism, since people with these conditions often have impaired cognitive ability.

5. The researchers discovered the newly found variant, rs7171755, to have detrimental effects on NPTN expression. But not to be influenced by actual facts, the Genetics-Eugenics Bull Puckey twists the interpretation. One of my faves, where the writer wrongly claims, "Researchers have pinpointed a single gene which, in its high-functioning variant, directly contributes to higher intelligence."

The Lost Ark of the human sciences, intelligence genes, has been found and opened, and the faces of Universalist Equalists are melting into a bloody pulp. Researchers have pinpointed a single gene which, in its high-functioning variant, directly contributes to higher intelligence.

Happens to everyone, I suppose you hit enter to go down to the other area. S&F already

reply to post by rickymouse


Why thanks rickymouse. Not sure I deserve that level of confidence.

reply to post by soficrow


Could someone please find the conscience, responsibility, ethics, truth, altruism and philanthropy genes and inject them into politicians, bankers, lawyers, accountants and police, we need to unfold their sociopath, psychopath, lying, unethical, greed and avarice genes? All that's needed is the transport, like a slightly smaller version of an HIV virus that passes the blood-brain barrier and uses an RNA based molecular transport to slice out and replace the incorrect sequence ;-)

Or they could just be lobotomized, whatever works.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by soficrow


My original thread, I was going to centre it around the misquotes by various media. But when I went looking for the paper I didn't have access to it. So I focused more on the interpretation.

Whether or not something is or isn't, there will be someone promoting both. So I find that interesting. The argument will be for many, that intelligence can be bought and sold by the genes. And that makes it something marketable.

No matter the end result.

In other words, what people believe and what "is" matters not. Very dangerous when you think about it…

reply to post by soficrow


In adults over 30, intelligence is nearly entirely down to hereditary (80% or so).

In our current environment, where food is plentiful and free schooling is availabler that is. And assuming you've not had something like a major brain trauma, or born to a substance abusing mother who poisoned your brain in utero etc.

Genetics is a MAJOR factor in human intelligence, it's influence is greater the older you are (it's only 20% in toddlers).

One gene variant that affects eye development (myopia) raises IQ by an average of 7 points. Torsion dystonia (medical condition) sufferers have an IQ 10 points higher than their group average.

We know damn well other gene variants (like fragile X syndrome) lower IQ.

Why do people get irate when genes that affect intelligence are found?

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

All that's needed is the transport, like a slightly smaller version of an HIV virus that passes the blood-brain barrier and uses an RNA based molecular transport to slice out and replace the incorrect sequence ;-)

Or they could just be lobotomized, whatever works.

lol. and cheers backatcha.

The fact is that what we consume in respect to our personal metabolic design has more to do with intellect than any smart gene. How we respond to perfumes and other scents we breath in society is very important, these chemicals used by people in schools and in society can suppress others ability to think by histamine responses to them...they cause a lack of oxygen to the cells.

This is like the old English thought long ago that anyone who ate hazelnuts was very smart and that people with big heads were intelligent and given scientific jobs. Both these things have a basis and some evidence to show that they are correct, but these assumptions were very wrong overall. A gene that can help only works if all environmental concerns are evaluated. Right now, many of our smartest people are suppressed by society, they can never get to their full potential. This research is not worth doing.

I learn from everyone, even those who are not intelligent. Many people do not pay attention to everyone, thinking only those who have great knowledge are worth listening to. That is wrong. I know some pretty unintelligent people who are very smart about something. Their knowledge blows away the knowledge of the intelligent in a certain situation.

Sometimes you learn what not to do from watching people, especially the ones who think they are smart.

The nutrition specialists are saying certain foods are good for everyone, this is false. People have different metabolic states and also have foods they are intolerant to. This is causing some school kids to have bad results in their testing by blocking thyroid output. I think maybe they should give this genetic test to the people running this mocked up falsity in our schools nutrition guidelines so that the kids will all have a chance to do well. This nutrition should be tied to metabolism, one shoe does not fit all people.

Now what does this gene do? Nothing if all the essential nutrients are not there to make it work properly. Maybe they are testing people who have a certain eugenics that allows their brain to function eating the foods they are able to eat. Anyone who can't eat this desired food and form their brain right..is inferior by their standards....this is eugenics if this is what they are doing.

I need a certain diet to have my brain working right, I ate foods I knew were going to dope me up so I did not think so much all the time over many years. I quit eating these foods because I saw that the people who were running things were messing up. I needed to be able to think all the time and build my knowledge up again. We don't lose our ability to learn when we get older, we start to eat more foods that dope us up so we can relax and enjoy ourselves. These doping foods are purposely allowed in societies all over the world. If we lower our intake of them we can think better, if we go to far the other way than we need medication to keep us from getting overanxious. Identifying and moderating these foods in our diet is necessary to stay normal within society and still think right. This is more important than the smart gene is. People who can see what is going on in society need to understand that they are a threat to society though...they need to make sure they do not over express what they know. Be smart enough not to make too many waves.

I agree, this genetics research is not worth pursuing, the variables are too many to use this information for anything worthwhile. Super intelligence is a step away from insanity and we already have too many people who have gone over the edge in control already.

reply to post by boncho

The argument will be for many, that intelligence can be bought and sold by the genes. And that makes it something marketable.

No matter the end result.

In other words, what people believe and what "is" matters not. Very dangerous when you think about it…

And there you have it: science for profit. Very dangerous indeed.

...I keep saying follow the money then I forget the various pathways. But Eugenics is a money thing too - we're coming up to a culling, and Genetics-Eugenics will be used to justify "triage" decisions. Already happening in fact.

Thanks for posting. S for you.

reply to post by Antigod

In adults over 30, intelligence is nearly entirely down to hereditary (80% or so).

Lots of assertions: no evidence; no references. Just interpretation of the evidence, and absolute ignorance of epigenetic science.

Why do people get irate when genes that affect intelligence are found?

Because it's Bull Puckey, and totally reliant on (re)interpretation of results, NOT on actual results or real science. See OP.

reply to post by rickymouse

...I agree, this genetics research is not worth pursuing, the variables are too many to use this information for anything worthwhile.

I do think the research is worth doing because it can help understand protein misfolding in psychiatric disorders, as the researchers say. Only the "popular" press claims the research is about finding an "intelligence gene" - the researchers do NOT.

reply to post by soficrow


Oh, I see, it is how it is being interpreted incorrectly by some people that is the problem. The researchers themselves are using this research to figure out how to fix some problems that are occurring in the world.

reply to post by rickymouse

Oh, I see, it is how it is being interpreted incorrectly by some people that is the problem.

I think so. Not that some scientists are not totally committed to the idea of "genetic superiority" (specifically, their own), and are working to prove their contentions.

Fact is though, there just are not enough genes in the human genome to explain the vast array of individual variations - which is where epigenetics and gene-environment interractions come in. Not to mention a few other new sciences whose names escape me at the moment.

reply to post by soficrow


I agree with you its clearly more lies from news science propaganda.

reply to post by soficrow


Variance in brain functionality and efficiency is actually something that has been substantially researched over the years. Here's a few non-paywall papers for your perusal:

www.researchgate.net... _FMRI/file/9fcfd500e693a10a81.pdf

files.eric.ed.gov...

www.researchgate.net... fe514845c918274.pdf

This one is interesting as it focuses more on prenatal exposures as being a potential source of brain difference: www.helsinki.fi...

So, differences do exist and are measurable, as you can see by some of the fMRI results between average and higher iq brains. The most responsible papers, imo, acknowledge that multiple factors probably exist in generating this higher brain functionality including heredity, prenatal exposures/development, and environment. The research actually does go both ways as there is just as much interest in what creates lower intelligence as there is for higher intelligence.

More freebie papers:

www.geneqol-consortium.org... iol-Psychiatry-2009.pdf

adc.bmj.com...

www.researchgate.net... abd3dd.pdf

You'll definitely like this one as it actually opens with Sir Francis Galton.

webspace.pugetsound.edu...

The fact is that the interest in essentially breeding Einsteins has been around since Sir Francis Galton's time. I actually read a paper from the 19th century that basically talked about breeding for talent like it was breeding for show dogs (behind a paywall unfortunately). Pretty despicable stuff. The fact is, most of our current gene research is based off of eugenics types of drives. It's actually pretty rational because most parents would prefer a child with a higher iq than one with a lower iq, would prefer to avoid birth defects and more. It really goes both ways--finding out what effects intelligence as a whole and not simply to breed geniuses. The latter, however, would be marketable and that's where the distastefulness really sets in. The practice within fertility clinics to seek out high iq donors has been around for a while.

www.telegraph.co.uk...
www.pacificfertilitycenter.com...-565
www.hindustantimes.com...

As you can see, in terms of egg/sperm donation, high iq donors are desirable and that's been the state of things since the 1940's. It's not hard to imagine that if they could isolate genes for intelligence that would at least tip the scales towards a favorable intelligence outcome, it'd be marketable. Personally, I don't think children should be bred like show dogs.

soficrow
reply to post by Antigod

 

In adults over 30, intelligence is nearly entirely down to hereditary (80% or so).

Lots of assertions: no evidence; no references. Just interpretation of the evidence, and absolute ignorance of epigenetic science.

Why do people get irate when genes that affect intelligence are found?

Because it's Bull Puckey, and totally reliant on (re)interpretation of results, NOT on actual results or real science. See OP.

Couldn't spend forever digging out sources as my tablet was on 5% power.

Actually, I have a kicking understanding of the research done, epigenetics and the mass denial about the effects of genetics on intelligence by well meaning people with little no no familiarity with the research. I spent a lot of time researching the field of human intelligence and genetics as an adjunct to my physical anthropology degree. My main interest is the evolution of modern human behavior, and this has a critical relation to the heritability of intelligence.

I did actually post a three variants KNOWN to cause differences in IQ. Please produce research that refutes the myopia/DS/fragile X effects on intelligence before you start calling it BS. I know my statements were accurate.

It's a common misconception (usually brought on by watching nice documentaries and avoiding the research) that IQ is not substantially genetic. Ask a large group of psych phds 'is intelligence largely genetic' and they'll say yes. I know this as I've looked up papers and essays by them that say just that, and that the public are largely misled by the media as to the heritability of intelligence.

Subjects you might want to look up are things like the virtual twin study and actual twin studies. There's also the Warsaw study into the effect of intelligence and life outcome, and Linda Gottfredson's research.

All I'm saying is, next time you want accuse someone of talking BS, at least bother to post published work or a rational argument as to why they are wrong, or demonstrate that you at least know something about the subject. It's only polite.

Some facts you need to know:

heritability increases with age. AKA 'the Wilson effect'.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The results show that the heritability of IQ reaches an asymptote at about 0.80 at 18-20 years of age and continuing at that level well into adulthood.

www.nature.com...

Most psychologists (the people who spend all their time working with this data) support IQ as being largely genetic. When my tablet has more than a couple of percent of charge to it, I'll post bits of essays and letters by some of them that rant on about how the media mislead people as to the heritability of IQ.

Here's one paper confirming that higher Iq seems to have a link to assorted health problems (which are gentically caused).

The results of a postal questionnaire distributed to British members of Mensa failed to confirm an association of superior intelligence with torsion dystonia, retinoblastoma, or phenylketonuria, but were consistent with real associations between high IQ and infantile autism, gout, and myopia. Further confirmation of these findings in other populations might well indicate that genes producing these disorders have more or less direct effects on cerebral development and function.

www.thelancet.com...(70)91848-9/abstract

Abstract

The association between intelligence and the recessive form of torsion dystonia has been evaluated in a retrospective study. Psychometric data were available from a period before the appearance of symptoms for fourteen patients with this disease. Similar data were available for a control group matched for age, sex, ethnic back ground (Jewish), and, so far as possible, socioeconomic background. The mean I.Q. of the patients was 121 (range 104—170) and that of their controls was 111 (range 76—147). This difference is significant (P

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Great links. Thanks. S& ...Your references focus almost exclusively on neuroimaging and brain activity centres - not DNA, protein function or epigenetics per se. So while the market exists for fetal enhancement, most evidence supports the effects of fetal exposures and (environmental) stimulation during development - all epigenetic.

reply to post by Antigod


I do not deny that some rare genetic mutations affect intelligence and other systems. My point is that this observation leads to some HUGE misconceptions, largely based on a confusion equating genes with epigenetically altered gene products.

I also would never argue that our so-called system of "higher education" is not riddled with extremely biased Eugenicists.

As far as heritability goes, you need to know that it can be genetic or epigenetic - and epigenetics is best able to explain individual variation.

Cool about your credentials though. I never talk about my own because I prefer to stay anonymous and also, prefer not to make unverifiable claims.

soficrow
reply to post by Antigod

 

I do not deny that some rare genetic mutations affect intelligence and other systems. My point is that this observation leads to some HUGE misconceptions, largely based on a confusion equating genes with epigenetically altered gene products.

I also would never argue that our so-called system of "higher education" is not riddled with extremely biased Eugenicists.

As far as heritability goes, you need to know that it can be genetic or epigenetic - and epigenetics is far more able to explain individual variation.

Cool about your credentials though. I never talk about my own because I prefer to stay anonymous and also, prefer not to make unverifiable claims.

Well, if I was going to make it up I'd have said I had a psych phd.

Myopia ia a RARE mutation? (I say squinting through my specs). Most of East Asia is myopic.

I'm sorry, but thinking genetics doesn't have a major effect on your intelligence is just mad. If it didn't, a chimp could be a neurosurgeon. It doesn't matter how environment is interacting with his genes, he isn't going to be able to do it.

Generally, from the papers and letters I've seen, the general feeling is that your genes set the upper limit of your ability, and environment decides how close you get to that. In most developed countries, nutrition and education is sufficient to get you close to your maximum, unless something significant has happened to you (brain damage, exposure to drugs ect, as has already been pointed out by myself and another.

Example; Einstein was oxygen deprived at birth. Needs a lifetime of care instead of thinking up relativity. Environment wins.

The virtual twin studies showed that children adopted into nice households at about the same age had nearly no relation in their intelligence

journals.cambridge.org...
Idiot version here

Dr. Segal said that while “genetics do not tell the whole story,” even if parents treat their virtual twins as biological twins or if the children show similarities early in life, her research has found that environment still has “minimal or no effect” on them in terms of behavior and intelligence. Virtual twins can seem very similar in their early years, she said, but in the long term a shared environment is not “going to have a lasting impact.”

You also find that the IQ of adopted children is more similar to their birth parents. It's also a bit lower than average, due to the fact a lot of them are removed from incompetent parents (stupid). Although it generally improves a fair bit after being with the adoptive family for a while.
www.jstor.org...

Genes tell your body how many brain cells to make, what goes where, how the neurons should fire. How can that coding not have a significant effect on how the organ functions?

Quite a lot of brain affecting mutations are relatively recent (thousands of years), and widespread suggesting they are under positive pressure even when they cause negative effects like myopia. Eyes are part of the brain in foetal development, and it's no big stretch to see that something that affects the eyes at this stage also affects the nearby connected part of the brain (the myopia trait positively affects visual spatial intelligence).

The list of genetic conditions that severely negatively affect intelligence is quite long.

Fragile X
Down's syndrome
Angelman/Prader willy syndrome
Rett syndrome

Well, there's plenty. So we know damn well that genetics has a major effect on intelligence.

Does this sound like a pro eugenics lecture? Well, bear in mind a woman with an IQ of 80 has an average of four children, one with an IQ of 120 has on average one. A person with an IQ of 80 is probably not going to get a decent education, will be in the danger zone for crime if male, and will be unlikely to get anything beyond minimum wage unskilled labour unless he's an athlete or a model. There's an IQ range that skilled professionals and scientists all fall into. It's not under 100.

It's called 'dysgenics' and it's happening now. Oh yes, dug up a paper for you:

www.udel.edu...

Basically it was undersigned by just about all the major specialists in IQ at the time. This page also has the results of a study into how IQ affects your life outcome
www.iq-tests.eu...
Her study is here. Eye opening

reply to post by Antigod


You - and your references - do not and cannot distinguish between epigenetic inheritance and genetic inheritance from DNA. Moreover, Segal's work is also greatly flawed in that she assumes -very mistakenly- that children living together are exposed to exactly the same nurture and environmental influences. They are not. Duh.

Such assumptions render "scientific study" unscientific and invalid.