Genes which make people intelligent have been discovered and scientists believe they could be manipulated to boost brain power.
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.
But until now, nobody has been able to pin-point exactly which genes are responsible for better memory, attention, processing speed or reasoning skills.
I wonder if a type of cognitive segregation will become common in the future?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Its always interesting when scientists are unable to really accept their research--like this one:
Darren Griffin, Professor of Genetics at the University of Kent, said: “Genetics is the science of inheritance, not pre-determinism, and there is no substitute for hard work and application."
First, I do not see a contradiction between the article and the quote from Darren Griffin. Only on a very superficial reading they seem contradictory.
Second, taking the article at face value, what does it mean? Say somebody has genes that in an average upbringing he gets an IQ of 100. Now depending on his upbringing, his IQ might vary between 75 and 125. That is about the difference between a garbage collector and a university student…
IQ Range IQ Classification
130 and above Very Superior
120–129 Superior
110–119 High Average
90–109 Average
80–89 Low Average
70–79 Borderline
69 and below Extremely Low
PS your long link makes the text too broad. Please make a real link of it with the function.
But it’s like I tell my son…there’s no smartest person. It all depends on context. If your toilet is overflowing, do you want a theoretical physicist with an IQ of 200 or a plumber with an IQ of 90? I’m pretty sure Einstein himself would answer: plumber.
IQ scores are convenient for discussion in some cases but I don’t assume they are accurate within 20%. Though I suppose it must at least show the minimum. But how much does an individuals performance vary in a month?
psik
First, I do not see a contradiction between the article and the quote from Darren Griffin. Only on a very superficial reading they seem contradictory.
Second, taking the article at face value, what does it mean? Say somebody has genes that in an average upbringing he gets an IQ of 100. Now depending on his upbringing, his IQ might vary between 75 and 125. That is about the difference between a garbage collector and a university student...
Right. There is no contradiction. Although a superficial reading with a bias towards wanting to believe that some groups of people are superior to other groups, could result in thinking that there is.
The research cited is stated to be geared toward finding treatments for individuals whose intellect has been negatively impacted by certain medical problems. And they don't appear to be anywhere close to being able to "switch on" the genes responsible for the two neural networks that they suggest are responsible for "intelligence".
But it's like I tell my son...there's no smartest person. It all depends on context. If your toilet is overflowing, do you want a theoretical physicist with an IQ of 200 or a plumber with an IQ of 90? I'm pretty sure Einstein himself would answer: plumber.
Thats true to an extent, but higher IQ is correlated with better life outcomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Health
But it's like I tell my son...there's no smartest person. It all depends on context. If your toilet is overflowing, do you want a theoretical physicist with an IQ of 200 or a plumber with an IQ of 90? I'm pretty sure Einstein himself would answer: plumber.
Thats true to an extent, but higher IQ is correlated with better life outcomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Health
As does a stable upbringing.
Which is more important?
First, I do not see a contradiction between the article and the quote from Darren Griffin. Only on a very superficial reading they seem contradictory.
Second, taking the article at face value, what does it mean? Say somebody has genes that in an average upbringing he gets an IQ of 100. Now depending on his upbringing, his IQ might vary between 75 and 125. That is about the difference between a garbage collector and a university student...
Right. There is no contradiction. Although a superficial reading with a bias towards wanting to believe that some groups of people are superior to other groups, could result in thinking that there is.
The research cited is stated to be geared toward finding treatments for individuals whose intellect has been negatively impacted by certain medical problems. And they don't appear to be anywhere close to being able to "switch on" the genes responsible for the two neural networks that they suggest are responsible for "intelligence".
There is such a thing as native intelligence--or plain common sense. Uneducated people can have it and educated people can lack it. Some physicists can probably work out a plumbing problem. I know a physicist who could--and did, many times. He designed and built his own house almost single-handedly. He also understands auto mechanics. I used to tease him that he should open a car repair shop and call it "The Quantum Mechanic."
Lois
First, I do not see a contradiction between the article and the quote from Darren Griffin. Only on a very superficial reading they seem contradictory.
Second, taking the article at face value, what does it mean? Say somebody has genes that in an average upbringing he gets an IQ of 100. Now depending on his upbringing, his IQ might vary between 75 and 125. That is about the difference between a garbage collector and a university student...
Right. There is no contradiction. Although a superficial reading with a bias towards wanting to believe that some groups of people are superior to other groups, could result in thinking that there is.
The research cited is stated to be geared toward finding treatments for individuals whose intellect has been negatively impacted by certain medical problems. And they don't appear to be anywhere close to being able to "switch on" the genes responsible for the two neural networks that they suggest are responsible for "intelligence".
There is such a thing as native intelligence--or plain common sense. Uneducated people can have it and educated people can lack it. Some physicists can probably work out a plumbing problem. I know a physicist who could--and did, many times. He designed and built his own house almost single-handedly. He also understands auto mechanics. I used to tease him that he should open a car repair shop and call it "The Quantum Mechanic." Lois
I feel that, at least in part intelligence is dictated by evolution in specific environments. It depends on your interpretation of Intelligence.
If Intelligence is defined as *general knowledge* then humans outstrip all other life on earth.
If Intelligence is defined as *natural cognitive ability*, then there are many species which have far superior natural cognitive abilities than man. Many animals can navigate by sub or super sonics, beyond the natural ability of man . Some species navigate thousands of miles via Magnetic fields, Eagles have better eyesight, Bloodhounds can detect the scent of individual molecules. Shark are sensitive to electrical activity, a tree can live a 1000 yrs, etc etc.
IMO, natural selection results in *dedicated special intelligences*, each superior in their own right. The fact they have made it this far in the evolution of species is proof of this fact.
But when we speak of human intelligence, we must be very careful. It has recently been proven that many autistic persons have superior mathematical or musical skills over our most educated minds.
And then there is Koko the Gorilla who can sign about a thousand words and can communicate some very sophisticated ideas.
It appears that all living things have the potential for excellence depending on their environment.
IMO, the *mirror neural network* plays a great part in the development of *intelligence*. Genetics, of course, but *learning* is not unique to humans.
This may be tangently relevant to our understanding of intelligence,
In most animate living things intelligence is produced by a connected neural
network inside the brain (as in mammals). But at a larger scale may be also
connected as a form of a dynamic pseudo-intelligence, as can
be seen in the hive-mind of many insects, where individuals can only function
as part of such a Network and would not survive on its own. Their individual
functions are so specialized that they only can function in a network.
The hive-mind IS the intelligence.
Intuitively I feel this might be an important aspect of how the universe itself
functions as a mathematical hive-mind, a dynamic hierarchical network of
interrelated mathematical networks.
Just saw a PBS presentation on the importance of Network Theory.
I had never really paid serious attention beyond the obvious, but this really
peaked my mind.
Any thoughts you can share in this network, thereby increasing the collective
intelligence (and knowledge) of this network?
This may be tangently relevant to our understanding of *intelligence*,
In most animate living things intelligence is produced by a connected neural
network inside the brain (as in mammals). But at a larger scale may be also
connected as a form of a dynamic mathematical pseudo-intelligence, as can
be seen in the *hive-mind* of many insects, where individuals can only function
as part of such a Network and would not survive on its own. Their individual
functions are so specialized that they only can function in a network.
The hive-mind IS the intelligence.
Intuitively I feel this might be an important aspect of how the universe itself
functions as a mathematical hive-mind, a dynamic hierarchical network of
interrelated mathematical networks.
Just saw a PBS presentation on the importance of *Network Theory*.
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/25064/network-theory
I had never really paid serious attention beyond the obvious, but this really
peaked my mind.
Any thoughts you can share in this *network*, thereby increasing the collective
intelligence (and knowledge) of this network?
Interesting that you should bring up insects. In thinking about social creatures,
and how being social is a critical component of language development, it occurred
to me to wonder whether social insects such as ants and bees, might have something
akin to our mirror neuron system. Ants communicate, albeit by chemical signals of
some sort, and bees by their "dancing", but perhaps each individual does not have a
sense of self. Who knows? Know any entomological neurologists? Maybe they could
help us figure it out.
This may be tangently relevant to our understanding of *intelligence*,
In most animate living things intelligence is produced by a connected neural
network inside the brain (as in mammals). But at a larger scale may be also
connected as a form of a dynamic pseudo-intelligence, as can
be seen in the *hive-mind* of many insects, where individuals can only function
as part of such a Network and would not survive on its own. Their individual
functions are so specialized that they only can function in a network.
The hive-mind IS the intelligence.
Intuitively I feel this might be an important aspect of how the universe itself
functions as a mathematical hive-mind, a dynamic hierarchical network of
interrelated mathematical networks.
Just saw a PBS presentation on the importance of *Network Theory*.
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/25064/network-theory
I had never really paid serious attention beyond the obvious, but this really
peaked my mind.
Any thoughts you can share in this *network*, thereby increasing the collective
intelligence (and knowledge) of this network?
Interesting that you should bring up insects. In thinking about social creatures,
and how being social is a critical component of language development, it occurred
to me to wonder whether social insects such as ants and bees, might have something
akin to our mirror neuron system. Ants communicate, albeit by chemical signals of
some sort, and bees by their "dancing", but perhaps each individual does not have a
sense of self. Who knows? Know any entomological neurologists? Maybe they could
help us figure it out.
I agree, even insects with miniscule brains can and do communicate, but I doubt that
they have a sense of self or a sophisticated MNN, they don't need one.
As to the function of our *mirror neural system*, as it relates to Genetics, I'll have
a stab at it. Hopefully it adds an aspect to the conversation.
This is pure speculation, but it ocurred to me that even as we have a sense of self as
*different* from others, our mirror neural system allows us identify with others, even
strangers and we can place ourselves in their shoes. *Empathy*.
Could the *intelligence gene* which MA quoted in the OP, be instrumental or related
to the formation of the MNN? I do recall reading that psychopaths may be very intelligent,
but lack a functional MNN.
Normal people can and do empathize with others, but we each follow our own path from
what we *learned* during the formative period of our MNN, after birth. We become part
of the human network and when we die unexpectedly, the symmetry of the *network*
matrix is broken and loses connectivity. Our particular intelligence and skills leave a void.
In an ant hive intelligence is not necessary because all are from the same mother and
from a single mating and no individual needs a sense of self. They *are* the same as all
others. Thus when one dies, the symmetry of the network is not broken. They are simply
replaced by another, who performs the exactly same function.
Their genes need not form an individual intelligence. The hive is the collectivel MNN.
OK, enough of my musings, but this is really an interesting subject, IMO.
But at a larger scale may be also
connected as a form of a dynamic pseudo-intelligence, as can
be seen in the *hive-mind* of many insects, where individuals can only function
as part of such a Network and would not survive on its own.
The funniest elaboration of this idea is by Douglas Hofsadter in his dialogue between Achilles, the Crab, the Tortoise and the Ant-eater. It was originally published in Hofstadter's 'Gödel, Escher, Bach', and reprinted in 'The Mind's I'.
To understand some of the strange parts in the dialogue, you must know that a piece of music of Bach is playing in the background, and the voices of the discussion participants partially reflect the music.
Here it is: Ant Fugue].
It is the second part of the 'Prelude... Ant Fugue', found here] completely.
But at a larger scale may be also
connected as a form of a dynamic pseudo-intelligence, as can
be seen in the *hive-mind* of many insects, where individuals can only function
as part of such a Network and would not survive on its own.
The funniest elaboration of this idea is by Douglas Hofsadter in his dialogue between Achilles, the Crab, the Tortoise and the Ant-eater. It was originally published in Hofstadter's 'Gödel, Escher, Bach', and reprinted in 'The Mind's I'.
To understand some of the strange parts in the dialogue, you must know that a piece of music of Bach is playing in the background, and the voices of the discussion participants partially reflect the music.
Here it is: Ant Fugue].
It is the second part of the 'Prelude... Ant Fugue', found here] completely.
Thanks for that. Your sense of humor exceeds (in sophistication) that of most mere mortals.
(Personally I found it to be more informative than funny.)
Thanks for that. Your sense of humor exceeds (in sophistication) that of most mere mortals.
(Personally I found it to be more informative than funny.)
It is informative, of course. And funny.
If you happen to have some holiday, and don't know what to read: read 'Gödel, Escher, Bach]':
By exploring common themes in the lives and works of logician Kurt Gödel, artist M. C. Escher and composer Johann Sebastian Bach, GEB expounds concepts fundamental to mathematics, symmetry, and intelligence. Through illustration and analysis, the book discusses how self-reference and formal rules allow systems to acquire meaning despite being made of "meaningless" elements. It also discusses what it means to communicate, how knowledge can be represented and stored, the methods and limitations of symbolic representation, and even the fundamental notion of "meaning" itself.
In response to confusion over the book's theme, Hofstadter has emphasized that GEB is not about mathematics, art, and music but rather about how cognition and thinking emerge from well-hidden neurological mechanisms. In the book, he presents an analogy about how the individual neurons of the brain coordinate to create a unified sense of a coherent mind by comparing it to the social organization displayed in a colony of ants.
It is only a minor topic of the book, but I would add to the last sentence of the first paragraph: ... how free will arises in self-referencing formal systems. :)
Oh, and ehhh,... Hofstadter is a graduated mathematician and physicist, not a philosopher. ;-)
But it's like I tell my son...there's no smartest person. It all depends on context. If your toilet is overflowing, do you want a theoretical physicist with an IQ of 200 or a plumber with an IQ of 90? I'm pretty sure Einstein himself would answer: plumber.
Thats true to an extent, but higher IQ is correlated with better life outcomes.
Much as I would like to endorse that analysis, the more I think about this, it seems to me this is a biased viewpoint.
Non-intelligent trees may live six thousand years and in the process sequester CO2 and release much needed oxygen
for most all living and breathing organisms, which to me sounds like better life outcomes for the entire eco-system.
But now man comes along and designs sophisticated machinery that can cut down acres of trees in a single day to furnish
wood for 16 bedroom mansions, reducing the "lungs of the world", and designing greater capacity oil extractors, releasing
millions of tons of *sequestered* CO2 back into the eco-system, which seems to shorten the long term survivability of many
other species, who are unable to artificially extend life outcomes.
IMO, it makes no difference how intelligent you are, but how you use your intelligence. Intelligence is a *double edged sword*.