Comment by tokenadult | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tokenadult | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

While the movie sends a powerful image, now matter how hard you try, you will not change a person's general intelligence (which is innate).

What is the evidence for this? Most human behavorial genetics researchers talk about a "reaction surface" set for each individual by that individual's genes, but I'm not aware of any researcher who claims to have a proof for an upper limit in how much "general intelligence" (that would be IQ) can change in the case of individuals or in the case of populations. In fact, the existing OBSERVED degree of IQ increases all around the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

has been described by N. J. Mackintosh in these terms: "the data are surprising, demolish some long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way." (Mackintosh 1998, p. 104). You write, "no matter how hard you try," but it's not clear anyone is trying very hard or very systematically to raise anyone's general intellilgence, but it is happening anyway.

I meet weekly with human behavioral genetics researchers

http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall09/mcguem/psy8935/defau...

and have learned from them that the whole field of human behavorial genetics is becoming much more conservative and cautious in its claims about genetic limits on human potential than it was ten years ago. That's what is said explicitly by Tom Bouchard, one of the most cited researchers in the field.

REFERENCE

Mackintosh, N. J. (1998). IQ and Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

P.S. Other good, recent reading on this subject is

Neisser, Ulric (Ed.) (1998). The Rising Curve: Long-Term Gains in IQ and Related Measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Flynn, James R. (2009). What Is Intelligence: Beyond the Flynn Effect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

> claims to have a proof for an upper limit in how much "general intelligence" (that would be IQ) can change in the case of individuals or in the case of populations. In fact, the existing OBSERVED degree of IQ increases all around the world

I did not mention the Intelligence Quotient (which is subject to boosting). I mentioned the general intelligence factor (which is mostly innate). Using google scholar you can find many interesting articles about the general intelligence factor and its neurological basis.

Using google scholar with “general intelligence factor” I found this article that is cited 417 (it just struck my eye since the citations is extremely high for such a recent paper):

A Neural Basis for General Intelligence Science 21 July 2000: Vol. 289. no. 5478, pp. 457 - 460 DOI: 10.1126/science.289.5478.457

This one just struck my eye, but there are many more. In my opinion general intelligence factor has become beyond doubt – the question is now what the neurological basis for intelligence is.

I also think that we will not do this complex and interesting topic justice if we discuss it here.

The cited article (thanks for the citation to that year 2000 article, which I wouldn't call "recent" on this subject) doesn't address the point I asked you about. There isn't any proof whatsoever that current human beings are fixed in "general intelligence" as soon as their genome is fixed. Rather, there is entire agreement among all researchers that each human being's neurological characteristics are shaped both by genome and by experience--on this point no informed person has any doubt.

I also think that we will not do this complex and interesting topic justice if we discuss it here.

You are welcome to speak for yourself on that issue, of course. But on my part, I have observed that there are some HN readers who do their homework on genetic and environmental influences on human intelligence before expressing opinions on those issues, and I have learned from some of those participants and so could anyone else who cares to read their comments.

I did not mention the Intelligence Quotient (which is subject to boosting). I mentioned the general intelligence factor (which is mostly innate).

It is for you to show that there is any practical way to make this distinction, because general intelligence is investigated in human subjects with IQ tests as the main instrument. See any of Ian Deary's extensive writings on this subject for how difficult it is to identify "general intelligence" without looking at IQ.

> The cited article (thanks for the citation to that year 2000 article, which I wouldn't call "recent" on this subject)

The two books you’ve cited are older than this. An article with such a high citation count is usually an old seminal work (citations increase with the age of an article). For an article to have such a high number of citations in only 8 years is somewhat unusual (even when it is a Science paper).

> You are welcome to speak for yourself on that issue, of course. But on my part, I have observed that there are some HN readers who do their homework on genetic and environmental influences on human intelligence before expressing opinions on those issues, and I have learned

Again, I have pointed you to a treasure trove of information.

> because general intelligence is investigated in human subjects with IQ tests as the main instrument.

Not really. Raven’s progressive matrices (RPM) are popular. Another method is a barrage of different intelligence tests (the more the better).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com