DNA tests for IQ are coming

[exochaft]

They're not really bullshit; you just have to understand what they measure. The main issue is that people like to generalize the results (if they're good) to imply that they're superior to other people at far more than what the test actually measures.

Wouldn't that just prove the point that IQ scores don't necessarily indicate an intelligent person?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Then they lose their ongoing financial support. I feel as though you're splitting hairs here. These details aren't really important, unless you're expecting to stumble onto some critical flaw in the argument that genetic testing can be used to identify high-potential candidates.

Am I splitting hair? If I am I’m not trying to. I just think it’s not reasonable to try and fund some one just based on there iq determined from genetics as there’s no guarantee that willl presue that field.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

I call bullshit on your bullshit.

How can it be that some kids simply learn to read and speak much, much earlier than others? People with immense memories or calculation power who don't just use techniques but for whom it's just natural.

Our baseline intelligence must be influenced by DNA - environment will only define how far that potential will take you.

True gifts will obviously be defined through your DNA.

Will we know whether or not a child will be a 1.0 or 1.5 student? Obviously not. But we just might recognize the next Newton, Einstein or Hawking and enable them the opportunity for a proper scholarship in order to serve society the best they can.

They do use those techniques iq measure pattern recognition.

[oxymoronic]

Yeah, I can imagine a lot of angry white internet posters getting butthurt that East Asians and Jewish folks are genetically more intelligent than they are.

jewish folks? thats a new one for me. besides cant a whitey be a jew?

[Radaney]

IQ doesn't measure intelligence and both your IQ and general knowledge increase as you age.

Also how do you measure intelligence? Is a theoretical physicist who doesn't know geography more intelligent than the Geologist who doesn't know theoretical physics?

Is a doctor more intelligent than a business analyst?

Each human tends to be specialised so it's irrelevant. No one knows everything so there's nothing to measure against.

[Bloodwolf]

Dumbest thing I've ever heard.

You can, maybe, measure for intelligence potential. With a big fat fucking "maybe" next to it.

But environment plays a huge role in how smart someone will be, as well as what kind of smart they are. Plenty of book-smart people can't do common-sense shit for themselves, and vice versa.

Then you haven't heard a lot of dumb things apparently.
You are right of course that environment plays a huge role in how the genetic intelligence can be applied and be built upon. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't study the effect of genetic intelligence. Because if we find out which kind of gene loci have the biggest responsibilty for intelligence potential, which could get increasingly easy with a big number of data gathered through these test subjects, we could use this knowledge for diseases that affect our mental abilities and hereditary aspects.
Don't call things stupid that fast, it doesn't make you sound any smarter.

[Deleted]

Is a theoretical physicist who doesn't know geography more intelligent than the Geologist who doesn't know theoretical physics?

Geologists don't study geography.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Makes one wonder why the initial posts all of 4 words even exists then if you were so ready to expand upon it. Why not just explain yourself from the get go?

Didn’t think it needed to be expanded upon it seems pretty clear why it’s stupid.

[oxymoronic]

IQ doesn't measure intelligence and both your IQ and general knowledge increase as you age.

Also how do you measure intelligence? Is a theoretical physicist who doesn't know geography more intelligent than the Geologist who doesn't know theoretical physics?

Is a doctor more intelligent than a business analyst?

Each human tends to be specialised so it's irrelevant. No one knows everything so there's nothing to measure against.

you are confusing knowledge with IQ.

[Doomislav]

Yeah, I can imagine a lot of angry white internet posters getting butthurt that East Asians and Jewish folks are genetically more intelligent than they are.

I shouldn't have found this funny. /shame

[Stelio Kontos]

Is there a reason you hate white people?

I hate white people about as much as whoever you were referencing with your post. Less even, considering I am white.

[NM 156]

Why stop there, lets just genetically engineer everyone, no sex needed. We could make some people really smart and some really dumb and fill societies labor needs that way. We could use the greek alphabet to sort out the groups.

It'll be great everyone will know their place and there will be no fighting!

[Underverse]

No, they're pretty bullshit, which is why most people that are compared to for high IQs scoff at them. Hawking wasn't a huge fan of IQ, or those that brought it up, either.

Again: they measure a very specific thing that is cultural biased, despite pretending not to be. Don't even get me started on online IQ tests, which might as well come with an award stating "i am a fucking moron, please exile me to the nearest deserted isle" with completion.

Some tests do their job better than others. You're being unreasonable when you dismiss them all as equally useless. Intelligent people like Hawking not being a fan of IQ doesn't mean the quotient has no purpose or value.

[Goldielocks]

calling it now. this is going to be racist.

Genetically speaking, different races have differing liver and kidney function. East Asians have a harder time metabolizing ethanol on average. Is that racist?

I see nothing different in understanding neural capacity through genetics. A capacity is like privilege. It’s easier to grasp concepts, but nurture is very important as well.

[Underverse]

Wouldn't that just prove the point that IQ scores don't necessarily indicate an intelligent person?

Not really, why would it? People like to brag, regardless of whether you're smart or dumb.

- - - Updated - - -

IQ doesn't measure intelligence and both your IQ and general knowledge increase as you age.

Also how do you measure intelligence? Is a theoretical physicist who doesn't know geography more intelligent than the Geologist who doesn't know theoretical physics?

Is a doctor more intelligent than a business analyst?

Each human tends to be specialised so it's irrelevant. No one knows everything so there's nothing to measure against.

That is an example of knowledge, not intelligence. IQ tests do not test knowledge. They test the ability to reason when given input for which no prior knowledge is needed.

[Bloodwolf]

You obviously have no scientific background but just ranting for no reason. Have you even read the article? The reporter even says many of the tests are weak at the moment and even offer the disclaimer that they can predict only about 5 points of IQ. There's literally no reliable proof that intelligence is hereditary. White people love to latch onto anything that gives them an supremacist advantage.

First: You started your argument out with an argumentum ad hominem instead of directly addressing the topic. Yes the tests are weak, but things like these tend to attract the broad masses, that don't have the scientific background to understand that it's not good enough to predict your potential intelligence but that doesn't mean it's stupid to let people pay 4 bucks for a "funny" little app. This app gathers a lot of data from a huge amount of people.
I'm studying conservation medicine and I found out the hard way that it's pretty difficult to gather enough data that can give me significant results. You need to take a look on a lot of things (e.g. Gaussian distribution), especially if you are doing medical research because there are a lot of factors that affect your results.
It could really get easier to predict intelligence or to find out if certain gene loci are important or not in terms of intelligence.

Second: "There's literally no reliable proof that intelligence is hereditary." - Wrong. Two ways to explain. The best way would be to go to: https://scholar.google.com/
and then search for "intelligence heredity" (Talking about scientific background ).
Another way to explain why intelligence has to have hereditary parts is that we know that evolution gave us organisms of different intelligence. Evolution occurs not only through natural selection but as well through mutations. Both ways affect our genomes. So we have genomes of different species that lead to different "scores" of intelligence . Not every individual of a species has the same genes, so what makes you think that intelligence is not part a genetical trait?

Third: "White people love to latch onto anything that gives them an supremacist advantage." - That is racism at it's best. You are lumping a big part of humanity together (talking about ranting for no reason).

Yes the person you quoted could have been a little bit nicer but to be fair, saying "This sounds pretty stupid." isn't the pinnacle of eloquence either.

We should be careful with those tests nonetheless. This could lead to genetical barcoding in the long term if the science get's to the wrong people, but stopping research just because we are afraid of unintended use will lead us nowhere.

[Shinra1]

First: You started your argument out with an argumentum ad hominem instead of directly addressing the topic. Yes the tests are weak, but things like these tend to attract the broad masses, that don't have the scientific background to understand that it's not good enough to predict your potential intelligence but that doesn't mean it's stupid to let people pay 4 bucks for a "funny" little app. This app gathers a lot of data from a huge amount of people.
I'm studying conservation medicine and I found out the hard way that it's pretty difficult to gather enough data that can give me significant results. You need to take a look on a lot of things (e.g. Gaussian distribution), especially if you are doing medical research because there are a lot of factors that affect your results.
It could really get easier to predict intelligence or to find out if certain gene loci are important or not in terms of intelligence.

Second: "There's literally no reliable proof that intelligence is hereditary." - Wrong. Two ways to explain. The best way would be to go to: https://scholar.google.com/
and then search for "intelligence heredity" (Talking about scientific background ).
Another way to explain why intelligence has to have hereditary parts is that we know that evolution gave us organisms of different intelligence. Evolution occurs not only through natural selection but as well through mutations. Both ways affect our genomes. So we have genomes of different species that lead to different "scores" of intelligence . Not every individual of a species has the same genes, so what makes you think that intelligence is not part a genetical trait?

Third: "White people love to latch onto anything that gives them an supremacist advantage." - That is racism at it's best. You are lumping a big part of humanity together (talking about ranting for no reason).

Yes the person you quoted could have been a little bit nicer but to be fair, saying "This sounds pretty stupid." isn't the pinnacle of eloquence either.

We should be careful with those tests nonetheless. This could lead to genetical barcoding in the long term if the science get's to the wrong people, but stopping research just because we are afraid of unintended use will lead us nowhere.

Researchers have conducted many studies to look for genes that influence intelligence. Many of these studies have focused on similarities and differences in IQ within families, particularly looking at adopted children and twins. These studies suggest that genetic factors underlie about 50 percent of the difference in intelligence among individuals. On the other hand genome-wide association studies looking to determine whether any specific areas of the genome are associated with IQ have not conclusively identified any genes that underlie differences in intelligence. Which was my initial point and which the article that sprouted this thread (in the OP) even says. There's no elusive IQ gene. A large number of genes are involved, each of which makes only a small contribution to a person’s intelligence. At the moment there's more evidence to support environmental factors play a bigger role in determining children's potential and IQ rather than simply analysing obscure haplotypes that are common in Western populations and pretending like this is proof that white folk are smarter than everyone bar the East Asians.


Finally, you're right its just 4 bucks if people want to waste their time and money go ahead but this kind of thing paves the way for much more sinister and insidious initiatives which can be racist.

The only way I would support something like this if the IQ test will be used to determine who gets a gun in America!

[Shadowferal]

I think anyone advocating mandatory "IQ tests," is likely showing off their own lack of common sense, which has been seen as more related to experience that any number indicated intelligence.

[Kraenen]

Is there a reason you hate white people?

Just wait until Shinra gets into the thread if you want to see hating on white people.

[Bloodwolf]

Researchers have conducted many studies to look for genes that influence intelligence. Many of these studies have focused on similarities and differences in IQ within families, particularly looking at adopted children and twins. These studies suggest that genetic factors underlie about 50 percent of the difference in intelligence among individuals. On the other hand genome-wide association studies looking to determine whether any specific areas of the genome are associated with IQ have not conclusively identified any genes that underlie differences in intelligence. Which was my initial point and which the article that sprouted this thread (in the OP) even says. There's no elusive IQ gene. A large number of genes are involved, each of which makes only a small contribution to a person’s intelligence. At the moment there's more evidence to support environmental factors play a bigger role in determining children's potential and IQ rather than simply analysing obscure haplotypes that are common in Western populations and pretending like this is proof that white folk are smarter than everyone bar the East Asians.


Finally, you're right its just 4 bucks if people want to waste their time and money go ahead but this kind of thing paves the way for much more sinister and insidious initiatives which can be racist.

The only way I would support something like this if the IQ test will be used to determine who gets a gun in America!

As far as I had looked it up, you are right, most of the studies have focussed on what you mentioned. Your statement was that there is literally no reliable proof that intelligence is hereditary. If you have said that it isn't entirely hereditary I would have agreed. Of course there won't be an elusive IQ gene and environmental factors certainly play a huge role on intelligence. Yes at the moment there is a lot of evidence for the environmental part of intelligence. Reason being that it's been pretty difficult to account certain genes to different traits, it's far easier to have a look at behaviorism than at genetics. The discussion between radical behaviorists and other sciences is an old one and pretty exhaustive. We only have started to look at the gene loci that could play a role for intelligence. Saying that it only makes a small contribution is unscientific as long as we don't have processed enough data.
Genetics are a part of a bigger picture but we really need to find out how big that part is.
And I really would like to know why you constantly need to tell people that the reason for this is to show that some populations are smarter than others.

They are not wasting their money, they are producing pretty useful scientific data. I agree that this can have dire consequences if not applied correctly. It really should happen in an controlled atmosphere. And there should be policies preventing greedy capitalists from taking advantage of this technology.
But denying or preventing science has done a lot of damage as well, just take a look at the rise of different diseases because of the widespread bullshit that vaccines cause autism, denying climate change or saying that GMOs are dangerous (most of the people saying that don't even know the definition of GMOs).
There are a lot of people around who don't want to agree with science if it stands in contrast with their personal beliefs. But as we know science doesn't care about our beliefs. And I'd rather live in a world where scientific thinking is the way to go than in a world where emotions rule. Sadly, it looks like we already live in the second one.