…have a distinct set of physiological traits that help with the dangers of high altitude: decreased arterial oxygen content (low levels of oxygen in the blood), increased resting ventilation (rapid breathing while resting), lack of hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction (meaning blood vessels don’t constrict when oxygen content of the blood is low), lower incidence of reduced birth weight, and reduced hemoglobin concentration (hemoglobin is a protein in red blood cells that helps transport oxygen from lungs or gills to the body). Put together, this means that Tibetans have evolved to function with far less oxygen in their blood than other people – perfect for high altitudes with low oxygen.
A new study focuses on this final trait, the reduced hemoglobin concentration. Tibetans have 3.6 grams per deciliter less hemoglobin than other populations. When you go up to the insane altitudes that mountain climbers tend to go for, your body ramps up red blood cell production in order to compensate for the low levels of oxygen. This is why athletes train at high altitude — to get more red blood cells into their system, and transfer oxygen around more efficiently. However, a side effect of this increase is the that your blood increases in viscosity. When it gets really bad, your body is pushing around blood the density of motor oil, something it’s not designed to do. By naturally having much lower hemoglobin levels, people from Tibet (and assumedly Nepal, and other regions in the area) maintain proper blood fluidity.
I hasten to add – none of this undermines the overwhelming academic consensus that the forces of evolutionary selection apply to all living organisms except humans.
Nice example Kate. But as you say, it won’t make a dint in the social constructionists who will rush to remind us that Everest itself is a social construct.
It sort of screams that Congressional evolution (or regression) deserves it’s own corollary.
I can explain it …
And God Created Newfoundland…
God was missing for six days. Eventually, Michael, the archangel, found him, resting on the seventh day.
He inquired, “Where have you been?”
God smiled deeply and proudly pointed downwards through the clouds “Look, Michael. Look what I’ve made.”
Archangel Michael looked puzzled, and said, “What is it?”
“It’s a planet,” replied God and I’ve put life on it… I’m going to call it Earth and it’s going to be a place to test Balance.”
“Balance?” inquired Michael, “I’m still confused.”
God explained, pointing to different parts of Earth. “For example, northern Europe will be a place of great opportunity and wealth, while southern Europe is going to be poor. Over here I’ve placed a continent of white people, and over there is a continent of black people. Balance in all things.
God continued pointing to different countries. “This one will be extremely hot, while this one will be very cold and covered in ice.”
The Archangel, impressed by God’s work, then pointed to an island and said, “What’s that one?”
“That’s Newfoundland, the most glorious place on earth. There are beautiful mountains, rivers and streams, lakes, forests, hills, and plains. The people from Newfoundland are going to be handsome, modest, intelligent, and humorous, and they are going to travel the world. They will be extremely sociable, hardworking, high achieving, carriers of peace, and producers of good things”
Michael gasped in wonder and admiration, but then asked, “But what about balance, God? You said there would be balance…”
God smiled, “Close to Newfoundland is Cape Breton. Wait till you see the idiots I put there.”
Now you know how it all came to be. :0)
Interesting articles. The genetic differences which allow the Sherpa people to function so well at high altitude would indicate that they have lived in that environment for a very long time. The resistance to hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction could have implications for those who suffer from primary pulmonary hypertension, a devastating illness.
I thought Paul Gross’ review was very well done. I may try to get the book (to add to the backlog of others I have waiting for my life to slow down, sigh?)
I believe the writers reinforce arguments I’ve made in previous posts, i.e. race exists. In other species the term used is “variety”. The problems arise from the terms we apply to describe it in our various cultures, the implications we read into it well beyond the true physiological implications, and the inability to separate “race” from “culture” thereby confounding the two. Worst of all are the professional race-baiters, invariably on the left of the political spectrum, who use race as a wedge issue to divide and control segments of the population. Meanwhile, if the study of racial differences could help us shed light on disease states, such as primary pulmonary hypertension, some great good could come of that study.
Abe, I’m perplexed by your vignette. I’d always been told that a Cape Bretoner was simply a Newfoundlander whose care broke down on the way to Toronto ; )
Abe, I’m perplexed by your vignette. I’d always been told that a Cape Bretoner was simply a Newfoundlander whose car broke down on the way to Toronto ; )
I see that DrD made the comment about primary pulmonary hypertension while I was still reading the book review. It would be nice to have a treatment for this condition although sildenafil does help reduce elevated pulmonary pressures.
Racial differences in disease prevalence are very obvious to any observant physician and I’ve never understood why the concept of race is so politically incorrect. I’d be most interested in finding out what genetic differences are responsible for racial IQ differences. This is likely a far more complex problem than the one of pulmonary artery tone response to hypoxia. If we do find the relevent genes, then it would likely be possible to increase peoples IQ if treatment was started in infancy.
Another book to put on my must read list.
DrD,
You are using your echo machine today today today today …
The earliest inhabitants in Asia who wound up on mountain slopes or making a hardscrabble living on high altitude plateaux and mountain valleys didn’t wind up there because they liked the view. Many are the equivalent of our first nations here and were driven off their original lowland tribal areas by later invaders.
I can’t remember where I read a lot about ancient human history – but it seems like a while ago we were hanging on by a thread, and only a few groups made it. This severely restricted genetic diversity, so certain physical features predominated in some populations, eg the epicanthal fold (above the eye) in Asians.
Variation in skin colour arose because of Vitamin D metabolism – in Africa, where it’s hot, most of your skin is exposed, so no problem converted Vitamin D with UV. However, in Northern climes where you’re bundled up all day, you need pale skin for maximal UV absorption (unless you live on the coast and eat a lot of seafood).
North American Natives are thought to have a “thrifty gene” – useful in environments of scarcity, however putting you at risk for diabetes and obesity in our current society with easy access to food. There’s more and more, I don’t think it’s been a secret.
Interestingly, I think that curiosity and inventiveness have not been explored (to my knowledge).
For heaven’s sake, no-one is arguing that physiological differences in the SAME species don’t exist! Any forensic anthropologist, any medical doctor knows and has known for many years that such differences exist! That doesn’t set the group up as a separate race but as a sub-species of the SAME species!
What hasn’t been proven is that the NON-GENETIC traits of this ONE species, homo sapiens, i.e., the cognitive functions of this one species, are differentiated within sub-groups!
Most certainly, the NON-GENETIC cognitive functions have produced different societal systems. No-one disputes that. But these different societal beliefs and behaviours are conceptual, not genetic, constructs, and are amenable to change. If they were not amenable to change, then, we’d still be..where..using stone tools?
There is no such thing as a group-based IQ, i.e., a genetic capacity-to-think that is specific to and confined to a specific population. But there are most certainly group-based knowledge systems and these are entrenched, difficult to change, BUT, do and can change. That’s the beauty of our species; our knowledge is created by us and we can change it.
No Abe, I misspelled “car” but had already hit “post” before I realized the mistake. This was all done pre first cup of coffee. That’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it.
ET, it has always been my observation that intelligent parents tend to produce intelligent children. The correlation is not 100%, but it’s not far off it.
Do you a) agree with my observation and b) if you do, consider that the explanation is partly down to genetics?
(Remember, I’m not talking about race here. And please don’t think I’m trying to be combative for the sake of it; but we all seem to keep having this same discussion over and over on SDA.)
“the forces of evolutionary selection apply to all living organisms except humans”
Ain’t that the truth.
black mamba – no, I’ll disagree. I don’t think that ‘intelligent people’ produce intelligent children. What seems to happen is more, a ‘reduction’ to the norm.
So, an Einstein did not produce ‘more Einsteins’ but actually, two children with cognitive problems and one who was a hydraulic engineer. What is of interest is that long-term ‘reduction to the norm’. So a genius doesn’t produce more geniuses or more ‘intellectually evolved’ minds, but, over time, a reduction to a normative intelligence.
Since knowledge is a human construct and not a genetically stored component, then, what we’ll see is that families who value knowledge will encourage and promote knowledge-gathering in their children. They’ll focus, heavily, on their schooling and education. So what we think is a genetically produced intelligent child is really a socially produced knowledgeable child.
Families who do not value knowledge will obviously, ignore education, leave it up to the whims of the child and peer disinterest…
What many people seem to misunderstand is that our species is unique in its cognitive nature. We, alone of all species, develop our knowledge outside of our biological reality; we transform our knowledge into symbols and we store this knowledge, via those symbols (words, images) outside of our bodies. That’s unique in the biological world.
Cognitively, all that we inherit is this ability for symbolism and, necessary for that symbolism, an ability-to-be-logical, i.e., to differentiate between noun and verb or entity and action. This ability for symbolic knowledge generation and storage is common to the entire species – with all its sub-species.
There IS a normative range of cognitive ability, a normative range between 85-115 IQ – and that’s found throughout the whole species. There are then, deviations from this norm and these are statistically similar in all sub-species.
But what differs, is the knowledge base, because that is linked to the economic system of the population. The economic system, as I’ve said before, is also linked to the ecological system. You don’t grow wheat in the arctic and therefore, you don’t move into a large population with different levels of knowledge and authority. And so on..
ET, I do think there is a flaw in your statement:
“What hasn’t been proven is that the NON-GENETIC traits of this ONE species, homo sapiens, i.e., the cognitive functions of this one species, are differentiated within sub-groups!”
I don’t think that one can assume that cognitive functions are the same for all people regardless of genetic variation. I’m not talking about “smart” vs “stupid” – but all the layers of what make up cognition of course.
I remember a funny segment on an old TV show, whose name I can’t recall, about body builder Franco Columbo. A very frail TV personality asked Columbo how long it would take to have a physique like his. Columbo snapped back, in his perfect Italian accent, “three generations”. It was not only funny, it was also accurate. Total adaptation to extreme environments is usually achieved in 3 generations.
Something as unique as the cardio vascular system of a Sherpa might take a little longer. So might the incredible power of an Inuit to survive cold weather. One factor that is often overlooked is unintended cross-breeding. Nothing like a Sherpa in the woodpile to increase your kids chances of reaching the summit.
Erik – you wrote:
“I don’t think that one can assume that cognitive functions are the same for all people regardless of genetic variation. I’m not talking about “smart” vs “stupid” – but all the layers of what make up cognition of course.”
This is a conclusion but you have not provided any evidence or even explanation for your conclusion. What are the ‘layers that make up cognition’?
ET – I have no data to confirm or refute that there is a genetic component for cognition. And since this is not my area of expertise, I certainly defer to you.
But, given that there are gender differences for certain problem solving things (like rotating a box in space) – hormonal effect?, I think it’s reasonable to assume that there are genetic variations in neural wiring in populations arising from the founder effect.
The Chinese languages are very dependent on pitch, and discrimination of pitch. Is perfect pitch, common in Chinese, learned (because of early exposure) or inherited? Or, is there a genetic component to perfect pitch, that must be activated during early childhood?
Many questions, few answers I think.
@Kate
I hasten to add the overwhelming academic consensus that the forces of evolutionary selection apply to all living organisms except humans.
@ET
There IS a normative range of cognitive ability, a normative range between 85-115 IQ – and that’s found throughout the whole species.
What, the curtains?
“The Chinese languages are very dependent on pitch, and discrimination of pitch. Is perfect pitch, common in Chinese, learned (because of early exposure) or inherited? Or, is there a genetic component to perfect pitch, that must be activated during early childhood?”
I have listened to Chinese music and it’s all out of tune all the time. As Randy Jackson would say … “pitchy”.
Unless it is possible to have perfect pitch in the quarter tone scale. We in the West may not hear the same as the Chinese, but I can’t say that because it may be racist.
Abe, that whole music thing is interesting between cultures, the Chinese pentatonic scale etc, and is one of the million things that I know nothing about.
ET, you wrote:
“What hasn’t been proven is that the NON-GENETIC traits of this ONE species, homo sapiens, i.e. the cognitive functions of this one species, are differentiated within sub-groups.”
It seems to me that you are stating unequivocally that cognitive function is a non-genetic trait. Am I interpreting your words incorrectly?
I just want to clarify that, so I can understand your position more clearly.
A high IQ creates a thirst for mental challenges a good physic creates a thirst for physical challenges. All people like to test their strengths and that is what makes life an interesting ‘race’, IMO.
The level of intelligence has been a bone of contention for years among the ‘group think’ socialist dummies. It is also a thorn in the sides of the ‘elitist’ self entitled. A entrepreneur likes to have intelligent people working for him but hates to admit that his employee is actually more intelligent than him/her self. Teachers hate to concede to a more intelligent student. ONLY highly intelligent people are humble, they are curious and will find out whatever they can from others because they have a thirst for information.
Physical superiority is easily conceded by most people today because they are lazy. Warriors, ranchers, farmers, fighters, mountain climbers, etc like to challenge each other to prove their male competence. When strength rather than beauty became a feminine challenge; the admiration for strength became a negative thing.
IMO, strength and intelligence often go hand in hand and that is genetic selection. Brute strength is hardly ever supreme but it is a very desired masculine attribute. Beauty is a direct attribute of a fine physic; is it genetic? Of course it is – IMO.
that the forces of evolutionary selection apply to all living organisms except humans.
Kate, I’m surprised you can’t see this. Humans have imagination. We can just dream away any evolutionary changes. We can just dream that we’re all absolutely equal and the same, each and everyone of us. Now excuse me while I go sing.. la la la la la…
Tip of my hat to our hostess…..as a huge Dune fan (have all the books, and movies), I salute the title thread.
Thank you for the link, a very interesting book review….and I may need to add Race to my summer reading list.
It is stories like these that I don’t see in our State Run Media (doesn’t fit the PC narrative), and I thank God for the internet, and tireless bloggers such as our gracious hostess.
Erik – there are gender differences; that is certainly a strong research conclusion but I have yet to see any group differences.
The thing is, the founder effect, if it stands up to more research, for it requires isolation, refers to physiological not cognitive attributes. That’s the key – the cognitive attributes of our species are not as specific and particular as the physiological, where a gene set can be directly traced to a physical attribute.
Cognition doesn’t operate in such a one-to-one linkage; it is a process of establishing relations between ‘this’ and ‘that’, ie., a process of viewing the external world as a system of information..and trying to figure out the relations between entities. Does ‘this’ sound refer to ‘that’ object? Does ‘this’ act result in ‘that’ act? So there is no way that this cognitive process of establishing and understanding relations can have a genetic causality.
What is required to do this, is a brain that can set up relational links. I don’t think that there is any evidence that this capacity to do so differs among populations.
Chinese is a tonal (not pitch) language. It happens to be my first university degree. Speaking it badly is no different than speaking French with an English accent. Children learn the different tones. It’s not genetic!
EBD – thanks; you are correct to point out my badly expressed concept which certainly muddles the whole thing badly. The next paragraph tried to explain it, but wasn’t clear.
What I’m trying to say is that the cognitive Functions or expressions of our species are not inherited. These functions are societally developed; this is the knowledge base and it differs among cultures. We have the ability to change this knowledge base. That’s important to the progress of our species. We can develop an airplane rather than wings.
BUT, the cognitive Structure to carry out these Functions IS genetic and it is common to the entire species. However, it is a basic capacity-to-make relations. That’s about all it is. I think it varies between 85-115 IQ as a normative, with deviations of course from the norm, but I don’t think this capacity varies among ethnic or ‘racial’ groups. What varies is the results of thinking – that knowledge base. So, we can consider that the plague is caused by germs or the witch on the hill. Our choice!
… thanks; you are correct to point out my badly expressed concept which certainly muddles the whole thing badly.
What I’m trying to say is that the cognitive Functions or expressions of our species are not inherited. ~ ET
I’m afraid that doesn’t un-muddle it for me. Are some people “born” smarter than others or not?
Chinese is a tonal (not pitch) language. It happens to be my first university degree. Speaking it badly is no different than speaking French with an English accent. Children learn the different tones. ~ ET
As the children learn the different tones, what is the primary differentiating quality they learn other than relative pitch?
If they did studies on Andean plain dwellers, or African highland dwellers who live at near similar hight. Have these people the same abnormality?
I would bet the cocaine chewing South Americans probably have the same adaptive coping mechanism?
JMO
glasnost:
Maybe I can help. My wife is Chinese, and she tried (unsuccessfully) to teach me her dialect. There are four tones: flat (-), rising (/), falling (\}, and an “up-down” tone (^). The same syllable can have different meanings, depending on tone. For example, “bway” can mean “buy” (bway/), or “sell” (bway\). If you run a trading business, your business is “bway/ bway\”.
Even when the syllable has the same meaning, tone can shift it. For example “bo” means “no”. “Bo\” is a sharp “No”, whereas “bo^” means (roughly) “no, not exactly”. “Bo/” is an interrogative, as in “No? You don’t want to come?”.
Then, they sprinkle in the extra syllable “-ah” wherever “it fits”, as my wife tried to explain. The end result is I remain an atonal, unilingual gweilo.
glasnost said: “I’m afraid that doesn’t un-muddle it for me. Are some people “born” smarter than others or not?”
Let me muddle it for you a bit more. People I know and many more I’ve read about have suffered considerable brain damage and not lost much in the way of IQ.
Some people have brain damage, lose IQ and then “get over it”, even though the brain tissue doesn’t grow back. Fun, eh?
Studies of identical twins, who of course have -identical- genetics, reveal one twin can be considerably “smarter” than the other, even if they are raised in the same household. Or not. It all depends.
Sometimes people’s IQ scores change dramatically after training and effort to improve. Two beers can shave ten points off your IQ score, or in some circumstances add ten points. Or do nothing at all, which is pretty interesting when you consider what alcohol does to the nervous system.
Did that help? ~:D
Possibly some people are born smarter than others, possibly not. No one to date has been able to even define what we mean when we say “intelligence” enough to be able to measure it.
Pay attention to ET, she knows what she’s talking about.
ET writes:
What I’m trying to say is that the cognitive Functions or expressions of our species are not inherited. These functions are societally developed; this is the knowledge base and it differs among cultures. We have the ability to change this knowledge base.
You’re writing about accumulated knowledge ET, not cognitive ability which is inherited. Part of the problem in this discussion is that if a neuroanatomist is given a randomly chosen brain to study, he won’t be able to reliably say anything about the race of the individual from the brains gross anatomy. Brain weights might sway his opinion a bit and degree of atrophy would give a hint as to age but from my anatomy experience brains look pretty much the same.
It’s a similar situation to comparing the DNA from a chimpanzee with a human; for all practical purposes the DNA is identical but even a 4 year old child would be able to point out that a chimpanzee and human standing side by side are different.
IQ is a trait that does differ among races and pointing out that the brains of various races are practically indistinguishable is the same as saying humans are the same as chimpanzees based on an analysis of their DNA.
Just had an urge to reread Antonio D’Amasio’s book Descartes Error today and the behavior of people with pre-frontal cortex damage is a good one to use here as it shows how a tiny portion of the brain has huge effects on ones life. D’Amasio got into researching this area after encountering a number of people with brain injuries who scored absolutely normally on all tests of brain function, intelligence, etc except for one minor problem: their lives were an absolute disaster and they made one bad choice after another. When asked to consider hypothetical situations as to how they should respond, they gave all of the correct answers but seemed to be unable to apply this knowledge in their daily life.
What D’Amasio eventually came up with was a gambling task that people with a normally functioning right orbitofrontal cortex would perform well on whereas the individuals with right orbitofrontal cortex damage would be unable to master. The Iowa Gambling Task is now a standard neuropsychologic test. The way that the right orbitofrontal cortex communicates with the conscious self is through somatic-markers which are the same as “gut feelings”. These somatic-markers can be measured as changes in skin resistance that occur in a predictable manner in people as the perform the Iowa Gambling Task. (Sorry, really neat book that I haven’t read since 1996).
Undoubtedly the size and connections of the orbitofrontal cortex are genetically determined and this would explain part of the genetics of criminal behavior or other socially maladapted families. IQ is one of those things that just happens to be important in certain situations but appears to be a more global function of the brain as blowing out someones frontal lobes, as in the case of Phineas Gage, doesn’t affect intelligence very much.
Well, take synesthesia. It is an inherited condition, due to lack of pruning of certain nerves during the development of the brain. With synesthesia, two distinct senses are combined (bad definition I know) – for example letters and words appear to have a certain colour, music, taste, can be associated with colours, etc.
People with this have more artistic inclinations – they are better at expressing themselves, and often very good composers.
It’s inherited.
They are better at certain tasks. (I knew a synesthete who had an amazing memory, partially because she could associate a name she was trying to recall with a colour – giving her a synergistic chance at remembering).
Is that “smart”? Who knows what “smart” or “intelligence” is – although yeah yeah I know there are measurements, however imperfect.
Creativeness and curiousity – those are the areas I would like to see investigated for societal and cultural differences, inherited or not.
Back to the founder effect – if your founder is kind of dumb by virtue of heridity, there will be regression to that low mean for descendents. Or, does it work that way? Who knows.
And, ET, as imaging studies improve, we may find that (for example) wiring in the corpus callosum varies a lot between descendents of different founders – potentially imparting different abilities.
Possibly some people are born smarter than others, possibly not. No one to date has been able to even define what we mean when we say “intelligence” enough to be able to measure it.
I can easily accept the possibly/possibly/not part, but it seems to me that the argument proponed by ET and sometimes Phantom is along the lines of “definitely not”. However, the inability to quantify the trait doesn’t preclude its existence. I’m a little perplexed why, in some circles, there is a reluctance to acknowledge a trait that we freely talk about ie “she/he’s a smart person”. Everybody recognizes it, almost no one disputes it until we get into these esoteric discussions.
There is that word again – Consensus. Working pretty well for climate change. I would have preferred to say – Only those who live and survive birth at high altitudes over many centuries seem to have these adaptations. Any studies on Peruvians and the High Andes ?.
glasnost, no-one is disputing the observable fact that X-individual is smart, smarter than others or the inverse. That’s not the argument.
What ‘some’ people are trying to suggest is that whole populations (not individuals) defined usually by a common physiological attribute confined to that population… of ‘race’, eg. ethnicity, are ‘smart, smarter than others or the inverse’. That’s what some people propose and others, myself among them, reject.
Get it? We aren’t discussing individuals but entire groups.
Loki- there is no empirical proof that IQ ‘differs among races’. None.
And I tried to make it clear that the ‘accumulated knowledge’ of the group (which I term cognitive functioning of the group) is not inherited. What is inherited is the cognitive structure of the species, homo sapiens, and I claim that it is universal to the species.
Yes, more research has shown that the cognitive structure of psychopaths, schizophrenics etc, are physical abnormalities. However, one can hardly conclude that they are due to heredity among a collective. Instead, they are due to random mutations or to an inherited family trait. This is an inherited trait for a linear individual descent. Not a collective. After all, Einstein’s son was diagnosed as a schizophrenic but not the whole Judaic ethnic group!
Erik – yes, I’m aware of synesthesia (I’m one with numbers and letters, defining them by colour and even personality and have always been puzzled by my doing so!)..no big deal in my view. Again, this is not a cognitive function but a perceptual one.
glasnost – as kevinb has tried to point out, the Chinese pronunciation isn’t by pitch (no High C’s) but by the nature of the ‘tone’. This simply means that when you say a syllable, are you saying it with a flat tone, or a rising tone like asking a question, or a falling tone like coming to a conclusion. Or both rise and fall. We do the same thing.
We can say ‘yes’ with a rising tone like a question and it functions as a question. Or a falling tone will mean ‘yes and that’s my final opinion’. A flat tone could mean..’yes, I submit’. A fall and rise in the pronunciation of ‘yes’ could mean ‘hesitation..i.e., maybe’.
no-one is disputing the observable fact that X-individual is smart, smarter than others or the inverse. That’s not the argument.
Quite correct. Now, is that observable trait attributable to genetics? Or is there some other force involved. Quit dissembling, either you believe the “observable fact” is heritable or not. If it is, then your argument that it absolutely can’t be observed in “populations” is absurd.
Chinese is a tonal (not pitch) language. ~ ET
I surmise that your “first degree” didn’t involve acoustics, or you would be more familiar with the relationship between the terms “tone” and “pitch”. I was simply criticizing your comment on a small point of terminology. Actually, I’m fairly familiar with the Chinese language, I lived and worked in China for several years and struggled like all Westerners with the tones.
We can say ‘yes’ with a rising tone like a question and it functions as a question. Or a falling tone will mean ‘yes and that’s my final opinion’. A flat tone could mean..’yes, I submit’. A fall and rise in the pronunciation of ‘yes’ could mean ‘hesitation..i.e., maybe’.
I guess I should add that I don’t agree with your analogy. The “fall and rise” that you mention for english is an inflection which certainly modifies the context of the word, but in Chinese the tone actually changes the word to something completely different. ie “mother vs horse”, which is a far cry from a hesitant yes versus a definite yes.
My take is the inability to accurately establish a measurement of intelligence is the inability to establish the influence of environment/culture.
Then there is the cunning of a fox…as opposed to a clever invention of a human.
Environments have an immense influence on sellection/the ability to pass on genes whether it is the concrete jungle of inner city Chicago or the amazon rain forest.
It is reasonable to infer that societies that favour physical strength are unlikely to produce very many Einsteins….unlikely not impossible….
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is not usaually king….but more a hunted outcast….
ET;
“Loki- there is no empirical proof that IQ ‘differs among races’. None.”
The opposite of that statement is precisely what Hernstein and Murray argue in the Bell Curve.
bob c, I struggled through “The Bell Curve” also. What I find most astounding are the criticisms that question the authors’ motives. It seems to me the authors were basically saying that human intelligence is a resource that isn’t being managed too well in North America. In response, the naysayers are proposing that there’s no such thing as quantifiable human intelligence, so the authors must be racists or something.
bob c – I’m aware of the ‘Bell Curve’; I don’t agree with it and I’m sure you are aware of the strong scientific criticism of its assumptions. Essentially, there’s no proof of any correlation between ‘ethnicity’ which is a collective identity and ‘intelligence’ which is an individual property.
glasnost – no, intelligence is not ‘inherited’ in the sense of a hereditary or familial genetic causal trait. We can say that certain physiological properties are inherited, such as specific diseases that are found within isolated populations or families, but cognitive properties are not gene-related in a linear sense, i.e., confined from parent to child.
Cognition is a basic property of our biological system; it is a morphological reality of the biological system of our species. The normative range of this cognitive ability is between 85-115 IQ. So, a smart parent of, let’s say, an IQ of 130, can have a child with an IQ of 100 or even 90. And vice versa.
The IQ range of this physiological entity, the brain, is that normative 85-115 and my view is that this range is normative in all varieties of our one species, homo sapiens.
sasquatch – your either-or thesis of brain vs brawn is an interesting hypothesis, but sorry, I’m not convinced of its facticity.
glasnost, yes, I’m aware that the tonal changes change the meaning of the word completely but was trying to show how other languages also use tone to convey different meanings using the same phonetic unit.
bob c – I’m aware of the ‘Bell Curve’; I don’t agree with it and I’m sure you are aware of the strong scientific criticism of its assumptions. Essentially, there’s no proof of any correlation between ‘ethnicity’ which is a collective identity and ‘intelligence’ which is an individual property.
glasnost – no, intelligence is not ‘inherited’ in the sense of a hereditary or familial genetic causal trait. We can say that certain physiological properties are inherited, such as specific diseases that are found within isolated populations or families, but cognitive properties are not gene-related in a linear sense, i.e., confined from parent to child.
Cognition is a basic property of our biological system; it is a morphological reality of the biological system of our species. The normative range of this cognitive ability is between 85-115 IQ. So, a smart parent of, let’s say, an IQ of 130, can have a child with an IQ of 100 or even 90. And vice versa.
The IQ range of this physiological entity, the brain, is that normative 85-115 and my view is that this range is normative in all varieties of our one species, homo sapiens.
sasquatch – your either-or thesis of brain vs brawn is an interesting hypothesis, but sorry, I’m not convinced of its facticity.
glasnost, yes, I’m aware that the tonal changes change the meaning of the word completely but was trying to show how other languages also use tone to convey different meanings using the same phonetic unit.
The IQ range of this physiological entity, the brain, is that normative 85-115 and my view is that this range is normative in all varieties of our one species, homo sapiens.
Are you saying that this particular “physiological” characteristic is the only one that is not genetically based. If so how would you explain even the occurrence of an 85(minus 1 sigma) versus a 115 (plus 1 sigma)? If it’s not in the genes where is it?
glasnost said: “I’m a little perplexed why, in some circles, there is a reluctance to acknowledge a trait that we freely talk about ie “she/he’s a smart person”. Everybody recognizes it, almost no one disputes it until we get into these esoteric discussions.”
Here you have grasped the nettle. Everybody knows when one person is smarter than another, its obvious.
But that’s not what we are talking about. We’re asking -why- they are smarter. Is it something they inherited, something they did themselves, or something that just happened and is unrepeatable?
One of the things I realized as I studied neurology in rehab school is that we do not know JACK about the brain. Our knowledge compared to the amount there is to know is like a spit in the ocean.
Erik Larsen commented on synesthesia as being inherited. It seems to run in families, but nobody really knows what the genetic marker is or what the mechanism is that makes it happen. So it -could- be inherited, or it -might- be something developmental that happens for a non-genetic reason. It might be like cystic fibrosis for example, which is due to specific genes which code for a specific protein. Or, it could be something that happens to babies of women when they don’t eat enough B12 during pregnancy. Or none of the above. Nobody knows, that I’ve heard anyway.
That’s the thing. Nobody knows. Erik mentions improvements in imaging as a source of finding this stuff out. Its going to be one hell of a scanner, because its going to have to resolve individual neurons in 3D, and their firings, AND the chemistry. In real time.
But even given the Larsen Super Scanner, it still doesn’t tell us anything about the genetic component. Because current scanning technology shows that the brain changes its physical structure -constantly- in response to what the brain’s owner is doing. People learning music have different areas of the brain grow than people learning welding, different again from people who learn nothing and just sit around all the time.
The couch potato brain is known to actually shrink in size and weight, but then grow again when the spud gets a boot in the ass and has some life jazzed into him. One of the things that makes people on welfare stupid.
But which came first? The welfare, or the stupid? We-don’t-know.
And because I know for sure we don’t know, I’m extremely reluctant to ascribe sweeping behavioral/cognitive traits and abilities or their lack to genetics. If its genetic and you don’t have the gene, then you’re f-ed. We can’t alter genetics.
But we can alter tremendous numbers of other things. We do know that taking away welfare is good for most (undamaged, normal)people, and that the necessity to perform radically improves their ability to perform. We know that training alters brain structure the same as it alters muscle and bone, and for the same reason. You use it, it beefs up.
Boil it all down, doing studies that imply Chinese are smarter than Whites are smarter than Blacks because of -genetics- is not something I think is useful nor is it truthful. We can’t make that call, we don’t know enough about how it works.
For arguments sake, accept for a moment that somebody comes up with a test matrix that measures a difference in cognitive ability, reliably and repeatably, between two groups. You still can’t assume the difference is caused by genetics until you identify the mechanism which causes the difference, and then identify the genes which code for that mechanism.
We can’t even link brain structure and the observed variations between populations, sexes, occupations etc. to genetic inheritance. Brain structures -change-.
Having been thinking about this for a while, about the only thing I can see which could differ between populations would be a difference in the amount of brain remodeling in response to stimuli, or the speed of remodeling, or the extent of it differing in certain areas of the brain, or things like that.
Remodeling however is the constant that puts the lie to inherited “intelligence”. The exact structure of the brain is not coded in the DNA, only the mechanisms by which it changes it to fit the environment. Intelligence therefore changes too.
And don’t forget, you’re a self willed individual as is everyone. You change your own brain deliberately by the choices you make. I think people chose to be “smart” or not to a large extent.
Everybody knows when one person is smarter than another, its obvious.
But that’s not what we are talking about.
It is an underlying principle in what I’m talking about. In my view it’s a failure to openly acknowledge the existence of this trait, in fact a willful disavowal of its existence that has dumbed down our school system.
ET & Phantom.
As many times as you say that there is no evidence of different IQ’s between different populations you never do anything other than say that there is no evidence contrary to your assertions.
Explain where the authors of the Bell Curve and IQ and the Wealth of Nations went wrong in their statistical analysis and their review of the underlying data that they were working with. Explain how every other species has variation within sub populations – but humans don’t.
rroe – I’ve explained this before. You simply don’t get it. A biological system is not the same as a cognitive system. The former operates in a linear fashion where X-gene sets up X-observable physiological property.
The human species is unique among all biological organisms in that its cognitive system doesn’t operate this linear direct way. The brain doesn’t set up the mind as a physiological property with specific and finite behavioural attributes but instead sets up the mind as a conceptual processing SYSTEM that operates within logical relations.
You don’t seem to understand this. The MIND is not the same as the BRAIN! The action of observing the envt and conceptually seeing that X relates to Y is totally different from A-gene enabling the A-physiological ear..to hear sounds.
It’s easy to get physiological variations -up to a point- the species does not permit extreme variations to take root and create a new species!. But it can happen within those perimeters within group gene pools where the gene is directly linked to the physiological expression.
But you don’t get brain variations because the brain doesn’t operate in a similar direct linear fashion of brain-to-mind.
The genetic causality of our species sets up a brain with a normative cognitive capacity between 85-115 but the operation of this brain as MIND is NOT programmed in that one-to-one correlation. Concepts are not the same as physiological actions! Thoughts are not the same as the heart beating!
Equally, there is no evidence for ‘group brains’ – and the Bell Curve and the Lynn book provide absolutely no evidence; merely speculations and no scientific methodology.
You can google criticisms of both. There’s plenty and the criticisms deal with the lack of scientific methodology, the unverifiable nature of the assumptions and the illogical nature of those assumptions etc.
However, there’s plenty of evidence for group ‘MINDS’; i.e., situations where the group develops its beliefs and behaviours according to learned sets of relations..and sticks to these axioms for generations. BUT remember – the mind is not the brain! Don’t think that there is any linear causal relation between the two. This means that the human species can change its mind; it can change its beliefs and behaviour without changing any genetic components.
glasnost- the refusal to recognize individual differences in cognitive ability is indeed an argument worth, not simply discussing but taking strong steps and doing something about in our schools. But this thread is not about that!
Like glasnost, I wonder why people always question the existence and ability of people with high IQs and the fact that people with high IQ’s generally come from parents that have high IQs. Why do we care so much?
My better half has a very high IQ, he remembers everything he reads and he has the curiosity to educate himself in a very far reaching range of topics – from Greek Gods to computer languages to the genetics or race horses and people. I find this handy source of knowledge to be a huge benefit to my life – I learn so much from him and I have instant access to answers if I question something. Further, this highly intelligent man does not obscure the information he explains using references to obscure theories or studies that I have never heard of..he explains things in layman’s terms using everyday examples to illustrate obscure information. He explained the meaning of ‘enclave’ to me by using my scrubbing pad, the dish cloth and a sink full of water. I would have never thought of doing that and I would have never pursued the definition of an enclave on my own.
Physical prowess is less given to ‘yes, but’ theorizing. I was not born with the skill to be a better Hockey player than Wayne Gretzky. Wayne was born with a gift and he developed that gift. He comes from a family that have that gift in their genes. No amount of training could have given someone like me Wayne’s ability on the hockey rink. Musical ability too, is a gift, some have it, some do not and the ability tends to run in families.
There are, of course, exceptions to every generalization and IQ is a measure of the potential of a brain. A fine set of hockey legs and a fine set of motor skills is the criteria for a potential Hockey great. A fine ear is potential for a great musician. Opportunity and drive are major factors in the realization of the genetic gifts one is given, IMO.