Who Had the Highest IQ of All Time?

[BlackVision]

The way to estimate the adult IQ is to put the population into a gaussian bell curve distribution by method of percentile of the population. Then a mean of 100 and a standard deviation (usually value 16) is assigned. Using this, the person with the highest IQ in the world will not have an IQ of above 200. An IQ of 210 would require a much much much larger sample group than the number of people in the world. You can easily calculate this from the normal distribution curve.

This is extraordinarily faulty. Even if the statistic probability of a 210 IQ is 1 in 10 billion, higher than the population of the Earth which is little over 6 billion, that does not mean it is impossible for one to have a 210 IQ. Much like it is possible to win the lottery with just 100 tickets even if the statistic probability is 1 in 40 million.

 

[selfAdjoint]

BTW, it is sort of accepted in the psychometric professional community that the IQ curve is not pure gaussian, but has fat tails.

 

[Tigers2B1]

Curves and fat tails? ---------------------- Nope -- just too too easy :)

 

[The_Professional]

Esquire magazine did an article on Langan, his gifted girlfriend, Dr. Hoeflin, and a couple of other members of the "Mega Society." Interesting and eccentric characters indeed.

Charlize Theron was on the front cover. A very beautiful woman. From what I recall, Dr. Hoeflin likes to eat at Wendy's and usually orders salad and grilled chicken sandwich.

P.S., the next time you go to your favorite local bar, just remember that the bouncer in the corner may just be manipulating equations for M-theory in his head.

True. Reminds me of the old adage: Do not judge a book by its cover.

 

[plus]

This is extraordinarily faulty. Even if the statistic probability of a 210 IQ is 1 in 10 billion, higher than the population of the Earth which is little over 6 billion, that does not mean it is impossible for one to have a 210 IQ. Much like it is possible to win the lottery with just 100 tickets even if the statistic probability is 1 in 40 million.

But from the definition of the IQ curve, an adult IQ is only based upon the sample group. Thus it would be as ludicrous to state that someone has an IQ of 300 as it would to state 210 as there are not enough people in the world to value this claim. People could believe that in the next x generations there will not be anyone with an IQ this high, and hence the reason for the guess of 210, but to state it is nonesense.

http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/gliaweb/grail/

The website above estimates that the highest IQ ever out of the 50 billion people who have ever existed is 205.

 

[plus]

BTW, it is sort of accepted in the psychometric professional community that the IQ curve is not pure gaussian, but has fat tails.

What do you mean that it is 'sort of accepted'. Has the definition of adult IQ been changed?

 

[BlackVision]

But from the definition of the IQ curve, an adult IQ is only based upon the sample group. Thus it would be as ludicrous to state that someone has an IQ of 300 as it would to state 210 as there are not enough people in the world to value this claim. People could believe that in the next x generations there will not be anyone with an IQ this high, and hence the reason for the guess of 210, but to state it is nonesense.

The definition of IQ curve comes from the average IQ of the general population and the standard deviation. That is it. Even with the odds of 1 in 10 billion, it would be possible for one to have such an IQ level.

The website above estimates that the highest IQ ever out of the 50 billion people who have ever existed is 205.

This site is using a standard deviation of 15. The most common standard deviation is 16.

 

[hitssquad]

Which is the more common SD value, 15 or 16

This site is using a standard deviation of 15. The most common standard deviation is 16.

The most popular family of IQ tests is the Wechsler. Wechsler test scores all have standard deviations of 15. The Raven's Matrices tests also have standard deviations of 15. Here is more evidence for the popularity of SD 15:

• There are plausible reasons, however, for assuming that individual differences in g have an approximately normal, or Gaussian ("bellshaped"), distribution, at least within the range of ±2σ from the mean. That range is equivalent to IQs from 70 to 130 on the typical IQ scale (i.e., μ = 100, σ = 15).

(Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. p88.)

• IQ is conventionally scaled to a mean of 100 and a SD of 15.

(Ibid. p89.)

• As this subject sample had a restricted range of IQ (the group's standard deviation was only 9.2/15 = .61 as large as the SD in the general population), one can correct the obtained correlation for range restriction

(Ibid. p155.)

• (The IQ scale, with mean = 100 and SD = 15, is simply 100 + 15 z .)

(Ibid. p311.)

• Mean and Standard Deviation. When IQ is scaled to a mean of 100 and a standard deviation (SD) of 15 in the white population, large representative samples of the black population of the whole United States (rather than a local subgroup) show a mean close to 85. For most samples and tests, the range is 80 to 90. The black SD of IQ is approximately 12, ranging in most samples from 11 to 14. There is some slight, nonsystematic variation for different IQ tests and normative samples. For example, the normative sample on one of the most widely used individual IQ tests for school-age children (the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised, or WISC-R), using the same scale (i.e., white mean = 100, SD = 15), the black mean is 84.0, with SD of 13.6.

(Ibid. p353.)

• This formula shows that for two normal distributions, A and B, where A has a mean = 100 and SD = 15 and B has a mean = 85 and SD = 12 (thus corresponding to typical IQ statistics for the white and black populations) the probability that the "score" of a randomly selected individual from distribution B will exceed that of a random individual from distribution A is precisely 22 percent

(Ibid. p403.)

 

[selfAdjoint]

This formula shows that for two normal distributions, A and B, where A has a mean = 100 and SD = 15 and B has a mean = 85 and SD = 12 (thus corresponding to typical IQ statistics for the white and black populations) the probability that the "score" of a randomly selected individual from distribution B will exceed that of a random individual from distribution A is precisely 22 percent

In words, better than one black in five is smarter than the average white.

 

[BlackVision]

The most popular family of IQ tests is the Wechsler. Wechsler test scores all have standard deviations of 15. The Raven's Matrices tests also have standard deviations of 15. Here is more evidence for the popularity of SD 15:

• There are plausible reasons, however, for assuming that individual differences in g have an approximately normal, or Gaussian ("bellshaped"), distribution, at least within the range of ±2σ from the mean. That range is equivalent to IQs from 70 to 130 on the typical IQ scale (i.e., μ = 100, σ = 15).

(Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. p88.)

• IQ is conventionally scaled to a mean of 100 and a SD of 15.

(Ibid. p89.)

• As this subject sample had a restricted range of IQ (the group's standard deviation was only 9.2/15 = .61 as large as the SD in the general population), one can correct the obtained correlation for range restriction

(Ibid. p155.)

• (The IQ scale, with mean = 100 and SD = 15, is simply 100 + 15 z .)

(Ibid. p311.)

• Mean and Standard Deviation. When IQ is scaled to a mean of 100 and a standard deviation (SD) of 15 in the white population, large representative samples of the black population of the whole United States (rather than a local subgroup) show a mean close to 85. For most samples and tests, the range is 80 to 90. The black SD of IQ is approximately 12, ranging in most samples from 11 to 14. There is some slight, nonsystematic variation for different IQ tests and normative samples. For example, the normative sample on one of the most widely used individual IQ tests for school-age children (the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised, or WISC-R), using the same scale (i.e., white mean = 100, SD = 15), the black mean is 84.0, with SD of 13.6.

(Ibid. p353.)

• This formula shows that for two normal distributions, A and B, where A has a mean = 100 and SD = 15 and B has a mean = 85 and SD = 12 (thus corresponding to typical IQ statistics for the white and black populations) the probability that the "score" of a randomly selected individual from distribution B will exceed that of a random individual from distribution A is precisely 22 percent

(Ibid. p403.)

The most popular IQ test is Stanford Binet not Wechsler and it has a standard deviation of 16. Raven's Progressive Matrices is also 16. Raven's Stanford Progressive Matrices and Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices have different standard deviations. One is 15, one is 16 I believe. I forget which is which. The old version of Raven's Progressive Matrices was 24 however.

You need to be 2 standard deviations above average to join Mensa. Here are the qualifying scores for various tests to join Mensa. I see quite a number of 132s proving the popularity of sd16. http://www.us.mensa.org/join_mensa/testscores.php3

 

[selfAdjoint]

I thought the old Stanford Binet test was phased out. Hitsquad is right about Wechsler, I'm pretty sure. At least in popularity among psychologists.

 

[loseyourname]

That's all you need to join Mensa? What do they even do?

 

[hitssquad]

Is the Stanford Binet or the Wechsler the most common IQ test

The most popular IQ test is Stanford Binet not Wechsler

Are you http://giqtest.com/test/html/about.html ?

• About IQ
  
  What is the WAIS®-III IQ Test?
  The WAIS®-III is the 'gold standard' of IQ Tests. It was developed by the Psychological Corporation and released in 1997 as a refinement of the venerable WAIS®-R test. The WAIS® tests account for 97% of clinically proctored IQ tests administered in the US.

 

[hitssquad]

Why does Mensa have such low entrance standards

That's all you need to join Mensa?

Mensa seems to be set up to strike a happy medium between exclusivity and inclusivity. Mensa may not be meant to be purely exclusive. There are other high-IQ societies that cater to exclusivity, and the fact that a sizable proportion of persons who qualify for those other societies join Mensa also or instead evidences the value of inclusivity.

If you only dated people who were exactly as desirable as you, how many dates would you get?

Another item to consider, as Charles Murray has pointed out, is that people who are well above average in IQ tend -- due to their being surrounded full-time by their self-selected social and professional circles of acquaintances -- to be oblivious to the existence of the rest of the bell curve. Most people with IQs above 130 refuse or find it difficult to acknowledge the existence of the 85% of the population with IQs below 115 (where mean = 100 and SD = 15) since they so rarely meet these people. Mensa's cutoff may seem low to you and other high-IQ people, but in relation to the total bell curve its 98th percentile cutoff *is* exclusive (Arthur Jensen lists IQ 120 as "very superior" and states that the "normal" range of IQ is 90-110). However, pointing again to Mensa's inclusivity is the fact that its entrance cutoff is only one-third of the way from the bell curve median to the maximum theoretical IQ estimated by Richard Lynn as ~IQ 200 (SD = 15, so about 7 SD compared with Mensa's 2 SD cutoff).

What do they even do?

http://www.mensa.org/info.html socialize, and run websites and newsgroups. (Mensa's physical socializations take the forms of their regional, national, and international gatherings.)

• What is Mensa?
  
  Mensa was founded in England in 1946 by Roland Berrill, a barrister, and Dr. Lance Ware, a scientist and lawyer. They had the idea of forming a society for bright people, the only qualification for membership of which was a high IQ. The original aims were, as they are today, to create a society that is non-political and free from all racial or religious distinctions. The society welcomes people from every walk of life whose IQ is in the top 2% of the population, with the objective of enjoying each other's company and participating in a wide range of social and cultural activities.
  
  
  What are Mensa's goals?
  
  Mensa has three stated purposes: to identify and foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity, to encourage research in the nature, characteristics and uses of intelligence, and to promote stimulating intellectual and social opportunities for its members.

 

[BlackVision]

Almost all IQ tests seem to either fall under 15, 16, or 24 for standard deviation. 24 seems to be phasing out though although there are still IQ tests that still use 24. Cattell is one I believe.

 

[Tasthius]

Speaking of the "higher IQ societies" (those more exclusive than Mensa), here is an interesting history done by a fellow who knows more than one of the prominent members of the community: Highly suggested for entertainment value.

http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/history.html

 

[hitssquad]

The American white-black IQ difference - 1σ or 1.31σ

This formula shows that for two normal distributions, A and B, where A has a mean = 100 and SD = 15 and B has a mean = 85 and SD = 12 (thus corresponding to typical IQ statistics for the white and black populations) the probability that the "score" of a randomly selected individual from distribution B will exceed that of a random individual from distribution A is precisely 22 percent

In words, better than one black in five is smarter than the average white.

No. These are just aggregates of IQ scores. Current American IQ tests are somewhat biased in favor of blacks. The actual IQ difference between blacks and whites in terms of pure g is 19.65 (1.31σ * SD 15) points:

• A further validating feature of these data is revealed by the linear regression of the standardized W-B differences on the tests' g loadings. (The regression equation for the W-B difference, shown in Figure 11.6 , is D = 1.47σ - .163). The regression line, which indicates the best estimate of the mean W-B difference on a test with a given g loading, shows that for a hypothetical test with zero g loading, the predicted mean group difference is slightly below zero (- .163σ), and for a hypothetical test with a g loading of unity (g = 1), the predicted mean group difference is 1.31σ. The latter value is, in fact, approached or equaled by the average difference found for the most highly g-loaded test batteries using highly representative samples of black and white Americans twelve years of age and over. In the black and white standardization samples of the Stanford-Binet IV, for example, the mean difference is 1.11σ; for the WISCR, 1.14σ; and the most precisely representative large-scale sampling of the American youth population (aged fifteen to twenty-three), sponsored by the Department of Defense in 1980, showed a W-B difference of 1.3σ on the AFQT. 36

(Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. pp377-378.)


An American black meeting the white mean would be 1.64σ (19.65σ / 12) above the black mean. This would put him at the 95th percentile of the black distribution. Hence, in terms of pure g, only 5% of American blacks - and not 22% of blacks - exceed the American white IQ mean. Only 1 in twenty blacks is "smarter" than the average white.

 

[BlackVision]

Do you happen to have statistics to compare Asians and/or Ashkenazi Jews to Whites as well?

 

[Monique]

On the credibility of A. Jensen:

In his book The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould, the late Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, makes three criticisms of Jensen's work:

The first criticism is also the criticism most commonly leveled against Jensen by other anthropologists and biologists: that Jensen misunderstands the concept of "heritability." Heritability measures the percentage of variation of a trait due to inheritance, within a population. Jensen, however, has used the concept of heritability to measure differences in inheritance between populations (Gould 1981: 127; 156-156).

The second criticism is relatively minor: Gould disagrees with Jensen's support of the attempts of others to calculate the IQ of dead people (such as the famous Polish astronomer and Prussian monetary theorist Copernicus) (1981: 153-154).

The third criticism is significant: Gould disagrees with Jensen's belief that IQ tests measure a real variable called g or "general intelligence," which can be measured along a unilinear scale. This is a claim most closely identified with Cyril Burt and Charles Spearman. According to Gould, Jensen misunderstood the research of L. L. Thurstone to ultimately support this claim; Gould however argues that Thurstone's factoral analysis of intelligence revealed g to be an illusion (1981: 159; 13-314).

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

 

[Tigers2B1]

Here are some links to results of monozygotic twin studies and the high correlation found when comparing IQ results. In fact, IQ results have a correlation in almost direct relation with the degree of genetic relatedness. I seriously doubt this is mere coincidence and I doubt very seriously that anyone will find any study from an .edu source that substantially differs from these. The monozygotic twin studies implies a very strong correlation of genetics and IQ. IQ results of monozygotic twins raised apart and together, siblings raised apart and together, adoptees raised together and compared to biologically unrelated persons raised apart all point to the inescapable conclusion that IQ is heritable to a high percentage. In fact, the argument is no longer whether IQ is heritable as once maintained by the ‘blank slaters’ - but whether it’s 40, 50, 60, 70 or 80% -- heritable --

http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/MEDIA/NN/ns.html


http://www.atlantis.edu/~nutmeg/neuro/twinstudies.htm

 

[Monique]

What I'd like to see is a study that compares correlation of IQ scores of monozygotic twins raised apart to correlation of IQ scores of unrelated matched individuals.

 

[selfAdjoint]

There is a major new paper on the physical correlates and heritabilitiy of g.

See the summary at http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002366.html?entry=2366, and then follow the link there to read the whole PDF file. To all those people who claim IQ and g are fictions, here's the evidence they are real.

And Monique, it's not very productive at this late date to quote Gould's Mismeasure of Man against Jensen. That book has been shown by professionals to be tendentious and misleading. It's agit-prop, not science.

 

[Monique]

I agree cognitive abilities can be inheritable.

But you have to agree that the effect is most clear in MZ twins, less clear in DZ twins, even less clear in siblings, disappearing in cousins. So how would you justify extending MZ twin data to a whole population.

I will believe data on restricted purified groups, not on undefined populations such as Asians and whites.

 

[shonagon53]

It's agit-prop, not science.

I just read your article. If that isn't agit-prop, then what is.

It's full of subjective appreciations and bold statements which are open for ideological debate. It's a highly political article, using a warrior tone and a combattant style of reasoning.


Just one quote (about the ideological relevance of HapMap):

"We will know that we are triumphant when educated people believe that human genetic differences matter and they matter intensely."

-Now that's the tautology of the matter: the HapMappers will need a lot of lobbying to shove that up "educated people's" throats. They believe what they want to believe. (They use the word "believe" themselves.)

-For me, and for many "educated people" (they're called "nihilists" by the HapMap fundamentalists) genetic differences are so small, that they don't matter very much; the equality is far greater and far more important.

Deciding how "intensely" they matter is a purely social, cultural, political and ideological matter.

Sorry, no escape from politics on this one.

You know, many educated people (the ones who will be triumphant) have read Fukuyama's "Our Posthuman Future" and they understand the basic fact that whenever you're trying to assess the "importance" of genetic differences, you're out of science and into politics.

 

[Tigers2B1]

What I'd like to see is a study that compares correlation of IQ scores of monozygotic twins raised apart to correlation of IQ scores of unrelated matched individuals.

Well - here is a chart (linked below) showing IQ results and the correlation with the degree of genetic relatedness (including unrelated individuals) -

Note that this guy doesn’t appear to be an advocate based on the subscript -- so, I suspect that if pushed, I could find stats that are more compelling than these -

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/IQ_Correlations.htm

 

[selfAdjoint]

I just read your article. If that isn't agit-prop, then what is.

I agree that GNXP and related sites like Steve Sailer and Griffe du Lion are political to the max, and their use of genetics and statistics is racist (although you know, you have to refute the statistics and genetics, not just call names).

But the paper is not racist and the bullet point summary of it is good, comments apart. This is genuine scientific data.

 

[hitssquad]

GNXP's summary of Gray-Thompson 2004 vs GNXP's commentary on Gray-Thompson 2004

There is a major new paper on the physical correlates and heritabilitiy of g.

See the summary at http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002366.html?entry=2366, and then follow the link there to read the whole PDF file. To all those people who claim IQ and g are fictions, here's the evidence they are real.

And Monique, it's not very productive at this late date to quote Gould's Mismeasure of Man against Jensen. That book has been shown by professionals to be tendentious and misleading. It's agit-prop, not science.

I just read your article. If that isn't agit-prop, then what is.

selfAdjoint said "summary." The GNXP http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002366.html?entry=2366 linked to by selfAdjoint contains, according to the introduction "First, a bulleted list. Then, my commentary, and finally the full Thompson/Gray PDF."

It's full of subjective appreciations and bold statements which are open for ideological debate.

The summary ("bulleted list") section - aside from the use of the word "Intriguingly" in Point 4 of the "Behavioral Genetics of IQ" section - does not appear to contain agitprop. In contrast, the commentary section that follows it does appear to contain, or be, agitprop. Here is the former:

• these are the points reviewed by the article, divided by subheading:
  
  
  Neurobiological determinants of intelligence as measured by IQ:
  
  
  1. Posterior lesions often cause substantial decreases in IQ. Duncan and colleagues suggested that the frontal lobes are involved more in Gf and goal-directed behaviour than in Gc (Fig. 2). In addition, Gf is compromised more by damage to the frontal lobes than to posterior lobe...
  2. MRI-based studies estimate a moderate correlation between brain size and intelligence of 0.40 to 0.51
  3. g was significantly linked to differences in the volume of frontal grey matter, which were determined primarily by genetic factors... the volume of frontal grey matter had additional predictive validity for g even after the predictive effect of total brain volume was factored out
  4. Only one region is consistently activated during three different intelligence tasks when compared to control tasks...The surface features of the tasks differed (spatial, verbal, circles) but all were moderately strong predictors of g (g LOADING; range of r, 0.55–0.67), whereas control tasks were weaker predictors of g (range of r, 0.37–0.41). Neural activity in several areas, measured by a positron emission tomography (PET) scan, was greater during high-g than low-g tasks.
  5. Speed and reliability of neural transmission are related to higher intelligence (reviewed in Refs 15,20). Early neuroimaging studies using PET found that intelligence correlated negatively with cerebral glucose metabolism during mental activity54 (for a review, see Ref. 55), leading to the formulation of a 'neural efficiency' hypothesis...
  6. Gf is mediated by neural mechanisms that support the executive control of attention during working memory...greater event-related neural activity in many regions, including the frontal, parietal and temporal lobes, dorsal anterior cingulate and lateral cerebellum. Crucially, these patterns were most distinct during high-interference trials, even after controlling for behavioural performance and for activity on low-interference trials within the same regions
  7. RAPM scores obtained outside the scanner predicted brain activity in a single left parietal/temporal region, and not in the frontal lobes.
  8. An exploratory fMRI study60 (n = 7) indicated that parietal areas are involved in inspection time tasks, specifically Brodmann area (BA) 40 and the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (BA47) but not the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
  
  
  Behavioral Genetics of IQ:
  
  
  1. Monozygotic twins raised separately following adoption show a correlation of 0.72 for intelligence
  2. For 48 identical twin pairs separated in early infancy and reared apart, Bouchard et al.83 found remarkably high between-twin correlations for verbal scores on the WAIS (0.64) and for the first principal component of special mental abilities (0.78)
  3. Psychometric g has been shown to be highly heritable in many studies, even more so than specific cognitive abilities (h2 = 0.62, Ref. 87 compare with Ref. 88; h2 = 0.48, Ref. 89; h2 = 0.6–0.8, Refs 90,91)...
  4. Intriguingly, the influence of shared family environments on IQ dissipates once children leave home — between adult adoptive relatives, there is a correlation of IQ of -0.01
  
  
  Molecular Genetics of IQ:
  
  
  1. Chorney et al.104 discovered an allelic variation in a gene on chromosome 6, which codes for an insulin-like growth factor-2 receptor (IGF2R), that was linked with high intelligence...
  2. Later studies identified a second IQ-related polymorphism in the IGF2R gene, and others in the cathepsin D (CTSD) gene, in the gene for an acetylcholine receptor (CHRM2)106, and in a HOMEOBOX GENE (MSX1) that is important in brain development107, 108.
  3. Influence of each polymorphism was minimal — variants of CHRM2 accounted for a range of only 3–4 IQ points, whereas different forms of CTSD accounted for about 3% of the variation between people...None of these associations has yet been replicated by other research groups
  4. Some patients with microcephaly also possesses the ASPM mutation, indicating that a shortened version of the gene might lead to the development of fewer cerebral neurons and a smaller head.
  5. Polymorphism in the human brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) gene is associated with impaired performance on memory tests
  6. Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene influences the activation of working memory circuits. COMT polymorphisms seem to be highly specific to some prefrontal cortex-dependent tasks in children.
  7. Dopamine receptor (DRD4) and monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) polymorphisms are associated with differences in performance and brain activity during tasks that involve executive attention

You know, many educated people (the ones who will be triumphant) have read Fukuyama's "Our Posthuman Future" and they understand the basic fact that whenever you're trying to assess the "importance" of genetic differences, you're out of science and into politics.

It appears that the commentary section that follows the above-quoted article summary may gave been written intentionally in an agitprop style.

 

[shonagon53]

I agree that GNXP and related sites like Steve Sailer and Griffe du Lion are political to the max, and their use of genetics and statistics is racist (although you know, you have to refute the statistics and genetics, not just call names).

But the paper is not racist and the bullet point summary of it is good, comments apart. This is genuine scientific data.

I agree that the article is sound science, but there's a tad of propaganda in it too. I think we can agree on that.

The basic question remains: do you agree that judging to which extent "genetic differences" matter ("intensely" or not), is always a cultural, political, social and ideological judgement?

Isn't that what makes science mere science, and once you're out of that realm, politics begins?

Most scientists agree that global warming, caused by humans, is a scientific fact. But the extent to which this matters, and what, if anything, we should do about it, is always a political question. (In this case: there are sound arguments to say that Kyoto is important, but that there are far more important things, like the war against terror, aids, hunger, or providing sanitation and clean water to people).

So once again, genetic research is genetic research. Nothing more, nothing less. What we do with it, and how important we judge these scientific findings to be, is always a socio-political problem, open for debate. The HapMap people simply "state" that they think that genetic differences in IQ matter very much. But this is clearly an ideological debate.

Wouldn't you agree with that?

 

[Tigers2B1]

A question on the correlation of brain size and IQ results. While I understand that this correlation exists in both men and women (when compared within sexes) -- women, on average, have a smaller brains and fewer neurons than men even after correcting for body -- without similar differences in IQ results. Is the reason for this diffference known?

Is this related to the differences in male and female brains -- that is, men are more aggressive and the areas thought to control agression are proportionally larger in men --- while the portion that links the right and left sides of brains is larger, after considering body size, in women. Maybe women use their brains in less of a lopsided manner?

 

[Vance]

A question on the correlation of brain size and IQ results. While I understand that this correlation exists in both men and women (when compared within sexes) -- women, on average, have a smaller brains and fewer neurons than men even after correcting for body -- without similar differences in IQ results. Is the reason for this diffference known?

Is this related to the differences in male and female brains -- that is, men are more aggressive and the areas thought to control agression are proportionally larger in men --- while the portion that links the right and left sides of brains is larger, after considering body size, in women. Maybe women use their brains in less of a lopsided manner?

I am sorry for my ignorance but may I ask what makes you think men are more aggressive than women since I think it depends on each person and on circumstances in which each individual is educated and grown up ?
Or am I misreading your post at any points up there ?

Thanks,

 

[Monique]

LOl, I google the words agression and testosterone and out came a PF thread
https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-6281"

Tigers2B1, efficiency of the neuron routing is important too and not just neuron mass :)

 

[selfAdjoint]

So once again, genetic research is genetic research. Nothing more, nothing less. What we do with it, and how important we judge these scientific findings to be, is always a socio-political problem, open for debate. The HapMap people simply "state" that they think that genetic differences in IQ matter very much. But this is clearly an ideological debate.

Wouldn't you agree with that?

Yes I would. Part of my problem is that the folks I call the "tabula rasists" - including Gould and Lewontine but also a lot of vaguely leftist journalists - have for decades tried to tell the public that the good science is bad science, that the people who do it are in the line of the bad old eugenicists, and so on. Not in our Genes and Mismeasure of Man were salvos in that war. All I want is for the scientific tradition that this paper represents, and that Jenson represents be allowed to continue without smearing.

 

[hitssquad]

UCLA neurology researcher Paul Thompson's web site

There is a major new paper on the physical correlates and heritabilitiy of g.

See the summary at http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002366.html?entry=2366

That is a summary of a (his most recent) Paul Thompson paper. You can read all of Paul Thompson's brain imaging peer-reviewed articles at his http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/thompson.html .

 

[shonagon53]

Yes I would. Part of my problem is that the folks I call the "tabula rasists" - including Gould and Lewontine but also a lot of vaguely leftist journalists - have for decades tried to tell the public that the good science is bad science, that the people who do it are in the line of the bad old eugenicists, and so on. Not in our Genes and Mismeasure of Man were salvos in that war. All I want is for the scientific tradition that this paper represents, and that Jenson represents be allowed to continue without smearing.

Gould was a child of his time. I think most non-experts today (like you and me) would agree that both nature and nurture are important, and it's all a very complex combination of factors.

The only ones I'm wary of are the ones who generalize. And you still find those in both camps.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I agree that nature and nurture are both important. If you look at the Gray-Thompson paper you will see that they adopt the fluid g, G_F and crystalized g, G_C formalism. In this view the common cognitive factor g is composed of two parts, one of which increases through childhood but becomes fixed at maturity and doesn't change afterward, except to decline in old age. The other component, is basically th result of environment and increases throughout life. So an old fart like me may have lost some IQ points, but might make up for it by knowing a lot of cagy tricks.