I don’t think political correctness has caught on in China yet!

Your point about the variable ages is also a valid one, IMO. Even if IQ is assumed to be constant as one grows older, I don’t think there’s any evidence for treating it as such. IQ is also dependent on socio-economic and cultural factors, so whatever is being measured is bound to be rather variable unless these other factors are controlled for.

That said, I think there is good reason to believe that mental traits have at least some basis in genetics. Whether or not there is variability between different races should not affect how individuals are treated. While I think there is a strong biological component for most traits, I am strongly against passing judgement on someone based only their genes. For all we know, it may turn out that there is significant variability in mental abilities within races rather than between different races.

Karafet mentions New Guinea specifically.

As I see it the real problem is that what is being measured is not really intelligence, in the sense we usually give to that term. What’s being measured is “IQ,” which must be understood in strictly technical terms.

That’s the main criticism towards IQ. You may have a high IQ and be awful at music or diplomacy. It just measures your logical ability, that is certainly important but not the only important thing.

Also mean IQ is not static, it seems to be increasing everywhere generation after generation. Either selection or education is working strongly there.

But your IQ should be about the same, as it’s measured by “mental age” divided by real age. This is specially true if the IQ is only or mostly a product of genetic conditionants.

…

Now, apart of the political correctness or the matter, there is another issue: we really understand intelligence poorly. IQ measures only logical abilities, not artistic, communicational, empathic or other aspects that also make up intelligence. Creativity is not measured, nor are reflexes. If taken in a second language you surely will score lower than in your maternal tongue, your education certainly matters too. If you suffered malnutrition as child certainly you are likely to have a lower IQ than if you were well fed. Global (and local) IQ seems to grow significatively every generation too. There’s a lot of uncertainty regarding intelligence and simplifying into IQ is certainly slippery terrain.

Also this gene may be correlated with IQ but what about all the other factors that we don’t know about yet. There is surely more than just one gene involved in describing the complexity human brain, I’m sure. Having a gene is not in itself a guarantee that you’ll have the trait others get with it: often different genes or epigenetic factors may silence (or amplify, or otherwise alter) it.

So it’s a complex issue. I perfectly understand that people is basically in the attiutude of “watch and see”. What is striking news now tomorrow may become rather irrelevant.

Regarding an intelligence gene. The problems seem to arise when people try to connect increased (or decreased)intelligence with a particular racial or cultural group. But so what if some paricular group is, on average, less intelligent (however we might manage to measure that) than some other group. Some members of either group will be less intelligent than members of the other group, others from each group will be more intelligent. Besides, does greater intelligence necessarily indicate superiority? I suspect the stress on regarding intelligence as a driving force during our evolution springs as much from the fact that research is done by academics as from any relationship to reality. Academics regard their own intelligence as important in their lives therefore, naturally enough, they expand the concept.

Anyway the research you’ve provided us with here shows yet again that the action of genes is far from simple.

So, ya callin’ me rude or bold, or both?

Yours truly,

Kambiz

sincerely,
c.v. snicker